Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last Thursday and Friday, I travelled to Brussels for a meeting of the European Council where I joined with other leaders to discuss a range of important issues facing the Union. This was my first meeting of the European Council since being elected Taoiseach and it was a very useful opportunity to meet all my EU counterparts. In addition to informal exchanges in the margins of the meeting, I had excellent bilateral meetings with the European Council President Donald Tusk, European Commission President Juncker, accompanied by Michel Barnier, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Ratas of Estonia, who will take over the EU Presidency on 1 July. As I said earlier in the Dáil, these discussions focused on Brexit and the ongoing need to respond to Ireland's particular concerns. I thanked the partners for their engagement and support to date and emphasised our commitment to remaining at the heart of Europe. The agenda of the European Council included security and defence, migration, jobs, growth and competitiveness, external relations, the Paris Agreement on climate change and digital Europe. I was reassured by the strong show of unity on these issues with partners displaying a commitment to move ahead together and a certain degree of optimism for the future. We also discussed Brexit, which I will deal with first.

During the meeting, Prime Minister May outlined her thinking about the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. The rights of such citizens and those citizens living in other EU member states is a priority issue for both sides in the Brexit negotiations. The UK presented its more detailed paper on the matter on Monday and we will be studying this carefully with our EU partners. The EU set out its own position clearly in the negotiating guidelines and directives and in its position paper.

I hope progress can be made as quickly as possible in order that some certainty can be provided early in the withdrawal process to citizens and their families and friends.

Prime Minister May then left the meeting and we continued as 27, in Article 50 format, discussing issues relating to Brexit in her absence. Monsieur Barnier provided an update on the opening of negotiations with the UK and, in line with the EU guidelines, the Irish-specific concerns of protecting the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process, avoiding an economic border through imaginative and flexible solutions, and maintaining the common travel area and everything that it means will be prioritised in this first phase of negotiations, before we move on to discussions about the shape of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

It is worth saying that we also adopted and agreed to publish the minutes of the previous Article 50 meeting of the European Council. These confirm that, if the provisions in the Good Friday Agreement on unity by peaceful and democratic means is invoked at some time in the future, EU membership for all of Ireland is assured. These outcomes all indicate that our extensive campaign of strategic outreach at political, diplomatic and official level over the past year has been effective in ensuring our unique circumstances and particular concerns on Brexit are well understood and acknowledged.

We also agreed on procedures for relocating the two EU agencies currently located in the UK, namely, the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Agency. As Deputies will be aware, Ireland has launched bids for both agencies, and I believe that we offer a good location in terms of business continuity, connectivity, facilities and other factors. We will formally submit our bids before the deadline at the end of July and will continue our campaign ahead of the vote by Ministers. In the discussions, the need for continuity, unity and a single voice by the 27 was also emphasised.

Returning to the main part of the European Council, we considered a range of economic issues under the heading of jobs, growth and competitiveness. The President of the European Central Bank, ECB, Mario Draghi, gave a presentation about the EU and the eurozone economies. This was generally upbeat, indicating that growth and a broad-based recovery are now taking hold. Increased confidence is being translated into more investment, more consumption and, most importantly, more employment. I asked Mr. Draghi about the general direction of monetary policy in the Union and interest rates and was reassured by his emphasis on stability and no sudden policy changes, particularly as interest rates affect so many Irish people with mortgages. He provided us with some certainty that interest rates will not rise swiftly or dramatically.

We noted the progress achieved in the European Fund for Strategic Investments, EFSI, and called for its rapid expansion and reinforcement. We also generally endorsed the country-specific recommendations, thereby completing the 2017 European semester. We discussed the Single Market and trade policy. As Deputies will be aware, I support a high level of ambition for the Single Market, especially with regard to cross-border trade in services. Together with a number of my counterparts, I ensured a specific reference to services was included in the Council conclusions. Progress on a genuine Single Market in services has been far too slow in my opinion and that of the Government.

I also joined 16 other Heads of State and Government in writing to President Tusk in advance of the Council, calling for much greater ambition and political prioritisation of the digital Single Market and highlighting the importance of adhering to our deadlines. I strongly supported the priority the incoming Estonian Presidency has attached to Digital Europe.

We had a very dynamic and interesting discussion on trade. I stressed our support for a robust free trade policy, upholding an open and rules-based multilateral trading system. At the same time, we have to recognise that it is becoming ever more the case that Europe is a smaller part of the world economy. There are issues around third countries obtaining control of certain key interests such as public infrastructure and military and aerospace co-operations. While we understand the views of some member states about controlling sensitive or strategic assets, companies can also benefit from foreign cash and expertise, and we should not put unnecessary barriers in the way of inward investment. The Council conclusions provide a reflective, targeted approach and I am pleased with the text which responds to our concerns as a pro-enterprise, pro-trade, anti-protectionist, small country.

The discussions on security and defence covered both the internal and external aspects. I offered Ireland’s continuing solidarity with those who have suffered the terrorist attacks and emphasised our strong commitment to working closely with partners to fight terrorism, hatred and violent extremism. We discussed efforts to combat the spread of radicalism online, and its financing, and called upon industry to play a greater part in detecting and removing content that incites people to violence. The challenges inherent in tackling terrorist communications while at the same time safeguarding privacy were also acknowledged.

On the external dimension, we heard a report from the High Representative, Federica Mogherini, on the implementation of the EU global strategy one year after its adoption. We are strong supporters of this strategy, and I have emphasised the need for the comprehensive implementation of all five of its priorities, which is important if all member states are to contribute and play an active part. Using the Union’s unique mix of diplomatic, civilian and peacekeeping capabilities will help to protect our citizens and contribute to peace and security in our neighbourhood and beyond. The strategy also provides for EU co-operation with NATO, focused on peacekeeping and maintaining international peace and security. This is conducted in full respect for the decision-making autonomy of both organisations and for the security and defence policies of individual member states, including Ireland.

Just as new security threats have evolved, so too has the EU response in terms of what can been done to confront cyber, hybrid and terrorist threats. International peace support requires the availability of suitable military capabilities, and there have been some developments around financing, including a Commission communication on a European defence fund, proposals around the European defence industrial development programme, and an invitation to the European Investment Bank to examine its role in this regard.

Ireland’s neutrality was restated and is, of course, fully respected. We do not participate in any military alliances. However, we favour initiatives to strengthen the EU's capacity to act as an international peace provider, particularly in support of the United Nations and its missions, and to defend itself as a Continent. We also support co-operation within the Union to achieve common objectives in response to the range of new and growing threats.

The discussion on migration included updates on the implementation of the Malta declaration, with its particular focus on the central Mediterranean route, as well as developments relating to the migration partnership framework and the EU-Turkey statement. While there have been positive developments, especially along the eastern Mediterranean route, the situation remains critical in terms of irregular arrivals through the central Mediterranean. We agreed to improve our co-ordination efforts here to provide more support for Italy and to try to end the tragic situation where so many people are risking losing their lives.

Ireland has consistently called for a comprehensive response to the migration crisis that responds both to its effects and the underlying causes. From our perspective, this has included a commitment to take in up to 4,000 asylum seekers and refugees under the EU relocation and resettlement programmes and under our own programme with the UNHCR. We have also committed to provide naval vessels to help with the search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean and to supply humanitarian assistance to those affected by the war in Syria. To date, we have provided €76.5 million.

Notwithstanding the serious challenges we face, the European Council revealed a strong sense of unity in working together to find solutions to our shared problems. Ireland’s interests are clearly best served by remaining at the centre of this work. I took the opportunity in engaging with my EU counterparts to reiterate our strong commitment to European membership and integration and our intention to play an active and constructive role in these efforts.

The Minister for European Affairs, Deputy Helen McEntee, will provide further detail in her wrap-up statement about our discussions on external relations.

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

Last week's summit took no significant decisions and all its specific outcomes were well signalled in advance, yet this is an important moment for Europe, where the future shape and direction of the EU is receiving more attention than at any time in the last quarter of a century. This divergence between the official agenda and the background discussions is striking. Unfortunately, Ireland appears to stand, as do many other countries, on the sidelines rather than seeking to participate in or influence these discussions.

As I mentioned last week, it is long past time for Ireland to engage with the major reform proposals under discussion. The lack of a Government White Paper on Europe has been a significant problem over the past three years, during which time much of Europe has been considering the post-crisis agenda.

No one knows what Ireland's position is. More importantly, we are not building alliances and shaping discussions. While we talk about Europe in Dáil Éireann a lot more than in the past, this has become almost solely focused on short-term discussions. I acknowledge there are substantive sessions in committees but these receive little attention and tend to be focused on specific proposals. While I and my colleagues have delivered a series of lengthy speeches on long-term European Union issues in other fora, there is undoubtedly a need for the Dáil to take time to have a fuller debate on the core direction of the European Union. Brexit is only one part of a much bigger challenge and we have been too silent for too long. By completely replacing the ministerial team that was responsible for Europe, the Taoiseach clearly had some changes in mind which he is yet to outline. The Government press secretary has rejected reports that changes were made purely on the basis of support in the leadership contest. Perhaps the Taoiseach will clear up the issue.

While Brexit was a minor part of the summit's agenda, there have been very significant developments in the past two weeks which we should address. The opening of the formal negotiations involved an acceptance by the United Kingdom of the proposed sequencing. We do not know yet if this marks a flexibility on previous opposition to a financial settlement. If we take together the various statements of various British Ministers, the most likely conclusion is they are starting to address the issue of transitional arrangements more seriously. A significant part of the financial settlement will be rendered moot if the transitional arrangements stretch to the end of the current budget period thereby removing one cause of excitement for the hysterical elements of the anti-EU establishment in English political and media communities. Transitional arrangements will also allow time for a complementary series of transitional arrangements which support communities and industries that are being disrupted by Brexit. The other significant decision in the negotiations was to establish a distinct process for addressing issues specific to Ireland. On the face of it, this is welcome because it allows for much greater flexibility and focus in addressing issues than would be possible if Ireland were confined to the monthly negotiation sessions. It should also allow a greater direct input from Ireland and allow us to be more active in submitting material. What this sets in relief yet again is the fact our Government needs to table specific proposals concerning special status for Northern Ireland and the Border region. Given the levels of poverty in Northern Ireland and its relative underdevelopment, a form of special economic zone which operates across the Border and is recognised by both the United Kingdom and the European Union is a reasonable proposal which should be immediately tabled. While we do not know the exact nature and timing of Brexit, we do know that at some point the United Kingdom will almost certainly cease to be in the Single Market or the customs union. Let us base our proposals on this assumption and scale them down if something surprising happens to change this. People should know that the leader of the United Kingdom Labour Party is unlikely to change the basic scenario. On 24 June 2016, he called for the immediate triggering of Article 50. Subsequently he ordered Labour MPs to vote for the triggering of Article 50 and Labour's recent manifesto committed the party to what is essentially a hard Brexit under another name. While he has changed his previous position of being against the European Union, and while much of Labour's increased support came from pro-EU younger voters, there is no indication that the fact of Brexit will change irrespective of political developments in London.

One year after the end of a dark and nasty referendum campaign, the United Kingdom Government is only starting to set out the specifics. The proposal for a partial offer of long-term security to EU citizens in the United Kingdom is a poor start. The answer is a simple one. Both sides should agree to recognise the full rights as in place today for United Kingdom citizens in Europe and vice versa. Let negotiations deal with rights for new migrants. The ongoing uncertainty and treatment of millions of people as bargaining chips is a disgrace. It should be noted the growing evidence is that the United Kingdom is already suffering significantly from the Brexit vote. The economy has been sustained purely by Central Bank interventions and a 14% decline in the value of sterling. Government borrowing and taxes are up. Business uncertainty is up and long-term growth forecasts are down. Those on the left - such as our own People Before Profit alliance - who championed and campaigned for Brexit, should also understand it is workers who are already feeling the pinch the most. Inflation is up and wage growth is down while the Tory agenda on regulation is to remove measures that protect workers. Quite apart from defining a new relationship with the European Union, there are 759 agreements with international institutions and countries that the United Kingdom has to renegotiate. Thus far, it is not clear that even one of these negotiations is in hand. The summit agreed the rules to be followed in deciding where to relocate the two UK-based agencies. The guidelines state the agency should be capable of moving on the day Brexit happens. This seems like an unreasonable condition, given how few cities have free office, housing and international education places lying empty and ready to be filled at short notice. While of course we support the submission of bids for the agencies, it is likely a special deal allowing for the direct subsidy of Irish business will be more economically important for us. The decisions of the summit on security matters explicitly respect the positions of the six neutral member states. The proposals adopted appear reasonable. We would welcome a more detailed statement from Government concerning its attitude to the future workings of co-operation in this field.

The final communiqué states the role of security and defence capabilities in a civilian crisis management was discussed. This is a challenge for Ireland. International crisis management in conflict and humanitarian disaster situations is something in which our Defence Forces have a proud record. As the Taoiseach has no doubt been briefed since he called for the establishment of an Irish COBRA-style unit, the Department of Defence already runs just such a facility and co-ordinates major emergency management across Government. When the current national plan in this field was published by Deputy O'Dea, the European Union had not yet been given competencies in the area of assisting states with major emergencies. Fianna Fáil once again calls on the Government to update the national plan and incorporate within it measures to ensure Ireland is fully prepared to provide and receive assistance during the increasingly frequent natural disasters and other events.

One of the reasons for the increased numbers of weather-based disasters in Europe is climate change. Fianna Fáil welcomes the summit's agreement to restate its full commitment to the Paris accord. The stakes are too high to allow one or two countries to sabotage the genuine effort to limit the appalling consequences of man-made climate change. The downgrading of climate change by the Fine Gael-Labour Government was damaging. Many real opportunities for Ireland to embrace more sustainable actions were missed. Hopefully this is in the process of changing.

We also welcome the agreement of the summit to undertake an urgent review of cyber security in the Union. This has been identified as Ireland's most significant risk in the national risk assessments carried out by our Government. We, just like every other country, are highly vulnerable particularly due to the commitment of one powerful country to use cyber activity to undermine neighbours and democratic systems. On Monday there was a nearly successful attempt to take down the Ukrainian power system. Ireland should actively support new and more urgent action at EU level to help states protect themselves against this new type of aggression.

On Thursday evening, President Tusk stated a report from France and Germany concerning the non-implementation of the Minsk accord should provide the basis for extending sanctions on Russia. The decision last week by Russia to accept passports issued by the rebel governments they fund is a further step towards the formal partitioning of Ukraine. I hope the Taoiseach will maintain the policy of Ireland defending the territorial integrity of Ukraine against Russian interference and aggression.

On economic matters, the summit did very little other than restate previous policies. We welcome the commitment to continue to promote the idea of freer trade. Ireland benefits as much as nearly any country in the world from trade. Greater trade barriers would lead immediately to dramatically fewer jobs and falling incomes. Irish workers would bear an incredible price if the companies they work for suddenly faced extra barriers to trade. Investment in increasing the productive capacity of the economy and especially our infrastructure is also vital for our long-term success. The summit made passing reference to the European Fund for Strategic Investments, which was established under the so-called Juncker plan. This provides long-term low-cost financing for productive investment. The outturn so far shows Ireland very much in the second division when it comes to seeking and securing funding under the fund. No doubt the infrastructure plan, which has been delayed so it can be claimed as a major new initiative, will include within it proposals for increasing our drawdown of these funds. I caution the Taoiseach against using them to displace ongoing activity. The bulk of the project submitted by Ireland so far involved facilities previously announced by Government on multiple occasions. Not discussed at the summit was the proposal by President Macron to significantly reform the workings of the Union on fiscal matters, particularly within the Eurogroup. The proposal for a permanent finance minister who would chair the Eurogroup is one we should strongly support. However, this position should be based in the Council and not in the Commission. Until there is a significant change in the treaties to create some elements of a fiscal union, the role should primarily be about co-ordination and facilitation.

Such a role does not fit within the Commission's standard approach.

Before the start of the summit, I attended a meeting of party leaders from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, which included various Commissioners and prime ministers and the European Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator. I am pleased to note that goodwill towards Ireland remains high and the determination that Ireland does not suffer because of Britain's europhobia is as strong as ever. The most important issue, however, was that the leaders were not clear on what specifically Ireland is seeking beyond what has already been agreed. As I have stated repeatedly, we must step forward and start presenting specifics. We cannot wait for London to get its act together. Along with the interest which others are showing in Ireland's concerns comes an expectation that they will be kept up to date with Ireland's proposals.

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

The Deputy should conclude. He has significantly exceeded his time.

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

To do this, we need to have sufficient staffing and expertise in place. The review of staffing resources engaged on Brexit, which was first promised almost a year ago, needs to be finished and its recommendations implemented. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his forbearance.

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

My apologies to the House.

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

I hope we will all be shown the same latitude.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With another European Council gone, another opportunity has been missed to put forward Ireland's demands and another chance has gone to tell the European Union that while moral support and rhetoric are fine and well, what this country, North and South, needs is real practical support. A first step would be for the Taoiseach to follow through on a promise he made to his party faithful while in election mode in Donegal when he gave an undertaking that, if elected Taoiseach, he would campaign for the North to remain within the customs union and Single Market. I ask him to spell out whether this remains his position and if it is, Sinn Féin would welcome it. Did the Taoiseach take the position at the European Council that this is a desirable outcome from the negotiations on Brexit? While we all know it is not certain that such an outcome can be secured, it will certainly not be secured if we do not ask for it.

I was taken by the comment made by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, that we do not know what the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, wants from Brexit. She obviously believes we are telepathic. The Oireachtas also needs to know what the Government wants from Brexit and whether the Taoiseach will give the commitment he made during his election campaign to Members of the Oireachtas and, more important, people in the North of this island who want to remain in the customs union and Single Market.

Tá a fhios againn gurb é an seasamh atá glactha ag an Stáit go dtí seo ó thaobh an Aontais Eorpaigh ná a bheith ina ghasúr is fearr sa rang agus é ag cuartú pat ar an cheann ó am go ham. Tá a fhios againn fosta nach bhfuil mórán buntáiste, nó buntáiste ar bith, leis an seasamh sin. Cinnte nach mbeidh buntáiste leis an uair seo.

We need to drop the rhetoric and produce concrete proposals. Many Deputies, including the leader of Fianna Fáil, have stated the DUP's deal with the British Government may result in a softer Brexit. They appear to be unaware that the DUP wants to leave the customs union and Single Market and supported Brexit. Moreover, the party was paid, under much suspicion, to adopt this position in the Brexit referendum campaign. We sometimes grasp at straws but it is time to get down to the nuts and bolts of this issue.

On behalf of Sinn Féin, I have made concrete proposals which must be addressed in the context of Brexit. In addition to securing special status for the North within the European Union, state aid exemptions and guarantees on cross-Border funding streams are needed. We must not rely on the word of the Tories. We must ensure our research community, North and South, has security in funding. The European Globalisation Fund must be reconfigured to deal with unemployment and the threat of unemployment linked to Brexit. Our transport and energy infrastructure must be prioritised in the European Union's trans-European networks. We cannot be allowed become an isolated region of the EU adrift in the Atlantic Ocean. All of these demands are fleshed out in a policy document Sinn Féin submitted to Departments.

It is critical that we secure flexibility in the fiscal rules. We saw in the sale of part of the State's shareholding in Allied Irish Banks how constrained we are under the fiscal rules. While I am pleased to note the conversion of other parties to Sinn Féin’s view on the fiscal rules, perhaps if they had listened to us earlier, we would not be scrambling around for off the book ways to build houses for citizens and the homeless. The fiscal rules are not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, Sinn Féin's assessment at the time, that the rules are a right-wing ideological straitjacket, has been proved correct. They must be renegotiated from top to bottom.

We must ensure that additional breathing space for dealing with the potential consequences of Brexit is built into the fiscal rules. This breathing space must be used in an appropriate manner and cannot be used to fulfil the type of commitment the Taoiseach gave this morning when he undertook to find money to cut taxes whatever it takes. In his campaign to be elected leader of his party, he gave a commitment to reduce the marginal tax rate to 50%. Is he aware that all those earning less than €70,000 pay tax of less than 50% on their earnings? The Taoiseach's commitment to cut taxes for the wealthiest would cost €441 million and benefit those who earn more than twice the average national wage. He will not make a commitment to find the money needed to fix our hospitals or ensure that the one fifth of breast cancer patients in County Donegal who are waiting to see a specialist are treated on time. Coronary care rehabilitation services in the county have been suspended as a result of faulty equipment and we do not have the money to fix them, yet the Taoiseach is committed to finding money to cut taxes for those earning most. He must dump that commitment and get real about the economy.

I have made realistic and winnable demands which Ireland must push at every European Council meeting. I genuinely hope the Taoiseach has made some allies and friends in Brussels but he should not mistake a smile for the concrete friendship we need. As a small country in a big club, Ireland must speak up.

The European Council meeting also focused on the development of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. Is iad na pleananna go bunúsach atá ag an Aontas Eorpach ná arm Aontais Eorpaigh a chruthú a bheidh in ann idirghabháil míleata a dhéanamh agus cogadh a sheoladh agus é sin chun cur le NATO. Tá aon bheartas atá ag an Aontas Eorpach a bhfuil mar aidhm aige cur le míleatú an Aontais Eorpaigh ina bhagairt ar neodracht na hÉireann. Tá sé dochreidte nach bhfuil focal labhartha ag an Taoiseach in éadan na pleananna seo go dtí seo. Ní hamháin go bhfuil an togra seo mícheart ach tá cáiníocóirí an Aontais Eorpaigh ag íoc go hiomlán as.

The latest plans to update the European Union's military capability will be funded to the tune of €1.5 billion per year directly from the EU budget. When the Government and European Union claim they have no spare money for positive social and economic programmes, we know it is a lie as this is a matter of choice. We can clearly see that there is no problem finding €1.5 billion a year when it is to be used for regressive military projects. Sinn Féin wants Irish and European taxpayers' money spent on health care services, ending the trolley crisis, making education more accessible, improving public services and creating good quality jobs in urban and rural areas, rather than on developing an aggressive standing EU army which will dismantle Ireland's long-standing stated position of neutrality.

The Taoiseach will be aware that last week was refugee week. One would expect the European Council to send out a strong message to some of the 22.5 million refugees in the world who are fleeing conflict, oppression and destitution. Instead, we got a recommitment to the EU-Turkey agreement and an agreement to equip the Libyan coast guard to return refugees escaping from Libya to that war torn country. Turkey is backsliding into an autocracy under President Erdoğan. Civil and human rights are being violated with impunity, journalists and opposition politicians have been arrested, the army has laid siege to Kurdish majority areas in the south east of the country and the annual Istanbul Pride parade was banned for the third year running, with LGBT activists who gathered to mark it on Sunday tear gassed, beaten up and arrested. Despite all of this, the EU continues to label Turkey as a safe country of origin, which allows us to send back to Turkey refugees who have arrived in Europe from that country. This is completely wrong and the Government's support for the agreement is a stain on our international relations.

Furthermore, the Taoiseach either offered support or said nothing when those attending the European Council agreed to support the Libyan coast guard in capturing and returning people fleeing Libya and attempting to reach sanctuary in Europe. As my colleague, Deputy Crowe, pointed out in his pre-European Council statement, those who are returned are taken to so-called detention centres where they are likely to face abuse and exploitation by armed militias. Reports by non-governmental organisations on conditions in these centres and the abuse meted out to those imprisoned in them are shocking.

Tá sé náireach go dtacaíonn ár gceannairí i mBallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh le córas ina bhfuil dídeanaithe atá tarrthála ó bháthadh curtha ar ais go priosún sa Libia i gcoinníollacha uafásacha.

Tá sé náireach go dtacaíonn ár gceannairí i mballstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh le córas ina bhfuil dídeanaithe atá tarrthála ó bháthadh curtha ar ais go priosún sa Libia i gcoinníollacha uafásacha.

These Council meetings will become a regular part of the Taoiseach's agenda and, on behalf of the country, I wish him and the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, well in their participation. I also congratulate the latter on her appointment. However, the question needs to be asked of whether we will see any change in the Government's attitude. Are we going to see a new Taoiseach standing up for Ireland or, indeed, other EU countries and people in need around the world at these meetings? We need to know the answer. Alternatively, will it be more of the same - more hoping that the EU bosses will give us another pat on the head while their policies and rules hurt society and leave us vulnerable to the shock of Brexit?

Next time, will the Taoiseach go with a clear message based on the mandate of this House - special status for the North within the European Union - and the result of the referendum in the North and say that the people of Ireland do not accept that there will be a border in this country? Will he repeat the commitment that he gave in Donegal - no better place to give it - that he as Taoiseach would campaign for the North to remain within the customs union and the Single Market and that he wanted the support of his European Council colleagues to try to achieve that objective?

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

I hope that the Taoiseach enjoyed his first Council meeting. I congratulate the Minister of State on her new responsibilities and wish her well in that regard. It seems from reports that the Taoiseach enjoyed his visit to Brussels and had a busy schedule there.

Last week, Deputy Micheál Martin raised with the Taoiseach his frustration with the level of debate and engagement on EU issues. He has done so again today. There is a lack of appropriate briefing material being circulated to us in advance of and after Council meetings. We rely on European Council websites for agenda items. The Taoiseach's press releases are summaries of what will be, and what was, discussed. The House can do better. It would be worthwhile were the Taoiseach's office and Department to circulate in advance of these statements the agenda and positions about to be taken by Ireland and, afterwards, a note on what was achieved and what the attitude of others was exactly.

There is little coverage or debate in Ireland regarding the major agreement coming out of the Council, that being, co-operation on defence. Nor has it been reported or debated widely as to what Ireland's position was stated to be on this matter and whether we are in favour of the EU proposals. Mr. Paddy Smyth in The Irish Timesreported: "On Thursday, Ireland was saying to fellow member states that it is enthusiastic about the project, wants it to be 'ambitious', but we are not necessarily committed to participating in each and every iteration." The Taoiseach's pre-Council statements focused on security with no mention of defence. He stated:

I will offer Ireland's continuing solidarity and our strong commitment to working closely with our partners in combating this growing threat. The meeting will send out a strong message that Europe stands united and firm against terrorism, hatred and violent extremism.

Clearly, no one would object to that. The Taoiseach told reporters: "We believe that by being a country that is neutral, but not being part of any military alliance, that it actually makes us stronger in the world". However, we still do not know what Ireland's attitude is to the growing view among so-called core EU member states about common defence.

The EU will now use a provision of the Lisbon treaty, known as permanent structured co-operation, PESCO. This enhanced co-operation requires the agreement of all 28 countries. Speaking after the summit, the French President, Mr. Emmanuel Macron, described the move as historic. He stated: "For years and years there has not been any progress on defence, there has been one today". Those views were shared by Chancellor Merkel, who stated: "In the next few weeks and months, we will look at possible projects".

As the Taoiseach outlined, the Commission is proposing to add €500 million of EU funds in 2019 and 2020 to finance EU defence research and new military development. After 2020, the figure will increase to €1.5 billion every year for research and development of new military technology. We are slowly seeing the militarisation of the EU. As the Taoiseach referenced, Ireland has a long history of military neutrality. I am not sure what our current position is, but I doubt that the Taoiseach's own party does not have some level of ambivalence towards these new trends in Europe.

The Council has clearly taken steps to intensify co-operation on defence and there is now a plan to expand the range of common military activities. This is designed to complement NATO structures but Ireland is not a member of NATO. What is Ireland's position on these steps driven by France and Germany in a move towards enhanced military integration embraced wholeheartedly by the European Commission? This approach is gathering pace due to the exit from the EU of the United Kingdom, which had traditionally opposed it, seeing any co-operation within the umbrella of the European Union as a duplication of NATO activities.

Interestingly, I noticed that the Taoiseach added a sentence to his circulated script in the paragraph beginning with "Ireland's neutrality was restated and is, of course, fully respected". The second sentence in the circulated script reads: "However, we favour initiatives to strengthen the EU's capacity to act as an international peace provider, particularly in support of the United Nations and its missions". To this, the Taoiseach added "and to defend itself as a Continent." We need a fuller debate on these matters, given that there are different views in the House. As other Deputies have mentioned, much future thinking happens in the EU without our participation. We are reactive instead of being shapers of policy. It would be good for us to have an open and frank debate on our position as opposed to allowing others to be pace setters while we determine post factowhat our position is. The Irish people demand at least that. I would welcome a debate on this matter.

In the three and a half minutes remaining to me, I will move on to Brexit. Did the Taoiseach discuss with his European colleagues the sequencing of negotiations? I raised this matter with him last week. Did he raise it with the chief negotiator, Mr. Barnier, or Presidents Tusk and Juncker? I am concerned that Irish aspects of the negotiations may be delayed towards the end of the first phase, which means that it might be more difficult to find imaginative solutions to deal with the Border issues Members have discussed time and again. Had the Taoiseach any engagement with EU Heads of State or Government or officials on the common travel area? Is there a consensus view on this among all member states? Will some member states see it as something to be negotiated in light of the rights afforded to their citizens within Britain after the UK exits?

On climate change, the Taoiseach mentioned in his pre-Council statement that he was determined that the Government would show a new ambition when it comes to tackling the matter and that this would be the subject of a full-day strategic meeting of the Cabinet. He also spoke to President Trump yesterday. Given that we debated the issue beforehand, I presume that the Taoiseach raised the question of the Paris Agreement with him. That would have been important in the context of the role that the US will play in climate change mitigation.

Most of the discussions at the Council on Friday focused on jobs, growth and competitiveness, including the European Fund for Strategic Investments. This has particular relevance for the economic fallout that Ireland may experience after Brexit. I have raised this matter time and again with the Taoiseach and his predecessor. Has the Taoiseach flagged the impact of Brexit on jobs and growth in Ireland? Is there now a united EU view of the uniqueness of Ireland's case? As other Deputies have asked repeatedly, where stands the resolution of this House in respect of the special status for Northern Ireland in a post-Brexit scenario?

On Brexit, to date the Government has focused on high-level issues. It also needs to begin planning in respect of the mitigation of impacts which we know will come. Three core policy areas in particular require attention: investment in infrastructure, state aid rules, and making the European globalisation adjustment fund fit for purpose. I have said repeatedly that we now need to plan for investment in roads and ports and in ensuring the facilities are ready in the event of Ireland having to strengthen its direct links to the Continent. Ports such Rosslare will become pivotal in this regard.

I have proposed, and I am in interested in Sinn Féin's view, that the proceeds of the AIB sale should be used for infrastructure. It is not actually the fiscal rules which are impacting on that. It is the Stability and Growth Pact rules under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. These rules, which go back to the creation of economic and monetary union the bones of 20 years ago, determine that the proceeds of asset sales should not benefit the general government balance. There is a separate issue about the spending of that but I think that can be addressed and I have begun that discussion.

Has the Taoiseach begun negotiations at EU level to ensure we have the flexibilities in respect of expenditure which will allow us to address the issues of Brexit?

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

I am quite amazed at the bland, anodyne, passionless statement we received from the Taoiseach about the challenges which face the European Union, some of which are dire and which include issues such as migration, global security and economic and social challenges. That bland, anodyne, passionless account, which says nothing at all about what was discussed at the European Council except in the most summary way, contrasts very sharply with the fairly extraordinary outbursts we have had from the Taoiseach in recent days. He has spoken about the Bolshevik revolution, Venezuela and Cuba and about people who apparently support these things. There is a lot of passion there. He has a lot of passion to attack the populists, or people's apparent populist or radical credentials, but he has no passion or interest whatsoever when it comes to things that matter and that are happening now to real human beings.

Last week, during pre-European Council statements, I raised the issue of 14,000 human beings - men, women and children - who have drowned in the Mediterranean since the beginning of 2014. This continues because the apparently pragmatic, reasonable centre in Europe, which the Taoiseach claims to represent, tolerates people like Viktor Orbán and other hardline anti-immigrant racists who head up European countries and are quite happy to see 14,000 people die in the Mediterranean. This centre compromises with them. It does not engage in tirades against them for their racist filth directed against Muslims and immigrants. No, there is no passion there. The Taoiseach's party is, indeed, affiliated with Mr. Orbán, who describes migrants as poison. Imagine that. Some 14,000 people die in the Mediterranean and Fine Gael is associated with a party which describes them as poison. If one thinks people are poison, one does not mind if they drown in the Mediterranean, does one? Clearly, Mr. Orbán does not mind.

It is the same case with the Slovakian Prime Minister, Mr. Fico, who speaks about the need to monitor every Muslim and how Islam has no place in Slovakia. It is also true of the Bulgarian Prime Minister, who has spoken about the threat represented by Roma people and by immigrants from the Middle East. That is why people are drowning in the Mediterranean. It is because our Taoiseach and the other moderate figures in the political establishment in Europe tolerate this sort of thing and allow Europe to put up fences in order that people drown. These are people who are fleeing war in Syria. They are in the most appalling, unimaginable circumstances. Their lives have been destroyed and their cities and towns have been decimated, but Europe closes the door on them.

Europe then does rotten deals with regimes such as that of Turkey, where currently dozens of opposition parliamentarians, journalists and academics who speak out against the Turkish regime are summarily rounded up and put in prison. That is what is going on in Turkey. Democratically elected people are in prison because they oppose Mr. Erdoğan. Despite this, we do deals with this man, who is brutally suppressing his own population, to send immigrants back to him. The European Union is doing similar deals, with which we are going along, with the Afghan regime and with the Libyan regime, which should not even be called a regime. It is doing these deals with Egypt. All these countries are brutal dictatorships.

When we talk about security threats to Europe in respect of terrorism, we say nothing. We have a polite telephone conversation with Donald Trump, during which I suspect we did not even bring up the fact he has just signed the biggest arms deal in human history with the Saudi regime, which sponsors ISIS and which is a savage, brutal and undemocratic dictatorship, but that is okay. We will send them billions of euro worth of arms. Why not? Someone is making money out of it. What do we discuss at the European Council? Let us beef up the European military development programme. Let us get in on the act. Let us make money from selling arms to these people ourselves in the name of so-called security. It is absolutely shocking. Donald Trump is literally putting a gun to the head of the world with arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is then escalating tensions with Iran and Qatar. Let us pour the arms in there, as it were. When it destroys countries such as Syria and Yemen and, prior to that, Iraq, and millions of people are displaced and try to flee to Europe for safety, we will let them drown in the Mediterranean, and we will say nothing while European leaders whip up poison against them. Is there any wonder there is disillusionment, which the Taoiseach calls populism, with the European Union when these are its standards and priorities as human beings, lives and countries are destroyed because of the cynical profiteering and rotten political priorities of Mr. Trump, Europe and the European arms industry?

The other issue in which the Taoiseach seemed to display some sort of interest in his summary was the debate about outside, third countries getting hold of our strategic infrastructure and assets. This totally anodyne statement does not really say anything, but in so far as it says something it says that some countries in Europe are worried about outside investors, presumably big multinationals from the United States and so on, coming in and buying up assets and infrastructure. Does that sound familiar? Does it sound like the vulture funds buying up all the land and property, sitting on it, evicting people and profiteering from the housing and homelessness crisis? What does the Taoiseach say about this? At least someone is expressing concern about this in Europe, but the Taoiseach reminds us that while, "While we understand the views of some member states about controlling sensitive or strategic assets, companies can also benefit from foreign cash and expertise, and we should not put unnecessary barriers in the way of inward investment."

3 o’clock

That says a lot about what is happening in this country. The vulture funds swoop in to buy up the land and property assets which NAMA sells to them, and the housing crisis is thereby exacerbated and perpetuated. Apparently that is good for us. It indicates how it was actually encouraged. That is why there were 65 meetings with these vulture funds. It is because Fine Gael asked them to come in and buy up the property and said, "By the way, if you do come in, we have a thing called section 110 where you won't pay any tax on the capital gains and all the profits you make." The net result is the worst housing and homelessness crisis in the history of the State.

We are positioning ourselves on the extreme neo-liberal wing of the European Union. At a time when some in the Union are questioning whether it is a good idea to allow these vultures and multinationals to come in and buy up our assets and strategic infrastructure, the Taoiseach and his Fine Gael colleagues are saying that it is actually quite good to let these people in and that we should not put barriers in their way. I find that bizarre, particularly in the context of Brexit. As has already been stated, what we need to do is say that the fiscal rules make no sense now because they are crippling our ability to invest in the infrastructure we need. In addition, the state-aid rules make no sense whatsoever at a time when we need to give state aid to particular sectors, industries and enterprises in the face of the economic challenge Brexit represents. However, the Taoiseach's commitment to the free-market, neo-liberal orthodoxy means we probably are not asking to do that either.

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

I call Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan who is sharing her ten minutes with Deputy Wallace.

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

I first wish to speak about the Malta declaration, which is supposedly about capacity building, training and adequate reception capacity in Libya for migrants. In April, €20 million was added for the protection of migrants on top of the at least €120 million already provided. The reality in Libya is very disturbing. It is a country in turmoil and chaos. There are three ostensible governments running the country, which is sliding towards bankruptcy. There are shortages of electricity, fuel and medical care, and armed groups are roaming about. This is one of the countries that is getting EU funding to look after migrants.

During a recent Topical Issue debate, I referred to the inhumane conditions in the so-called migrant centres in Libya. Those centres are dangerously overcrowded with no light or ventilation. There is a shortage of water, and there are sanitation issues and health hazards. There are reports of extreme violence, including forced prostitution and forced labour. There are also accounts of acute malnutrition. As people feed from communal bowls, one can imagine the scramble for food there.

Many were rescued - I use that word reservedly - in the Mediterranean before being brought to these centres in Libya. The EU is also providing training and support for the Libyan coast guard, but there is evidence that members of the latter are not treating people with the respect they deserve or even in a humane way. They are relieving them of their phones or of whatever money they possess. A doctor working on one of the rescue ships has said that every day Libya haemorrhages people to the bottom of the sea. I asked the previous Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to raise this issue at the Foreign Affairs Council; I do not know if that happened. The EU needs to look seriously at accountability and transparency when it comes to this funding. It needs to revisit where it is going and the Malta declaration.

Europe also depends on Turkey in the context of migration. We continue to receive disturbing reports of human rights abuses in Turkey. A week ago, a journalist reported that thousands of people are languishing in Turkish jails, some of them for peacefully protesting or because they were suspected - not convicted - of links with the US-based cleric, Gülen. Amnesty International has advised that the authorities have fired more than 100,000 civil servants. Many reporters and journalists have been detained. Turkey now accounts for one third of all jailed journalists worldwide. Where is Ireland's voice at the EU on this?

The second issue I wish to raise relates to Palestine and the statement on achieving a just and meaningful solution. Matters relating to Palestine have reached a stalemate. The situation is moving further and further away from the so-called two-state solution. I do not believe there can be a two-state solution while the settlements continue to be built. The peace negotiations to date can only be described as a charade. How can there be negotiation between two powers when there is such inequality between them? We know the effects of the occupation and we usually look at the political effects. The World Bank compiled a report on the economic effects of occupation. Is Palestine being considered at all by the EU? In the Quartet roadmap, Israel agreed to halt settlement activity prior to negotiations. However, neither the EU nor the UN has insisted on that. I have not even mentioned Gaza. People need to come to the table, but first the imbalance needs to be redressed.

My third issue relates to the areas of need for development aid. I know the EU is a formidable contributor. I want to ask about funding for the increasingly difficult famine situation in east Africa. It is a human crisis that has been described as unprecedented. Given that we have had many other human crises, it is very alarming to hear it described in that way. Some 24 million people - six times Ireland's population - rely on food aid in a number of countries in east Africa. This is as a result of drought, which is caused by climate change. It is also caused by conflict, land grabs and displacement. It is a crisis that is receiving very little attention. The appeals for funding have been underfunded.

I am struck by a quote from Pope Francis, who said, "Today we cannot be satisfied with simply being aware of the problems faced" The EU is a major contributor to aid and the question is whether it is going to the most needy. The health system in Yemen is on the verge of collapse, medical services are under fire, hospitals are being bombed and those who are providing assistance are being obstructed with complete disrespect of humanitarian principles. Those are really important issues that need to be raised at the European Council and the Foreign Affairs Council in a real and meaningful way.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State on her new appointment. I again express my disappointment that the Taoiseach does not feel we are worth listening to. Perhaps we need to give him more reason to show some respect.

The EU tends to view the refugee crisis as a defence and security issue. However, this is deeply destructive and separate from the real problem. As others have said, we are throwing money at despots to keep desperate people from leaving countries we have helped to destroy. Giving money to countries such as Egypt, Libya and other African states, as well as Afghanistan, to stem the flow of refugees is nothing short of immoral. I wish the Taoiseach would say so. The Turkey deal is just one of a number of disastrous deals. The amount of money we have given that country beggars belief, particularly in light of what is going on there. The European defence action plan, which includes proposals to use European Investment Bank funds to develop the arms industry - or so-called security research in Europe - was also discussed.

Despite the Stability and Growth Pact restrictions on public infrastructure spending in member states, it is planned to use a loophole which exempts increases in the European Investment Bank's capital from being governed by the pact. Therefore, while member states must abide by EU fiscal rules when it comes to housing, education and social security spending, the best lawyers in Europe are paid to figure out how we can divert more funds to arms research. What should we expect when the defence industry is probably the biggest and most powerful lobby in Europe?

Climate change was discussed, but not its impact on the refugee crisis. Along with the disastrous imperial wars of recent years, climate change is driving people to a situation where they must flee or die. According to United Nations estimates, nearly 20 million people are at risk due to famine or near-famine conditions in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia and Yemen alone. More than 120 refugees, mainly Sudanese, died in a shipwreck off the Libyan coast last weekend. These people are fleeing hunger, death, rape and other human rights atrocities being perpetrated by all sides in the conflict that has been raging since 2013. The US has been arming, training and funding the government army that recruits child soldiers and rapes, tortures and has carried out massacres of civilians. The EU is giving the same administration hundreds of millions of euro to stem the flow of refugees from the country. This money is nearly impossible to track and many human rights organisations fear is being funnelled into the military.

Instead of pouring arms into these countries, picking sides in battles where every player is in the wrong and exacerbating the breakdown of the structures needed to deal with climate disaster, we should be dramatically increasing humanitarian aid and engaging in research aimed at helping farmers and making it possible to sustain the lives of people in these countries, rather than, as at present, facilitating their being bombed.

On a different subject, I want to touch on the role of the European Union, and in particular the European Commission, during the establishment of NAMA. When NAMA was originally set up in late 2009, it was in clear breach of the EU state aid rules, under Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, as we know, the European Commission granted Ireland a special exemption to receive state aid due to the ongoing banking crisis, albeit with a number of conditions. The Commission stated that, with regard to the state aid exemption, it had received commitments from the Irish authorities at the time that the rights and exemptions contained in the NAMA Act would not lead to a distortion in the market in NAMA's favour. At this stage it now looks as though we have not held up to our end of the bargain. Under the reign of the previous Minister, Deputy Noonan, the Department of Finance allowed NAMA turn into an entirely different animal than it was originally intended to be, and in my opinion, in direct contravention of the NAMA Act. NAMA is now one of the largest developers in the State, with plans to build 20,000 houses by 2020. NAMA was set up to remove the bad loans and related assets of same from the balance sheets of the Irish banks and to manage them. It was not set up to develop expensive houses that the majority of Irish people could not afford. To my knowledge, there have been no amendments to the NAMA Act since 2009 yet it seems it can ride roughshod over its statutory obligations.

Another area where NAMA has ignored the provisions of its own Act is in relation to auditing. In the most recent financial statements, the chair of the NAMA audit committee, Brian McEnery, stated: "As the NAMA group entities are 51 per cent privately owned and operate to return dividends to shareholders, the companies were deemed to be trading for gain and the C&AG is not therefore in a position to audit the statutory financial statement of the NAMA group entities after 15 June 2015". That seems to be in direct breach of section 57(1) of the NAMA Act, which states: "NAMA and each NAMA group entity shall submit its accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit within 2 months after the end of the financial year to which they relate". It seems that the Comptroller and Auditor General is to be punished for exposing the truth about how NAMA operated on Project Eagle. Is the Government happy for NAMA to do that? If it is, that would beggar belief.

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

I wish to share time with Deputies Danny Healy-Rae and Mattie McGrath.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

At the outset, I wish the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, well. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs, I wish to say on behalf of the committee that we look forward to engaging with her in the very near future. Like many in this room, I am as interested in the issues that were discussed informally as those that were on the agenda, in particular the proposal presented by Prime Minister May for EU citizens who currently live in the UK. There has been a lot of commentary about that and it is important that all of us across the EU get this one right and get it right as early as possible. It has been a most uncertain time for the many EU citizens who study, work and live in the UK today and it is important that all of them are given clear notice of what they will be able to do. We all noticed that the proposal is for Irish citizens to be in a slightly different situation because of the common travel area and while I welcome that, this is a strategically important issue for the EU and we need to consider it carefully.

We all share the condemnation expressed by the Taoiseach and the other leaders of the recent terrorist attacks. I am interested in learning which of the measures that were mentioned in the conclusions he intends to introduce here. I refer to the establishment of an industry forum; new technology for the detection of inciting material on the web; potential new legislation on data encryption; and the new entry-exit system, among others. I presume that as we are one of the member states that is not a part of the Schengen area, the measures will not automatically apply to us but that we could opt in to them. In addition, there was discussion on the strengthening EU co-operation on external security and defence and the establishment of a European defence fund. I am interested in hearing which Minister intends to consider that issue. What level of involvement in the soon-to-be established permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, is envisaged for Ireland?

I was very pleased to see how much attention was paid to supporting the increase in jobs, and supporting growth and competitiveness across the EU. At the end of the day, that is what our citizens need, namely, to make sure that we have created the right environment for companies to invest and grow and to be able to hire people. While I agree that we need to continue to support and deepen the European Single Market, it is most important for Ireland to make our partners aware that when it comes to the energy union and interconnectors, Ireland may need understanding as we go backwards before we go forward again. As we are aware, a significant amount of Ireland's energy comes through the electricity interconnector via Wales, as well as gas via Scotland. That leaves us meeting the current rules and exploring whether it would be a good idea to build another interconnector directly to France. Depending somewhat on the Brexit negotiations, we will need the appropriate derogations to be allowed the time to develop new infrastructure and to find new solutions if the current infrastructure is not considered to be within the EU. If that is the case, Ireland will need to work over the next couple of years to get back to where we are now.

I note from the conclusions that the European semester process for 2017 is now considered finished. I would be interested to know what the Taoiseach thinks were the main lessons for this year and what we might bear in mind for next year.

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

It is what was not spoken about at the meeting that concerns me. As I said previously, the decrease in the value of sterling is seriously impacting on small businesses right around the country who are exporting to Britain and the North of Ireland. Such people are experiencing a reduction in income. That issue and the impact of Brexit that is already being felt must be highlighted to the foreign affairs Ministers and others in Europe.

Farmers will be affected right around the hills, valleys and glens of this country and when farmers are affected, all the businesses that feed off them will be adversely affected as well. That issue must be highlighted.

The motor industry is already starting to suffer. There is a decline in car sales because cars are being imported from across the water and from the North of Ireland as they can be bought more cheaply there due to the reduction in the value of sterling.

IBEC has already said the regions will suffer following Brexit. When it talks about "the regions" I understand it to mean rural areas. It has been said that urban areas will prosper. The Taoiseach must understand that urban regions are already doing very well but rural areas are not and if they are affected any further it could mean a significant decline in population as there will be an exodus of people leaving rural areas.

I note the Paris Agreement was discussed at the European Council. It is important to bear in mind that one cannot get blood out of a turnip. Is that all that was gained by the talks in Europe last week? I am concerned that farmers, who face a reduction in the amount of money they get for their produce, will be expected to pay for the Paris Agreement. I do not believe there is any hurry attached to the Paris Agreement because as I said previously in the Chamber, we cannot do anything about the weather. God above is in charge of that. If farmers and business people are expected to pay more in carbon tax because of the Paris Agreement they will be hurt more. I repeat; one cannot get blood out of a turnip.

There is much talk about exemptions for the North of Ireland and that is fine, but we must remember that we are representing the Twenty-six Counties and the people who are trying to live and work in this country and they need to be looked after. If we do not do that then we will not be here either.

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

I too am pleased to speak here today. I wished the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, well already.

In the remarks by President Donald Tusk after the European Council meetings on 22 and 23 June 2017 he indicated that the leaders made three important decisions. The first was the agreement to extend the sanctions against Russia for another six months. The second was that Europe will continue to work to implement the Paris Agreement on climate change, to which Deputy Danny Healy-Rae referred, in co-operation with our international partners, as though that was important to us at this time. The third decision taken is that the EU 27 leaders agreed the procedure on relocating the two UK-based EU agencies. If that is all the work they have done, they are as useless and toothless as some of our own Departments.

It is astonishing that European Council President Tusk has said, "As a matter of fact, Brexit took up very little time at this European Council." He said "as a matter of fact". He nearly told us not to worry about Brexit at all, that he was just trying to protect the EU. He went on to speak about:

[A] renewed hope in the European project [the dream again] which positively impacts on our economy. This confidence translates into strong growth, more consumption, more investments, and above all, more jobs.

What medicine is this fellow on? Does he even know what is going on and the impact that Brexit will have on our island? It is up to the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, in her new role with special responsibility for European affairs, and it is up to the Taoiseach to tell Donald Tusk that we are here to try to look after our people and that he is on a different planet. What planet is the man living on? He went on to speak about the great strength in employment. Where is the great strength in employment in Ireland? The view from the top of the European Council is clearly very different from the view at the bottom where people have no jobs. There are farmers and small business people all over our island, North and South, but we are worried now about those in the South. When we meet the Irish Farmers Association, Irish Business and Employers Confederation or any business groups, they tell us how frightened they are. We see IDA Ireland had ten positions and it only filled two of them.

There is a blasé, sleepwalking approach to Brexit and we seem to be bystanders and admirers of Donald Tusk. We need to tell him that this is a mess and they need to sort it out. They need to treat us seriously in Ireland. Brexit will have a massive impact on our 26 counties and the island. The very thought of a hard Border is just one thing we cannot even contemplate. We see it in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I have travelled. It is impossible. The Acting Chairman, Deputy Breathnach would know also this well from the North. We cannot go back to the days of Newry, Crossmaglen, Aughnacloy and all those crossing points. We just cannot, and yet these fellows are talking about more consumption. I am sure he is able to eat and drink plenty and is consuming enough, I would say, but he needs to consume the views and the hardship this will cause to Ireland's economy. It will be a flight from the land worse than the Famine because farming especially depends on exports to Britain and elsewhere. We need to wake up and someone needs to pinch this guy and tell him to get real. The reason that Britain is leaving the EU is because of arrogance such as this from senior people in the EU and we do not want any more arrogance. We want understanding and we want to be treated as equals in the EU. We do not want to listen to that kind of baloney. We need to step up to the plate and we need to have a Taoiseach who will do so. I am disappointed he is not here. The Taoiseach was late coming in to Leaders' Questions this morning and he fled away from here early.

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

The Deputy's time is up.

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

The Minister of State, in her new very important role, understands the Border counties as she is quite near them. We need action and we need to be treated as good Europeans, as we have always been, not lapdogs. We need respect now and support, not his kind of baloney where Tusk says that Brexit took up very little time in fact.

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

The Deputy is way over time.

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

It was with interest that I noted the remarks of President Donald Tusk following the most recent European Council. He wanted to emphasise the point that Brexit had in fact taken up very little time at the Council. On the one hand, I am delighted that elements such as the Paris Agreement and the horrendous migration humanitarian crisis in the central Mediterranean Sea route are getting the prominence among European leaders that they deserve, but I also feel strongly that Brexit is not something that can be allowed to develop in an out of control way as a footnote to these gatherings. I suspect that geography and the size of Ireland are part of the problem. It is not as if we can float ourselves off nearer to the Continent. There is a real issue in relation to our geography.

According to Mr. Tusk, there was a quick agreement which confirmed unity and a determination to reduce the uncertainty caused by Brexit. It is very important for us in Ireland to be vociferous in having our voice heard around the impact of Brexit on us and we must also look to our own readiness to deal with the fallout.

There are two perspectives on Brexit: the European one and ours. While it is all very well looking at it from the point of view of making sure the books balance, there are other concerns regarding our voice in Europe about which we must be conscious. For example, on the one hand, we are speaking about fiscal space, balancing the books and not having money for capital investment. On the other hand, we are missing our climate targets. We are going backwards and we are going to end up with significant fines from the European Union while the EU is constraining us from investing in public transport or retrofitting housing and buildings that would save energy. This is indicative of the problem we have and one that may well increase in the wake of Brexit unless we strongly take control of the situation and refuse to continue what has become a culture of kowtowing to the EU and being pacified with pats on the head.

Mr. Tusk’s remarks also referred to his belief that things have changed for the better in the European Union and that there is now renewed hope in the European project. What does that mean? What does this European project - this organisation we are all supposed to be partners in - mean when we carried the lion's share of the burden around the banking collapse? We got a commitment to retroactive recapitalisation but it did not mean anything. We need not just commitments but also to see the hard facts. What is going to be done to overcome some of the issues that will present really serious problems for Ireland if they are not addressed in advance of Brexit? By virtue of the straitjacket we are in, we do not have the ability to invest, especially with regard to investing in items where we could spend now and save later such as housing.

We have a difficult time ahead, more so than any other European country, when it comes to dealing with Brexit. Ireland must have a strong voice to navigate that uncharted course and be in agreement with Mr Tusk’s commitment to reduce the uncertainty caused by Brexit. The German car industry will be concerned about he fallout for it in terms of sales into Britain, but Ireland has a whole economy that is much more exposed. We need to have this understood and forensically dealt with. It must not be some sort of side note, footnote or quick agreement at the end of a meeting. For Ireland this has to be much more centre stage and much more about what the EU is going to do to make sure we can cope with the fallout and that it will not just be by virtue of our size. It must not be another case of "Whoops, we got that wrong", which is pretty much how the bank debt was dealt with.

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

I want to make three points in response to the Taoiseach's report back from the European Council. I regret he is not here but I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee. It is a real issue in terms of speaking arrangements that the Taoiseach is never in the Chamber for later contributions.

The Taoiseach said in his speech that he wants to see progress as quickly as possible on the Brexit negotiations. He said something similar in his earlier presentation to the national climate dialogue. We need to think tactically and slow down the Brexit process. I asked the Taoiseach a question last week about the political tactics given the very uncertain political environment in the UK. It is my concern that there is a keen interest among certain elements in the UK to have a fast crash-out Brexit. They would like it to be very quick, and according to the Daily Expressthis morning, it can all be done in a week. The UK will get it all sorted out, leave the EU and take back control. There are other people on the EU side, I fear, who similarity think that Brexit could be done very quickly in that, if the UK crashes out, then it is the UK's fault, and the clock is ticking, so we had better move on quickly. That is not in Ireland's interest. We do not necessarily need to speed up this process or force the pace on it. We need to create a sense that there is a space for people to reconsider, look at different options and not be looking at the process at breakneck speed. This is why I was concerned when I heard the Taoiseach earlier. I am equally concerned about his comments in his speech. Speed is not necessarily our ally in this issue.

My second point is about the comments made on Dublin and regional development. I am afraid that the chances of us getting either the European Medicines Agency or the European Banking Authority are slim to nil. When we look at the competing cities such as Vienna, we see that they have public transport, housing and schools ready to go.

Any rational assessment of Dublin that is done by the end of July will look at how it matches up to the competing cities. I am sorry to say we do not have the public transport and housing infrastructure in place. I hate to say this about my own city. This supports the case for such investments to be made. This is not about Dublin versus rural Ireland. The European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority are not going to move to remote areas. They are going to relocate close to an international airport. If we are to get those sorts of agencies to come here, we need to invest in Dublin.

I would like to speak about the most important issue of enhanced security co-operation. I was particularly concerned to hear the Taoiseach say in his speech that when this issue was discussed, it was agreed to invite the European Investment Bank, EIB, to consider its role in investing in the munitions and armaments industry. There had been rumours in this regard, but it was deeply concerning to hear it mentioned in the Taoiseach's official report on this meeting. I have multiple concerns in this regard. The EIB raises a lot of funds when it sells its ethical bonds on the international markets. All of them will have to go if the EIB decides to invest into the armaments industry. Such a move would completely change the character of the bank and its business model. Such a move would be utterly wrong from an ethical perspective. It was interesting to hear the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment making the point today at the National Economic Dialogue that the Brexit bill will possibly be €300 million over a three-year period. He made the valid point that the climate bill we are facing from Europe as a result of our failure to meet our targets is ten times greater than that. It has the potential to reach €6 billion.

I think the EIB has a critical role to play in investing in the transformation of our economy that we need to make. We do not need it to invest in armaments as an alternative which would draw funding away from the climate action we need to take. Last week, I attended an event in the Oireachtas audiovisual room at which it was pointed out that the EU currently spends €1 billion a day on imported fossil fuels. The vast majority of that €1 billion a day is going to Saudi Arabia and Russia. I believe the EU's peace and security strategy should involve using the EIB to invest in the switch to clear energy alternatives. This would ensure we do not continue to give €1 billion a day to Saudi Arabia to buy American weapons to be fired into Yemen. This is a basic key tactical and strategic issue. Are we in favour of the EIB investing in armaments? I would be very keen to hear the Minister of State's response to that question in her reply. I think we should express our outright opposition to such a development. We should see the bank as an investment bank for the transition to a more secure future in which we invest in our own people and jobs, as well as in climate and economic security, instead of giving €1 billion a day to Russia and Saudi Arabia. This is the thin end of a very worrying wedge. Ireland's involvement in and support for the increased militarisation of Europe is wrong and we oppose it. What did this country's representatives say in response to the proposal to turn the EIB into an armaments-lending bank?

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

There are approximately 20 minutes left for questions and answers. The Minister of State will have five minutes to respond at the end. Deputies Haughey and Tóibín have indicated. In the interests of giving everyone an opportunity, I ask them to curtail their questions to the Minister of State to approximately a minute, if possible.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy McEntee on her appointment as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. As a member of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, I look forward to working with her.

Obviously, the big issue of security and defence was discussed at the European Council meeting. The Council agreed to strengthen EU co-operation on external security and defence. It reaffirmed its commitment to the EU-NATO relationship. It reiterated the need to strengthen defence-related research capabilities and operations. Reports were presented on a European defence fund which could support the joint development of capability projects and contribute to greater European defence co-operation. It was also agreed that permanent structured co-operation is needed to strengthen Europe's security and defence. Where does Irish neutrality stand in all of this? The Franco-German axis at the heart of the EU has now been firmly re-established. That will have a dynamic of its own. I spoke earlier about the options that are available for the future development of Europe. One of the options is a multi-speed Europe with more enhanced co-operation. I presume security and defence is one of the areas in which a multi-speed Europe with more enhanced co-operation might apply. I assume that having regard to our traditional policy of military neutrality, Ireland does not have to participate fully in all of these initiatives.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his question. It is absolutely the case that our neutrality will not come into question in this context. I think our long-standing policy of military neutrality is sufficiently safeguarded, particularly through the existing constitutional provisions, including the protocol to the Lisbon treaty. Our commitment to this policy was reconfirmed in the Global Island foreign policy review and in the White Paper on Defence, which was published in 2015. I think it is time to start looking at security and defence in a different way. We will remain neutral with regard to our Army and its activities. We are talking about a different kind of threat now. We are talking about cyber-threats. People are walking down the street wielding knives, or walking into concerts to blow up young children, their parents and others who are with them. We need to start engaging with our European counterparts. We need to start tackling information that is being spread through the Internet to encourage these kinds of acts. We will remain neutral when it comes to our military defence. This cannot be changed other than by means of a decision of the Irish people.

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

I know Deputy Tóibín is anxious to raise a few matters. If time permits, we will get around to a second round.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions.

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

If Deputies are succinct in their questions and the Minister of State is succinct in her replies, we will be able to go around again. I have to take two more Deputies after Deputy Tóibín.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat. I want to congratulate the new Minister of State and wish her luck. She might need it, given that some of her votes have been given to the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, overnight. They might go to Deputy Ó Caoláin - we never know.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might run in Cavan-Monaghan.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Paris Agreement on climate change was discussed at the European Council meeting. Ireland is currently on track to face financial penalties of up to €600 million by 2020. This would account for a significant proportion of the available fiscal space. Ireland is facing between €3 billion and €6 billion of penalties by 2030. Our climate targets involve a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, a 30% cut in emissions by 2030 and a 80% cut in emissions by 2050. However, we are going in the other direction at the moment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, our emissions are increasing. The current policies of the Government will mean that emissions will increase further. It is interesting that this Government is quick to lambaste Donald Trump for his shocking decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement on climate change even though it is flouting the agreements to which it is currently signed up. Was the Government's poor climate record discussed at the Council meeting?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, there was a discussion on the Paris Agreement. I think everyone agreed that we do not want to see the US pulling out of the agreement. Ireland is being particularly ambitious with its targets. I understand that the energy Ministers met this week. Ireland has set very ambitious targets for 2030. One of the biggest challenges we face as we try to reach those targets and to improve the current situation in Ireland is to ensure we engage properly with communities. Deputy Tóibín and I have seen that in our constituencies. Wind, solar and other projects are less likely to go ahead when plans are not made properly, communities are not engaged with properly and proper plans are not put in place. This, in turn, makes it more difficult for us to reach our targets. There is a way we can work with communities that helps us to reach our targets. However, there is a lot of work to be done in that regard. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, is openly engaging in the various areas. He recently published a document on wind. He is asking people to come back with their own recommendations on that. I think we are being ambitious. We have to set ambitious targets. The Taoiseach has said we need to be ambitious in this respect.

We need to communicate with communities and educate people on what needs to happen.

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

I will return to my question. What was the Government's position on the invitation to the European Investment Bank to examine its role in lending to the European defence industry? Do we have a position on whether the EIB should change its remit, its statutory provisions and its whole business model to include lending for armaments and other defence provisions? Is it concerned that it would lose funding by not being seen as an ethical lender, which is a growing area of international finance? What was the Government's position at the Council? Did we agree to the invitation? What conclusion do we expect and under which mechanism will it be agreed? Will there have to be unanimity to change the European Investment Bank lending brief or will it be by qualified majority voting, QMV?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no question of Irish money going into something we do not support, and Ireland will continue to watch this very carefully. The meeting dealt with whether the EIB should examine ways to support investment in defence research and development activities, but there has been no definitive agreement on this as of yet.

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

Why are we supporting this ramping up of European military and defence investment? Should we not be speaking out against it? An annual increase in spending for the defence fund of €5.5 billion is being spoken about. Are we not speaking out against the development of a bigger arms industry? Is any concern being expressed about the huge sales of arms from a number of quarters to Saudi Arabia, given its sponsorship of groups like ISIS, what it is doing in Yemen, the actions it is now taking against Qatar and its generally pernicious role in the region? We should be speaking loudly against it.

Are we also speaking up loudly and robustly against people like Viktor Orbán? He described migrants as poison and encouraged putting up shutters against the desperate people who are drowning in their thousands in the Mediterranean. Are we not saying we should be allowing more of these desperate people in? We should be speaking out against Viktor Orbán.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland's neutrality will not be conflicted but we need to invest more in conflict resolution with other member states. The EU global strategy sets out a vision for the EU foreign and security policy and commits the European Union to promoting peace, prosperity, democracy and the rule of law. We need to play our part in that. The Deputy referred to statements regarding Turkey, but this is a political agreement. There need to be engagements with other countries to get to the core of why these people are fleeing in the first place. If they are fleeing from persecution, we need to be able to work with other member states to get to the core of what is happening. If we do not have any engagement, we will not be able to do that. There is an agreement to ensure people do not lose their lives and, while thousands of people have lost their lives, we must remember that 11 vessels from Ireland have already saved more than 16,800 people. A great deal is happening, but a significant amount of work needs to be done to get to the core issues. A significant amount of support needs to be put in place and lines of communication need to be open.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was important that the European Council recommitted itself to the Paris Agreement on climate change. This will be a key factor in modernising the European economy and will lead to economic growth. In the area of internal security, the meeting condemned recent acts of terrorism in Europe, and that is to be welcomed. The European Union is a force against terrorism, hatred and violent extremism.

The Council called on the online industry, including Internet providers and social media sites, to develop new technology and tools to improve the automatic detection and removal of content that incites to terrorist acts. Where does that go from here? Many of the Internet providers in question and social media sites are based in the Republic of Ireland and the Irish Government should play a very active role in this and should co-operate with our European partners to implement the objective. Will the Minister of State assure me that the Irish Government will play a full role in this regard, given that many of the companies in question are based here?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Taoiseach confirmed earlier today that this is a priority for us, as it needs to be for many of the companies involved, which I will not name but are based in Ireland. There was a lot of discussion on jobs, growth and competitiveness, and the development of the digital Single Market strategy is a key priority, not least for Estonia which is taking over the Presidency. There is talk of data becoming the fifth freedom of the European Union after goods, capital, services and labour, and we need to encourage this to continue. The free movement of data should also include security data in order that we can freely communicate with our counterparts in the European Union to identify risks or threats that may have passed through social media sites or other modern forms of communications. The Taoiseach raised the issue at the European Council and it ties into a number of key priorities. It will remain firmly on the agenda.

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

Does the Minister of State want to continue with questions or make statement at the end?

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will continue with questions.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State mentioned supports for businesses. The InterTradeIreland business monitor report found that 98% of firms, on either side of the Border, are still not making plans for Brexit. This information is up to date and dates from the past month. Were there any discussions on what was available to buttress small and medium Irish businesses against Brexit?

It was reported in Britain yesterday that EU citizens living in Britain would have to join a special ID register. Would this include Irish people living in Britain?

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

I forgot to wish the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, the best of luck in her new position. I referred to the discussion on infrastructure and third countries coming in and buying up infrastructure assets. The statement does not tell us very much. Will the Minister of State elaborate on the concerns and on our stance? It seems to suggest we were effectively defending the continued intrusion of external players in getting infrastructure assets within Europe. I would be very concerned about that.

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

I ask the Minister of State to conclude within the time on the clock.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the earlier questions on jobs, enterprise and trade, the first phase of the negotiations are particularly focusing on EU citizens' rights and the UK's bill for leaving the European Union. Many of these discussions will take place at the next phase. Up to 40% of businesses in Ireland have started to make plans regarding the possible threats or advantages from Brexit. However, 100% of businesses need to make such plans. The newly appointed Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Fitzgerald, has, within the past week, engaged with many organisations, representative groups and individual companies and is openly asking organisations what support they need in the interim before it becomes clear what form Brexit will take. If possible, interim supports will be put in place for companies in the upcoming budget.

The Taoiseach will further address issues in regard to EU citizens living in Britain. TheBritish Prime Minister, Theresa May, published a more detailed explanatory note on the issue last Monday, but it will be addressed by the 27 EU member states rather than just the United Kingdom. I will revert to Deputy Boyd Barrett after the debate with a more detailed answer to his question.

I was honoured to accompany the Taoiseach to Brussels last week in my new role as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. The Taoiseach earlier reported on many of the items discussed at the European Council, including security and defence, jobs, growth and competitiveness, digital Europe, migration and Brexit. Several external relations issues as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change were also discussed by leaders at the European Council, and I will now report to the House on these issues.

The European Council was unanimous in its profound regret at President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change in its current form. The agreement remains the cornerstone of global efforts to tackle climate change effectively and cannot be renegotiated. It is also a key element in the modernisation of Europe's economy and industries. The European Council and member states reaffirmed their commitment to implement the Paris Agreement swiftly and fully, contribute to fulfilment of the climate finance goals and continue to lead in the fight against climate change. The Taoiseach has said that this is an area in which Ireland should be ambitious and it is intended to play an active role in this regard.

Notwithstanding the differences over the Paris Agreement, the EU and the United States remain each other's most important strategic partner. This was demonstrated at the G7 meeting in Sicily and will again be made clear at next month's G20 meeting in Hamburg. The EU and its member states, including Ireland have proactively engaged with the US Administration to reaffirm commitment to this relationship. Ireland's links with the US run very deep, span many centuries and, as was seen during the St. Patrick's Day festivities this year and previously, transcend any one point of difference. This close relationship will continue and we will similarly work to maintain the close relationship between the US and the EU. I am informed by the Taoiseach that he did not leave President Trump waiting for 90 seconds before taking his phone call and there was just a delay in the connection.

The European Council also discussed relations with Russia, which remain under particular strain. In their capacity as members of the Normandy group, French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel provided an update on the ongoing effort to resolve tensions between Russia and Ukraine. The EU's targeted economic sanctions against Russia in response to Russian actions in Ukraine have been in place since 2014. These are clearly linked to the full implementation of the Minsk accords. An absence of political will is the main reason for the failure to make any headway over the past six months in implementing the security and political provisions of the Minsk accords, while Russia's refusal to use its influence over the separatists is also a key factor. The Government strongly believes that any relaxation of the EU sanctions can only be considered if there is clear evidence of concrete progress in eastern Ukraine. Russia's ongoing actions there have left little choice but to renew the restrictive measures for a further six months. The Government fully supports this decision. All members would like to see a constructive and predictable relationship between the EU and Russia, but the current stalemate in Ukraine and developments elsewhere do not suggest that currently interests the Russian Government.

The European Council also discussed relations with Turkey in the context of last month's meeting between President of the European Council , Donald Tusk, President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Turkish President, Recep Erdoğan. Relations between the EU and Turkey have been under considerable strain, in particular since the attempted coup in July 2016 and constitutional referendum in 2017. Nevertheless, Turkey remains an important partner of the EU, including in the management of migration, and the EU will continue to work with Turkey on all aspects of the relationship.

The President of Cyprus updated the European Council on the ongoing UN-sponsored talks between the two communities on that island. While some good progress has been made, in particular over the past 12 months, the situation remains complex and much depends on the approach taken by Turkey. Member states expressed support for the Cypriot President, with some noting that maintaining links with Turkey will be crucial to advancing those negotiations.

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

I wish the Minister of State well in her new role. She represents a constituency neighbouring mine and works hard in that role.