Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. 15 is statements on the Pre-European Council meeting of 28 and 29 June under Standing Order No. 111.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome this opportunity to address the House in advance of the European Council next week. The outcome of the UK referendum will, of course, determine the focus of the meeting. The current migration situation will also be discussed, as will a range of economic issues. There will also be a discussion on some foreign and security policy issues which the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, will address in his closing remarks.

On Thursday, Britain will vote on whether to remain in or to leave the European Union. Next week's meeting will provide a first opportunity for collective discussion of the referendum result and its implications. Clearly the substance and significance of this discussion will depend on which way the vote has gone. This has been a hard fought campaign on both sides. The last few days have been overshadowed by the murder of Jo Cox last week. I was in the UK when this happened and I would like, once again, to extend my sincere condolences to her family, friends and colleagues. She was an exemplary public representative who lost her life doing one of the most important things all of us in this House do, namely, serving our constituencies.

From the outset of the EU negotiation process, Ireland committed to playing a supportive and constructive role. In the same spirit, members of the Government have visited Britain to engage with Irish communities there, to encourage them to vote and to explain our perspective on the issues. There have also been several visits to Northern Ireland, for which the stakes are particularly high. I thank all Deputies, including those from the Opposition, who have involved themselves in this effort. It is my hope, of course, that we will continue our EU journey with the United Kingdom, a journey that we began together over 40 years ago.

Whatever the outcome, however, we are ready. In the event of a vote to remain, the next steps are relatively straightforward. The agreement reached in February would take immediate effect and its various elements would be implemented. A framework has been developed on a whole-of-Government basis to identify contingencies that could arise in the event of a vote to leave. This would provide the basis for the intensive work which would be required over a lengthy period across very many sectors. We would work with our EU partners and with the UK to achieve outcomes which protect Irish interests, including co-operation between North and South, as far as possible.

Were there to be a vote to leave, the European Union and the UK would be entering into a very different area indeed. It would very probably take some time for the path forward to become clear. An orderly and constructive process would be critical but, in all circumstances, Ireland will remain a committed member of the European Union. As a competitive, diversified and global economy, we value our access to a single market of over 500 million people and the benefits our exporters derive from EU trade agreements with other countries. More broadly, we greatly value being part of a Union with other like-minded democracies which share our values and interests.

The migrant and refugee situation rightly remains an issue of the highest priority. At next week's meeting there will be another detailed discussion. The EU has developed a range of measures, including resettlement and relocation measures, an EU-Africa fund and an EU-Turkish refugee facility. There has been good progress on the establishment of a European coast and border guard, and a package of other measures agreed with Turkey. Many of these measures are having a positive impact. Reports indicate that the numbers crossing the Aegean Sea, for example, have reduced very substantially since the EU-Turkey deal was agreed in March and this is to be welcomed. However, the route from Libya to Italy remains very perilous. Implementation of some of the measures has, for a variety of reasons, been far too slow. A significant focus of next week's discussion, therefore, will be on implementation and there will be a major focus on the external dimension of the crisis.

The Commission's proposed migration partnership framework aims at ensuring coherence between EU migration policy and its external and development policies. Overall, we welcome the framework and its focus on working even more closely with countries of origin and transit, as well as countries hosting large numbers of displaced people, and we support its intention to build on existing policies in this area. Ireland continues to make its own contribution.

In September 2015, the Government decided to take up to 4,000 persons in need of international protection. There has been good progress on the resettlement of refugees from outside the Union and we are on course to meet our target of 520 by the end of this year. On relocation, progress has been slow, as it has been for all partners, for a variety of reasons outside of our control. Thankfully, implementation here is at last beginning to speed up. Today, I have been advised by officials that the next group of 28 individuals to arrive under this framework is en routefrom Greece. We wish them well on their journey and look forward to welcoming them to our shores. A further group of 40 individuals is expected to arrive next month.

In terms of humanitarian assistance, Ireland has provided over €42 million in response to the Syria crisis since 2011, and has pledged a further €20 million in 2016. Last year, 8,592 men, women and children were rescued thanks to the efforts of our naval vessels in the Mediterranean. The LE Róisínhas been on search and rescue missions from 12 May of this year and has rescued 893 people to date. We are very proud of the efforts of her crew and I wish them well for the rest of their mission.

The June European Council will address a number of economic issues under the broad heading of jobs, growth and competitiveness. One of these is the European semester and, in particular, the country-specific recommendations issued by the Commission in May. Broadly speaking, Ireland accepts our three recommendations, which cover fiscal policies, jobless households and child care and non-performing loans. We are also broadly supportive of the progress made in streamlining the European semester process.

The European Council will also discuss the Single Market. The Commission strategy presented last October was a crucial initiative and was given a strong endorsement by the December European Council. We must renew EU momentum as a crucial driver of jobs, growth and competitiveness. This includes unlocking the full potential of the digital single market, which is the responsibility of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dara Murphy. We want to press ahead with a high level of ambition, agreeing concrete timelines and delivering results, with the European Council continuing to take an overview of progress. The European Council will also review progress on the European fund for strategic investments. It appears to have had a positive impact but there is a sense that more can be done. All obstacles to productive investment in the economy must be tackled.

Turning to deepening economic and monetary union, the European Council will look at progress on initial proposals made by the Commission last year, pending the publication of longer-term proposals next year. Our overall position on EMU remains clear. The focus needs to be on full and effective implementation of the wide range of reforms that have already been agreed over recent years. There will be an update on the Union's efforts to combat tax avoidance. Just overnight, Finance Ministers agreed an anti-tax avoidance directive. Ireland has been to the forefront of the implementation of OECD recommendations on base erosion and profit shifting and we have supported the final compromise reached on this directive on the basis that it was consistent with the OECD BEPS report and should respect member state sovereignty on tax issues. Finally, there will be further consideration of the difficult situation in the dairy and pigmeat sectors and Ireland will support efforts by the Commission to alleviate the serious problems faced by many farmers.

The June European Council will, therefore, address a number of issues of great importance. Let us hope it will not have to spend too much time on the outcome of the UK referendum. I will of course make a statement to the House following the meeting. I look forward to hearing from Deputies and I will keep leaders updated as we go through Thursday and early Friday morning if there is anything about which they should know.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to express our solidarity with the family, community and political colleagues of Jo Cox. The murder of a public representative is a truly shocking event, particularly in a democracy, and many people were genuinely saddened and shocked by the event. The British Labour Party has lost a rising star who was passionate about politics and about issues outside purely party politics throughout her short life. She was a committed supporter of the European Union and an internationalist who had a deep commitment to people all over the world, particularly refugees from Syria and the Middle East.

While the person who murdered her appears to have been acting alone, the need for us to stand up and defend the principles for which she stood is just as strong. We must also remember that there is always a potential cost when one attacks and stigmatises public representatives as a group. The heightened and extreme rhetoric that often accompanies advocacy in a serious referendum can also create an atmosphere in which people on the margins become more extreme.

The vote this week is one of the most important referendums ever held, yet it is one in which we will have no voice. It has the potential to ensure that European democracies move forward in constructive co-operation or it could set off a vicious circle of damaging competition and empower extreme nationalism. It really is as important as that. As a mark of respect for the late Jo Cox and the decision of the two sides to suspend campaigning, I cancelled a speech and door-to-door canvass scheduled last week in Belfast. I would like to reiterate points that I intended making then and that I have made in a series of speeches and statements in recent years. In addition, my party made it clear in its election manifesto that Ireland has a direct interest in the outcome of this referendum. We must be clear on how we see the vote and on how we will react to the outcome.

The stakes for progress on this island and between these islands are huge. In the final days, everyone who has a vote should take the time to look at the fundamental issues involved and where the weight of evidence is. Quite incredibly, one of the main leaders of the "Leave" campaign has said that experts should be ignored. Michael Gove, Lord Chancellor and a long-acclaimed Tory intellectual, stated that the British people "have had enough of experts." Yes, each person has to make up his or her own mind, but to say that evidence and expertise are irrelevant is breathtakingly cynical. The simple fact is that a vote to leave the European Union would be bad for this island, bad for the United Kingdom, bad for the democratic countries of Europe and, as all international bodies have said, bad for the wider world. There is no upside to a "Leave" vote other than for the Little Englanders who think they can rescind the past 44 years and return to some illusory past idyll.

For all of its many flaws, the European Union has enabled a model of progress among nations that is unprecedented in world history. People can take this for granted if they like, but no one has produced any credible alternative way in which the immense violence and destruction of the world wars could have been overcome. The leaders of the last century who committed us to working together with mutually agreed rules and enforcement knew what they were doing. They saw how everybody standing alone would always end badly. This was not just about leaders on the continent. Look at the words of British and Irish leaders. Look at the words of Seán Lemass, who fought in the GPO in 1916, on how nations on the periphery could only promote their interests and generate prosperity through participation in a rules-based and strong European organisation.

One of the things most often missed about why the European Union exists is that it is a construction of a deeply patriotic generation. It was people who had fought and risked everything for the flags of their countries that created and built the European Union. The only people in our countries who opposed membership were those committed to an extreme ideological position. The phenomenon of countries jealously protecting every element of sovereignty, sharing nothing and rejecting international legal commitments is the very thing that caused the catastrophic conflicts of the 20th century. The patriotic generation knew this and set out a different course, and they were vindicated in every way.

This referendum is the logical outcome of 40 years of anti-European rhetoric from one group. They have been relentless in attacking the union and claiming that it is responsible for every evil in the world. They have caricatured and hyped every proposal. They have used vivid language and worked tirelessly to set up the fundamentally false idea that one can be patriotic or one can be European but one cannot be both. However, what they seem incapable of is addressing how 40 years of scare stories and predictions of the end of the nation state have been false. Go into any supermarket in Belfast, Brighton or Brussels and one will find that the bananas still have a bend in them and one is still free to choose the basic direction of one's country. The "Project Fear" being run by the "Leave" campaign and certain proprietors of London newspapers has involved talking about a tidal wave of foreigners about to land and fictional piles of money waiting to be repatriated and describing the EU as implementing Hitler’s vision. Without doubt, it is the most cynical and deceptive campaign of our times. Of course, they scream every time the economic damage of a "Leave" vote is pointed out.

I hope people will take the time to look at the positive case for a "Remain" vote in the next few days, because it is overwhelming. In terms of economics, the simple and undeniable fact is that to have high employment and living standards we have to trade. This is especially true for everyone living on an island on the edge of a continent. We need guaranteed and fair access to trade. This requires common rules so that companies cannot be artificially excluded and it requires a legal process where their rights can be enforced. Outside the European Union, this right to trade is much weaker and enforcement almost non-existent.

The investment case for being in the European Union is equally strong. Every major international company has developed a base within the European Union. European Union membership is an absolute requirement for many major job creation decisions. So far not a single major investor has said it would increase investment if the vote is to leave, while many have said the exact opposite.

The case for workers’ rights is unanswerable as well. Many of the rules which most annoy the "Leave" campaigners involve basic protections for workers. They prevent a race to the bottom and insist that core standards are protected for all. Nearly all modern protections for women in the workplace have their origins in European legislation. Europe is about trying to create high-wage jobs with decent standards. Being outside the EU pushes the pressure the other way.

In respect of the economy of this island, there is no possible positive result for a "Leave" vote. It offers at the very least enormous risk and most likely a direct, severe and permanent setback. Trade across the Border and outside the island will suffer. Jobs will suffer and pressures on wages will all be downwards. A tough period fiscally could well become an emergency if the predicted impacts on the Westminster budget happen. One is free to say this does not matter, but one is not free to say it cannot happen.

Whatever happens, we must be clear that Ireland will under no circumstance follow a "Leave" vote. The European Union is now and will continue to be a fundamental part of our identity and policies. We believe the two jurisdictions on this island are stronger working together in the European Union, but we will not sign up to the economically, socially and politically destructive anti-European Union agenda of the English anti-Europeans.

We should note the strong leadership of the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, in the "Remain" campaign and the broad and diverse coalition of groups and parties campaigning on this side. It is also welcome that Sinn Féin has reversed its policy of opposing the EU in every vote taken in the past 44 years and that it has joined the SDLP, the Alliance Party and others in Northern Ireland on the "Remain" side. As for the political case for membership, if one wants to have any influence whatsoever, there is no alternative to working closely with others. Standing alone in glorious isolation, hoping to occasionally be allowed into a room where fundamental issues are discussed is a sure-fire way of being marginalised as a country.

Ultimately, the "Leave" case demands that one sees the European Union as a threat to one's identity. Whatever one's personal identity is, they claim that the EU is a threat to it. As I have stated, the EU is actually the direct project of a patriotic generation which wanted to secure the future for their countries and identities and end the threat of extreme nationalism. On an even more basic level, the fact is that no one else and no institution decides one's identity. One decides it one's self, in one's family, community and wider society. The issue is how we find ways of respecting each other's identities - that is, how we end the cycle of seeking supremacy over the identity of others.

A rules-based organisation, founded on co-operation and mutual respect, is the only way of achieving this in the modern world. Each country retains the fundamental ability to decide on its own successes and failures. We still make mistakes at national level and we can also spark great progress. Our future remains in our own hands. The EU is about opening up new possibilities to us.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Deputy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will just conclude, if I may.

A vote for "Remain" is a vote for a positive vision of the future. A vote for "Leave" is at best a dramatic risk and more likely a return to a time defined by destructive competition between nations. Such a vote would be cheered by the extreme right and extreme left as well as authoritarian countries.

Whatever happens, we should agree that next Tuesday we will have a proper discussion about the next steps and that the Government should present its proposals to the House. At the summit the Taoiseach should be absolutely clear not just that Ireland will remain a member of the Union but also that we are committed to an ongoing programme of constructive reform. This is, now more than ever, essential. We will have to collectively address the growing anti-EU sentiment across Union member from Western Europe in particular. Planning a pathway of real reform measures would address people's concerns.

I shall conclude. Do I have ten or 15 minutes?

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ten minutes Deputy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ten minutes is too short.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well, these are the rules of the House Deputy.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but we would want to get these rules changed because we are either going to have a substantive debate or we are not. Ten minutes to me is just not enough, it is crazy------

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I must ask Deputy Martin to conclude please.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could make a recommendation-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought we always had 15 minutes.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it was always 15 minutes.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am following Standing Orders.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are not. The Acting Chairman is a saint and I am not casting any aspersions.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Deputy Martin please conclude.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to agriculture and access to the below cost credit, I hope the Taoiseach's colleagues on the European Council really realise how grave the agriculture situation is. Our farmers are in dire trouble and there is real concern about the situation. The issue needs to be raised at the meeting next week.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Adams and Crowe are sharing ten minutes.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. On Thursday, a crucial vote will take place on whether the North and Britain will remain in or leave the European Union. A vote to leave, a so-called Brexit, would have big implications for the island of Ireland and for our two economies. It would lead to the reintroduction of some form of border and customs controls. Partition creates enough problems already without the need for the reintroduction of checkpoints and what some people have called a hard border.

In my constituency of Louth, partition creates serious difficulties for business development, investment, farmers, cross-Border shoppers and for communities who live on either side of the Border. The Brexit debate has focused attention on these issues and I call on the Government and the other parties to keep that focus beyond the Brexit vote. It is no coincidence that the Border region suffers most from disadvantage, high levels of unemployment and low investment and much more could be done to reverse this situation.

We know that more than €1.2 billion is traded each week in goods and services between this island and Britain. Much of that is agricultural produce and there is great potential in this sector. However, farmers are currently facing huge difficulties. Many farmers will find their livelihoods at risk if Brexit is the outcome of the debate and this referendum. It would also mean an end to vital rural development funding, structural funds and PEACE II funding. All of these funds are vital for small and medium sized businesses, community regeneration schemes and community groups. I was at a conference on the Border recently organised by Sinn Féin and attended by people from south Armagh, south Down and north Louth where many of these issues were debated thoroughly.

I have already made the point that Sinn Féin wants to see a Brexit from Ireland. However, in the meantime we also want to see an all-Ireland approach to the European Union and, unlike Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, we remain very critical of many aspects of the EU and in particular the profound lack of democracy at its core. We want to see a social Europe, a Europe of equals, in which citizens, assemblies and parliaments have a greater say in formulating policy. It is possible. We want to see a European Union where the rights of citizens and member states are respected on the basis of equality.

The Council meeting next week will also provide political leaders with the opportunity to consider the outcome of the referendum, whatever it may be, and to determine how the EU should respond. I look forward to a debate in this House next week also.

Yesterday was World Refugee Day and the United Nations has released data which shows the number of people displaced by conflict is at the highest level since records began. The UN records estimate that 65.3 million people are either refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced at the end of 2015. Despite the Government’s pledge in September 2015 to take in 4,000 refugees, so far I understand only one Syrian family has been resettled in the State under the EU’s relocation programme. If this is true then it is unacceptable. In the face of such an unparalleled humanitarian crisis the Government needs to be doing more to ensure refugees have safe and legal routes to relocate in the State.

I join with the Taoiseach in commending the crew of theLE Róisínfor their valiant work in rescuing people who are in danger on the Mediterranean Sea. However, despite the efforts of these crews, according to the UN over 10,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea since 2014. Consider the figure of 10,000 people which is the size of a town and these include children and women. Some 2,814 people have drowned this year. That is the size of the crisis. When I hear people talking about the virtues of the EU and I see it against the backdrop of this situation it is very heart wrenching especially when we think of what our own Nation went through with regard to coffin ships and all that went with that. I note that Doctors Without Borders has announced it will no longer accept funds from the EU in protest at the EU's shameful policies on the refugee crisis, particularly the deal with Turkey.

I conclude by calling on the Taoiseach to raise once again the issue of Ibrahim Halawa. He is the only EU citizen who is currently facing a trial such as that facing him in Egypt. I wrote to the Taoiseach a few weeks ago on this issue. Ibrahim should be at home with his family and friends. Perhaps the Taoiseach could confirm that he will raise Ibrahim's case at the European Council meeting?

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Taoiseach, the European Commission is expected to put forward a proposal in early July declaring the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA as an EU-only deal. This means that the agreement, which will have serious ramifications for every EU member state, will only need to be passed by a qualified majority in the European Council and a simple majority in the European Parliament to be ratified. This approach is an attack on democracy and undermines the sovereignty of member states. It is an attempt to erode environmental, agricultural and labour standards in the EU without its citizens having any real say on the issue.

The legal advice commissioned by Sinn Féin states that any implementation of CETA, which includes an investor state court, will necessitate the holding of a referendum. Has the Taoiseach discussed this with the Attorney General and when does the Taoiseach envisage that this referendum will be held? Perhaps the Taoiseach could clarify if Ireland will argue that CETA will be an agreement of mixed competence. This would mean it will have to be ratified by national parliaments and in some countries by local parliaments. The European Court of Justice has yet to give its legal opinion on the nature of a free trade agreement with Singapore, which will not be expected before 2017. Surely it makes even more sense for the European Commission to make its decision on what type of agreement is being sought by CETA, which potentially is a groundbreaking agreement, after the court's judgment. I ask that the Taoiseach follows through on this logic, acts on behalf of the Irish people at the European Council meeting and demands that CETA is not, as expected, provisionally applied. This would be a logical position.

I will now turn to Apple. We have been told that the Apple tax case is due in early July. If the case goes the same way as recent cases involving Luxembourg, for example, then the State could be in line for a financial windfall. Tax would be due that should have been paid to the Irish Exchequer. Am I correct in saying that this Government, like the last one, insists that it will appeal any decision that finds that State aid was granted illegally? This is a bizarre approach and anybody who is listening at home might feel the same way given that the State could expect a financial return as high as €16 billion. Last week we had the farce of this Parliament, at the Government’s behest, objecting to EU moves to create greater tax transparency and now we have the Government saying that Apple’s legitimate tax should not be repaid to the Irish people if the European Commission finds for that. If the Commission says that Ireland is due tax back then we should take it. That would be the view shared by most people, particularly those who have been left with the financial burden of the bailout of banks, investors and speculators. That approach would also be supported by most taxpayers. Any other response is simply unacceptable especially when the State is seeing a lack of investment as was discussed in the House this morning.

If we want to reinvest we could consider other areas which have been favourable to Apple and its staff, such as water, health services, broadband, housing and transport. There are many ways we can put this money back into the Irish economy, supporting many of these multinationals operating in Ireland whose staff are located here.

The European Council will discuss EU-NATO co-operation ahead of the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8 and 9 July 2016. This is against a backdrop of NATO’s war games in Eastern Europe, which are at their most intense since the end of the Cold War. The further militarisation of the EU and its gradual integration into NATO are ongoing, but many of us on the left would say NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be decommissioned, instead of aggressively growing and encouraging more spending on weapons. We need to examine this area of greater integration between the EU and NATO. NATO needs to be stood down, decommissioned and consigned to the dustbin of history.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that this debate is taking place in the shadow of the murder of Jo Cox, MP, last week, as she was one of those who had argued for a vote for Britain to remain in the EU in this week's referendum.

The European Union was founded in the aftermath of two dreadful world wars and a period of fascism which saw many millions of people killed. The aim was to bring Europeans together to provide not just common markets but also a framework for prosperity and growth that would enable ordinary people in all European countries to live well and be employed and allow their children to get a decent education and progress. Countries would focus on having good primary social services, whether in health or education, alongside economies that would thrive and include public and private sectors.

What we have seen, and what faces the Taoiseach and his fellow members of the European People's Party, is a slow but steady drift of that broad European ideal to the right in several European countries in very difficult economic circumstances, the most scandalous and difficult of which is the widespread unemployment of young people. Many of those countries are prosperous enough on paper and some, like ours, are either in recovery or still in the depths of economic crashes and difficulties. It is understandable that people in many European countries feel that things they or their parents took for granted - constant and continuous incremental improvements in their lifestyle - are put under threat by changes that appear to come from a very remote location, Brussels, and from a leadership that is quite remote from most people, including those in their home countries. It is difficult to convey to anyone who goes to Europe as a Commissioner, as many from here have, that it does not reach citizens and there is a need for a profound change of style in respect of the European leadership. We have had so many and such frequent referendums in this country on major European changes that we are politically used to having to make the case, explain the advantages and likely disadvantages and help people weigh in the balance how they wish to cast their vote. I hope a majority of citizens in the UK, including people of Irish extraction who may be voting this week, will vote to stay. For many, given the difficulties they have experienced, it is a difficult choice and they feel threatened.

What is the Irish Government’s plan B if the vote does not go as the majority of parties here have urged? It will certainly cause a degree of shock and give rise to change. While I know the Government has been active and I asked the Taoiseach some time ago to have debates here on Brexit, I wonder whether there is a plan B.

I mention the murder of Jo Cox because there has been a development in politics of a language of hate as opposed to a language of argument. Everyone understands that politics involves argument, discussion, making choices and reaching decisions in everybody’s best interests. On the extreme right, however, no more than on the extreme left, there is a language of hate which is corroding most of our democracies and inhibiting good discussion that would help us reach better decisions. I have spoken about the spaces on social media which have sought, for instance, to demonise women, in particular, from a wide range of parties who are involved in politics. I know from extensive studies carried out by The Guardianunder the campaign entitled The Web We Want that approximately 80% of hate posts are directed against female parliamentarians and approximately 20% against male parliamentarians. If there is an opportunity to discuss this at Council level, it is important that we, as people involved in politics, think about how we might press the pause button on hate speech and vilification, which many - including, unfortunately, some in Ireland and indeed some who have been in the Dáil - resort to, rather than reasoned argument, explanation or persuasion. Argument can be very robust, but when we look back at the 1930s in Europe and the writers of that period and consider what gave rise to fascism, we see that much of what was said was to do with allowing a tone of hatred and vilification come to dominate public discourse. In that case, all of the ills of the world, particularly in Germany, were identified as originating with people who were Jewish and the campaign of vilification and hatred at that time was towards Jewish people. What will happen in respect of Europe this week is very important. Whatever happens, whether it is a narrow win or a loss, the European Union will be changed forever.

Given that we are, in many ways, Britain's closest neighbour and have extremely close family ties, I would like to suggest to the Taoiseach that perhaps he should use the result, whatever it is, as an opportunity to have a discussion about where Europe is at now. He should focus in particular on whether Europe is an entity that represents the aspirations of ordinary citizens or has been captured by people who are simply interested in business.

Business has its place and is very important. Foreign direct investment has been the keystone of the recovery of the Irish economy. In fact, what distinguished Ireland from other economies during our recent difficulties was the fact that we continued to have a very active foreign direct investment programme into Ireland. In many ways, it kept the Irish economy going, helped to improve it and enabled it to recover during the most difficult period.

There needs to be a discussion because if the European Union put forward further referendum proposals to this country, based on some of the ideals that have been put forward over the past few years in terms of ever-closer union, I am genuinely not sure that people in Ireland would accept any of that. Those of us who support the European Union, in particular women, are conscious of the fact that in a conservative society, as Ireland was in the 1970s, the ideas of the European Union, such as those relating to the equality and rights of women and workers, were an absolute breath of fresh air and were not deliverable at that time in an Irish context. The European Council should pause for reflection.

Europe has the resources to address the refugee crisis. In the middle of the crisis, Angela Merkel chose to invite people to Germany and said in a very trenchant way that Germany could deal with the people coming in. It is always difficult for people anywhere to have new people integrate among them but Angela Merkel is very clear-headed about that.

There have been scenes on the borders of Europe which are not acceptable. We have not seen such scenes since the height of the Second World War. We need to ensure that we play our part. When in government, I made a commitment that we would accept up to 4,500 asylum seekers and refugees and I regret to say that still has not been implemented. I would like the Taoiseach to tell us when he envisages that we will take our responsibilities in that respect seriously.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak for five minutes, during which time 125 people will be forcibly displaced from their homes, according to the UN report published yesterday, as a result of persecution, conflict, generalised violence and human rights violations. They will form part of the 65.3 million people who have been forcibly displaced worldwide, a 50% increase over the space of only five years. So many people have been displaced that if they made up a nation, it would be the 21st largest nation on earth. They have been forcibly displaced as a result of crises which largely have their roots in a system of capitalism and imperialism.

Forced migration is now a dominant feature of the world, driven by war. We know 85% of migrants who come to Greece come from countries that have seen western military intervention. The crisis is increasingly driven by climate change. James Hansen, perhaps the most respected climate scientist in the world, according to Naomi Klein, said that at our current emissions trajectory, we face the loss of all coastal cities, most of the world's large cities and all of their history, not in thousands of years' time, but as soon as the end of the century. Naomi Klein said if we do not demand radical change, we are headed for a whole world of people searching for homes that no longer exist.

What is the response of the European Union to this crisis? In this treaty, it says it is founded on the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy. The response is utterly disgusting. Donald Tusk - not Donald Trump - told all potential illegal economic migrants, wherever they are from, not to come to Europe. That is the message from the head of the European Union Council. Even the UN was forced to criticise that, and said to call people illegal migrants is a shortcut by European leaders and that people are coming to Europe because of ongoing wars.

The deal that has been concluded with Turkey is absolutely disgusting. It is the implementation of Donald Trump's policy in Europe and, in effect, turns Turkey into a massive prison camp with walls. Money from the European Union has been given to a major human rights abuser in order to keep migrants out of Europe. So bad is the situation that it has been condemned by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The decision taken by Médicine Sans Frontières to no longer accept desperately needed funds from the European Union because of these policies shows how bad the situation is. Its international secretary general said the EU-Turkey deal goes one step further and has placed the very concept of refugee and the protection it offers in danger.

What is European Union doing? It is making the Turkish model the generalised model. This is about the externalisation of European borders. The deal it did with Turkey it will now do with 17 other countries and this will be discussed at the European Council. In a communication on the partnership framework with third countries under the European agenda on migration, the Commission states that increasing coherence between migration and development policy is important to ensure that development assistance helps partner countries to manage migration more effectively and incentivises them to effectively co-operate on the readmission of irregular migrants. It goes on to say that the same should be true of trade policies, notably where the EU gives preferential treatment to its partners, and that migration co-operation should be a consideration in the forthcoming evaluation of trade preferences under GSB-Plus.

Like the old deal with Gaddafi in Libya, the EU will pay 17 countries, many of which have human rights abuses, to deal with the migration crisis. That pushes the problem further and further away. The reality is that one cannot stop migration in a world of deep poverty, inequality, climate change and war. If one tries to stop it, in reality all one will do is kill people. Charles Heller was right about the withdrawal of Operation Trident, which was replaced with Operation Mare Nostrum, when he said that European policymakers have made themselves guilty of killing by omission. It is even more generalised than that. That is the end result of the policy, of which the blocking of aid to Calais is a microcosm.

If we want a decent world where people are not forced to flee their homes, we have to stop the European Union policies and that of the dominant 1% right around the world. We need to tackle the problems of climate change and end war and co-operation with NATO, which is strongly pointed at in the draft conclusions, and I am interested in hearing the comments of the Taoiseach on that. We need to use the world's resources in the interests of the mass of people to raise living standards and ensure everybody has a decent standard of living.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the song "Imagine", John Lennon asked us to imagine if there were no countries and a brotherhood of man. That is the view held by socialists. We do not believe in national borders or frontiers. We believe there is one race, the human race. Frankly, I find it frustrating, to put it mildly, that a previous speaker suggested that those of us who are critical of the European Union and believe that we should exit it can somehow be associated with the vile xenophobia, racism and extreme forms of nationalism promoted by the fascist far right in Europe or the vile group UKIP, which happens to lead the campaign against the European Union and for exit, but on grounds with which we would have nothing to do.

We have nothing but contempt for UKIP and the far right. It is most disingenuous for some to suggest that in supporting the existing European Union and arguing for staying in it somehow what we are doing is protecting some beacon of civilised values and tolerance, decency and anti-racism when the opposite is the truth.

The European Union, as Deputy Paul Murphy has alluded to, is guilty of vile policies of racism against some of the most desperate people fleeing from countries outside Europe from war, poverty and famine and has developed an enormous machine to keep people out, to deny the brotherhood of man, to say Europe is only free if a person is white and European but if that person is not, we do not want him or her. The European Union has developed a significant machine and architecture to keep people from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere out. Between 2002 and 2013, a total of 39 research and development programmes aimed at policing borders have been implemented by the EU and its affiliate, the European Space Agency, at a cost of €250 million. The projects have been for the development of fingerprint scanners, migrant detection drones, vehicles, satellite surveillance and overground and underwater border patrols, all designed to keep people out. FRONTEX, the EU-wide project for establishing the external borders of the European Union, has spent €1 billion, four times the other amount to which I referred, keeping immigrants out, supported by all the European Governments and European policy. That figure is further dwarfed by the amount individual states have spent policing their own borders as part of fortress Europe.

It is Europe itself that has given credence and opened up the ground for the far right by treating migrants, immigrants and refugees as if they are a problem, encouraging and giving solace to the more dangerous forces of the far right who then take it one step further. The EU-Turkey agreement is the absolute embodiment of that. It is a sickening agreement whereby we essentially outsource the border control of Europe to a nasty regime that is guilty of systematic, ongoing human rights abuses against its own population. Since we signed the agreement whereby we expel immigrants from Syria and elsewhere back to Turkey, Turkey has started shooting those very people. How could we be in any way surprised that it would do so? We must end the hypocrisy and the tyranny of fortress Europe and give real meaning to words such as “tolerance” and “internationalism” to which many look to the European Union to uphold but which the European Union has not matched with deeds but with the vile policies of fortress Europe.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Clare Daly. I will take four minutes and she will have six minutes.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday was World Refugee Day and we know from the UNHCR that some 60 million people have been displaced, with thousands of people fleeing their homes every day. I was struck by a quote from it yesterday which said, “The world commemorates the strength, courage and resilience of millions of refugees”. They are very fine words but the reality is suffering, hardship and terrible human rights abuses of those refugees. The attitude of Europe also leaves a lot to be desired because Europe is pushing people and their suffering away from Europe. In so many cases, it is the imperialistic policies of European countries that are the contributing factors to what is causing people to leave their homes in many countries. It is also the inactivity of Europe, the UN and the role of certain other countries with vested interests that allows the Syrian situation to fester with such appalling results and with no end in sight.

The EU-Turkey deal on migration is appalling. What it means is thousands of refugees, especially unaccompanied minors, living in unacceptable humanitarian conditions, so much so that the reputable organisation, Médecins sans Frontières, which has suffered so much itself, for example, when 22 of its personnel were killed in air strikes on its trauma centre in northern Afghanistan, that it refuses to take EU funding.

Let us look at migration in a pragmatic way and examine whether, if the issues causing people to flee were addressed, people would want to stay in their country of origin. We know that what causes people to leave is conflict, human rights abuses and food insecurity - often caused by famine due to climate change. Food insecurity can also result from trade agreements, which brings me to the economic partnership agreements, EPAs, on which we got a full 20 minute debate in this House. I had an opportunity to speak at the African, Caribbean and Pacific, ACP, group of states joint parliamentary assembly with the EU some weeks ago where I met a number of African parliamentarians. I was struck by two issues, first, the complete lack of knowledge of EPAs on the part of some parliamentarians. They never heard of them yet they are sitting in parliaments that are going to ratify the agreements. That is undermining European credibility that they expect that to happen. Second, I met other parliamentarians who were very knowledgeable about EPAs and see positive aspects to them but they are also concerned that they will undermine sustainable livelihoods, increase food insecurity and the country’s ability to feed itself and then instead of lifting people out of poverty it will plunge them further into poverty, increased dependency on aid and increase migration.

By being more proactive about food security and ensuring that economic partnership agreements have the interests of developing countries at heart, and not just the driver being European economic growth, we can ensure better sustainable livelihoods for people living in developing countries. If Europe is more proactive on human rights as well, that would play a significant part in people wanting to stay in their own countries. It would also ensure a massive impetus in terms of youth employability which is causing many problems in developing countries. People can have good lives in their own countries. The European Commission must listen to the concerns on EPAs by national parliaments which have to ratify them. I hope the parliaments that do not ratify the EPAs do not face possible fines. European credibility is at stake and the European Council must rethink those matters. I am struck by what President Higgins said yesterday about the European Union. He said it must again come to represent a model of balance between market, society and the environment.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Attempts to use the horrific murder of Jo Cox to drum up support against Brexit, as the leader of the Labour Party attempted to do, is reprehensible. She seemed to be an incredibly decent human being whose values will be well remembered given her role in dealing with refugees. Against that backdrop and in extending sympathy to her family and friends, we must mark the fact that the number of displaced persons on a global scale has reached 65 million. That is an indictment of Western society in particular and of the European Union which has stood four-square behind US imperialism in intervening in the Middle East in particular. I find it somewhat ironic that people are organising protests against the visit of Donald Trump, reprehensible and all as he is, but nonetheless he is an individual who has never been elected to office in the United States or here yet they allow the visit of Joe Biden, the associate of a war criminal, to come into this country without batting an eyelid.

Could the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, clarify what we are saying when we go into EU meetings about refugees? Points have been made about the deplorable agreement with Turkey and the scandalous role of that country in terms of human rights, such as building a wall along its southern borders, which makes it increasingly difficult for Syrians to seek safety. We hear from Turkish diplomats that it is to stop extremists getting into Turkey but that does not tally with the brutal assassination and shooting dead of eight Syrians on the Turkish border, three children, four women and one man, last weekend.

It is known that when Syrians enter Turkey, the reality there is incredibly bleak. While we are told they can get permits now and can get work, everyone is aware that the reality is otherwise. It is that Syrians, many of whom are highly qualified and some of whom are children, are working for a pittance on the black market. A total of 2.6 million registered Syrian refugees live in Turkey, more than half of whom are children. According to UNICEF, more than 80% of those children are not in education, and some of them are working in sweatshops, farms and so on for slave wages. This is the type of fortress Europe that is being built, and the EU-Turkey deal is absolutely draconian and incredibly regressive. The Council of Europe even went so far as to state it "at best strains and at worst exceeds the limits of what is permissible under European and international law". In a further regressive move on Friday, the Greek Government sidelined members of an independent authority that had blocked the deportation of Syrian refugees. The appeals committee had argued that Turkey does not uphold refugee law and therefore is not a safe country to which to return refugees, and I agree with that statement.

The EU-Turkey deal and the connected asylum proposals are part of a despicable and systemic attempt to push people and their suffering back off Europe's doorstep. Only two weeks ago, The Guardianpublished the official European Union documents outlining what is a new migration strategy. To stop refugees from reaching southern Europe from Africa, European leaders actually are proposing to partner with Sudan, the president of which is wanted for war crimes, and with Eritrea, the government of which is accused of crimes against humanity by the United Nations. Is this the type of Europe with which the Government wants Ireland to be associated? This is a replacement for Gaddafi's camps, which used to operate for the European Union. On top of this, I refer to the EU's May proposals to deal with the perceived refugee crisis, which actually is a European crisis for refugees. This is about clamping down on the free movement of people, no matter what the affront to international and human rights laws. Some of the most repressive proposals centre on amendments to the Dublin regulation. To give effect to new proposals, EU members will be obliged to exhaust all avenues to kick asylum applications back to the so-called safe third countries, which they are not, or the first countries of asylum. Does the Minister of State seriously suggest that Sudan and Eritrea will suddenly be designated as safe countries despite clear evidence to the contrary? It absolutely is against all best international human rights law, and, as other Deputies have stated accurately, we are outsourcing our migration control and setting a really poor example. This is causing untold misery to refugees and does not stop them from leaving their countries of origin. As Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan noted, the only way to stop refugees is to stop interfering in their countries. The first thing one can do is to end war and militarism, because nobody wants to move and leave his or her home.

All Europe is doing is enriching smugglers. One need only read the report published in The Guardian at the weekend about the trafficking of young children in Calais and Dunkirk. There have been appalling violations. What is the Minister of State doing to further the proposition that Ireland could use a process of humanitarian visas? It is a system that already exists and that could be put in place for unaccompanied minors, many of whom are almost on our shores in Calais and Dunkirk. They have been through extreme trauma and are entitled to a safe passage and safe haven. Why is Ireland not leading the charge in this regard? Professor Catheryn Costello hit the nail on the head when she stated:

By ignoring the predictable need for refuge, Europe creates a humanitarian crisis at its external borders, and a political one as arrivals continue to be chaotic and unmanaged. ... The alternative is to make humanitarian visas accessible, provide people with ... asylum and [so on].

Is the Minister of State going out and sending his officials to invite people to seek safe haven in Ireland? That is a policy with which Irish citizens would agree.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next speaker is Deputy Eamon Ryan, who has ten minutes. Does anybody else wish to speak?

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Catherine Murphy and I are sharing time, with five minutes each.

Declan Breathnach (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. Deputy Ryan may proceed.

Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Friends who have visited refugee centres in Greece tell me they are not organised and are chaotic. Consequently, I was glad to note in the Taoiseach's comments here that the number of people coming to Ireland under that process is starting to increase. I would appreciate it were the Government to arrange for the relevant officials to brief my party in more detail as to how exactly this will work, obviously outside the confines of the Chamber. I would appreciate acquiring a real and deep understanding of the process and would greatly appreciate it were the Minister of State to ensure this took place.

Obviously, the Council meeting will be dominated by the outcome of the Brexit referendum to be held in the United Kingdom next Thursday. If I may, I will start thinking of what the debate might be about or what might be the approach at the Council should the United Kingdom vote to remain in the EU. In preparing for this, I encourage the Taoiseach to consider some of the forthcoming items on the Council's agenda and to give thought to how he might use this as an opportunity for enhanced co-operation and for bringing some of those benefits that all Members present have sought from the Union but that are not always delivered. I understand from listening to the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, over the years that he has a particular concern regarding the development of an integrated digital market and an integrated energy market in Europe. These are often what he talks about as the benefits he wishes to take advantage of. On both, I believe there are possible gains for Ireland in taking that agenda and running with it, supporting it or seeking to ensure it serves our needs. As the Minister of State is aware, Ireland has a huge high-tech digital services industry. He also is aware that to get that right, Ireland must be the very best in respect of the protection of citizens' rights, with an ethical digital regulatory system regarding data privacy issues, free access to information and an innovative culture which, in our case, is not simply serving the interests of large corporations or the State. I believe we will work best and be most successful when we have a citizen-centred digital environment augmented by European rules that support it. If there is agreement on Brexit whereby the UK decides to remain - God help us if there is not and it decides to leave, which is a very different scenario - I argue the Taoiseach should seek to take the opportunity to consider that item on the agenda on opening up the full potential of the digital single market and making sure it is fashioned in a way that suits our purposes.

Similarly, I refer to the investment plan and the European Fund for Strategic Investments. I must declare a certain interest in this because, for the past five years, before returning to this Chamber, I have been working on issues such as the development of the North Sea's offshore grid, which was the area with the largest allocation of funding for Irish projects within the European Fund for Strategic Investments. It is clear that many of the investments for which we had been approved will now not happen because, in a sense, we have stalled in the development of our own clean energy programme. Consequently, I believe there also is an opportunity in this area, should there be an agreement for the UK to stay, to work much more proactively with the UK in the development of a regional electricity market and common infrastructure. In many ways, such development is connected to the digital single market issue because, if we develop such a co-ordinated energy market, there will be significant opportunities in digital services for energy efficiency and so on. This is a second area in which I believe the Taoiseach, if he is proactive, could work with the Prime Minister of the UK to develop our European Union regional market in electricity, which also would benefit us in allowing us to tap into the strategic investment funds that are available. More widely, I believe the Taoiseach should use the opportunity to seek much greater flexibility in the strategic investment area - for example, in the debate in the House last week on housing plans - as to how we would get Europe to agree to some of the investments that must be made. I believe it should be possible for us to radically increase the capital funding for social housing using a cost rental model, which would have a fundable stream. The Taoiseach should use this opportunity at the European Council, hopefully in a positive environment, to steer the European Fund for Strategic Investments in our direction. I commend him to use that opportunity.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is fairly difficult to predict the agenda of the Council meeting because the Brexit referendum either will dominate or will not.

The concern is that it will dominate the agenda and overshadow some of the other issues which are of critical importance, none less so than the refugee crisis. The handling of the crisis by Europe should be at the core of what is discussed along with changing the direction of how it has been handled. The EU has faced two major challenges in recent years: the financial crash and now the refugee crisis. One cannot but look and say it has failed miserably on both fronts. It has failed because one of the founding principles of the EU, as opposed to the EEC, was solidarity, yet one is not seeing that in evidence, certainly in the case of the refugee crisis. Neither was it seen in the response to the financial crash, which was very much about the intergovernmental approach, the strong and the idea of a collection of nation states, which was not what was intended. The EU will fail if it proceeds in that fashion.

It is essential that the EU is democratic and that solidarity is at its heart. I quote Mr. Jürgen Habermas, whom our President quoted in a speech he gave a few years ago to the European Parliament. He was speaking prior to the refugee crisis.

If one wants to preserve the monetary union, it is no longer enough, given the structural imbalances between the national economies, to provide loans to over-indebted states so that each should improve its competitiveness by its own efforts. What is required is solidarity instead, a co-operative effort from a shared political perspective to promote growth and competitiveness in the eurozone as a whole.

We did not see that, but it is still possible to see it. There is a willingness from those in power to distance themselves from the humanitarian crisis by referring to it more as a "migrant crisis". It is interesting that al-Jazeera, for example, has refused to use the term, preferring to use "refugee crisis". That is what it is: a refugee crisis.

There must be a complete shift. Even our own very limited offering of assistance has not lived up to its expectations. The decision to send refugees to Turkey was very shameful on behalf of the EU. We might ask ourselves, "What if it was us?". It was us. We have had big migrations. One can look at the 19th century where people who were poverty-stricken and sick left this country and ended up in other countries, yet the narrative around refugees, migrants or the big exodus that is happening is all about negativity. We celebrate our diaspora and talk about the positive contribution that they can make. However, that narrative is not feeding into the discussions that are going on at the moment with regard to this refugee crisis.

In the short time that remains, I wish to talk about the European fund for strategic investments. We had a debate here recently where there was a document sent. It was a debate over a couple of days on the stability programme update. Essentially, we told the European Commission that housing was a medium-term risk. We have a housing crisis here and yet we did not properly reflect that in the documents that we sent to the European Commission. Unless we call it what it is and share that information, we are going to run into some difficulties in resolving the problem. Given the level of our indebtedness, we are simply going to have to leverage funds off balance sheet. Some of the large-scale funds are obvious, such as the credit unions, which have money, and others. The European Investment Bank is one of those areas. It is also one of those areas in which we can make sure we do not incur costs on the other side. For example, with regard to the climate issue, there is the choice between the obligation to spend money on fines or to plan not to have fines and do the right thing. The European Investment Bank is going to be critically important in doing some of that work. It is really important that we properly articulate what the needs of this country are and how that European Investment Bank can be something that would be productive and that can be used in solidarity for things that progress us as a people and a continent.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start by addressing the request from Deputy Ryan for a briefing from the Department. It would of course be the Department of Justice and Equality and we will see that it takes place and that it is in contact. Many of the Members present would be European affairs spokespersons for their parties. Perhaps it might be up to each party to see who they would send. We will make sure that it happens.

In the recent reappointments, the Deputy referenced the importance of the digital single market and the energy union. The Deputy is absolutely correct, particularly with respect to energy union as a peripheral nation, as well as the digital single market. They have huge potential for the country, the people who live here and the EU collectively. Both issues have been supported by the UK in the past and we have shown good camaraderie in that space, irrespective of the vote on Thursday. We will be pursuing both of them.

Clearly, we very much hope that the 28 member states will remain as members of the EU. I acknowledge that, in the main, the cross-party support for that has been very significant. I believe all of the largest of the political parties in this House have played a very measured role in making the case simply, fairly and in a measured way that it is important from an economic of view for our small country that the UK as our largest trading partner remains a member state. More important than the economics are the strong relationship we have now, the difficult period we have travelled together with regard to Northern Ireland and the significantly improved relations. The fact that potentially the only border between the EU and the UK could be in Northern Ireland is difficult and would present difficulties for us. We have a common travel area. We joined the EU together so we have never had a relationship where one was in and one was out of the EU.

Most importantly of all, as many Members have said, the EU has been a journey that has been shared by many member states since its foundation. We must remember the fundamental reasons for the establishment of the EU. The reason for the first coal and steel agreement, following through to the set up of the European Economic Community, EEC, was to allow the countries to come together to try to work together and avoid a situation repeated in which Europe settles its differences by disputes. To some extent, in that emotional argument, despite the acceptance that the EU has many failings - different parties disagree about those failings - we fundamentally believe that working together from the inside out is the way to work for the EU.

With respect to the points made about the EU-Turkey deal and the crisis, Deputy Murphy is correct about the distraction that the UK referendum has perhaps provided. I can assure the Deputy and all Deputies of the House that the European Council will continue to focus, irrespective of the vote, on the migration crisis. It is important to acknowledge, and we do acknowledge, that there are very significant issues involving elements of agreements with third countries and transit countries. The deal between Europe and Turkey at its core was to break the business model of the traffickers who have previously been mentioned. Since 1 May, daily arrivals into Greece are down from 1,700 to just 4% of that figure. Since 20 March, seven lives have tragically been lost.

This is seven lives too many. However, in January, 89 people lost their lives. The purpose is to stop and break the business model of the smugglers and to discourage people from crossing the sea. This is being done in the interest of trying to save lives. It has not been completely successful but it has gone a long way in that regard. Also, there is an acceptance that a move towards a fortress Europe would be misguided and would be unlikely to work. It is for that reason that discussions with countries of transit and of origin are so important. While some speakers said that countries are being paid off, the reality is that many of these countries are going through severe financial difficulty and money is required to support how they aid and assist migrants when they are in their countries. We must work in that space. Of course, we must also continue to work with and encourage all countries of transit to have the highest standards.

I thank the Members for their contributions. It will be Tuesday week, because of the European Council, that the Taoiseach will be back to brief the House after the Council meeting. I echo the commentary that we in Ireland very much hope that the Irish community and the people who can vote in the referendum will look to the great benefit that the European Union has been for all 28 member states, particularly for our small country, and get out and vote. Hopefully, the UK will continue to be a member of the European Union.