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

11. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU digital summit in Tallinn, Estonia, on 29 September 2017. [41635/17]

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

12. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the informal EU meeting he attended in Estonia; the issues that were discussed; the bilateral meetings he attended; and if bilateral meetings were held. [42454/17]

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

13. To ask the Taoiseach if immigration to the EU was discussed in Estonia at the informal EU meeting. [42459/17]

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

14. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings at the recent European digital summit in Tallinn. [43748/17]

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

15. To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU digital summit in Estonia. [43750/17]

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

16. To ask the Taoiseach further to Parliamentary Question Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, of 4 October 2017, the outcome of his meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte on the margins of the European digital summit. [43767/17]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 16, inclusive, together.

The digital summit in Tallinn was an important opportunity for EU leaders to discuss the evolution of digital technologies and their wide-ranging implications in a less formal setting than regular European Council business. The Estonian Presidency prepared a very useful, forward-looking agenda to stimulate discussion on how Europe can develop its competitive advantages in a fast-changing digital world which is re-shaping key drivers of innovation, growth and living standards.

While we did not adopt formal conclusions, Prime Minister Jüri Ratas shared his assessment of the key broad-based agreement which emerged from our exchanges. This identified much common ground on issues, such as bringing government and the public sector into the digital age, an area where Estonia has taken a lead; making Europe a leader in cyber security, to ensure the trust, confidence and protection of our citizens; ensuring that our regulatory environment in Europe is one which supports innovation and entrepreneurship; empowering our people with digital skills and modernising our education and training systems to support lifelong learning opportunities; and, of course, supporting necessary investments in next-generation infrastructure.

Ireland wants to see a high level of political ambition in unlocking the full potential of the European digital Single Market, and it is clear from our discussions in Tallinn that this is a view shared by most of my European Council colleagues. Prime Minister Ratas will report on proceedings at the October European Council this week, where I expect we will have the opportunity to set a further clear orientation for ongoing legislative work in the European Council and Parliament.

The evening before the summit, a dinner was hosted by President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, during which there was a discussion on the future of Europe. This continued the process which began last year in Bratislava and followed Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s recent state of the Union speech in Brussels and President Macron’s speech at the Sorbonne. Migration was mentioned as an ongoing priority for action, but was not discussed in depth.

At the margins of the summit in Tallinn, I had a bilateral meeting with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in the Irish embassy. We discussed progress in regard to the Brexit negotiations, and I thanked the Prime Minister for his understanding of Ireland's particular concerns. We also exchanged views about the Bratislava process and the future direction of Europe. I invited him to visit Dublin later this year when I hope we will have a further opportunity to discuss these issues in detail. Dates for his visit are currently being explored.

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

I suggest Deputies take one minute each as there are six questions.

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

The Taoiseach had the opportunity to discuss the future of Europe informally. Although he said the discussions were not in-depth, I presume they included Brexit and so on. We will have the chance to deal with the European Council summit and will have statements on it today.

I picked up on what Commissioner Phil Hogan said, namely, that it is clear that the British Government is not going to propose workable solutions for the benefit of the people of the island. We have said this repeatedly. The focus of the British Government is firmly on what it sees as its national interest. The Commissioner said he was disheartened by the low priority afforded to the Border by Mrs. May's Government. It was clear at the time of the summit that the Commissioner had concerns. Does the Taoiseach share them? Has he raised any of these issues in the informal discussions he had with other European leaders?

I refer in particular to the British Government's rejection of the European Court of Justice, which has been a long-standing position of the Tory Party. It is opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights. That tears at the very heart of the Good Friday Agreement, of which the Taoiseach's Government is a co-guarantor.

I refer to the Taoiseach's remarks on the BBC yesterday about any future unity referendum. They were most unhelpful. The Agreement is very clear on all these matters and the Taoiseach, as a co-guarantor, should not cherry-pick. Of course, we want to get the maximum level of agreement in any future referendum but the Taoiseach has a legal and moral responsibility to uphold the letter and spirit of all of the measures contained in the Agreement which was voted for by the people of the island, North and South.

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

On the issue of Brexit, the Taoiseach said he felt there were better vibes around the talks in Estonia. Can he give us the view of the Government on whether we support the likely recommendation that the talks not proceed to the next phase, that is, the future trading relationship between the European Union and the UK?

Has there been enough progress at this point on the three pillars in the current phase in order to move on?

A second and related matter I wish to raise relates to EU state aid approval for certain supports of Irish firms that are very dependent on the UK market and exposed to the fallout from Brexit. What efforts are under way and what steps are being taken to secure EU state aid approval for supports of those firms, including long-term and competitively priced funding, for example?

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

I take it we will have an opportunity to hear the Taoiseach outline in some detail his approach to the upcoming Council, and particularly the major matter of Brexit, when we get to the statements. The EU digital summit is the focus of these questions. We understand that at the summit French President Macron proposed an EU-wide tax on Internet companies. What was the Taoiseach's response to President Macron on that matter? Was it discussed?

Following the summit, President Tusk put together a leaders' agenda and the Taoiseach referred to it as the Bratislava process on the future of Europe. The published agenda sets out a working agenda up to the end of 2019. What element was submitted by the Taoiseach for inclusion in the agenda of work for the leaders between now and the end of 2019?

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

I will concentrate on the purpose of the visit around the digital economy and the meeting in the margins with the Dutch Prime Minister. The UK is potentially leaving the European Union and it tended to be a party we worked with on digital policy and shaping the European agenda. Does the Taoiseach see that kind of role with the Dutch? I am conscious we also have a difficulty in that part of the controversy around the tax haven status was that we were engaged with the Dutch with the "Dutch sandwich" or "double Irish". The process used them and us so there is a certain controversy, particularly in the digital company side, as to how we and they work together. Is there a wider sense in which the Taoiseach sees us aligning with the likes of Holland and Denmark in the absence of the UK if we want to be a modern, advanced, digital economy? This goes back to my earlier question. I do not have a sense of strategy in this. The digital economy is huge here and this should be big for us. What will be the play in terms of working with the Dutch or others in the European Council when it comes to digital matters?

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

If Commissioner Hogan made new comments today, I am not aware of them. I would prefer to see his comments in full and in context before commenting on them specifically.

The informal dinner was very much about the future of Europe, including future co-operation and integration. It touched on what is already in train as a result of the Bratislava process, as well as the Juncker and Macron speeches. It brought into focus in my mind the extent that although Brexit may be the most important thing happening in Europe to us, it is not necessarily the case for other people. In the Baltic states, they are much more interested in Russia and security matters while those along the Mediterranean are much more interested in migration. France and Germany have their own ideas and we cannot be disengaged on the future of Europe debate. Whereas we are primarily concerned with Brexit, we need to engage in the future of Europe debate as well and not allow it to pass us by.

On the Good Friday Agreement, Deputy Adams mentioned the Irish Government is co-guarantor of the agreement, and it is a role we accept and take very seriously. The Good Friday Agreement also states Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom but that does not mean one must like it. I am sure the Deputy accepts the Good Friday Agreement but he does not want that to continue to be the case. I accept the referendum provision in the Good Friday Agreement would allow unity by consent with a majority of one but I do not like it; it would be a bad idea to move from a constitutional settlement that has a decent amount of cross-party support, with 70% of people in Northern Ireland having voted for it, to a process with the support of one more person over those against it. That is the point I made and people understand that point.

Deputy Michael McGrath asked about sufficient progress with regard to the Brexit negotiations and the Government agrees with Mr. Michel Barnier's assessment that insufficient progress has been made across the three areas. As a result, we intend to support the draft Council conclusions, which we had a role in helping to write.

On the state aid matter, some initial work is being done, not just within Departments but through initial contact with the Commission about approving state aid for businesses that may be affected by Brexit. It is very much a work in progress and it is not possible to apply for state aid clearance to compensate people for something that has not happened yet. It is something that may well have to form part of our armoury if Brexit goes wrong.

With regard to President Macron's advocacy of an EU-wide digital tax or tax on digital companies, I expressed the view that it was a bad idea. A number of countries shared that view, including Sweden, Malta, Latvia, Romania, Cyprus, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic. The argument I made was that if we are going to introduce a digital tax, it should be done on an international basis and not just by the EU. If we were to impose such a tax within Europe, all we would do is hand the advantage to Japan, America and perhaps even the United Kingdom. As it leaves the EU, it would have the advantage of not having the tax applied. That is the approach we will be taking.