Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Ar dtús báire, admhaím go bhfuil deacrachtaí faoi leith ag baint le cúrsaí san Eoraip, go háirithe ó thaobh cúrsaí eacnamaíochta, cúrsaí airgeadais agus polasaí sóisialta de. Is léir ó chruinniú na Comhairle go raibh deacrachtaí faoi leith ag baint leis an gcáinaisnéis. I mo thuairim agus i dtuairim Fhianna Fáil, níl go leor ann chun aidhmeanna na hEorpa a bhaint amach nó a chur i bhfeidhm, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs cúrsaí taighde agus cúrsaí a bhaineann leis an timpeallacht. Is oth liom a rá nach raibh ceannaireacht ag teacht ó aon áit san Eoraip maidir leis an treo gur cheart dúinn dul sna blianta atá romhainn sna cainteanna a bhí ar siúl an tseachtain seo caite. Is léir go bhfuil géarghá ann i bhfad níos mó áiseanna a chur isteach i gcáinaisnéis na hEorpa chun na haidhmeanna sin a bhaint amach sa todhchaí. Maidir le stair na tíre seo ó na 1970í amach, is léir go bhfuil dul chun cinn an-mhór le feiscint maidir le cúrsaí eacnamaíochta agus sóisialta na tíre seo de bharr go rabhamar inár mball den Aontas Eorpach. Caithfimid é sin a rá. Tá dlúthbhaint idir dul chun cinn eacnamaíochta na tíre seo le 50 bliain anuas agus muid a bheith páirteach go lánaimseartha san Aontas Eorpach. Caithfimid an bunfhírinne sin a bhaineann leis an Eoraip a chur os comhair na Dála.

This is a period of great uncertainty for the European Union and its members.

The basic principles upon which this community of free democracies has been built are under attack and there is a desperate need for leadership in overcoming genuinely historic social, economic and environmental challenges. The debates have been going on for most of the past decade and there is no more time to waste. Ireland and the whole of Europe need real urgency, ambition and leadership. Unfortunately, once again, the latest summit failed to take decisive action. Most radical and progressive options for developing the Union appear to have been shelved. Yet again, we are stuck in a zero-sum negotiation which looks set to deny the Union the ability and capacity to deliver on the mandate it has received.

All of the reports from the negotiation suggest that the dispute is focused on an amount of money which is a fraction of the national income of any of the principal countries involved. Those who oppose an increased budget also demand cuts to existing programmes to create the space to address other areas, such as energy, research and the just transition to a zero-carbon Union. Yet again, we see the repeat of the debate that has undermined the Union for much of the past four decades. Every time a major issue arises, the member states agree that common action supported by the Union is the only way to tackle the issue and it is added to the agenda. However, member states also insist that the Union's budget should continue to be limited to 1% of combined national incomes. This is why every time the budget is being negotiated pressure is placed on the CAP and it is claimed that somehow it is a waste and should be scaled back. This pressure is not based on an objective assessment of the fact that the CAP has delivered food security to Europe for the first time in its history or that it is central to efforts to protect rural life. Countries stating that their citizens simply will not accept any increase in the budget repeat the same error that successive Governments in the United Kingdom made in the decades before Brexit. Their rhetoric directly empowers Eurosceptics by promoting the idea of a wasteful Brussels spending our money. Instead, they should be saying that if we want greater economic security, clean energy and the innovation upon which our future relies then one tenth of 1% of national income is really not that much to pay.

While Ireland made very serious errors in the past three years by aligning itself with the opponents of any increase, the reversal of this position in the past six months has been welcome. We agree with the basic approach that Ireland should be willing to see its contribution increase in return for protecting existing programmes and expanding support for new actions, particularly the European green deal proposed by the Commission. It is, at best, a shame that Ireland refused to engage with the move made by President Macron early in his term to discuss how we could help the Union to be more dynamic and effective. What is different in the negotiations for this budget period is that many other issues are being discussed. Those issues combine to greatly complicate the ability to reach an outcome.

There has been some suggestion that the Polish and Hungarian Governments are seeking to use negotiations to block actions against them for violations of basic democratic and rule-of-law principles. This is a very worrying and regressive development. Ireland should stand with the countries refusing to accept this type of behaviour. To break the deadlock, it is likely that something will have to be done on the wider challenges of not just the size of the European Union budget but also reform of broader European Union economic policies.

Fianna Fáil believes that many of the Commission's proposals are reasonable and have the potential to form part of a more flexible outcome to discussions. There is simply no way that member states will meet essential climate targets without a dramatic increase in the scale and affordability of financing for dedicated climate programmes. An historic challenge requires a breaking of existing constraints. The European green deal proposed by the Commission must be supported. It is an exceptional action which, in the context of those parts that require direct funding rather than financing, simply cannot be implemented within current budget constraints.

We very strongly support the flexibility proposed by the Commission in the recently published fiscal rules review. Countries will not be able to rapidly or comprehensively implement plans for clean energy, energy-efficient buildings, expanded public transport and other critical actions if they are forced to operate within existing inflexible fiscal rules. Allowing extra space to fund climate projects should be agreed well before the current deadline of the end of next year.

Giving national governments this flexibility will take some of the pressure off the EU budget.

We also strongly support the proposal to reform state aid rules by allowing for a green priority. This would directly enable countries such as Ireland to start showing greater dynamism in building a leading-edge industrial base in climate innovation. In the past, we went from a standing start to being a world leader in sectors such as medical devices, microprocessing and software. We must aim to do so again in the field of carbon-free innovation. A green priority in state aid could make a critical difference and deliver major social, economic and environmental benefits. We also support the proposal to turn the European Investment Bank into a dynamic climate bank, taking the lead in financing both public and private programmes to reduce carbon emissions permanently. However, this will not replace the need to finance programmes directly, particularly in the case of just transition investments for industries and support for rural communities, which will bear the greatest impact of transition measures if they are not helped. Funding the EU in order that it will meet the challenges we set for it starts with a fair budget agreement but also includes this much wider agenda. At a minimum, Ireland should support all efforts that take climate action out of the realm of a zero-sum debate against existing projects.

Separately, I reiterate that Fianna Fáil supports the expansion of research and education funding in general. Europe's critical innovation and social inclusion goals cannot be achieved without more ambitious programmes. We also believe that funding for the asylum, migration and integration fund is nowhere near the level it needs to be at, not least in respect of the ability to fund proper support programmes for new residents. EU funding supports almost all activity in this field but it is not enough to meet the needs of Europe post 2015.

The summit briefly discussed the appalling circumstances in the Idlib province in northern Syria. The attacks by the Assad forces and their Russian allies are bringing in a new wave of misery to more than 1 million people. Syria continues to be the greatest humanitarian disaster of the century, and the brutal conflict inflicted on the Syrian people by the regime remains the core reason for this. There have been many reports about the knock-on effects of the renewed attack, including a return to widespread emigration and the pushing of refugees both towards and away from the Greek border. This is fundamentally something that must be dealt with in accordance with basic humanitarian principles. We believe that Ireland should work with other countries to get full information about what is happening and to insist that the rights and dignity of people fleeing a brutal conflict are respected.

The issue of the mandate for trade negotiations with the UK was not discussed at the summit but we should note it. There are deeply worrying signs that the UK Government is prepared to seek what is effectively a no-deal outcome. While we can pass comment on how the UK is changing its position from the joint declaration, it is true that the declaration has no legal force and the UK is entitled to set whatever red lines it wishes. However, two urgent points arise in respect of Ireland. First, commitments relating to the Border have legal force, and we need immediate clarity on whether the British Government intends to honour such commitments and on what exactly it is doing to honour them. Second, it is clear we need to ramp up dramatically preparations to help companies that would be hit by new barriers to east-west trade. A failure to reach a trade deal will threaten Ireland with a permanent loss of more than 3% of GNP, as well as tens of thousands of jobs, unless mitigating actions are taken. Brexit is done but it has not yet been decided what its full impact will be. Ireland must continue to see this as a core national priority.

See this speech in context