Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The European Council of 20 February failed. It failed to reach agreement on the multi-annual financial framework for the next seven years. It failed to take robust action to resolve the humanitarian rights abuses and the growing crisis occurring in Syria, and, according to official documents, it failed to even discuss Covid-19, which had already been declared a public health emergency of international concern three weeks before, on 30 January last.

As others have stated, there is a crisis of leadership in the democratic world. The European Union needs to present solutions to the rise of the xenophobia, protectionism and backward-looking nationalism that is all too visible in Britain and the United States, and on Europe's eastern borders. It also needs to provide leadership on the challenges of climate change, on migration and on new infectious diseases.

Speaking to the European Parliament, Michel Barnier described a conversation he had with one of the architects of Brexit, Nigel Farage. Barnier asked Farage about his vision of UK relations with the European Union post Brexit. Farage's simple reply was that the EU will not exist after Brexit. This is clearly the attitude of Brexiteers and, potentially, the attitude of some within the current British Government. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom will continue to influence the European Union for the foreseeable future.

This is inevitable, given the geographical proximity of Britain, and the size of the British economy. There are still many people in the UK who are pro-EU but the current British Government is clearly not. In recent statements, British Government spokespeople have retreated from legal commitments made in the withdrawal agreement about a level playing field and they are coy about Northern Ireland's status. It has also walked back from our clear understanding of the future EU-UK relationship as outlined in the negotiated political declaration.

Some senior British spokespeople have called for unlimited trade with the European Single Market but without any of the legally binding commitments to equivalent standards. Given the volume of trade involved, British access to the Single Market on the same basis as Canada would constitute a genuine threat to the cohesion of the European Union from Brexit. In this context, where we need to strengthen the EU, the wrangling over the EU budget for the next seven years is a failure of leadership and solidarity. The so-called "frugal four" governments of Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, including, regrettably, two governments involving the Labour Party's sister parties in Europe, are making a serious error of judgment by trying to limit the EU's budget to 1% of GDP.

It is as clear as day that the EU needs to do more to tackle climate change. It is equally clear that it needs to do more to solve the tragedy of the growing refugee crisis on our own doorstep, which has worsened in recent days, as other speakers pointed out, as Turkey has weakened its co-operation with Europe. We have to carry out these major undertakings without the financial contribution that the UK made previously as a member state. It is simply nonsensical for member states to insist that the EU do more without being willing to put in place adequate funding to address these major challenges. What we are seeing is several governments echoing Thatcher's narrow-minded transactional perspective of Europe, one based on what one pays in and gets out. The existence of the European Union is being viewed in those very narrow balance book terms, which ignores the enormous benefit of being part of a Single Market of over 400 million people where governments routinely co-operate to their mutual advantage. It is time for all EU member states to show solidarity with each other and with the people of Europe. If issues like climate and migration are best dealt with at EU level, as we are saying, then that is the level where we should put in the necessary funds, rather than keep the same money at national or local level for policies that demonstrably will be less effective and cost-efficient in achieving our common objectives.

Getting the seven-year budget framework agreed at the next Council meeting scheduled for 27 March will be a major test of leadership for the European Union. The situation in Syria is another major test. I mentioned that the European Council failed at its previous meeting to take robust action. To be more specific, human rights abuses are being committed right now in Syria by the Assad regime. It is not enough, as the EU has done, to simply condemn these attacks and call for others to cease fire. The EU should and could have done more to tighten sanctions, not only on the Syrian regime but on the backers of the Assad tyranny. Europe needs to speak and act with both clarity and firmness.

The EU's negotiating position for engaging with the UK has been recently published. Likewise, the UK's negotiating position has also been set out. To say the least, there are major differences in the starting position of two sides. The UK has rowed back on its commitments to a level playing field, while the EU has rightly doubled down on our collective insistence that we protect workers' rights, consumer rights and the hard-won environmental standards that we put in place.

We are likely to see difficult negotiations on dispute resolution, data protection, fishing rights and whether the EU gives British financial services access to our financial markets. I have confidence that Michel Barnier will robustly defend European interests. I know that he is well briefed on Ireland's vulnerability to Brexit and on the details of our specific concerns.

At the same time, the European Council will be highly influential on the EU's decisions about trade with the UK. There is no doubt that there will be pressure from many sources simply to get a deal done rather than allow trade to revert to WTO terms at the end of this year. In the short term, trading on WTO rules would be seriously damaging to Ireland. Nobody is under any illusion about that. However, we cannot let the short term dictate our long-term national interest. Ireland's basic freedom to develop its own economy and society as it chooses will be highly constrained if the UK is permitted to trade with the European Single Market with lower environmental standards, weaker data protection and fewer workers' rights. This would create an intolerable future for Ireland in which the size of the UK in terms of population and economic clout would pull Ireland down to lower standards to compete.

Whatever deal is made, there will be no political appetite to reopen the future EU-UK deal in the short term. As such, Ireland will be locked into whatever deal is done in the coming months. That is why we must defend our long-term interests, which are aligned with high-quality standards and robust regulation of the Single Market, not the deregulatory approach that the UK is advancing.

The UK left the EU at the end of January, but the real challenge of Brexit has yet to come. It is imperative that we have a strong Government in place as soon as possible to fight for Ireland's long-term national interest. There will be difficult battles in the months ahead. Whoever is Taoiseach on 27 March will travel to the next European Council meeting, which will be a pivotal one. He or she should outline in the House in the coming days how he or she foresees those vital interests being defended. Perhaps the three Members of this House who see themselves as potential taoisigh might rise to this challenge and set out in the coming days their visions for how those interests will be protected.

See this speech in context