Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

-----there is an international obligation on nearby vessels to engage in search and rescue. Of course, we have done this. Naval Service vessels have been involved in search and rescue missions in the Mediterranean, as have many other navies.

We must also bear in mind that in doing so, we must not do anything that helps human trafficking. Part of the mission's mandate in the Mediterranean is to disrupt human trafficking. Human traffickers are putting very vulnerable people in what are essentially large dinghies - unseaworthy vessels - that they know full well will sink long before they get to the coast of Europe. We need to make sure that nothing we do in terms of search and rescue encourages or assists human traffickers in putting people at risk by putting them in vessels in that way, which is exactly what has been happening. Very vulnerable people who have trekked across Africa to get to the coast of Libya are being put in unseaworthy vessels by human traffickers with the expectation that they will be rescued by European navies or NGO vessels. We must always bear that mind in what we do because those people's lives are being put at risk and we should not facilitate that in any way.

In respect of the EU policy on migration, it is fair to say that there is a lot of division around the table. Countries have different perspectives on how we should manage migration. Everyone around the table with the exception of the UK, which is leaving the EU, is very much in favour of freedom of movement. Nobody is questioning freedom of movement within the EU. Austria, Hungary, Poland and Italy all support freedom of movement within the EU. What many of them object to is migration from outside the EU or illegal migration involving people arriving and not going through the correct ports, not filing documents on arrival or doing the things we expect people to do.

There is agreement on three things. First, we need greater co-operation with the transit countries and countries of origin. These are countries on the north African coast and Turkey, which are largely countries of transit, and countries in the Middle East and Africa that are source countries for much of this migration. People are leaving these countries because they do not have democracy, civil and human rights and economic opportunity. The best way to deal with uncontrolled migration such as this is to bring about democracy, security and economic opportunity in those countries. We do not see huge numbers of people from Asian countries coming to Europe in the same way, largely because so many people have been lifted out of poverty in those countries through economic development. That is the first principle we apply. Ireland is very much committed to that through increases in funding for international development, in particular an increase of more than €100 million in 2019.

The second area on which there is agreement is the need to enhance external border security, for example, the border between Bulgaria and Turkey, and security in the Mediterranean through agreements with Morocco and Libya, for example, to assist them to build up their coastguard, and an agreement with Egypt.

The third area on which most, although not all, agree is showing a degree of solidarity and burden sharing by being willing to accept migrants from other countries. Ireland has done this on a series of occasions when it was asked to take some migrants by Malta, Italy and Greece. This is an example of us showing solidarity with countries on the front line.

I have had no discussions with President Macron or Chancellor Merkel regarding a European army. Obviously, I have heard what they have to say about it but they have not approached us to join a European army and I do not anticipate that they will do so. Ireland will not participate in a European army or join NATO. However, we decided through a resolution of this House to participate in PESCO, which is structured European co-operation around defence and security. We are doing this on a case-by-case basis, which is very much to our advantage. Ireland is a small country with a small military. We do not have much to offer the EU in terms of military prowess or might but there are lots of things we can offer. These include humanitarian assistance and training, which the Naval Service is doing with Operation Sophia, participation in peacekeeping operations, which we have done very well for decades, and assisting in European security in areas like cyberterrorism and terrorism intelligence. This is where we can make a contribution. I do not envisage us joining a European army or being asked to join one. Our position as a neutral, non-aligned state is well understood by our European partners and the same goes for Austria and Finland, which are very much in the same position as us.

I hear a statement being thrown around all the time that somehow we have committed to increasing our defence budget to 2% of GDP. We have not done so and will not do so. However, our defence budget will increase over the next couple of years because of pay rises for Defence Forces personnel, improvements to barracks and the purchase of new equipment, namely, the ships, aircraft and vehicles we need. There will, therefore, be an increase in defence spending and I stand over such increases next year and in the years to come. However, they will not be anywhere close to 2% of our GDP, which would be around €6 billion. They will not be anywhere near a fraction of that.

Regarding the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland and the backstop, we have had no discussions with the Commission or the UK Government about revisions to the text since it was stabilised last week. It is important to remember the format that is in the December joint report, that is, options A, B and C. Option A is the future relationship, option B concerns specific solutions the UK may propose and option C is the backstop. What has come into the mix since then is option D, which is an extension of the transition period. Whatever happens, what is required at the end of all of that is a backstop that is legally operative and applies unless and until an alternative solution supersedes it. I want to state again on the record of the House that it is our intention and commitment as a Government to work with the United Kingdom and the European Union to come up with a future relationship that does not require the backstop to be invoked in full or in part and, in the event that it is invoked, it will only be for a temporary period as a bridge to a future relationship.

We are not opposed outright to the proposal for a eurozone budget, nor are we backing it. It is something to which we will give consideration but we will need to see how the proposal develops. A eurozone budget could be useful. In a time of economic crisis, it could operate as an economic and fiscal stabiliser. For example, if a proportion of unemployment benefits were paid for on a European level, countries with high levels of unemployment would benefit from that during periods of recession and they would help out other countries when they do not have high levels of unemployment. One thing we need to be very careful about is anything that may impact on our sovereignty, particularly our tax sovereignty. If there is a European budget with money in it to be spent, that money must be raised. We would be concerned that any proposal for a eurozone budget may suggest imposing Europe-wide taxes, which we could not accept. We are entering into discussions on a eurozone budget with an understandable degree of scepticism. We need to see the detail of what is being proposed, or not even that. We need to get a better understanding of it before we can agree to it.

See this speech in context