Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will preface my remarks by stating what a remarkable institution the European Union is. It is unique. It was formed by statesmen determined that in future, difficult global problems would be resolved co-operatively and peacefully among the countries involved. For Ireland, membership of the European Union has been the gateway to take our place among the countries of the world, as Parnell spoke about.

For a small country to exercise sovereignty in a meaningful way on global issues is to share in decisions and in making and reaching decisions on issues that, had we not participated, would affect us anyhow without our voice being heard. I see this debate very much in the context of the European Union and Ireland as an integral part of it trying to resolve what is undoubtedly a highly divisive issue. We see that right across Europe, where these issues are becoming divisive in European politics.

Migration has been hugely accelerated by war, as we all know. Ireland has maintained its fair share. It is not carrying more or less but it is carrying its fair share in dealing with international protection and the nearly 6 million people displaced by the Ukrainian war. This debate and these issues will test our values and ability as a member of the European Union to work with others to try to resolve the common difficulties we face. This series of tests comes at a time when there are serious forces out there seeking to fan the flames of divisiveness with their xenophobia, Euroscepticism, battles over identity and conspiracy theories.

We are working in a dangerous environment and it is important that we see the pact in that light. This is an important effort by the European Union to address the massive problem of displacement that is now occurring. As many others have said, it cannot be resolved by one country acting alone. This has to be a collective approach. As the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, pointed out, people are legally here seeking our protection because of the circumstances in their countries. Many talk about them as being illegal immigrants. They are here legally and are exercising a right we have recognised time and again in international treaties.

Every EU country is struggling in the same way to manage these flows.

I get annoyed when I hear and see the protests stating that Ireland is full and that we should have a fortress Ireland. Do the people who advocate for that just ignore the tremendous changes that have happened in Ireland over the past decades, because we have opened up and because we have moved away from this fortress idea? The bedrock values of the European Union, from which we have derived so much benefit, are the free movement of labour, of goods and of capital. That is why we have been so successful. So many of our enterprises and services, such as the health service, depend entirely on the existence of migration and the support of people who decided to make their futures in this country. That has to be at the heart of the way we look at this challenge.

However, mutual co-operation is absolutely essential if we are to manage this and maintain the sort of open societies from which we have derived benefit. If we start to balkanise our approach with each country taking its own individual approaches, as advocated by those who oppose this, we will sacrifice the openness we have all enjoyed so much. The EU has had a common system in this area for 25 years. The notion that we co-operate together is not a new EU approach. It has been established practice for 25 years.

Moreover, this pact was difficult to agree and no doubt there was give and take. Different countries have different interests and they all had to be accommodated. Like all agreements, it comes at the end as a package. People make compromises to agree something on which they can all agree. That integrity requires that participants cannot pick and choose what bits they like and do not like. I can understand how politicians want to come in here and oppose this treaty at all costs. They will find something in the treaty they do not like. I can understand that instinct because this is a very divisive issue. However, let us be honest. At the end of any negotiation that has gone on as long as this has, there comes a time where we have to decide whether we are opting in or out. Ireland has absolutely rightly decided that we are opting in.

Is it perfect? Certainly not. Is it the last word on migration? Certainly not. However, it is a very good effort to improve what is happening in the European Union at the moment. It offers real concessions or improvements that help us to manage our migration more effectively in both a fair and firm manner, as the Minister for Justice has repeatedly stated is her objective. It reduces gaming of systems between countries and secondary movements. It introduces standard approaches in all countries and copper-fastens those in new ways. It shares information from the vetting process that is exercised in each country. It makes it easier to trace those with criminal intentions in order that such people do not come here and slip through the net. It speeds up the process of application, particularly for inadmissible applications. It creates a workable system for returns, which had not been there under the Dublin Convention. It creates new institutions at the EU that will provide financial support to member states to try to manage this more effectively.

This House has been looking for every one of those elements. There has been criticism of the Government for not processing cases faster and worry that people with criminal intention may be slipping through, although the evidence shows that is almost negligible in its level. It is making sure we share information, which makes it easier. It has a return system, which people in this House have been demanding. It now offers financial assistance to help member states to work together. These are elements we have all looked for and this is a collective agreement that allows them to happen in each member state so that we do not have the balkanisation of the systems that allows people to game one state against the other. It becomes a fairer approach.

To see the merit of this agreement we only have to look at the UK. The UK left the EU largely in the belief that by taking back control, to quote Dominic Cummings’s great insight, it would take back control over migration. That has certainly not happened. Migration into the UK is at record levels. It is looking to pay £500 million to France to try to shore up a system in an individual bilateral agreement. It spent £600 million on a Rwandan scheme under which I understand one person has actually been deported. The imaginary objective of taking back control has proved entirely illusory. As well as that, it has sacrificed many of the benefits the UK could have derived from many of the other common policies of the EU.

Much is also being made of the solidarity agreement. On the night the Minister announced the pact had been agreed, on social media I got these claims that Ireland was going to have a burden of €600 million and we would have to take in 30,000 migrants every year. I am sure others received this too. It was just terrible disinformation designed to undermine people's confidence in the pact. It is far from what has been actually agreed. The modest proposal here of solidarity when a country gets overwhelmed is an important element, because any country could be overwhelmed in this way. At the heart of the approach to migration of the European Union is that there would be solidarity and fair sharing of the burden.

In the few minutes left, the last comment I want to make is that we need think much more deeply about the issue of migration and displacement than perhaps we have in recent times. The concentration has been on people moving so quickly and trying to accommodate them. There is no doubt but this will continue. Climate will continue to disrupt. We are seeing growing forces in the world who see benefit in exploiting the sort of differences that have created war and famine across our planet. The EU must continue to be the strong advocate for policies that will build capacity to stop the source of these problems. That is such an important element of any approach to this. We concentrate ourselves in the short term on the problems of those turning up on our shores. However, we need to have serious policies to build capacity. We are in a privileged position to help to do that. As we approach this and try to balance the humanitarian crises with our own capacity to absorb and manage flows, we must also think about how to reduce the preponderance of humanitarian crises, many of which are being created by our failure to act sufficiently quickly on issues like climate change. We need to develop the multilateral capacity of countries to impact on these really difficult humanitarian crises that are creating such damage in people's lives, who are turning up on our shores.

See this speech in context