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

I am glad to be able to make several comments in advance of the European Council meeting at this historic time when we are coming up to the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and our nearest neighbour and closest colleague in the European Union is about to exit it. It will be seen as a historic mistake because we live in a world where increased solidarity, not just in the Union but across the world with other countries, is what is required to be able to meet the great challenges of the 21st century, to live sustainably on this planet, to feed 9 billion people by the middle of the century and to live in peace, which we failed so clearly to do in the 20th century.

Earlier, I raised with the Taoiseach the issue of the White Paper on the future of Europe which the European Commission had presented. For what I understood from the Taoiseach, that will be an item for discussion at this upcoming Council meeting. It is important we declare some of the positions we will take in that regard. First, we should not be looking for a two-speed Europe. That takes from the very core of the philosophy behind the Treaty of Rome and the sense that collaboration and international co-operation are what is required. I fear if we do see a two-speed Europe, it will breach that fundamental approach. It is better for us to get consensus and win common agreement.

It does not mean Europe just has to be a monolithic organisation. We have learned, as has the Commission and others, that we need to breathe within the European rules. There needs to be a genuine commitment to subsidiarity, as well as allowing flexibility and innovation in a whole range of different strategies. Not everything has to be regulated from the centre, controlled by increasing bodies of directives or by central European funding.

There are a couple of areas in which we need to declare our position. One is in security. It is appropriate and right for us to go back to the very principles involved in our membership of the Union. As I understand, in our application in the early to mid-1960s, there was a certain pressure at the time that Ireland would possibly join NATO or would be engaged in common military activity. It is interesting, as I understand from reading the history of the time, that it was the German finance Ministry and the American State Department which in the end relented on that and accepted Ireland's original application on the basis of our tradition of neutrality. It is right for us to stand with that tradition, which has benefitted Europe.

3 o’clock

It has strengthened Europe to have a country like Ireland that is so actively engaged in UN peacekeeping missions and that has a different history or connection to other countries, particularly in the Middle East and elsewhere, because of our colonised past compared with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain, Italy any of the other main European countries. Europe is strengthened by having a country like Ireland with a different tradition. We should stand up for that and say that while there is real pressure to increase spending on defence, it should be spent on peacekeeping and overseas development aid and not connecting that to trade but to the United Nations values we also espouse. We should set the sustainable development goals - negotiated by an Irish civil servant and signed in New York by all members of the Union in September 2015 - as a manifesto for the European Union. Those goals already provide a manifesto for the northern and southern hemispheres in the context of development.

We should stand up for an open Europe in terms of the free movement of people. I listened to what Deputy Boyd Barrett and Deputy Paul Murphy said about not believing in the European Union because it does not show solidarity in that sense. However, it is our best vehicle for solidarity. If that is what we need in terms of international order - I believe it is - I do not see an alternative. Neither do I see what is their alternative, other than trying to bring the European Union to that sort of position. That is the strategic role we have to play in these talks about the future of Europe. In the context of those discussions, the free movement of people - both within the Union and, in the context of refugees seeking asylum, from the outside - is critical because if we do not provide that, effectively, we are saying that the free movement of capital, not the free movement of people, gives undue power and influence to capital in the entire process of the way our economy develops. That is not what we need now. We need a balanced approach and it is only the European Union, in the scale it provides, that can give us that control on capital and that power against the power of corporations. I do not understand what the Anti-Austerity Alliance's alternative is if it does not see the Union as a vehicle to impose that control on corporate capitalist interests.

It is important that we start to stand up for climate action and see the European Union as a vehicle in that regard. In that respect, we are in a slightly shamed position at present. Ireland is one of only two countries that will not meet their 2020 emissions reduction targets and one of only four that will not meet their renewable energy targets. Ireland is increasingly seen in Europe - I have observed this up close in recent years - as akin to Poland in being a denier of effective action on climate, not only in the agricultural sector but also in areas of renewable energy and climate adaption plans. We are not taking this issue seriously. We are not leading on it in Europe. The risk for us is that not only will we be shamed in that regard but we will also miss out on the economic opportunity that is developing for those countries that want to lead. Europe should be what it says it wants to be, which is a leader on environmental action. We should take up that mantle. We should carry that as our vision of the future and as our brand within the European Union. We are not doing that. It is not Europe but Ireland that needs to change in that regard.

In terms of economic integration, we also need to change. We must be aware that Ireland is seen as a tax haven across the rest of Europe. Regardless of whether we like that view or disagree with it, that is how Ireland is perceived. If one were to take a blind survey of ten people on the corridors of power in Europe and ask them how they would view Ireland regarding the application of tax justice, they would say it is a tax haven and that it is undermining the ability of the European Union to have a social and just economy. Ireland is seen as being centre stage when it comes to the social justice issue relating to the €1 trillion in tax lost each year due to inappropriate tax avoidance by corporations. We are not going to go to Europe and say we want common tax bands. There must be some flexibility and subsidiarity but we must stop being seen as the ones who are leading the worst sort of practice, which is how we are perceived at present. These are the broad principles in terms of how change should be applied.

The Taoiseach has a responsibility to report to and involve this House on how the Brexit negotiations will proceed. It is interesting that, as we speak, the House of Lords is engaging in a debate on whether it will have a vote on the Brexit negotiations as they evolve. It is important that this House should have a real role and responsibility in the context of whatever negotiating position the Government adopts in these historic negotiations. It is not acceptable for us to sit back and say it is a European Council decision. I presume that Christian democrats still probably comprise a majority of the membership of the European Council. This deal will be done in the side rooms of Christian democrat meeting houses, but that is not appropriate. The question we must ask is what is our role when it comes to the crunch in advising the Taoiseach in terms of whether he says "Yes" or "No" to any deal. As I understand it, national governments still have the power to "Yes" or "No" to whatever is the final arrangements relating to any deal. It is not acceptable for this to be left to a Taoiseach operating on his or her own and not consulting or involving this House. In the coming months and as this process commences, I would like us to debate what exactly is the role and involvement of this House in terms of the negotiation strategy that will be undertaken. To date, the only answer we have to that is that we cannot discuss it until the trigger is pulled. The trigger is about to be pulled. We need to be involved in a much more integrated way.

Other Deputies stated that the Government is not active enough. This Parliament is not active enough. In the context of every matter I consider, be it EURATOM, energy policy, digital services and what is the effect of not listening to the European Court of Justice, the credible implications of these negotiations on every aspect of life is clear. We should be involved in this issue. It should not simply be hived off and dealt with at a European Council meeting, with the Taoiseach coming back and stating "This is the deal, I have already accepted it and you have not had a say". That would not be good enough.

See this speech in context