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

With regard to the interchange I had with Deputy Boyd Barrett, I should explain in his absence that my interest when he brought up the issue of Ibrahim Halawa concerned the possibility of getting other parties to do something. I argue his sister party in Greece, Syriza, has a real role and we need the Greek Government to row in behind our case for European Union monitoring of Ibrahim's trial process. I regret the fact I was not able to get that point across but I am glad to be able to put it on the record now.

The Taoiseach said something valid earlier when he was asked questions of issues of major consequence. He stated he had to respond in one and a half minutes. I will use this occasion in a similar way, discussing some of the detailed strategy around the Brexit negotiations about to take place as discussed at the European Council. They will be discussed again at the next meeting at the end of April. I will make a couple of very basic broad points.

To state the obvious, we need a deal and it would not serve our country's interests for this to fall apart. There are approximately 70 British Tory MPs living in some weird Churchillian historic world who want to bring down the process. I include in that some of their lead Ministers, such as Mr. Boris Johnson and Mr. Liam Fox, who are quite happy to get a negotiation process that breaks and sees them in some sort of pirate role that they see as a glorious trade future. It is a role around deregulation; they want a low tax and regulation of capitalism in a tooth and claw economy where they think they can do well. That would be a disaster for Europe and Ireland so we must prevent it and defeat them. They know what they are doing. It is a strategic and deliberate ploy. Unfortunately, it seems Downing Street in the way it has gone about the approach to triggering Article 50 to date is being swayed by that rump within the Tory Party. We must start thinking tactically in how we address that threat. We must come, as best we can, to some sort of deal restoring co-operation and high standards without going down the route of deregulation and low standards, which is where they want to take us.

There are a couple of tactical approaches that I suggest. There is a range of difficult issues in the negotiations, particularly around the cost of the divorce bill, UK and European citizen rights in the UK and the rest of Europe, migrant rights, the Single Market, the customs union, financial passporting and the fisheries policy. There is a range of areas, largely around trade, migration and financing of the Brexit process, that will be deeply contentious. There are other areas that are less contentious and with fewer difficulties, meaning there is still potential for collaboration. To cite some examples, there is the area of environmental protection, energy co-operation and justice matters. I am going to Brussels on Thursday to speak at a conference on the issue of energy co-operation, so I look forward to getting a sense of how much potential there is for collaboration. We must take a very proactive role in those collaborative areas that are not as contentious as the really difficult trade and financial issues. From what I read about the negotiations process, I do not see the strand for collaborative issues in the negotiation process. If none exists, we should look to help create that strand because it is in our interests.

Another area where collaboration is possible is digital rights, which is probably one of the more difficult issues. It is one of the more critical issues for our country because we have such a significant digital industry and we do not want the UK going down the route of having low regulation and a bargain basement approach where privacy does not matter. It could well do so. There are issues around spying and how the Government Communications Headquarters and others interact with our data. It is a particularly contentious issue for us. That would be solved by treating it not in trade negotiations but separately in a collaborative agreement around standards. We must apply the standards issue.

It was interesting to see Mr. Pascal Lamy, the former head of the World Trade Organization, make the point in a speech in London a few days ago that the battle is not just in whether there is a tariff but rather there are intellectual property rules, tax breaks and state aid rules. A rush to the bottom in such regulatory processes must be avoided and we must maintain proper standards in a variety of areas. As I noted, it is critical that we stand up for environmental standards and we should not see the UK going down the road of using genetically modified organisms and feedstock with steroids and antibiotics. Those environmental and social standards have been advocated by the European Union and we should look to maintain them within any negotiated settlement. I hope that through co-operation in those areas, it will be slightly easier to address some of the related customs union and trade areas. These are concerns regarding intellectual property and standards issues relating to data protection, for example.

For example, in the area of energy, it is not only the physical infrastructure one has but the nitty-gritty of the winter package on whether one can get inter-day trading balancing systems for those interconnectors.

It is such, to a certain extent, non-contentious issues of co-operation where we should be taking a proactive role in some collaborative spaces in the talks. My advice would be, if at all possible, get them agreed and off the table early in advance of any possible car crash towards the end. The reason I say so is because there are some in the UK Government who want that car crash. We should try and get as much agreement off the table, agreed and settled in advance before they might have to go back to the House of Commons, either blaming Europe for the process or forcing a general election.

It is important that the European negotiation position on this is seen to be one that does not want to teach the British a lesson or bring it down, but that we want the best collaborate deal for both sides. It is in our interest to have the UK maintaining those high standard systems in any future post-Brexit model. It is not in our interest for them to be a loose-cannon low-regulatory race-to-the-bottom large state in Europe because that would provide a potential model for other populist right-wing governments across Europe which might want to follow a similar route. Ultimately, it would be deeply damaging to the economies of scale we can have and the power that Europe should bring when we have common standards around products, environmental rules and social issues. The main point I wanted to make is that in our negotiating position Ireland particularly should be driving that negotiating space around the non-contentious collaborative co-ordination issues. I do not get a sense of that happening. We should be taking a lead in Europe, in some ways, looking for that within the next European Council or within whatever approach we take within these talks.

I regret, in terms of the Taoiseach's response to my question earlier, it was clear he was saying that this House will not have a vote in any final deal. If that is to be the case, we need to be involved. I accept we have talks here, we have this constant debate around Brexit, but we do not get into the weeds of it. It is difficult for us to do it in committees because this is high stakes high level negotiations happening in real time that it is difficult to interact with. I still think we should vote because the UK will probably end up having a vote as there will be a vote of confidence if there is not a decent deal. It would be ironic in the sense that we would be very much affected by whatever deal is done but we would not have a say whereas the House of Commons may in the end have one.

See this speech in context