David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----as difficult as it might be for some of the representatives of those parties that were part of the problem that led to the creation of what is becoming a federal Europe. They do not like to hear the truth.

It is interesting that almost every party is becoming more critical of the European Union. For example, the Government is robustly challenging the Apple judgment of the European Commission. Both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are, rightly, exercised by a consolidated tax coming from the European Union. Everybody has a right to be critical and should be critical of measures that emerge from the European Union, but that does not make us anti-European, it makes us alert to others having agendas, including other bigger member states, and the fact that we must look out for our interests. We must be confident and able to assert our own identity and vision for the type of European Union we want to build. I want to see a European Union that is about workers' rights, social solidarity and investing in public services and which is not about stripping countries of social services and the neo-liberalism that has seen more privatisation and outsourcing to the private sector of what the public sector did in the past. Much of this has been driven by European directives and the European Union. There are some areas where the European Union has been good and others where it has not. It is important that we have an honest engagement and discussion about what the European Union is and what it has done for Ireland.

The biggest challenge facing the European Union is Brexit. That should not define the European Union, but it is obviously huge in the impact it will have on citizens in Europe and this state, in particular. There was a political agreement in December. The Government came back and hailed it as a breakthrough, that we had a cast iron guarantee that the Irish issues were protected, that we had a backstop arrangement that was bulletproof, as the Taoiseach put it, that the Border issue was safe, that there would be no hardening of the Border and that the Good Friday Agreement would be protected in all of its parts and that the rights of EU citizens living in the North who were Irish citizens would be fully protected. It has all begun to unravel since. It began to unravel because it was only a political agreement. The key words in it, that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, were exactly that. We now see a civil war in the Tory Party playing out before us, with multiple wings, and nobody knows who is in charge, or from day to day what is the British Government's position, yet we are at a defining moment in the talks between the European Union and the British Government on trade and we are nowhere near knowing what it will all mean for Ireland. The European Commission tried to translate the political text into a legal format which was rejected out of hand by Mrs. Theresa May who said no British Prime Minister could countenance a border in the Irish Sea, which is precisely what she did when she signed up to the backstop arrangement. At this point, people living on either side of the Border have no idea about what will be put in place. The British Government has resiled from the political agreement made in December, which is unacceptable.

We have to hope the European Union can reach an agreement with Britain on some customs partnership or free trade agreement. That is where we are. It is a long way from bulletproof, being cast iron, and all of the certainties that we were guaranteed. We face an uncertain period. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste are saying the right things and presenting an image of wearing the green jersey, that they were out representing Ireland's interests. We said we would support the Government in achieving the best outcome for the State, but both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste said we needed an agreement with the British Government by June. We accepted this. We need to see the colour of Mrs. Theresa May's money and the British Government's proposals in June. Now we hear from the Tánaiste that what he actually meant was if there was sufficient progress. What does "sufficient progress" mean? There is no benchmark that sets out what it is. I can imagine that when we arrive in June, the can will be kicked down the road, that there will be further uncertainty and that we will still not know what has been agreed to. There is a fear that if the British Government puts its proposals on the North of Ireland on the table they will also be the proposals that they want for the rest of Britain. That will end their hand in the ongoing negotiations. All of us in this House were deeply conscious of the potential for the Irish issues to be used as a pawn in the negotiation between the European Union and Britain and that is how it has worked out. We all agreed that we would move from phase 1 to phase 2 if we there was real progress on the Irish issues. We moved to phase 2, but we do not have real progress. The Government has a big job of work to do and I wish it well because we want the best deal. The problem is that there is so much uncertainty.

I refer to the potential for a European army. Last December the Dáil voted by 75 to 42 in favour of Ireland joining the PESCO agreement on greater European co-operation on military missions. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael coalesced on the issue. As they are in government together, it is no surprise that they did so, but we, in Sinn Féin, opposed it.

See this speech in context