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

I attended meetings of the European Council in Brussels on 9 and 10 March. As Deputies are aware, I also held a short bilateral meeting there with the British Prime Minister, Theresa May. The European Council agenda included decisions about the President of the European Council and the European Public Prosecutor's Office and discussions on migration, jobs, growth and competitiveness, security and defence and, under external relations, the situation in the western Balkans. The European Council meeting on 9 March was followed by a meeting the next morning of the 27 EU member states without the UK. At that meeting, we discussed the future direction of Europe and the upcoming events to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

During my bilateral meeting with Prime Minister May on 9 March, we discussed the situation in Northern Ireland and agreed on the need to re-establish the power-sharing institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. I underlined the importance of making progress regarding legacy issues. We also discussed the implications of the UK's decision to leave the EU and the need to ensure that this does not lead to the reimposition of a hard border on the island of Ireland. I stressed that this presents a significant political challenge and will require a political solution.

Since my meeting with Prime Minister May, the UK Government has completed its internal legal procedures and has indicated that it will trigger Article 50 on 29 March. I hope that we will now see greater clarity on the UK approach to the negotiation process, including how it is prioritising its issues and, in particular, the UK's proposed approach to avoiding any reintroduction of a hard border on this island. Once Article 50 has been triggered, the other 27 EU member states, including Ireland, will discuss and agree our guidelines for the negotiations ahead. The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, has indicated this morning that the meeting of the 27 Heads of State and Government to finalise those guidelines will take place on 29 April. The negotiating process will no doubt be complex and lengthy. However, Ireland has been engaged in intensive preparations since well before the UK referendum last June. This has included co-ordinated analysis of all the issues across Government and extensive consultation, including through the all-island civic dialogue, as well as with a range of stakeholders. Through the Cabinet Committee on Brexit, which I chair, we have identified our particular concerns and priorities and developed our positions ahead of the negotiations. We will publish a summary version of those positions soon after Article 50 has been triggered. Our headline priorities are clear. We want to continue to facilitate trade on the island of Ireland and between Ireland and Great Britain, protect the achievement of the Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement and maintain the common travel area. We also, of course, want to influence the future direction of the EU itself. I have highlighted and explained our particular priorities in all my meetings with my EU counterparts. Ministers have also raised them at every opportunity as part of the ongoing and intensive Government programme of engagement with EU member states and the EU institutions. I believe there is now a good understanding, including in the Barnier task force, of Ireland's unique set of circumstances relating to Brexit and a willingness to work together to address them.

Returning to the European Council itself, proceedings opened on 9 March with an exchange with the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani - the first since his election to the role. The Prime Minister of Malta, Joseph Muscat, then chaired a session in which the position of President of the European Council was considered. Although there was broad support for Donald Tusk's mandate to be extended, Poland had earlier proposed an alternative candidate thereby creating a unique situation in which a candidate did not have the backing of his own country. However, the 27 other member states supported Mr. Tusk and he was elected for a further two and a half year term. Unfortunately, as a result of being outvoted, the Polish Prime Minister did not formally endorse the European Council conclusions despite having no issue with the substance of the text. These were, however, adopted as the conclusions of the President of the European Council. We then took a decision to allow for the European Public Prosecutor's Office to be established under enhanced co-operation. This is an initiative in which Ireland does not participate because of our Protocol 21 exclusion.

Turning to the item on migration, the High Representative, Federica Mogherini, provided an update on the current situation along the migratory routes. The progress in implementing the Malta declaration, which has a particular focus on Libya and the central Mediterranean route, was welcomed. Migration will be discussed again in greater detail at the June European Council.

Ireland continues to play an active role, both within the context of the EU response and at our own initiative. With regard to resettlement, that is, refugees coming from outside the EU, 672 people have arrived in Ireland since August 2015 under the relevant strand of the Irish refugee protection programme. In terms of relocation from within the EU, 320 people have arrived and we are expecting to receive more than 1,000 by next September. Furthermore, Ireland has provided more than €70 million since 2012 in response to those affected by the Syrian crisis. We have also contributed a series of fully-crewed naval vessels to help with humanitarian search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean and these have rescued 15,621 migrants over the past two years.

Mario Draghi joined the discussion for the next agenda item on jobs, growth and competitiveness. He provided an overview of the economic situation, the economic policy of the euro area, growth and unemployment. There was broad agreement that economic conditions are improving, although unemployment still remains too high and recovery remains uncertain. We welcomed the extension of the European Fund for Strategic Investments and agreed to push ahead with structural reforms. I have spoken many times in the House of the importance which we attach to the Single Market and the digital single market and I was pleased that there was agreement at the European Council to press ahead with the strategies in these areas and to review progress in June.

Our discussions under this heading also addressed trade. We agreed that this remains one of the most powerful engines for growth - supporting millions of jobs and contributing to prosperity. This is a position which Ireland fully supports. We welcomed the CETA agreement with Canada and expressed our determination to push ahead with other agreements while at the same time equipping ourselves with WTO-compliant tools to tackle unfair practices. The Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, will address some of these issues in his address.

Under security and defence, there was a stocktaking of progress since the December meeting of the European Council, when we had a substantial discussion on the issue, and taking account of the meeting of foreign and defence Ministers on 6 March, when some key issues were reviewed. These included crisis management structures in the common security and defence policy, CSDP; permanent structured co-operation, PESCO; the co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD; and developing civilian capabilities.

The CSDP is designed to advance the role of the EU in crisis management and peacekeeping in support of international peace and security. We support such initiatives, particularly those in support of the UN, and take a constructive and realistic approach. Taking forward work on the crisis management structures of the CSDP has involved the establishment of a new military planning and conduct capability, MPCC, for training and capacity building missions. Our view is that an appropriately configured MPCC, supported through effective joint co-ordination, could potentially deliver more effective CSDP operations. The key objective is to better plan and organise civil and military missions so as to maximise efficiencies, delivering a comprehensive approach in EU conflict management operations in accordance with UN mandates.

Permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, provides a mechanism whereby military crisis management capabilities can be developed by member states in support of CSDP operations. Ireland can support the development of an inclusive PESCO which delivers essential capabilities for CSDP operations in the area of international crisis management. I point out that participation in PESCO is entirely voluntary.

The co-ordinated annual review on defence, CARD, will focus on capability development and the potential to address shortfalls. Again, participation is voluntary. Formal proposals from the High Representative in these areas are being discussed in Council fora. We will continue to consider these proposals carefully, as well as other relevant developments, to ensure that all decisions add value to EU international peace support efforts and are grounded in the EU treaties and related protocols. The European Council also considered internal security, highlighting the need for progressing the entry and exit system and the European travel information and authorisation system, both of which are in the context of implementing the renewed EU internal security strategy for 2015 to 2020.

The last item was the western Balkans. The countries in this region face many challenges, both internal and external, and ongoing reform and regional co-operation is essential. We reaffirmed our unequivocal support for the European perspective of the countries of the western Balkans. Recognising the transformative effect of enlargement and integration, we fully support the European Council's approach to the region.

On Friday, 10 March, the Heads of State and Government of the 27 EU member states met to continue our discussion on the future direction of the union in advance of our meeting later this week to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. There we will agree a declaration outlining the many achievements of the European project, the importance of our core values and how best to respond to the challenges that we face.

We welcomed the White Paper recently published by the European Commission and its useful outlining of a range of possible future scenarios for the EU. From our point of view, l have been clear throughout this debate that our core European values are central to our future peace and prosperity, that we need to remain united and that we must continue to focus on where we can work together and add value. I have stressed the need to press ahead, in particular in relation to jobs, growth and investment. Two concrete examples of where this should happen are the Single Market and the digital single market.

Brexit did not feature on the agenda of the meetings. However, once Prime Minister May has formally triggered Article 50 on 29 March, Brexit will be the focus of discussion among the 27. As I noted, the next meeting to agree the guidelines will take place on 29 April. As I also noted, the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, will address some of the economic points in more detail in his concluding remarks.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This week the leaders of Europe will gather in Rome to mark the founding event of what is known today as the European Union. In the face of

enormous opposition from the far right and far left, the nations of Europe built a community defined by peace and rises in standards of living unmatched in any other period. It remains a flawed entity, but its achievements can only be denied by those committed more to their ideological purity than to recognising the facts. Yet this is not a moment for celebration. Europe and the European Union continue to face grave threats, both from those within, who demand a return to a past of competing nation states, and those

outside its borders, who feel threatened by respect for democracy and human rights.

Just as with the Austrian presidential election, the Dutch election has confirmed yet again that the only way to deal with extremism is to confront it. The core values of Europe, so derided by its enemies, are strong and will continue to resonate with the people if those who believe in liberal democracy are willing to speak up and defend those values. I congratulate our ALDE colleagues in the Netherlands on their successful campaigns and the fact that the liberal block emerged the strongest. The Volkspartij voor Brijheid en Democratie, VVD, and Democraten 66, D66, did the cause of democracy and co-operation a great service.

The anti-EU alliance between the extremes certainly involves some different arguments. The right says that destroying the EU will enable a radical free trade agenda and reduce labour market regulation. The left says that destroying the EU will enable a radical anti-free trade agenda and increase labour market regulation. To the anti-EU parties there is almost no problem that cannot be blamed on Brussels and they are relentless in their promotion of this approach, even when, like for one party, a 40 year record of attacking the EU on every issue is now combined with a tactical support of membership. This is the first known case in history of politicians condemning a club as a militaristic monstrosity while angrily demanding to be in it.

There is no better demonstration of what happens when this corrosive anti-EU rhetoric is allowed to fester than the situation in Britain. For years an increasingly hysterical anti-EU sentiment was allowed to develop, with the EU being the all-purpose whipping boy for those who longed nostalgically for some bygone era of national greatness. It culminated in an ugly, dishonest and at times sinister campaign which won a narrow majority for leaving the EU. Nine months later, the Government in London and the people who most actively sought this result have not produced a single piece of paper demonstrating any clear outcome from this decision.

In case anyone is fooled by the rhetoric claiming how the economy is going fine, the facts show that deep, long-term damage is under way. A massive decline in the value of sterling and dramatic interventions by the Bank of England have given a short-term injection to the UK economy, but inflation is on its way up and many sectors of the economy have begun to slow. Borrowing is up, social spending is down and a future of radical free trade and loose regulation is being lined up.

For those on the left, like our own People Before Profit and some Independents, who supported the Tory right in their Brexit push, the reality is that they have shown common cause with policies which will do deep and permanent damage to the interests of the weakest in society. They will deny this, but the hard facts speak louder.

The declaration to be issued in Rome is, quite frankly, of no great importance.

The draft does not and cannot do more than provide a broad statement of intent, whereas specific actions are now required. Within days of the Rome event, we will begin a two-year period of negotiations where the stakes for Ireland could not be higher.

The all-Ireland dialogue confirmed the very real fears of businesses and communities on both sides of the Border about what will happen to them in the years after Brexit. For some, these fears are already being realised. Brexit throws a grenade into the middle of a system of mutual relations which has delivered much and could deliver much more if the potential of North-South co-operation were realised.

At the start of the negotiations, the only honest assessment is that the London Government is a major obstacle to mitigating the most appalling impacts of Brexit on this island. From soon after the new Cabinet took up office, its behaviour has been unhelpful. It took months before confirming fundamental points and it has taken a hardline approach to the substance of the negotiations, albeit often using a pleasant tone. Thus far, prejudice against the European Union has triumphed. Irrespective of the assurances given during the referendum on maintaining access to the Single Market and customs union, it appears the British Government's dismissiveness of the European Court of Justice has become so consuming that excluding the court from any role in EU-UK relations has become a defining issue. As such, most reasonable transitory arrangements may become impossible.

On the issue of the so-called divorce elements of the talks, it is not sustainable for London to claim the right to walk away from financial commitments it played a full role in contracting. While the figure will certainly not be anywhere near that being briefed by Brussels, it will be significant. If the hardline position being briefed from Whitehall is maintained, it will reinforce the need for Ireland to be prepared for the worst possible outcome from these negotiations. A chaotic hard Brexit is entirely possible. The ESRI has predicted that such a scenario would almost immediately reduce growth, increase unemployment and squeeze public finances in the Republic. It remains the Fianna Fáil Party's position that the Government must demonstrate that it has contingencies in place for such an outcome. There was, however, no evidence of this in the recent budget.

For Ireland, the negotiations are complex and must be approached in the context of three fundamental concerns, namely, North-South relations, Irish-British relations and ongoing relations with the European Union. Many warm words have been spoken but no concrete substance provided on how to protect North-South economic and social relations. As we saw again last week, London has taken the approach of listening intensely before ignoring the concerns of the devolved administrations. The so-called great repeal Bill is likely to be a vehicle for taking power from Brussels and consolidating it in London. There is something unsettling in people talking about how much they value the devolved administrations and then refusing to concede anything to them. This is being taken by many in the non-English administrations as condescension.

Concerns in respect of Northern Ireland will not be addressed by some technological solution which speeds up traffic at the Border. The reality of a customs border and the absence of guarantees provided by the Single Market will be still harsh no matter how seamless new regulations may prove to be. It remains the case that a form of special status for Northern Ireland and the counties with the deepest interconnection with Northern Ireland is the only way to mitigate the worst impact of Brexit. Free trade zones or special economic zones are common throughout the world. There are options available which would remove the impact of trade barriers on interlinked supply chains. To take one very small example, the need to obtain a transit international routier or TIR card every time a Donegal business exports through Derry would be an absurd imposition which could be avoided with a special status arrangement. These things can happen, however, only if someone first asks for them but it has been established that London is not seeking any special deal for Northern Ireland or part thereof.

The common travel area and barrier-free borders are essential but they cannot be the limit of what we are pushing for. The uniform message from Brussels is that Ireland needs to be more assertive in proposing solutions, rather than simply pointing to problems. In this context, we must state forcefully to London that it is taking Northern Ireland down a destructive path.

Irish-British relations are already changing profoundly. A worrying development has been that London is increasingly adopting a spirit of unilateralism. The worst example of this is in respect of Northern Ireland, with British ministers repeatedly refusing to give a basic assurance that no attempt will be made to change provisions of the peace settlement without full agreement. Fianna Fáil is absolutely clear that we will vote against any attempt to undermine the principles which underpin the settlement, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement, subsequent agreements and the Northern Ireland Act. To prevent further drift to unilateralism by London we should seek the creation of a formal and permanent structure for Dublin-London dialogue and agreement. The absence of ongoing meetings in the context of the European Union must be addressed.

Ireland is short-handed, as we simply do not have a sufficient number of people working in our diplomatic service or in dedicated Europe focused roles. While we are making more visits, we lack a sufficiently large presence to be fully on top of a large and complex negotiation and to have our voice heard in a future European Union where we no longer have one of our closest allies on many issues over many years.

This short series of statements does not provide the opportunity to delve fully into Brexit issues. Once the Article 50 process has been triggered and President Tusk has sent his response on behalf of the Council, we should hold a full debate in the House on negotiating terms before the Taoiseach attends the subsequent summit.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the next few weeks, major steps will be taken in shaping the future of Ireland, Britain and Europe. Brexit is one of the defining issues of this generation. It is the job of the Government and Dáil to play a more active and constructive role in both analysing problems and offering real solutions.

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

I apologise on behalf of Deputy Gerry Adams who is unable to attend today. Deputies will be aware of where he is and what he is doing.

The issue of Brexit has been raised by Deputies in this debate and during Oral Questions earlier. We were repeatedly informed that the most recent meeting of the European Council would project an image of unity among member states ahead of the Brexit negotiations and the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. The meeting was, however, coloured by the Polish Government's attempt to remove Donald Tusk as the President of the European Council. When it failed to stop Mr. Tusk's re-election Poland blocked the Council conclusions from being unanimously agreed. This dispute overshadowed the rather rosy picture of the European Union the governments of member states wanted to paint. Not surprisingly, therefore, the conclusions of the meeting released by President Tusk's office did not refer to Brexit.

The Taoiseach held a bilateral meeting with the British Prime Minister and we now know precisely when the British Government plans to trigger Article 50, namely, on 29 March. Against all sense and democratic reason, the British Government is persisting with its plan to impose Brexit on Ireland. Its determination to impose Brexit on the North despite the vote of its population underlines the undemocratic nature of partition and the unequal relationship between London and Belfast. The clock is ticking on this issue.

We must act urgently and decisively by standing up for the national interest at European level to secure special designated status for the North within the European Union in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. This is the only logical way to avoid a hard economic Border, job losses and business closures. It is also the demand of the Oireachtas following the passage of Sinn Féin's motion on Brexit calling for such status.

We must also address major economic issues such as securing a relaxation of the fiscal rules to enable Ireland to adequately respond to the damage Brexit will inevitably do. We need capital investment to upgrade the road network and other transport infrastructure, including external transport hubs such as ports and airports.

Will the Minister of State confirm that the Taoiseach discussed with the British Prime Minister the issue of providing special status for the North? The Taoiseach was asked a specific question on this issue but it remains unclear as to whether he raised the matter at the meeting. Will the Government press to have special status and other issues that have been raised with EU governments addressed before 29 March?

5 o’clock

This Saturday, EU Heads of State will meet to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. During this ceremonial summit, it is reported that the leaders will recommit their vow to European integration in a short political declaration but, again, this anniversary is not the time for celebrations or another excuse for the status quoto continue. The EU needs to begin fundamental change if people are to have any faith in it. Further erosion of the national sovereignty of member states is clearly not the answer and we cannot move towards a more neoliberal, centralised Europe at the expense of ordinary people who, in many cases, cannot even put food on the table or maintain a roof over their heads. If there is to be meaningful change, the Union needs to step up and prioritise public investment in infrastructure, health, housing and building the real economy. We also need democratic and transparent accountability over the European institutions and the euro. Rather than putting a sticking plaster on the huge cracks and faults within the EU and simply looking back at the signing of the Treaty of Rome, leaders need to look forward to the now and begin the fundamental task of fixing the problems that are evident for all to see. What is certainly not required is the increasing transfer of sovereign powers to Brussels. The EU needs to adopt a new approach and begin to use its vast array of powers to deliver the positive change for European citizens within its remit and, where possible, appropriately help member states. We need to build a progressive, prosperous and social Europe which respects sovereignty, a Europe that does not express meaningless drivel and vague notions of solidarity and support but implements policies that will build and support a real inclusive Europe.

I have a number of questions for the Taoiseach but he has left. Perhaps the Minister of State can address them. Irish citizen, Ibrahim Halawa, has been detained in Egypt for more than three and a half years without trial. Was his case raised with our European counterparts at the Council meeting, which we repeatedly asked for in this Chamber? Ibrahim has been charged as part of a sinister mass trial, which has collapsed and been postponed 19 times. Let us be honest and forthright. He has no chance of receiving a fair and just trial. Ibrahim has been moved to a prison hospital because of his failing health. He is receiving glucose injections for critically low blood sugar levels and he is confined to a wheelchair. My colleague, Lynn Boylan MEP, best summed it up when she described his spirit as being finally broken. His condition has deteriorated rapidly after embarking on his latest hunger strike. It is time for direct intervention by the Government to save the life of its citizen. We asked the Taoiseach to push for a presidential decree and he belatedly agreed to do that. We also called on him to seek Ibrahim's release under a youth amnesty. To date, 285 young prisoners have been released by President al-Sisi under the amnesty, yet Ibrahim has not been one of them. His family and many of his friends and those who went to school with him who have been in touch with my office are asking why he has not been released under the amnesty. That is a fair question and if the Minister of State has some answers for us, we would be delighted to hear them. Has the Government examined taking a legal case against Egypt in the International Court of Justice? If not, will the Minister of State consider doing so? Will the Government seek the support of other member states in the case of this Irish and EU citizen?

A new report of the UN's economic and social commission launched last week rightly accused Israel of being an apartheid state. The report is a detailed analysis of Israeli legislation, policies and practices that enable the country to operate an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian people as a whole, which is a crime against humanity under customary international law and the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. This is not a surprise to any of us but it is laid bare in this report for the world to see. However, again, many refuse to act with courage and challenge Israel. The EU and the Government refuse to face the reality of Israeli apartheid and challenge it. Additionally, under new legislation, the Israeli Government is now banning people who advocate for boycotts of Israel or Israeli settlements from entering the country, which prevents them from transiting to Palestine. Last week, Mr. Hugh Lanning, the chairman of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Britain, was deported from Israel under this law. Will the Government make clear to the Israeli authorities that it is not acceptable for it to ban entry of Irish citizens who advocate for the human rights of the Palestinian people and protest against apartheid politics that violate those rights? Will it take up that challenge and sanction Israel for its international human rights violations? Will it enact the human rights clause of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and suspend the agreement? When will the Government finally recognise the state of Palestine?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is odd that we are debating the most recent European Council meeting on the same day it is announced that the next meeting will decide the negotiating strategy for Brexit. I hope we can have a meaningful debate on Brexit before the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, sends her letter to the Commission next week. It is important that we have an opportunity to have a debate, and not simply statements. The EU Council did not discuss Brexit and, therefore, it is not proper for us to raise it, although everybody who has contributed to the debate so far has referred to it. It is not the proper forum and ten minutes is not enough time. We have used Taoiseach's Questions, as we did earlier, to tease out what is happening on a day-to-day basis to ensure the one island that will be uniquely impacted by Brexit is protected in so far as possible by the unwelcome exit of the UK from the EU. Will the Ceann Comhairle, as chairman of the Business Committee, make sure we have such a debate?

I have met scores of politicians from Britain and across Europe and everybody says positively that the unique situation in Ireland is understood but my fear is that while that is all well and good, when we dig down, it is clear that the overarching objective of the remaining 27 member states, which I have stated on the record previously, particularly the core members such as Germany and France, is the preservation of the "European project", as they call it. It has been at the heart of German political thinking and policy since the Second World War. Whatever they say, they are willing to impact negatively on their own economy. They will take whatever measures they need to ensure the viability and sustainability of the European project even it is damaging to their own interests, never mind our interests. To put it in its crudest sense, their objective is to ensure the position of the UK post-Brexit is demonstrably inferior to the status quo. Pour encourager les autres is part of it but they want to make it crystal clear that this will be the result of exiting the Union.

That position is one that poses remarkable dangers for us. We will have collateral damage in that, whatever goodwill there is for us.

I will take the few minutes I have to talk about the subject matter about which we are supposed to be talking, the last European Council meeting. At the very top of the pile of the conclusions was the reappointment of President Donald Tusk in his role as President of the council for the next two and a half years. There was speculation that our own Taoiseach might have sought that role as his next migration and may have been disappointed that he will have to stay on a little longer in his current role. He certainly seems to have recalibrated the longevity of his current position.

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

Hear, hear.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to make a political point. I have great respect for Donald Tusk but it is a problematic decision. It is not good that the European People's Party now holds the presidency of the European Council, the presidency of the European Parliament and the presidency of the European Commission. That never has been the position in the past. There has been always an understanding that there is a shared politics at European level. Perhaps the EPP regard it as a great outcome for its own political family but the diversity of political views within the institutions of the union has been one of its great strengths. It is a great pity that, at this particular juncture, when we are looking at existential issues regarding the future of the union, that tradition has been breached. From talking to my European socialist colleagues, I am aware it is a matter that has caused significant concerns not only among the socialist groupings but other political groupings. It is not helpful in building the sort of cross-political views of the centre-right and centre-left that are required to maintain a realistic future for the European Union based on the principles of its founding fathers and mothers. I am glad the European Council will look again later in the year at the criteria and balances needed in this process and I look forward to debating that point more fully at another time.

In advance of the European Council meeting, concerns were raised about trade policies and one of the issues discussed was the CETA decision. The implementation of CETA without any Dáil vote is a matter of concern to many people here. I am a great supporter of trade agreements but there must be democratic accountability. There are real concerns now among many people who have not delved into the minutiae of these trade agreements that they impact negatively on working people. We need to have trade agreements; they are essential for the prosperity and well-being of this country but they also need to be fully ventilated and examined. The fears and concerns of working people, and trade unionists in particular, and of the environmental lobby have to be fully explained and met. Therefore, the notion that we can acquiesce to trade agreements such as CETA without a completely full debate here is something with which I do not agree. The other House has already debated this matter. Does the Government share the views that were expressed in Seanad Éireann that there should be full democratic accountability on these matters here? As the European Council statement makes clear, the leaders look forward to its imminent provisional application. Will the Minister of State clarify whether the views expressed by the Seanad have been taken into account in the Irish position as expressed by the council?

I want to mention two other matters very briefly, one of which is the banking union. The leaders reiterated the need to complete the banking union at the last European Council meeting and emphasised the importance of international co-operation on the design of common, prudential and supervisory standards for financial services. Financial services is an area that has come very much into our focus here. The Government is working hard to attract other major financial players into this State but we want to ensure we do not become a haven for financial activities and that there is very robust financial oversight. It should be done on a common basis that is agreed across the union. This is a matter of particular importance but I do not have time to go into it in any great detail.

I will mention one final issue, the issue of migration. Prime Minister Muscat reported on progress in implementing the 3 February agreement which focuses on the central Mediterranean corridor. We are very familiar with this as a result of the exemplary work of the Irish Naval Service in rescuing thousands of individuals. We see the horror of thousands more unfortunately dying trying to make that crossing. I will use this opportunity to say the Naval Service personnel involved in Operation Pontus are due an allowance which has not yet been paid. It is a scandal that the people we praise and laud are left in that position.

I want to raise the issue of the eastern route and the friction that has emerged between Turkey and some member states. Very vocal, loud and discordant language is being used by both sides, particularly in the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. The Netherlands has been the most discordant. We in the EU have put most, if not all, of our eggs in the Turkey basket in terms of stemming the flow of migrants into Europe. Very strong views have been expressed in this House on that matter. Why was that matter not discussed in the migration discussions? If it was, why has it not been referenced in the conclusions of the council?

Ten minutes is an impossibly short time to deal with a matter like this but I hope we will have a formal debate with questions and answers and a clearer understanding of our position on Brexit before next Wednesday.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak for Solidarity and for the Socialist Party which organises North and South on this island and has sister socialist organisations across the world, including in Britain. I want to bring a distinctly left, progressive and explicitly pro-working class and pro-migrant perspective to this debate on Brexit. In practice, that means recognising all the key negotiating stakeholders in the Brexit process - the Tories, the devolved governments in the UK, the EU leaders and the Government in this country - are first and foremost concerned with serving the interest of big business within their own borders and furthering an international race to the bottom. To quote Jeremy Corbyn, the Tories and the employers in the UK are looking to create a "bargain basement" Britain. The competitive edge they seek following the repeal Bill due to be passed in Westminster will lay the legal ground for undoing whatever EU directives they want. For them, it is an opportunity to push back the minimum provisions which cover standards of workers' rights. Specifically the organisation of working time Acts, the transfer of undertakings laws, and health and safety in the workplace related directives are in their sights. There is an onus on the left and the trade union movement in Britain and Northern Ireland to proactively fight to retain and improve workers' rights and conditions. My comrades there will not be found wanting in that regard. The left and the trade union movement in Britain and Northern Ireland need to go further than adopting a purely defensive position. The so-called repatriation - in reality, transference - of every negative European Court of Justice ruling, from the point of view of workers' rights and EU state aid rules, and every other neoliberal measure which will no longer have the status and weight of European law behind them represents an opportunity to advance a positive programme of enhancing workers' rights as well as public investments in jobs and services.

In this State, we take the consistent position of supporting the free movement of people and opposing racist border controls in the EU. That applies to the North-South Border as much as it does to the Mediterranean.

Establishment politicians and employer organisations in this State are not ones to waste a good crisis. They are disturbed by Brexit, but not too disturbed by what it means for workers' rights and migrants in the UK other than how it represents a furthering of the race to the bottom. The natural reflex of the Government and IBEC is to go even further and cite developments in the UK as grounds for withholding wages in the public and private sectors and lowering the corporation tax rate, with everything that goes with that in terms of the heavy price our public services pay.

In the negotiations on the terms of Brexit, we are already witnessing the nauseating sight of the rights and livelihoods of people being used as bargaining chips. We stand for the protection of the rights of EU citizens living in Britain and Northern Ireland. Their right to remain, work, vote and access public services must be supported. Conversely, we will stand against any vindictive approach taken by the EU against citizens from Britain and the North living in the EU. My colleague, Deputy Coppinger's Bill to extend the franchise will safeguard the voting rights of people from Britain and the North who are living in Ireland.

I note the failure of Geert Wilders's Party for Freedom to make a breakthrough in last week's Dutch elections. His is a far right, populist party that is racist to the core. It had 20 seats in the previous Parliament. Despite predictions that it could double that number to 40 and kickstart a swing to the extreme right in the Netherlands, France and Germany, it stayed stuck on 20 seats after last week's elections. Many ordinary working people in the Netherlands voted for other options - Christian democrats, the non-government liberals, the GreenLeft and so on - but that was no thanks to the Dutch Labour Party, which left a large space open, one that Geert Wilders was fortunately unable to exploit, by selling out on workers' aspirations in a coalition government of harsh austerity. That party dropped from 38 seats to nine, a defeat on a par with the Irish Labour Party in February 2016.

To defeat the far right decisively, we need a genuine, mass, left force to rally discontent and channel it in a positive direction against the establishment and capitalism, not just in the Netherlands, but in France, Germany, Ireland and other European countries.

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

I will take up where Deputy Barry left off. Something that depresses me about the frightening rise of the far right and the openly racist - in some cases, openly neo-fascist - organisations is the poverty of analysis, deep cynicism and, often, dishonesty of the political establishment in this country and across Europe when faced with the dire threat of a return to the extreme nationalist and far right politics of the 1930s that spelled such a disaster for Europe. Disappointingly, we heard that poor analysis and dishonesty expressed by Deputy Donnelly in trying to link People Before Profit to the UKIPs of this world. That is echoed by Fianna Fáil-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People Before Profit supported the Tories.

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

-----Fine Gael-----

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

People Before Profit has the same position.

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

-----Labour and the Greens-----

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It welcomed the-----

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

I did not interrupt Deputy Donnelly.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not call Deputy Boyd Barrett "dishonest".

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

Deputy Donnelly linked us to despicable people.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who?

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

It showed a dishonesty of analysis and a lack of any sense of humility about the failures of the political establishments in this country and Europe and their responsibility for giving rise to these vile political forces. We on the left are the ones who criticise Europe time and again, not because it is too generous to immigrants, but because it allowed 7,000 immigrants to die in the Mediterranean through a Fortress Europe policy and because of the despicable policy, which Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have their fingerprints on, of imprisoning 4,000 people, including 1,500 children, in the abomination that is direct provision. Despite setting up and maintaining that system, which degrades young people, those parties say nothing about it. They fail to criticise Europe's racist Fortress Europe policy or its despicable deal with Turkey that forces desperate Syrian refugees back into the hands of the rotten Turkish regime, which has a despicable human rights record. Similar deals are being done with Libya and Afghanistan. In the case of the latter, Afghan asylum seekers will be deported from the EU back to Afghanistan en masse.

We are the ones who speak up for the refugees. We are the ones who speak up for Ibrahim Halawa, who is rotting in an Egyptian prison and whose sisters ask why the political establishment does not do more? I will tell the House what I honestly believe - the beef deals are more important than the need to take a hard approach with the Egyptian regime.

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

What about Syriza?

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

I did not interrupt the Deputy. He does not like it when he is criticised.

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

What about Syriza, Deputy?

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

I do not interrupt you, so why do you not shut up?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies, please.

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

We are the ones who try to address the inequality that the political establishment in Europe-----

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

This is a lot like Farage.

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

-----has fostered and fomented. Now I am being interrupted by all three sides of the Dáil.

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

This is how Farage conducts himself in this department.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Minister of State, please.

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

They all keep interrupting because they do not like being criticised. Consider the gross levels of inequality that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have presided over and Europe has created, the high levels of homelessness and the housing crisis. It is these kinds of inequality and social injustice that provide the fuel for the rotten forces of the far right. Nor is there any reflection of the similarities between the policies of the so-called moderate centre and these extreme right forces. Is it not interesting? Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael support the race to the bottom in reducing corporate taxes on large corporations, which is one of the major contributory factors to global economic inequality. Who supports the same policy but Donald Trump, Farage and Theresa May? The only result of reducing taxes on corporations is an increase in the economic inequality that is giving rise to the far right. As such, we will not be taking lectures from a political establishment that is responsible in Europe and domestically for the rise of these forces. We are trying to offer a genuine, radical, progressive and anti-racist alternative to a failed establishment and a despicable far right.

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

I wish to raise a couple of points, the first of which follows on from our pre-European Council statements and my reference to the increasing use of the securitisation narrative instead of a humanitarian one. The risk was that the EU would renege on, or not fully respect, our legal obligations under international laws like the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We know of the challenges presented by the humanitarian crisis and radical terrorism, but we also know of the increasing displacement and the risks that people are taking - refugees and asylum seekers - in leaving their countries of origin because of famine, conflict or abuses of their human rights. Recent EU answers have taken the form of the migration partnership framework, which entails migration compacts, and the EU emergency trust funds. While I acknowledge the EU's role as a major contributor to development aid, there are concerns that compact funding is going to countries with serious human rights abuses. These are countries that the EU would have held at arm's length before now, but the security agenda and narrative are changing that.

There are concerns that the funding necessary to meet the needs of communities in Africa will be diverted from the humanitarian line. Recent UN and NGO reports have highlighted this. According to Oxfam's February report, for example, famine had been declared in certain parts of South Sudan. On 15 March, there was a stark and frightening report from the World Food Programme about the crisis in a number of African countries that happened to be Irish Aid partner countries. Some 2.9 million in Somalia and 5.6 million in Ethiopia are at risk and need urgent humanitarian assistance.

A total of 4.9 million people in South Sudan need emergency food assistance between now and April. That is 40% of the country's population. In those countries food security and malnutrition in children aged under five, pregnant women and nursing mothers is dire. Another partner country, Nigeria, reports about the extent of the malnutrition and famine in North Africa. Drought has triggered the movement of people in some of those countries. People have moved for grazing land, water and work and that has led to increasing tensions between pastoral and agropastoral communities. Much of the food insecurity and malnutrition comes from drought and we know the relationship between drought and climate change. I urge the EU and Ireland to ensure a humanitarian response is fully funded and that all efforts are made in South Sudan to put an end to the fighting. I also urge that Ireland would use its influence at both EU and UN levels to work towards securing a political solution to end the conflict there.

I am a member of both the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and also the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence and Brexit and its implications have been dominating meetings. The more we hear, the more appalling is the lack of preparation and work by the "Remain" side before the referendum. It was obvious that it was taking so much for granted. There was an ignorance of the implications in so many areas. Much attention has been on economics and trade but there will also be an impact on education, culture and communities. A major gamble was taken with the Good Friday Agreement and what has been achieved in Northern Ireland. No thought was given in Britain to the implications of Brexit for Northern Ireland and very few voices stressed those implications. There is uncertainty now about the impact of Brexit on borders, identity and cross-Border relationships. We all know the benefits of the open Border and the co-operation it facilitates. There are concerns due to the evidence from divided societies everywhere about the implications of Brexit on identity and cultural issues. I wish to refer to what was said by an academic who came before the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. His point was that the implications for identity and culture could be potentially more significant and dangerous in the long term than the specific economic consequences. He also highlighted the implications for health care, transport and retail. There are concerns that the funding that went to support peace and reconciliation and building cross-Border relations could be under threat.

The European Convention on Human Rights is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement but one must ask where that stands post-Brexit. Special status for Northern Ireland is vital, as the convention forms part of the Good Friday Agreement. The Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement called for a specific strand of the Brexit negotiations to deal with the protection of the Good Friday Agreement. There was also a call for a civic forum to engage civic society on the issues as they emerge.

The option of a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine is fading as settlements are being built. We continue to support the two-state solution but how can we do that when we do not recognise one of the countries as a state?

For some time a number of Members have raised concerns about the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, but we have not got significant or meaningful answers to our questions and there is a need for that.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, on behalf of the committee of which I am Chairman, namely, the Joint Committee on European Affairs, and acknowledge the sterling work he has done in recent months in particular due to the challenges we face with Brexit. I thank him personally and on behalf of the committee for the manner in which he has assisted us, which has been most beneficial. He has been most diligent in his duties and he takes his role very seriously.

This is a critical time for us from the perspective of farming, tourism and trade. So much is on the line at present and we need people to be constructive. We do not have time for nonsense, political bickering or point scoring. I do not care whether a person is in opposition or in government. In my humble opinion, we are all wearing Irish jerseys and fighting to ensure we represent farming and other sectors to the best of our ability.

This morning, I had the pleasure of meeting the Belgian ambassador and two weeks ago I welcomed the British ambassador. I find such meetings very beneficial and workmanlike. The people I meet are very pleased to come to air their views and discuss their perspective on where the European model is going in the future. It is a traumatic prospect that at the end of this month the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, will trigger Article 50 and as the Minister of State well knows we will just have to get on with it.

Numerous problems will face us and I very much appreciate the work the Taoiseach has been doing in recent weeks in particular on this important issue, despite other issues that have arisen. It is of vital importance that we minimise every negative effect that will come our way because 30,000 people a day cross the Border. If one takes farming alone, millions of gallons of milk come from the North every day to be processed in the South and a vast amount of it goes back to the North again to be sold. The complications that face us are of enormous proportions. I had a meeting in the past ten days with representatives of the pig sector as there are many large pig producers in the Border counties. They are terrified of what could happen as they have made significant investments to the tune of millions in their farms. The only pig farms that remain in this country are those that have invested significantly and grown in size. I met genuine people who were steeped in the pig farming tradition for decades and they are fearful of what will happen to them in the future.

Now, more than ever, we need sound political leadership and for us all to come together to do everything we can. I compliment all of the members of the committee I have the privilege of chairing because they are most experienced and committed to putting their shoulder to the wheel and working with the Minister of State and others to ensure we do everything, to the very best of our ability, to represent the people who elected us. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to contribute to the debate today. I am sharing my time with Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too am pleased to speak today in the post-European Council debate. It is time we got serious because the trigger has almost been fully pulled and it only remains for the final step before Article 50 is notified to the EU on 29 March. Deputy Niamh Smith is present and she appreciates that one could not have a hard border again let alone a soft border between the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and the Republic from the point of view of farming, especially pig farming as Deputy Michael Healy-Rae outlined, sheep farming, dairy, beef and cereals as well as industry. Farmers travel across the Border and some farmers have land on both sides of the Border. It is vital that we do all we can in that regard.

I had the privilege of being in the United States last week.

I met An Taoiseach at the embassy gig and in New York. There were many lieutenants on his arm supporting him and although people thought he was going somewhere, I do not think he is going anywhere. He performed his duties with a bit of panache and he was excellently received by President Trump, Vice President Pence and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Ryan. I attended those functions. We are pushing an open door in that respect.

Europe has not been very kind to us, although we have been through a lot in Europe. We have been exemplary Europeans. We now need to look elsewhere as our nearest neighbours are at it again. We used to call them John Bull but they are not too interested in what we are doing here. They care little about the impact. They are self-centred, as they always were. When the British Empire was at its strongest, we struck a blow from a united Ireland that crumbled that empire. They seem to be thinking it is payback time but I do not want that either. We are certainly on our own, as far as they are concerned, so we must look at our strengths and our allies in the United States. We should not every day of the week attack the elected President of such a powerful economy until he does something that would damage us. He has not done that.

I met the chief executive officer of IDA Ireland over there, as well as representatives of Enterprise Ireland and tourism groups. They are working so hard to try to send back tourists and jobs. We must consider that. We must attend the negotiations and demand of our European colleagues that they stand by us and support us. We have been exemplary Europeans. I have often criticised the process but it is now payback time. It should allow us to be in the centre of those negotiations. I know the Taoiseach will make contacts. That is in case Members think I am a party political broadcaster. We need the benefit of his expertise and experience in that area. The fewer rumblings there are in that pen, the better at this volatile time. That is in case the sheep are anxious and the dogs might be left out after them. It is too serious for that. We need our place at the table to be recognised.

In mentioning migration problems, I salute the Naval Service and sympathise with the Irish Coast Guard on the tragic accident that occurred when I was away. They do tremendous work and the Naval Service has brought pride to our country because of the many life-saving efforts they have made in humanitarian causes. The migration problem has been discussed and that is ongoing. We are only scratching the surface. I thank the non-governmental organisations for the work they have done in this regard.

The time for talking is gone and it is now time for decisive action. We know the UK is pulling down the shutters and leaving us adrift. We must make our own way. The old adage is that where Tipperary leads, Ireland follows, but Ireland must now lead its own way. We must make our own way and look to friends and markets elsewhere. We can look to our diaspora and recognise the work of IDA Ireland and others. I cannot believe an organisation like ConnectIreland has been disbanded as it made good headway. We need all hands on deck and we must all go the same way at the one time. There should be nobody going against the tide. We must make use of the tide and get the wind at our backs. The old saying is "Ní neart go chur le chéile". We must stand and fight together, demanding that Europe gives us payback. I suppose I should not use that word but it must support us because we have been good Europeans. The European Union should enhance the negotiations in any way it can with a view to cushioning us from the terrible impacts that face us. Everybody realises it, even in the United States. The Americans are looking at us now while carrots are being dangled by the UK to them. It will not all be one-way traffic. Our béal should be dúnta and we should recognise the elected President while working with him.

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

With regard to the interchange I had with Deputy Boyd Barrett, I should explain in his absence that my interest when he brought up the issue of Ibrahim Halawa concerned the possibility of getting other parties to do something. I argue his sister party in Greece, Syriza, has a real role and we need the Greek Government to row in behind our case for European Union monitoring of Ibrahim's trial process. I regret the fact I was not able to get that point across but I am glad to be able to put it on the record now.

The Taoiseach said something valid earlier when he was asked questions of issues of major consequence. He stated he had to respond in one and a half minutes. I will use this occasion in a similar way, discussing some of the detailed strategy around the Brexit negotiations about to take place as discussed at the European Council. They will be discussed again at the next meeting at the end of April. I will make a couple of very basic broad points.

To state the obvious, we need a deal and it would not serve our country's interests for this to fall apart. There are approximately 70 British Tory MPs living in some weird Churchillian historic world who want to bring down the process. I include in that some of their lead Ministers, such as Mr. Boris Johnson and Mr. Liam Fox, who are quite happy to get a negotiation process that breaks and sees them in some sort of pirate role that they see as a glorious trade future. It is a role around deregulation; they want a low tax and regulation of capitalism in a tooth and claw economy where they think they can do well. That would be a disaster for Europe and Ireland so we must prevent it and defeat them. They know what they are doing. It is a strategic and deliberate ploy. Unfortunately, it seems Downing Street in the way it has gone about the approach to triggering Article 50 to date is being swayed by that rump within the Tory Party. We must start thinking tactically in how we address that threat. We must come, as best we can, to some sort of deal restoring co-operation and high standards without going down the route of deregulation and low standards, which is where they want to take us.

There are a couple of tactical approaches that I suggest. There is a range of difficult issues in the negotiations, particularly around the cost of the divorce bill, UK and European citizen rights in the UK and the rest of Europe, migrant rights, the Single Market, the customs union, financial passporting and the fisheries policy. There is a range of areas, largely around trade, migration and financing of the Brexit process, that will be deeply contentious. There are other areas that are less contentious and with fewer difficulties, meaning there is still potential for collaboration. To cite some examples, there is the area of environmental protection, energy co-operation and justice matters. I am going to Brussels on Thursday to speak at a conference on the issue of energy co-operation, so I look forward to getting a sense of how much potential there is for collaboration. We must take a very proactive role in those collaborative areas that are not as contentious as the really difficult trade and financial issues. From what I read about the negotiations process, I do not see the strand for collaborative issues in the negotiation process. If none exists, we should look to help create that strand because it is in our interests.

Another area where collaboration is possible is digital rights, which is probably one of the more difficult issues. It is one of the more critical issues for our country because we have such a significant digital industry and we do not want the UK going down the route of having low regulation and a bargain basement approach where privacy does not matter. It could well do so. There are issues around spying and how the Government Communications Headquarters and others interact with our data. It is a particularly contentious issue for us. That would be solved by treating it not in trade negotiations but separately in a collaborative agreement around standards. We must apply the standards issue.

It was interesting to see Mr. Pascal Lamy, the former head of the World Trade Organization, make the point in a speech in London a few days ago that the battle is not just in whether there is a tariff but rather there are intellectual property rules, tax breaks and state aid rules. A rush to the bottom in such regulatory processes must be avoided and we must maintain proper standards in a variety of areas. As I noted, it is critical that we stand up for environmental standards and we should not see the UK going down the road of using genetically modified organisms and feedstock with steroids and antibiotics. Those environmental and social standards have been advocated by the European Union and we should look to maintain them within any negotiated settlement. I hope that through co-operation in those areas, it will be slightly easier to address some of the related customs union and trade areas. These are concerns regarding intellectual property and standards issues relating to data protection, for example.

For example, in the area of energy, it is not only the physical infrastructure one has but the nitty-gritty of the winter package on whether one can get inter-day trading balancing systems for those interconnectors.

It is such, to a certain extent, non-contentious issues of co-operation where we should be taking a proactive role in some collaborative spaces in the talks. My advice would be, if at all possible, get them agreed and off the table early in advance of any possible car crash towards the end. The reason I say so is because there are some in the UK Government who want that car crash. We should try and get as much agreement off the table, agreed and settled in advance before they might have to go back to the House of Commons, either blaming Europe for the process or forcing a general election.

It is important that the European negotiation position on this is seen to be one that does not want to teach the British a lesson or bring it down, but that we want the best collaborate deal for both sides. It is in our interest to have the UK maintaining those high standard systems in any future post-Brexit model. It is not in our interest for them to be a loose-cannon low-regulatory race-to-the-bottom large state in Europe because that would provide a potential model for other populist right-wing governments across Europe which might want to follow a similar route. Ultimately, it would be deeply damaging to the economies of scale we can have and the power that Europe should bring when we have common standards around products, environmental rules and social issues. The main point I wanted to make is that in our negotiating position Ireland particularly should be driving that negotiating space around the non-contentious collaborative co-ordination issues. I do not get a sense of that happening. We should be taking a lead in Europe, in some ways, looking for that within the next European Council or within whatever approach we take within these talks.

I regret, in terms of the Taoiseach's response to my question earlier, it was clear he was saying that this House will not have a vote in any final deal. If that is to be the case, we need to be involved. I accept we have talks here, we have this constant debate around Brexit, but we do not get into the weeds of it. It is difficult for us to do it in committees because this is high stakes high level negotiations happening in real time that it is difficult to interact with. I still think we should vote because the UK will probably end up having a vote as there will be a vote of confidence if there is not a decent deal. It would be ironic in the sense that we would be very much affected by whatever deal is done but we would not have a say whereas the House of Commons may in the end have one.

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

I will deal with that.

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

I look forward to what the Minister of State might have to say in response to that issue.

If we are not to have that vote - I still think we should - we need a mechanism in some of the real detailed negotiation, for example, around those less contentious energy trade deals that we might be doing. We need to involve the committees here, and involve the Dáil, because in some instances we have connections, understandings and interest in what the final points of those details are. More than anything else, it might bring us closer to what Europe should be about and what should be the sixth scenario that the Council could present in the future Europe, that is, Europe going back to what it does best, what it stands for and what it brings to the table, including its collaboration with the higher values and ideals around environmental, social and justice standards. That is what I would like to see, in some ways trying to salvage something good out of the wreckage that 70 Tory MPs have created in this whole process.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We move on now to our question and answer session. The first question is from Deputy Donnelly.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I specifically draw the Minister of State's attention to the mandate that the Commission's task force will have. My party understands is that the European Commission task force, led by Mr. Michel Barnier, will receive a mandate from the European Council after the meeting in April allowing it specifically to engage in the so-called "divorce talks". Therefore, we know that they will be prioritising the Border, a potential final settlement bill to the UK and the reciprocity of rights between EU and UK citizens. We also believe that explicitly excluded from that mandate will be the ability to negotiate the future relationship. The best understanding we have is that the task force, if it believes that the so-called "divorce settlement" is going well, will then go back to the European Council and seek a second mandate to begin informal talks.

Fianna Fáil believes that is not in the best interests of Ireland. We are obviously all aware of this two-year ticking clock. We are all aware that uncertainty causes damage, regardless of the outcome. As that clock ticks closer to zero, the longer it takes for informal talks on the future relationship to happen the more uncertainty and fear there will be, the more danger there will be of an EU member state or set of EU member states deciding that it or they are not happy with how the process is working and that as a result, basically the greater the opportunity for the process to go badly wrong. What Fianna Fáil would like is for the Taoiseach and the Government to immediately begin a conversation with the Commission and for the Taoiseach to represent a view at the April Council that Mr. Barnier's task force should be explicitly given both mandates so that the divorce talks can happen at the same time as informal preliminary talks start on the future relationship. Is this something the Minister of State agrees with, that Fine Gael will consider and that the Taoiseach would bring in to those Council talks?

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

Many, quite rightly, would now acknowledge that those who scripted Article 50 did not envisage that any member state would be leaving. Article 50 certainly has its limitations. We now have the date from the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, as to when they will trigger Article 50.

There will be two processes. It goes back to the question that Deputy Eamon Ryan asked about the vote of the Dáil. The new relationship - the trade agreement, the mixed agreement that it will be - will be put before every parliament and it could be many years before this deal is concluded.

The issue of the UK leaving, the so-called "withdrawal", the Article 50 provision, is in and of itself very tight. In fact, with respect to the new relationship, it has quite a limited text with respect to a reference to the new agreement taking place in due course. The view of the European Council and of the task force takes into account the legal position. We, clearly, will be more impacted on whatever this new relationship is than anyone else - Northern Ireland perhaps more so than ourselves - and we will have an acute interest in making sure that this new relationship is as strong as possible.

Equally, in order to make any progress, according to Mr. Barnier and his task force, and, indeed, the legal position, the task force will determine four areas - the issue of the two institutions, the banking authority and the medicines agency but also, crucially, from an Irish point of view, issues pertaining to Ireland, the reciprocal rights issue and the bill. They will be tackled in the first round. That is a requirement of the treaty. From our point of view, if we can secure early progress on the common travel area, there is the potential that we can advance many of our strategic concerns.

As many will be aware, there will be difficulty. Much of the dialogue we have heard from London with respect to the so-called "Brexit bill" has been exceptionally unhelpful. It does not fairly reflect the fact that for 45 plus years the United Kingdom has entered into contractual agreements with the other 27 member states. What we need to focus in on is the methodology as to how a bill is arrived at but it is inaccurate, in fact unfair, to describe this amount of money as some form of punitive fine for a democratic choice that they have made.

With respect to acquired rights, I hope they will follow the straightforward principle that there would be a reciprocal arrangement for UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. Clearly, at the earliest possible time, we will have to start talking in our country with our partners about the form of the new relationship.

6 o’clock

However, I am very strongly of the view that, first, it is in our interest strategically to have significant progress on the common travel area and securing our peace process. We must establish clearly that when it comes to the common travel area and the peace process, our concerns in Ireland are unique. I have been in many countries around the EU recently and the Deputy and others have visited the European institutions in the past number of weeks. As such, I note that while we have significant trade concerns, many countries share the concerns we have on trade. Denmark, for example, has a similar profile. While we will be the most affected member state, we will not be uniquely affected in some elements with respect to trade. However, the common travel area and peace are issues unique to us, which is why getting something on that early in the process is in our strategic interest. We can then deal in due course with the issue of trade.

It is stark to make the statement that every member state will have a vote on the new agreement when it comes in due course. We saw what happened with the Wallonia province in Belgium with respect to CETA. I am not getting into the rights and wrongs of that determination. The question about the issue of the withdrawal is ultimately a matter for the people of the United Kingdom who seek to leave. It would not be possible for the other 27 member states to vote to stop them from leaving. The national parliaments will, rightly, have a role in determining what our new relationship will be. We have been very clear as has everybody in the House with the exception of Deputy Richard Boyd Farage sounding a rant which completely forgot that Farage, UKIP and the new Solidarity, as they are called this week, were on the same side of the argument that the UK should leave. Unfortunately for the people of the UK, this was a poor choice, but we must accept it here.

Listening to everybody else who spoke today in the Dáil, I heard reasoned argument and criticism of the Government requiring us to do more in some instances, with some compliments also. That sort of populist narrative was not successful in the Netherlands last week and it has been quite damaging in the UK. We hope it will not be damaging in France and other member states. It is very unwelcome because as the Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs accurately said, we need to pull together. In that regard, I note to Deputies Crowe and Donnelly that the groups in the European Parliament are of huge importance to us. Deputy Howlin mentioned his socialist colleagues and the EEP group, but all the groups will have influence. I urge all Members of the House and their parties to continue to engage because this will be a collective effort.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will bring in Deputies Seán Crowe and Eamon Ryan before inviting the Minister of State to conclude.

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

Earlier I asked about Ibrahim Halawa's case and the Minister of State might respond to that issue. I also asked about the Israeli situation, in particular, the banning of citizens travelling to Israel. Are we going to look at the possibility of lifting the EU-Israeli trade agreement? Many others have asked about the recognition of Palestine and received the standard answer that we are waiting for the right time. When is that right time?

A question I did not ask relates to the Council conclusions which noted the need to implement the common set of proposals for enhanced co-operation with NATO and that, building on that momentum, work must be taken further with even greater determination and speed. Is it not another concrete step on the road to an EU army to work in co-operation with NATO? Why is the Irish Government supporting this? Despite its impressive-sounding name, the common security and defence policy is completely misleading. The policy will improve neither security or defence and is rather an outward looking, offensive and imperialistic project. The CSDP as currently envisaged would force Ireland to increase and maintain spending on weapons and military capabilities to 2% of GDP, which is an outrageous proposal especially when our health service is in a shambles and we have one of the worst housing and homelessness crises ever to face the State. That is apart from the contradiction it presents to Ireland's neutrality in the call for an EU army and a permanent military structure.

My opposition is as much about the fact that we are continually told there is no money to invest in our public services, water infrastructure and capital infrastructure. Nevertheless, the EU wants us to spend money on militarisation. That is not my priority and it is not the priority of most people across Europe. We are being asked to increase our budget from 0.6% to 2%. It falls within the EU budgetary constraints levelled on us through the fiscal stability rules. Regardless of respecting our neutrality, why is the Government supporting these demands? Why was there no objection to this clause within the Council conclusions?

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

I heard the Minister of State part answering some of the questions I raised earlier. Unfortunately, I had to leave, but, if I heard him correctly, he said a collaborative space around future deals would come after the Brexit divorce negotiations. Do we have flexibility on that given that it seems to me it is not in our interests to have that long, drawn-out, uncertain process? It is not in our interests to have a broken-down deal. Is it possible for us to bring forward some of those new ballot arrangements, which can revitalise Europe in standing up for social, environmental and business standards? I was interested to hear the Minister of State intimate that those sort of arrangements would be subject to Dáil approval whereas the other Brexit arrangements might not. Can he articulate exactly how he sees that happening and if it is possible to bring those talks in to run concurrently with the more difficult divorce proceedings?

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

The Ceann Comhairle has been very engaged in the case of Ibrahim Halawa. I understand that Ibrahim will once again be back in court in the next number of days.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow.

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

Yes, tomorrow, 22 March. He has been moved back to prison, having spent four weeks in hospital. While this process has been entirely unsatisfactory, we believe the recent hearings in the case have, in general, been more substantive than previously. This may indicate that the trial is finally under way in earnest. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is expressing a cautious optimism that a conclusion might be in sight. This is crucially important because the Egyptian President has consistently advised, including to the House's delegation last January, that he cannot intervene and use his discretionary powers until the trial has ended. The Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, had a further face to face discussion with his Egyptian counterpart last Monday week in Brussels and that Minister reiterated the consistent Egyptian line that they are anxious to resolve the matter but cannot intervene. The Irish embassy paid its latest consular visit two weeks ago on 1 March. To date, there have been 55 consular visits. We all share the very strong sense that this is entirely unsatisfactory and want the issue to be brought to a conclusion.

Co-operation between NATO and the EU is necessary to ensure that their mandates are properly implemented. Those mandates are for the safety of our participating peacekeepers.

We also have to be really clear that EU NATO co-operation takes places within the framework of the Lisbon treaty. This is a legally binding specific to Ireland protocol which states the treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality. EU NATO co-operation does not concern us and has no implications for our triple lock which governs deployment of our military personnel outside the State. As the House is aware, these arrangements, which are set out in legislation, require that operations must be mandated by the United Nations, participation in operations must be approved by the Government and, with certain limited exceptions, they must be approved by way of resolution of the Dáil.

To respond to Deputy Ryan on the new relationship, as I stated to Deputy Donnelly, the simple reality is that the people of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union and the negotiations in the first instance will be to try to establish whether in four specific areas, three areas plus the issue of the two EU agencies, we can come up with agreement on the terms of its leaving. It will be absolutely crucial to have engagement with all Members of the House and members of all the political groupings. Ultimately, a vote of the House will not be able to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union because it will be a majority vote of the 27 to approve the EU side of the deal, and even at that point, of course, the UK could reject the deal, leave the European Union and go to a default WTO-type arrangement or another type of arrangement.

When it comes to the starting point for the new relationship, it is correct to point out that we have common concerns and energy is clearly a very strong element of any trading relationship. We see it with respect to discussions on TTIP, CTIP and Mercosur, and it is correct to say it is not just about tariffs. It is also about standards. Each of these new elements will have to be negotiated within the terms of the new relationship. An orderly process will be exceptionally challenging. Michel Barnier has specific teams dedicated to acquired rights, issues pertaining to cost and discussions on Ireland. If we can see progress in these areas over the coming six to nine months, the potential will arise for us as a House and country to start looking at what the new relationship will be. I accept at this point in time this seems quite a challenge but I hope it can be done with the background of a positive start to the process.

We must be blunt with our friends in London. If we are to have a positive start, we need to see a moderate tone and moderate language, and acceptance that there needs to be goodwill on both sides. The UK has been part of the club for 28 years and there is goodwill in member states, including our own, for the people of the United Kingdom. However, it will not be helpful if some of the language of the referendum is continued in the way it paints and describes members of the European Union of which we will continue to be valued members.

Someone referenced we would all be better off out of the European Union. It is absolutely vital to stress our largest trading partner by some distance, with 34% of all trade, is the European Union separate from the United Kingdom. For us to compound the difficulties we will face as a result of the UK leaving by also leaving the European Union would be absolutely catastrophic and crazy. I am glad this view is not holding any sway in the country and long may this continue.

I will now address some of the issues regarding jobs, growth and competitiveness. President Draghi of the ECB joined the Heads of State and Government for the first part of their discussion. It was noted and welcomed that all member states' economies are expected to grow this year. For us as a small open trading economy, we are exposed if there is prolonged weakness in the euro area. This more positive outlook is very welcome. Growth for the European Union as a whole is predicted by the Commission in its winter forecast to come in at 1.8% and in the euro area at 1.6%. Real GDP in the euro area has grown for 15 consecutive quarters. Of course, these are headline figures and do not give the full story, and we are still aware of the acute need to prioritise jobs, particularly youth unemployment, across the continent. Nonetheless, the figures are going in the right direction. Ireland is doing better than most, with unemployment happily falling to 6.6%. However, throughout the European economy, employment is growing at a fairly robust pace and unemployment generally is, consequently, continuing to fall. Some of the measures with respect to youth unemployment are starting to bear fruit and the Commission published figures showing 1.4 million fewer young people are unemployed now than in 2013.

The European Council meeting formally endorsed the annual growth survey. The Commission has presented a country report on each member state, as it does under its European semester. In Ireland's case, the assessment is again broadly positive. The report points to the decline in public debt and some diminishing elements of our financial sector challenges, and while progress is acknowledged in these areas, the report also highlights the need to resolve the legacy issues which continue to be a burden on our country, particularly non-performing loans, and the need to remain vigilant to potential external shocks - for the past two and a half hours, we have discussed the obvious one of Brexit.

A number of other economic items were also dealt with. The European Council reiterated the need to complete banking union. It also called for structural reforms, such as strength in public finances and investment, including through the swift extension of the European Fund for Strategic Investments, with a particular focus on those member states with high levels of unemployment. Economic issues affect society as a whole, and in recognition of the social dimension the European Council welcomed the plan to hold a social summit, which will take place in Sweden later this year.

There were two other items of particular relevance for Ireland under the jobs, growth and competitiveness heading. These were trade and the Single Market. As was clearly stated in the conclusions, trade remains one of the most powerful engines for growth throughout the continent, obviously supporting millions of jobs. We welcome the EU-Canada CETA and we also welcome the ambition to work towards other agreements with Japan, Mexico and others. Another foundation of European prosperity is the Single Market, and despite all of our progress in the Single Market, perhaps the great success story after the peace process that is the European Union, we have not yet seen the Single Market for services or the digital Single Market deliver on their potential. I hope very much the new initiative from the Commission, with its 16 measures and the 22 legislative proposals which are on the table, will address this as I believe it can. I thank all of the Deputies for their questions.