Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is useful for us to be able to review the European Council discussions. It is useful to have a debate beforehand and afterwards. It is where so much of our key political discourse is taking place and it is appropriate for the House to spend time giving attention to it. This brings us to the big issues. It brings us out of the local and into the international and the great forces shaping our world and times. It is important that we address those. It is interesting to look at the key issues which dominated the Council. These were the movement of refugees and our treatment and management of the refugee crisis and the management of goods, having particular regard to CETA, the Canadian-European trade arrangement which does not look like it will be signed tomorrow. It seems to me that the approaches we are taking to these issues are connected.

I turn to the refugee issue first. I share the concerns that have been raised here and elsewhere that what I read in the Council conclusions and in the reporting from the summit suggests a certain sense of satisfaction about the worst aspects of the crisis which we saw last year, in particular with a large number of people crossing the Aegean from Turkey into Greece and from there into the Continent of Europe. The figure quoted in the Council conclusions is that 98% of the level of travel has ceased. The real fear is that, whatever about the management of the joint arrangement with Turkey, the management of those who have been caught in the middle in Greece in particular is indicative of an approach which sees the European Union failing to learn or change or improve its procedures. We have gone from an open-door approach to a complete shut down, which will serve neither Europe nor the people who are trying desperately to flee conflicts in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas neighbouring the EU.

I note in the Council conclusions references to the rapid deployment of permanent co-ordinators in the Greek hotspots. However, the reports from people engaged with those desperately isolated and vulnerable refugees caught in the middle of this whole policy change suggest that there is no sense of that actually happening. I go back to our own local example which is that only 69 of the 4,000 refugees we promised to take almost eight months ago are here. To take 69 out of 4,000 when the 4,000 are sitting in camps where they are mobile, easily accessible and easily identifiable is an indication of the wider problem. We can only fear that it reflects a European Council approach which is perhaps pleased that we have sealed off the problem on one immediate border and can now resort to restoring Schengen as if the current arrangements are working. They are not working. They are not working on a humanitarian basis or even in terms of the European Union living up to its promise to be a safe haven and an enlightened Union which treats people in flight from danger in an appropriate manner. I must raise concern on behalf of my party. The clearing of the camp in Calais, the horrific situation whereby a whole range of young people are now completely lost in the international response and the lack of a co-ordinated European approach to managing that and the restoration of national controls are signs that our European refugee policy is not working.

I referred earlier to the related issue of trade because the two are connected.

It is interesting in some ways that the European Union is constantly, correctly in my mind, telling the United Kingdom that in any negotiation on Brexit the movement of goods and people cannot be separated. This issue is connected to trade because the fear is that the European Union has been excessively concerned with protecting the interests of those who trade goods as opposed to social and environmental considerations. It is a world in which capital can move remarkably fast and international corporations often have power that exceeds that of countries because of their ability to trade and access finance across borders. It is the indisputable power of capital and its speed of movement that gives it an unfair negotiating position in comparison to labour and natural capital which is less mobile. It is the underlying concern that in its broad approach the European Union has had undue regard to the interests of capital compared to labour. That is behind the fundamental concern of the Green Party throughout Europe about the nature of the trade agreements that have been signed. For all the reassurance provided in the Council conclusions that trade arrangements will try to maintain the capability of national governments to regulate, in the agreements we have seen it is evident that there is a continuation of the policy of giving excessive power to capital as compared to labour and natural capital.

The Minister-President of Wallonia, Mr. Paul Magnette, has taken a very prominent and, to my mind, the correct position in standing up for his region by saying he does not agree with the proposals made. Despite extensive pressure exerted on him and his parliament, as I articulated in my speech prior to the European Council meeting, he helped to stop the CETA process. It is better for us to recognise this at this stage and look to renegotiate the agreement. It is not that we are opposed to trade, but we need to be able to move capital. It has to be balanced. The existing trade agreements, the CETA and the TTIP, are not properly balanced and we should use the opportunity to restore faith in the European Union and the balance between capital, labour and natural capital. This should be done through a variation, such as that for which the Wallonian Parliament and my colleagues in the Green Party in the European Parliament have called.

What the Taoiseach has said is true. This one of the most open trading economies in the world. We, therefore, have to get the balance of trade right. We are dependent on free trade and will be most successful when we stand up for fair as well as free trade, but I did not read anything about this in the Taoiseach's speech or the analysis produced by the Government. That needs to change.

Reference is made in a Sherlock Holmes book to a dog or a hound that did not bark. There was a lack of attention to Brexit within the European Council. That was probably correct because it behoves the UK Government to present what it wants to do before the Council starts to develop its approach. I reiterate the approach we should take which I mentioned to the Taoiseach yesterday during the taking of questions on Brexit. We need to stand in solidarity with the other 26 member states. We need to stand up for the connection with the movement of goods and people. We should not look for a side deal, reflecting Ireland's peripherality or particular circumstances on the Border. We have to manage that issue, but it should be as part of an overall co-ordinated European Union approach, not an approach whereby we try to side with the United Kingdom in a side deal which we bring to our European colleagues to be ratified as part of whatever arrangement is put in place.

I very much appreciate the chance to reflect on the European Council's conclusions. The upcoming Council will be critical, particularly in dealing with the Brexit issue. I look forward to receiving as much information as possible in briefings from the Government, as the Taoiseach promised, in order that we can make a contribution to the overall policy approach to be adopted.

See this speech in context