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

It is funny. In politics, one learns the lesson that a lot of time is spent trying to jump over one hurdle only to realise that, once that has been achieved, there is another hurdle ahead. I hope a deal is agreed between the negotiators today in Europe and that it gets over the hurdle of being agreed at the European Council on Thursday and Friday. I presume it then has to get over the hurdle of getting through the UK Parliament on Saturday. Even then, there are hurdles ahead. They are probably a bit more like Becher's Brook. It is a grand national we are jumping here, not a hurdle race, because the scale of the implications and change that is coming if Brexit goes ahead, as seems possible today, will bring such challenges.

The first thing is to note is what an incredible loss it will be, particularly for this country but also for the European Union, not to have the UK in the EU, if that is the outcome of the negotiations this week. It has completely transformed our relationship with the UK that we have been fellow members of the European Union. It has allowed us to get over an obsession with our relationship by jumping over the UK into the Continent, as it were. It has given us great confidence as a country and the ability to progress our development in a way that has not been overshadowed by the history with our neighbouring island.

We should focus on the challenges that will arise. People are asking what the difference is between this putative deal today and that which had been agreed with the former British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May. One of the main fundamental differences is that the United Kingdom Government at Westminster - not so much Whitehall but the political system, the Conservative Party - seems to be hell-bent on following a form of Brexit that will allow it deregulate, reregulate or change regulations in a variety of industries to free it from European regulatory systems as a way, I can only presume, of gaining competitive advantage in international trade.

That is its right. The UK Government is going to loosen its approach. If it does so and proceeds in a way that is fundamentally different in the context of standards, then it will find it increasingly difficult to trade with the European Union. Regardless of how much it trades with the Union, it will be the net loser.

I heard David Davis, the former Brexit Secretary, saying that Europe is stagnant and that the growing markets are in the Far East and developing countries elsewhere. However, he forgets the lesson of geography. I cannot recall the exact equation but it is that as distance increases, the volume of trade falls. We and the European Council need to start thinking about how we manage that. I want to give the Minister of State a few examples. First, in the area of digital policy, there are real challenges. Anyone involved in digital policy in the past ten to 20 years will attest that the UK Government has been the most progressive, engaged and advanced in its thinking when it comes to European digital policies. We will miss the UK in that regard. This country, which has large digital social networks and other industries, has to be very careful that we try to maintain some common standards in terms of digital services, particularly in order to ensure that a divide does not open up and gives rise to chaos and inefficiency.

On 7 November, this House will host the International Grand Committee on Disinformation and Fake News, which will be attended by parliamentarians from a variety of countries, including, I am glad to say, the UK. The key question we will be asking is how to get collaboration in international governance of the Internet because if we fragment on that, we will not be able to protect our citizens, get the benefits of those systems and advance our economic well-being. That is not a minor issue. We have to avoid a situation where we go ahead with the e-commerce directive, the UK goes ahead with its White Paper on harmful content and the US goes ahead with amending section 230 of its communications Act. This country has an interest in trying to avoid the breakdown of collaboration in that area. I put it to the Taoiseach that we should include that within the strategic agenda of the upcoming Council and Commission for the next five years.

This is a very local issue in terms of environmental regulations. Two weeks ago, I asked the Tánaiste the likely arrangements we will get in any putative deal in terms of the habitats, water framework, birds and nitrates directives. It is very important that that regulatory alignment is nailed down because we cannot manage this island as we proceed to address climate change if we have divergent systems. As we try to protect and restore nature and avoid cross-border pollution, we have to have common alignment in those areas. I would argue that we have to have alignment with the UK, even if it is looking to ship in chlorinated chicken and beef that is "steroided" up to its eyeballs. That has implications for us also. If there is a deal, the beef industry will not wake up tomorrow morning and say, “That crisis is avoided” if our biggest market and nearest neighbour is using a Canada-minus or Canada-plus model to undermine the standards we have all agreed across these islands and across Europe in recent years. That is an important issue that we will have to focus on in any future trade talks. In other words, we do not stop meeting challenges. While the negotiating task will not be as much in the public eye, it will still be there.

In that regard, it is very important that the Government engages on the CAP negotiations in a strong way. It is ironic that the UK is leaving the European Union at a time when it states that it does not want top-down regulation. The European Commission appears to be saying, in terms of the CAP and the national energy climate plan, that it is putting it back to each state as to how they see themselves fulfilling the broad objectives of CAP reform or the climate plan on which we agree. Last Friday, we sent our submission on THE CAP reform proposals but I hear nothing from Fine Gael that recognises the scale of change we need to make in the CAP system.

The issue is not just about the size of the European budget, it is about changing the entire budget and payment system. We need a larger budget in order that we might pay young people to go into farming. We need to think 20, 30 or 40 years ahead as to how the environmental services we want our young farmers to provide will be looked after. That is a challenge about which I do not have any sense of ambition or long-term vision from the Government.

Similarly, on the national energy and climate plan, we will have to work with the UK, not just North-South but also east-west. It will be impossible for us to meet our 70% renewables target if we remain isolated as an energy system from the UK. It will be impossible for us to ensure our gas security if we do not have a long-term, deep energy relationship. Whatever else happens on trade with Singapore, India and so on, we have to make sure, in the next hurdle of negotiations, that energy collaboration works because it will work for everyone. It is one of those issues where, by sharing, we strengthen every country's position.

In terms of our grouping in the EU Parliament, I am very glad we now have two Green MEPs in what is a significantly enlarged Greens-European Free Alliance group, which now has 75 members. I get the sense from a distance, however, that we have been frozen out from the appointment of the Commission and the other high offices in the Union. It speaks to me of an EU that is clinging to an old conservative way of doing things and that the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, perhaps with the help of the liberals, will sort everything out. If Europe is clinging on to that old model because it believes it has worked for the past 50 years, it is missing this opportunity and important moment for change.

I hope our parliamentary group within the European Parliament will start to exert a much more significant influence on the European position. It should start with what is happening in Syria and Turkey at the present time, recognising that the fundamental source of the problem dates back more than 100 years to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the divvying up of land and the big game of global politics where colonial and imperial powers, the likes of the British and the French, and now the Americans and the Russians, are using the Middle East almost as a chess board within which their power games are drawn out. The Green Party does not come with that perspective as to the way Europe protects its borders, manages its security or should be involved in European foreign policy. It would serve the Taoiseach well if he adopted that approach because Ireland, as a country, suffered from rather than took part directly in that imperial gain. We have everything to benefit from being a voice in Europe for a different approach to how we deal with our neighbours.

See this speech in context