Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach.

This debate and discussion on the negotiations over the weekend are fundamentally about what vision we want for Europe and the European Union.

On the one hand we hear people articulating narrow self-interest in asking what we can get out of this deal where they are playing to domestic electorates. It is that type of politics that really fed into what happened in the UK with Brexit. If we bring that type of politics to its ultimate conclusion it will lead to the breakup of the European Union. That type of politics has been articulated quite strongly by some of the voices here in the Chamber today. On the other hand there is a vision of the European Union as a project for the common good. It is all to play for as to which direction we go for. Much of the negotiations at the weekend were inconclusive. Both positives and negatives have come out of it which I will go through shortly.

Fundamental to this is an understanding of us, our economy and how it works. If one understands Ireland as a small open economy that is reliant on exports and on the economic well-being and health of other European countries, then there is no question but that the European Union project built on the common good is very much in our narrow economic interests as well as in the interests of everyone else in Europe.

We have had in the last number of years - we also see this going back to the last crisis - a kind of punitive approach taken by many northern European countries with stronger economies and public services where they blame some of the weaker economies in the European Union. One can see this sort of blame game within these negotiations, where the fault is attributed to countries who have had a greater Covid-19 crisis, have weaker public services, or whose economies are not as strong, rather than taking the view of that these countries need more support to create a level playing field in the European Union which would benefit everyone. This is fundamentally what is in question here. There is no doubt at all that while there are some shortcomings, and I have misgivings about the deal and how much it has delivered, there is also no doubt that having the mutualised debt is a significant victory for everyone who believes in the European Union as a common project. If mutualised and shared debt had been in place ten years ago the economic recovery across Europe would have been much faster.

It would have given us a much stronger basis for resisting austerity policies that affected a number of countries. That is significant and should be noted. The adoption of an EU-wide tax on non-recyclable plastic is to be welcomed, as is the agreement that the Commission will look at other proposals such as a digital levy, carbon border adjustments, emissions trading schemes and proposals on financial transactions tax.

This deal was initially going to be €500 billion in grants, as put forward by Germany and France. It rowed back to €400 billion with an element of loans, then down to just €390 billion in grants. That initial €500 billion proposed by Germany and France was a proposal brought forward in the context of what had happened in response to the Covid crisis in Europe. I remind the House that what happened on 28 February is that Italy sent a request for face masks to the EU's emergency response co-ordination centre and did not get any response to that request. After that, both Germany and France actively blocked the export of protective medical equipment that was needed in Italy. The free movement of goods in the Single Market was effectively suspended at that point and, in addition, France seized 6 million masks, including masks destined for Italy and Spain. When Italy ordered additional masks that were brought by ship to the port in Marseilles, France subsequently started to seize those masks which meant that the ship had to flee the port in Marseilles and turn to Brussels to deliver its cargo safely. In that context, France and Germany correctly realised that they were putting the future of the European Union in jeopardy and correctly came up with the proposals for grants.

Damage has been done to the proposals by the so-called frugal five, or as a professor of politics in UCD called them, the stingy five. That initial proposal has been watered down. We see in the proposals agreed that there were cuts from the initial text to health, research and the just transition fund. Just transition should be at the core of everything we do. More than that, we should ensure that any funding and projects coming from the European Union are climate-proofed, not just the funding dedicated to climate. We should not be funding some projects on one hand and then effectively counteracting them in other areas. Research by Greenpeace has shown that much funding at European Union and European Government level continues to go into toxic and polluting industries. We need to make sure our approach is consistent.

With respect to Ireland being a net contributor and what it is putting in and getting out of this, we have to accept and realise that, with regard to GDP calculations, we are in a situation that is not favourable to us. Ireland will receive one of the lowest shares of funds, partially because of our inflated GDP and how that is measured. The European Commission's formula relies on that GDP, which does not properly reflect our national economic activity. That is a downside of the policies that Ireland has for corporation tax and attracting foreign direct investment, since it distorts our GDP, so we should be aware of that when discussing these things.

With regard to rule of law, I note the Taoiseach made some comments but did not go into detail about Ireland's position on this. It is welcome that the courts in Poland have struck out the idea of so-called LGBT-free zones that were in place in a third of municipalities. That is welcome. I raised it with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade before. We have to recognise that there is an ongoing attack against the media, judiciary, the trans community in Hungary and against civil society organisations. This cannot and should not be tolerated in the European Union. We must stand up for democracy and human rights across the globe, but first and foremost at home in the European Union. As net contributors to the European Union, we have to realise that our money will now go into countries with questionable records and practices. The fudge that has arisen from the Council negotiations, where proposals are to be brought forward on how to deal with this on a qualified majority voting basis, really kicks this down the line. I call on the Taoiseach to push this as much as he can at further meetings and make sure that Ireland stands strong on this. It is great that the Government can be strong on issues related to minority rights in Ireland but we need that same vocal stance to be taken at a European Union level. I call on the Taoiseach and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to take that stand.

The issue of tax avoidance is not going to go away at a European Union level, notwithstanding the recent decision on Apple tax. It is essential that all corporations and businesses, whether large or small, pay a fair share of taxation. If we are serious about our international representation, Ireland should stop blocking proposals for country-by-country reporting on tax arrangements at a European Union level. If that measure is brought in, it will allow for much greater transparency and ensure that no member state is effectively able to cheat other states out of their fair share of tax. We cannot have it both ways. The Taoiseach has rightly said that we need to have a level playing field in Europe and that what is good for the European economy is good for Ireland as a net exporter. The same goes for tax fairness and tax justice. We must have tax justice and tax fairness across the European Union if we are going to have a level playing field and a strong future for the European Union project.

I endorse the view that we should not be taking a view of national self-interest on this. We should take a European Union-wide view. That is in our interests as well as the interests of all other peoples and member states in the European Union.

See this speech in context