Dáil debates

Wednesday, 13 December 2017

European Council Meeting: Statements

 

2:00 pm

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

I am pleased to speak today ahead of the European Council, which takes place in Brussels tomorrow and Friday. The European Council will meet in four separate formats over the course of the two days. The main meeting on Thursday will focus on social, educational and cultural co-operation, as well as security and defence. Tomorrow evening, we will meet under the leaders' agenda, as part of the debate on the future of Europe, to discuss migration. On Friday morning, a euro summit will consider the Economic and Monetary Union. We will then meet in Article 50 format, without the United Kingdom, to discuss progress in the Brexit negotiations.

I will speak first about the Thursday afternoon meeting of the European Council, which will consider and adopt conclusions on social, educational and cultural matters. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, will say more about this in her concluding remarks. However, I note that this item follows on from discussions which took place in Gothenburg in November. I participated actively in those meetings and I support the general outcome of the exchanges.

Under the item on security and defence, we will welcome the launch of permanent structured co-operation, PESCO, and also have a discussion with the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, NATO, on co-operation between the EU and that organisation. PESCO provides a mechanism whereby military crisis management capabilities can be developed by member states in support of common security and defence policy operations. Ireland took full part in the discussions on setting up PESCO and we have supported its establishment. As Deputies are aware, the Dáil debated PESCO last week and voted in favour of Ireland's participation.

I assure everyone that our core, long-standing policy of military neutrality remains in place. We do not participate in and will not join any military alliances. However, as I have said before, this does not mean that we are neutral about everything. Common threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, drug trafficking and human trafficking concern all Europeans and it makes perfect sense to work together to respond to them. Our participation in PESCO will facilitate greater co-operation here. I would also recall our proud history of UN peacekeeping and EU common security and defence policy operations. Participation in specific PESCO projects is on a voluntary basis and we will, therefore, participate in a way that complements what we do in those operations.

On migration, we will examine how best to achieve an effective and sustainable policy which respects the concepts of responsibility and solidarity while also looking at the root causes and preventing mass arrivals. This is intended to be an open and free-flowing exchange of views with the aim of unlocking some of the more contentious aspects of the issue. As a result, there will be no formal conclusions. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, will provide more detail on this item in her wrap-up remarks.

On Friday morning, the Euro summit will meet in an expanded format of the 27, with presentations from the president of the ECB, Mario Draghi, and the outgoing Eurogroup president, Jeroen Dijsselbloem. The focus will be mainly on deepening the economic and monetary union, EMU, and on banking union. As a founder member of the euro, Ireland supports taking the necessary steps to safeguard and strengthen our single currency for the future. This means completing the banking union, in particular, through protecting citizens' deposits on a pan-European basis. We also believe that a genuine capital markets union would provide a useful, extra level to the European economy. In general terms, we believe that we need to concentrate on completing what has already been agreed. The European Commission published an ambitious set of proposals on 6 December. We will examine these carefully and reflect on their implications.

Finally, we will meet in Article 50 format to discuss progress in the Brexit negotiations. As Deputies are well aware, this will be a pivotal meeting at which we will formally decide whether there has been sufficient progress on the three phase 1 issues - the UK financial commitment, EU citizens' rights and the Irish-specific issues - to allow us to move to phase 2. There we will consider the shape of the future relationship between the EU and the UK and possible transitional arrangements. After long and intensive negotiations over the past weeks, the EU achieved a positive and strong agreement on the Irish-specific issues. I am satisfied that sufficient progress has now been made on these. Under the agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts, is protected. Everyone born in Northern Ireland will continue to have the right to Irish and, therefore, EU citizenship. The common travel area will continue to allow people to travel freely between Great Britain and Ireland. British and Irish citizens will continue to have the freedom to live, work and study and to access housing, health care, pensions and welfare in each other's countries as though they were citizens of both. The United Kingdom has committed to avoiding a hard border as an overarching requirement with which any future arrangements must be compatible. There will be no physical infrastructure or related checks or controls.

As I have stated before, our preferred option for achieving this is a deep and comprehensive agreement between the EU and the UK which will allow us to continue trading as we do now. However, if that is not possible, there is a backstop arrangement in which Northern Ireland - and perhaps all of the UK - will maintain full alignment with the rules of the internal market and customs union which are relevant regarding the avoidance of a border, North-South co-operation and the all-island economy. It is important to stress that this agreement will be held in all circumstances unless and until all other possible options for the future relationship between the EU and the UK have been agreed. The UK has also made clear that it intends to ensure that Northern Ireland business will continue to have unfettered access to the whole of the UK and that no new barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain unless the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree to it. EU funding under PEACE and INTERREG will continue until 2020 and we will favourably examine continuing it beyond that into the next budgetary period. The UK has committed to ensuring that, in Northern Ireland, there will be no diminution of human rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in European law. Just as importantly, there will continue to be a distinct strand on Ireland in phase 2 of the negotiations.

We have to bear in mind the concerns of the unionist community in Northern Ireland and reassure its members that the Irish Government has no hidden agenda. While we aspire to Irish unity and an agreed Ireland, I have been very clear throughout these discussions that we are not seeking to use Brexit as a move to a united Ireland without consent. Brexit undoubtedly presents challenges but, notwithstanding those, we want reconciliation and respect to grow. We have also been clear that we also have no desire to see a border in the Irish Sea any more than we want a border between Letterkenny and Derry or between Newry and Dundalk. Our strong preference remains to allow travel and free trade across these islands to continue as it does now and has done for the past 20 years. Our only ambition has been to ensure that the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement continue to operate in full after Brexit and that people can go about their normal lives and business as before. The agreement we have reached explicitly recognises the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement with regard to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent.

At the same time, we have protected the interests of Irish citizens in Northern Ireland throughout these negotiations. Their birthright, as Irish citizens and, therefore, EU citizens, will be protected. These rights will, of course, be available to everyone in Northern Ireland who chooses to exercise his or her right to be an Irish citizen, regardless of his or her political persuasion or religious beliefs. With this agreement in place, it is now even more important that the Northern Ireland Executive and the North-South Ministerial Council get up and running again. The institutions can be a vital voice helping us to move forward into phase two of the Brexit talks. No one party of any colour can speak for Northern Ireland but the Executive, the First Minister and deputy First Minister working together could. The agreement reached last week between the EU and the UK is very significant for everyone on the island of Ireland, for our neighbouring island and for all of our fellow members of the European Union.

The Government has been united and firm in its resolve. I thank the Opposition leaders and their parties for the strong and very practical support they have provided to date. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the EU negotiators led by Michel Barnier, President Juncker, President Tusk, President Tajani of the European Parliament and other representatives of the EU institutions and, of course, to all the other member states. Their support and solidarity has been invaluable. It is the best of the values of the European Union and indicates why small countries are better off being members of the EU. It puts beyond any doubt that our future lies in the European Union at the heart of the common European home we helped to build. I also acknowledge the good will shown by Prime Minister May and her careful consideration of our concerns. While we regret it, Ireland has always respected the British people's democratic decision to leave the European Union. We want to assure them of the continued friendship and good will of the Irish Government and the Irish people into the future.

The European Council provides the framework for resolving the shared challenges at EU level and I look forward to engaging with my colleagues while always keeping in mind the best interests of this country and of Europe. I will report back to the House in due course on the outcome of the European Council.

2:10 pm

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

Now that phase one is over and as we head into the most difficult part of the Brexit negotiations, it is important to review where we are and the key challenges which we face. The first point we should all recognise is that Brexit is not some distant issue; it is already under way and causing damage. Firms in various parts of this island are suffering because of a combination of uncertainty and the chronic weakness of the British currency that is directly linked to Brexit. In light of the instability in Westminster, the major contradictions in the agreement and the deterioration of key relationships which has been exposed in recent weeks, we need a lot more reflection. It would be an enormous error to believe that anything is settled. Equally, given the existing damage since the referendum and the further damage likely due to the UK's confirmed decision to leave the customs union and Single Market, Ireland has a wider and urgent agenda, much of which has seen little or no progress.

From well before the Brexit referendum was held, Fianna Fáil has been actively engaged in addressing the implications of a decision by the UK to leave the European Union. It has been a priority for us since 2013 when David Cameron announced that a referendum would be held on the topic and it has been addressed in detail by us in an ongoing series of speeches and manifestos since then. During the recent instability caused by the Government's resistance to basic political accountability, Fianna Fáil took action to ensure that there would be no doubt about Ireland's position on Brexit.

I wrote to the lead negotiators for the Commission and the Parliament to state very clearly there is a wide consensus in Ireland on Brexit which was reflected in the Government’s negotiating position. I further stated there was full political agreement that written guarantees were required from the United Kingdom before proceeding to phase two could be considered. Subsequent contacts have confirmed it was a reassurance that irrespective of events, Ireland’s core position would not change.

When one steps back from the breathless commentary of recent days and looks at the current state of the Brexit project, it is striking how the core analysis which we set out in 2013 remains valid. The British Government has still not reconciled itself to the fact that ceasing to be a member will lose it many of the benefits of being a member. Brexit remains a deep and urgent threat to Ireland. It remains a move by London away from the principle of rules-based international co-operation. Most fundamentally, the core Brexit challenge remains how to limit its damage because there is no possible scenario where there is no damage. As of last week, the worst-case scenarios appear a lot less likely. However, what has been agreed is a statement of important principles which is very broad and contains within it clearly contradictory statements. The status of trade within Ireland and between these islands is very far from settled. The negotiating position of the Government early this year was that the fate of Ireland should largely be divorced from the final status discussions. While the statements are important, Ireland's fate remains integrally bound up in the wider negotiation and this carries with it inherent risks. These risks may have been unavoidable but it serves no real purpose to ignore them.

The British Government has repeated the statements made by its leaders at various points during the past year and a half. It has said it will protect the Good Friday Agreement and that there will be no disruption of cross-border activity. However, it has also confirmed that the United Kingdom as a whole will leave both the customs union and the Single Market and has added a new point that Northern Ireland will not be treated any differently. The broad statements of principle made concerning Ireland are unquestionably welcome but they are very far from being a final statement on the matter. The specific statement entrenching the idea that Northern Ireland is no different from the rest of the United Kingdom is not only not welcome, but it is a reversal of over 40 years of policy and practice.

President Donald Tusk described the phase one deal as "the easy part" of the negotiations because it is a general agreement. There has been a lot of back and forth in recent days about the legal enforceability of this political agreement. The current status is that the British Government says it will be legally enforceable as part of the exit treaty. It is hard to disagree with this interpretation. Everything must be done to hold it to the agreed principles, but please let us not pretend we have anything we can use to walk into a courtroom and demand the maintenance of an open border.

Before speaking further on Ireland-specific measures, I should say that we warmly welcome the agreement on the points about the rights of European Union and United Kingdom citizens post-Brexit and a methodology for computing the United Kingdom’s financial responsibilities that will protect the current multi-annual financial framework. Even more importantly, we welcome the formal acknowledgement by both sides of the continued right of current and future residents of Northern Ireland to claim full European Union citizenship as per the Good Friday Agreement. This was a matter we raised soon after the referendum and which we lobbied to be included in the Commission’s negotiating guidelines following the failure to address it in the Council’s formal round one document. I acknowledge this progress.

This week’s summit is likely to unanimously and without significant difficulty endorse the recommendation to move to phase two of the Brexit negotiations. This is the right decision. The agreement for at least a two-year transition period which will most likely involve no significant change is a welcome inching away from the cliff edge and extremely important. The current most likely scenario, as confirmed by Michel Barnier yesterday, is that any exit treaty which can be agreed before the end of next year will contain a framework for a trade agreement rather than a negotiated text. As such, it is an issue which will not be settled until beyond next year and the eventual trade agreement will be subject to potential revision over time.

There are four general areas where we believe it falls to our Government to act with urgency. First, we need to address the core contradiction in the text between the commitment to no border in Ireland and the United Kingdom’s uniform exit from the Single Market and customs union. As we saw yesterday, the Taoiseach is continuing his predecessor’s policy of refusing to say what he means by maintaining an open border beyond the issue of no checks at the Border. There are many scenarios where continued regulatory alignment will still involve significant practical barriers to trade. The core British position remains that they want full access to European markets while limiting regulatory compliance to industry-specific matters and without the European Court of Justice and Commission maintaining their current legal powers. This is incompatible with the core European Union position.

So what happens to Ireland, particularly in the new context where the refusal to treat Northern Ireland as a special case has been elevated to the level of a core principle in London? We must proceed on the basis of showing how Northern Ireland could maintain unhindered access to the customs union and Single Market in any likely scenario. Otherwise we will remain fully hostage to the overall negotiations, the outcome of which is still deeply uncertain. We should also remember that the leadership of the British Labour Party is currently enforcing a policy in the House of Commons which is of little practical comfort to Ireland.

The second action we need is a far more urgent push to have the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive re-established and working. Their absence has been Ireland’s greatest handicap in recent months. I will address this and other Northern Ireland-specific Brexit issues in more detail during this evening’s statements.

The third action we need is to move on to implement proposals to help businesses and communities deal with the dislocation that is already under way. The urgency of diversifying both products and markets is becoming more acute by the day. We need a range of supports, many of which require a temporary change in European Union rules, and we need to understand that actions to date are not even as good as being a sticking plaster. Perhaps the Minister of State will indicate to the House later whether it is the Government's intention to publish impact studies on the various sectoral areas. Our understanding was that sectoral studies had been carried out and that studies would be published on the different sectors such as agrifood, tourism and so on. It would be useful to get clarification from the Minister of State on that point.

Finally, we need to address the serious deterioration of vital relationships which have in the past been so central to progress on the island and with Britain. In recent months our officials have worked diligently and as effectively as ever in the background, but at political level things have at times reached the level of leaders talking at each other through newspaper headlines. The basic relationships of trust between political leaders on a north-south and east-west basis have to be renewed. Otherwise we risk constant roadblocks in addressing the highly complex bilateral issues which have to be dealt with in the next few years.

There are other very important issues to be addressed at the summit. I addressed some of them during Taoiseach’s Questions. We will not have time next week to deal with them but I hope we will have time during the next sitting week to deal with them properly.

The amount of time being allocated for these deliberations is far too short. Our spokesperson on Europe cannot contribute. That is not satisfactory. Others would also like to contribute. The time available to Deputies to contribute to key debates is unsatisfactory.

2:20 pm

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

Sula glaoim ar an Teachta Adams, b'fhéidir go dtabharfaidh an Teach leath-bomaite domsa. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil an ceart seo agam ach táim chun an ceart a ghlacadh ó na Comhaltaí fáilte a chur roimh cuairteoirí ó scoil i nDún na nGall atá anseo sa Ghailearaí Poiblí inniu. Is scoil ó cheartlár na Gaeltachta i nDún na nGall í - Pobalscoil Ghaoth Dhobhair. Cuirim fáilte rompu go léir. Tá súil agam go mbainfidh siad sult agus sásamh as a dturas go dtí Dáil Éireann. Má tá botún déanta agam, gabh mo leithscéal.

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh na daoine as Gaoth Dobhair fosta. Is é an áit is fearr ar domhan, mura bhfuil a fhios ag éinne.

Our spokesperson on Brexit will be able to speak on this because I am sharing my time with him.

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

We are a bigger party. We need more time.

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

Sinn Féin gave a very qualified welcome to the communiqué on Friday. Our approach was vindicated by subsequent contradictory statements from British Government Ministers.

Of course, the joint report is not the conclusion of the process or the final binding legal deal on Brexit. It sets out broad principles and represents some progress, but there are many unanswered questions on key issues. The Irish Government needs to remain focused and vigilant and should not over-egg the achievements. There have been some achievements. The joint report recognises the unique and special circumstances of the North - although it could hardly do otherwise - the importance of the peace process and the need to ensure that there will be no hard border. It also asserts that the Good Friday Agreement will be at the heart of any eventual agreements. However, it also contains important contradictions, including some relating to the Good Friday Agreement. For example, the insistence by the British that the North must leave the customs union and the Single Market is of particular concern and totally disrespects the democratic vote of the people in that part of our island. The British assertion that they will leave the customs union and the Single Market contradicts the British Prime Minister's claim that there will not be a hard economic border. Michel Barnier has already stated that it is very difficult to see how these two competing imperatives can be reconciled.

On Sunday, the British Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, described the contents of the joint report as merely a "statement of intent". On Monday, the European Commission confirmed that the joint report is not legally binding and described it as a "deal between gentlemen". This morning, it was reported that the EU Ministers might suspend Brexit negotiations if Britain reneges on its phase 1 commitments. It will be interesting to see if the Taoiseach supports that approach.

It is stated in paragraph 53 of the joint report that there should be no diminution of citizens' rights caused by the UK's departure from the European Union. However, when I pressed the Taoiseach on a number of occasions on the joint report's possible impact on the rights of Irish - and therefore EU - citizens in the North and, in particular, whether they would have access to the European Court of Justice, he would not and did not answer. There was no clarity. It took until yesterday to get that clarity. Then we learned that, after an eight-year period, the British will not allow the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to apply to the North and, apparently, the Taoiseach has agreed to this. Citizens in the North, therefore, will not have access to the European Court of Justice. If this be what has been done, the Government will have signed up to an agreement which will strip Irish citizens living in the North of their EU rights. When I asked the Taoiseach about this earlier and said it was a breach of the Good Friday Agreement, he said he would check it out. With respect, he should have checked it out long before this. As he said in his statement earlier, under the Good Friday Agreement, people in the North have the right to Irish citizenship which includes the right to European Union citizenship. That has to include access to the European institutions.

2:30 pm

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

Not if one is not resident in the EU; obviously it does not.

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

Not even with-----

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

If a US citizen living in Mauritania-----

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

Ná bí ag cur isteach orm.

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

Deputy Adams, without interruption.

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

Leanfaidh mé ar aghaidh.

The Good Friday Agreement is the defining document and agreement which sets out the relationship between the people of this island and the people of these two islands. That includes the people in the North who, the Taoiseach said an Irish Government would never leave behind again. Let us be very clear about these positions. Even in the past 20 years, I could outline ten agreements the British have made which they have not honoured and in which they have poked holes in the intervening period.

In addition to its position of withdrawal from the European Court of Justice, the British Government will also withdraw from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. It will repeal the Human Rights Act by which the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into British law. These decisions threaten the role of the European institutions and the human rights elements and safeguards, which are fundamental to the Good Friday Agreement.

I do not raise these issues to score points. This is too important for party-political boxing or a Punch and Judy show. These are fundamental issues. I hope the Taoiseach will have noted the letter from civic nationalism, if I can use that term, in the North, which is all about the rights and the denial of rights at this time. The Government needs to be conscious that this refusal to embrace rights is at the core of the current difficulties in the political institutions and the collapse of the Northern Executive. We will continue to make the case for special status in the North; we do not care what it is called. We still believe there is an opportunity to achieve this in the coming years if the political will exists and if the Government is committed to standing by our national interest - that is, our all-island interest as a nation.

Photo of David CullinaneDavid Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have consistently said that if the Government acts in the national interest, which means protecting all of the people of Ireland, then Sinn Féin will support it. We will be strong supporters of any Government which ensures that we get the best possible deal for Ireland in what are very complex negotiations on Brexit.

Our position has always been clear: we want to avoid any hardening of the border; we want to protect the Good Friday Agreement, in all its parts; and we want to protect the rights of citizens. In rhetoric terms, that is also the position of the Irish Government, the British Government, the European Commission and the European Parliament, all of which is to be welcomed. Some of the contents of the joint report that was agreed represent a degree of progress.

We have always said that the best way to achieve those objectives and high-level principles is for a special arrangement or special status for the North within the European Union. In the Taoiseach's response to an Teachta Adams on citizens, he missed that point entirely. The Taoiseach suggested that an Irish citizen who lives in the North of Ireland will, by birthright, be able to claim Irish and EU citizenship. However, he or she will not be able to vindicate that right because he or she will no longer be living in the European Union. What the Taoiseach said does not make sense. In addition, it makes a mockery of what should be special status and special solutions for the North. We have always said that the only way to avoid a hardening of the border is for the entire island, including the North, to stay in the customs union and Single Market, and for the Good Friday Agreement to be attached as a protocol to the eventual agreement.

What has been agreed is a backstop arrangement for Ireland. The backstop arrangement only kicks in if there is no trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This is important because the joint report states:

In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with [the] rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement.

We have asked for a detailed breakdown of what is meant by North-South co-operation and what is meant by the all-island economy. This is defined in a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and relates to education and training, intervention to support research and innovation, development of the knowledge economy, and other areas. It does not mention trade at all.

What will happen in the event of a backstop arrangement where we have what the Taoiseach calls full alignment in these areas but not in all areas? Without full alignment in all areas of trade, what will happen when goods are imported from third countries into the island of Ireland and where country-of-origin rules have to apply in the event of no deal? Goods then cannot move north and south if they do not originate on the island of Ireland. If there is any area where there is not full alignment, it will mean a hardening of the border. I think the Taoiseach has missed that point entirely. That is glaringly obvious from the joint report, which has already been exposed as being full of holes in some areas. We have a responsibility to point out these concerns and ensure we get the best possible arrangement.

A question I asked the Tánaiste this morning, which he has still not answered, is: what is the difference between full alignment in the context of the all-island economy and the North staying in the customs union and the Single Market? If the Government had done its homework, it would know there is a huge difference. That huge difference is that it does not align all rules and regulations on trade - only some. If it only involves some, it means a hardening of the border. A hardening of the border goes against the principles the Government has set out as being the bottom line for the people of Ireland.

There has been some progress, which we welcome. However, there are genuine concerns that we, as people who represent citizens, North and South, have a responsibility to put to the Government and get answers, but we still have not obtained them. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste still have not explained to the citizens of the State the clear difference between full alignment in some areas and the North staying in the customs union and Single Market, which must be the main request of any Irish Government.

2:40 pm

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

As the Taoiseach will recall, this is the third occasion on which I have requested a briefing from his officials in advance of an EU Council. I hope in future we will be able to receive comprehensive briefings on the agenda for meetings in advance. I appreciate that in recent weeks the Taoiseach has been very busy, but the challenges and the future of Europe are core concerns for us in the months and years ahead. It is important, before we have debates like this one, that we have a deeper understanding of the position Ireland takes on each agenda item.

While Brexit will dominate the Article 50 Council on 15 December, the meeting on Thursday will discuss a number of other important issues. I understand the Estonian Prime Minister is to provide an overview on the implementation of the earlier Council conclusions. The Taoiseach might furnish us with the details of those as soon as they come to hand.

The first official item on the agenda on Thursday is defence, welcoming the launch of Permanent Structured Co-operation. Since the Dáil rushed through the ratification last week, after little public debate or engagement on what is a very important issue, Ireland will now take part in PESCO. Alongside the original 23 members announced in November, Ireland and Portugal have now signed up but as I said previously, Malta and Denmark have chosen not to, while the United Kingdom will be exiting the EU. The Danes have had a defence opt-out since 1992. Separately, Malta has decided to take a wait and see approach, one that might have been wise counsel for us, as it believes certain operations may be in breach of the neutrality clause of their constitution. It is a shame that Ireland did not take the same approach as Malta.

There are 17 joint projects which will fall under the scope of PESCO. The Government should tell us which ones it intends to sign up for so that we can have absolute clarity on these matters. It is interesting that the key point for discussion under defence is a review of progress in other fields, notably EU-NATO co-operation. Ireland is not a member of NATO but the direction of future travel intended by some member states is becoming increasingly clear.

On Monday, Jean Claude Juncker tweeted that the Sleeping Beauty of the Lisbon treaty is happening. He welcomed the operational steps being taken today by member states to lay the foundation of a European Defence Union. While the Government may protest that PESCO has nothing to do with a European army, it is clearly the intent of many states to proceed down that track. The French President has said he wants an EU army, and now PESCO will provide the stepping stone to that.

The second agenda item relates to social, education and culture. I am not clear what the conclusions referred to are, following on from the Gothenburg Social Summit. The Minister of State, who is to address the House later, might elaborate on that. There has been a focus on the ERASMUS programme as it celebrates 30 years in existence, one that would be recognised and celebrated across all member states. There is a proposal from the leaders' agenda to "envisage" an ERASMUS for young artists. That is a exciting and interesting prospect. It would be a very welcome and tangible benefit for EU citizens into the future.

The Party of European Socialists, through its Act For Youth campaign, has called for a widening of the accessibility and increased funding for the ERASMUS+ programme. That would allow secondary school students and technical and professional apprentices to benefit also from ERASMUS. That would be very welcome, particularly when growing nationalism is a countervailing argument to the benefits we have enjoyed for many decades of growing integration in our European homeland. I hope the Government will take these proposals on board.

The agenda also states that in light of events the Council may address specific foreign policy issues. The Taoiseach might report back to us, or the Minister of State in her address later, on what the Government intends to raise in these matters but I raise a very important issue that I hope the Taoiseach will take the opportunity to raise when the broader foreign policy issues are being discussed at the Council. This is the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy from Tel Aviv to that city, what the leaders jointly will say about that and the action they propose to take in the light of the reaction across not only the broader Arab world, but the entire Muslim world at that very negative decision.

Turning to Brexit, I believe a number of significant developments have opened up the prospect of a soft Brexit. I have repeated many times my view and that of my party that only the UK staying in the Single Market and the customs union can deliver the type of border and future trade arrangements that Ireland needs and the consensus in this House requires. Any other arrangement less than the maintenance of the United Kingdom as a whole within the Single Market and the customs union will present real challenges to maintaining the integrated economy we now have.

As others have said, the joint report published on Friday marks the start of a process, not an end. As I said on the day, the devil is very much in the detail. The commitment in the agreed text that the British Government will maintain full alignment with Internal Market rules on the island of Ireland in the absence of a satisfactory UK-EU agreement is a strong backstop, but I am worried. I listened to the Taoiseach carefully today again during Leaders' Questions when he maintained that the backstop was a stand alone position. Is that the case when the repeated view expressed in the British House of Commons is that until everything is agreed, nothing is agreed? In other words, the backstop is not really a backstop in the event of there being no fundamental agreement. That is the fundament point we need clarity upon because if it is to be a firewall, it should not be a flammable one.

Full alignment on this island and between the two islands implies a particular kind of Brexit outcome that may not satisfy hard Brexiteers in the UK, although I believe there is a growing sense of reality dawning on even those who are the most trenchant in their views. As we saw in the Brexit referendum, the level of debate and plain untruths told about leaving the EU now continue to infect the debate on these very important issues. The internal politics of the British Conservative Party could derail the prospects of the best outcome for both the British and Irish peoples, and that is what we saw in the discussions particularly in Britain last weekend. It was deeply disappointing but not surprising to hear the comments from a number of cabinet members that the agreement arrived at with the EU and Ireland was "meaningless, "not binding" or somehow limited.

I am well aware of the complex negotiations that are involved in these processes and that there are many staging posts along the way. The Taoiseach said there will be many spinners of words but there has to be a common understanding between the negotiating parties of what is meant. When hard-won negotiations arrive at an agreed text, there cannot be different interpretations of a fundamental nature as to the meaning of those texts. I hope that what we have seen over the last weekend is the last of that. UK politicians and officials need to realise that the melodrama that has been played out publicly in Britain has huge negative impacts on our understanding of the capacity of the British negotiators to act in good faith and to deliver a deal that is delivered upon.

A weak and divided British Government remains charged with squaring a very difficult circle. Importantly, phase two negotiations still stand ahead of us and in reality there is now less than ten months left to finalise whatever detail will be accommodated before the actual exit proposals are put to the European Parliament at the end of next year.

Donald Tusk circulated draft guidelines for the second phase of Brexit negotiations on Friday. According to reports, EU countries have sought changes to those guidelines. As I said, the devil will be in the detail and we will see all of that.

Ireland needs to discuss not only the details that will emerge from the arrangements that will be negotiated between Ireland and Britain, but we also needs time to discuss the future of Europe because there is a parallel agenda. I hope the suggestion made by the leader of Fianna Fáil, that we have more time and more engagement with officials in advance of these debates to deal with both of those important tracks for our future, is adopted.

2:50 pm

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

See you, Taoiseach.

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

Yes, see you, Taoiseach.

The moral indifference and double standards of European leaders is really stunning to behold. For the last number of weeks we have rightly heard the Government and other parties in this House speak about the need for no Border, North or South, and yet the border that Europe imposes, which has resulted in 35,000 people drowning in the Mediterranean over the last five years, is a matter of complete indifference. I have asked the Taoiseach three times today to comment on what is happening in Libya. He has not uttered a word of response. In the last week, Amnesty International has produced a report making the most damning allegations against all European governments and the European Union. I will repeat for the record: "European governments complicit in horrific abuse of refugees and migrants". It goes on to say:

Tens of thousands are being kept indefinitely in overcrowded detention centres where they are subjected to systematic abuse...

European Governments have not just been fully aware of these abuses but are actively supporting the Libyan authorities in stopping sea crossings and detaining people in Libya. They are complicit in these abuses. European governments are actively supporting a sophisticated system of abuse and exploitation of refugees and migrants by the Libyan coastguard, detention authorities and smugglers in order to prevent people from crossing the Mediterranean.

These people are experiencing slavery, physical and sexual abuse, extortion for money and horrific conditions of detention. There are now 20,000 people living in these conditions. There has not been a word from the Taoiseach on this issue and he did not mention in his speech that this would be brought up at the European Council. He refused to answer questions on the matter twice this morning and then, probably because he knew we would raise the matter again, he walked out before the issue was raised. The moral bankruptcy of our Government and the European Union is absolutely stunning.

We also asked if there would be any move from our Government or the European Union beyond expressing concern and hand-wringing over what Donald Trump has done in the last week in declaring war on the people of Palestine and the entire Middle East. He has now legitimised the illegal annexation of East Jerusalem, in defiance of international law, by Israel. It has put two fingers up to the peace process and the two-state solution, which Europe claims it supports. Israel clearly has no interest in that solution. Since 1993 the number of illegal settlers, in defiance of international law, on Palestinian territory has doubled to 600,000. A 440 km wall separates Palestinians from their own land and from Jerusalem. There are 167 different enclaves where the Israelis are slicing up Jerusalem, Hebron and other Palestinian territories in cities in order to occupy the area further in defiance in international law. Nothing has been done.

Does anybody believe that the apartheid state of South Africa had a right to continue in existence? We all accept it had to end. The crimes that Israel is committing, which are now endorsed by the United States against the people of Palestine, are every bit as brutal, and in fact have been going on a lot longer than what happened in South Africa. There have been no sanctions and no action. There are expressions of concern. When is the European Union and our Government going to find the moral compass and demand action rather than words and crocodile tears about the abuses of Palestinians or Libyans?

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

One would have the impression, from listening to much of the media commentary surrounding Brexit, that the European Union is a friend of working people in Ireland. The negotiations are posed as a battle between a progressive EU, with an Irish Government wrapped in a tricolour on the one hand doing battle with a backward little-Englander Tory Party Government. The reality is that working class people have no representatives in these negotiations. They are negotiations between a capitalist Government on the one hand and a capitalist institution on the other. It is what Connolly described as, "Committees of the rich to manage the affairs of the capitalist class". The British capitalist class are on one side and on the other side is the European capitalist class, which includes the ruling class in this country.

Neither side represents nor cares about the interests or concerns of working class people on this island, North or South. Their interests demand that there be no increased Border between North and South or between Ireland and Britain. Neither is acceptable because either would deepen sectarian division. The European Commission has found it useful, for its own negotiating purposes at this stage, to use the Border, but the reality is that if it suits it can be forgotten at a later stage and it does not have to be a part of the final withdrawal agreement. We have to restate the reality of what the European Union is. We do not have to go far back in time to remind ourselves. Only yesterday, the Amnesty International report which Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned concluded that the EU is knowingly complicit in the torture and abuse of refugees and migrants in Libya. In order to stem migration the EU is actively supporting: "A system of abuse and exploitation in Libya". This is fortress Europe.

Yesterday Jean-Claude Junker, the President of the European Commission, tweeted:

She is awake. The sleeping beauty of the Lisbon Treaty. Permanent Structured Co-Operation is happening. I welcome the operational steps taken today by member states to lay the foundations of a European defence union. Our security cannot be outsourced.

The Irish Government tries to maintain that there is nothing to see here concerning PESCO. This is a Europe of war and imperialism. Every single day we see the impact of the neo-liberal nature of the European Union in this country. There is the housing crisis and the refusal to use the money that exists in NAMA and the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund. That relates to the EU rules and its neo-liberal nature. It is the same in the case of the starving of our public services of investment. The EU, together with successive Governments, have been decisive in creating this new norm of permanent austerity by writing austerity and neo-liberalism into law in the fiscal treaty and the various fiscal rules in the interests of bankers, bond holders and big business in Europe. That is the European Union we are talking about. It is a racist, militarised, neo-liberal institution. That is the EU that working class people in Britain voted to leave.

The unfortunate reality is the bargain-basement Brexit which the Tories are driving towards will also be a disaster for working people. Their Brexit is a Brexit in the interests of the city of London and of agri-business, with a further race to the bottom in terms of taxation and regulation on environment, consumer and labour issues. Any trade deal done by the Tories and negotiated with the EU post-Brexit will again be done in the interests of big business. It could potentially be a back door, via a Britain-US trade deal for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, for access to the EU, which is rejected by the vast majority of people because it will lead to a race to the bottom. We oppose the attempts to use the crisis around Brexit to attack workers' rights and conditions. Trade Unions have to take immediate measures to ensure that workers and small farmers do not pay the price of competition between vested economic interests.

What is the answer? The alternative is a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour government implementing socialist policies and breaking with what he has described as a rigged system of neo-liberalism and capitalism, which includes taking the key sources of wealth into public ownership. Corbyn has suggested that he may be open to staying in the Single Market, but the reality is that the Single Market would act as a substantial block on implementing many of his most popular policies, including the nationalisation of transport, energy and the development of a national investment bank. That is because it pushes further the liberalisation and privatisation of public services.

It is a barrier to nationalisation. It drives a race to the bottom in terms of workers' wages through European Court of Justice, ECJ, rulings such as those on Viking Line and Laval. If Corbyn or an Irish left government was to implement a left-wing socialist programme, it would inevitably result in a major clash with the EU, just as there was when the Greek people attempted to reject austerity before the betrayal of the Syriza Government. Corbyn would also be forced to exit the European Union and the Single Market, not on the basis of the race to the bottom proposed by the Tories, but on the basis of appealing to workers in Ireland, Greece, Spain and across Europe to build a very different type of Europe - a democratic socialist Europe. Right across Europe we need left socialist governments to break with the rigged system of capitalism. With left governments here, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, the question of a border would not arise. New relations of co-operation, of trade on a fair and equal basis and of mutual assistance would operate to ensure that borders were brought down rather than erected. Together, these governments would build a democratic socialist confederation of Europe.

3:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Murphy. Are Deputies Wallace and Maureen O'Sullivan sharing time?

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

Yes. Would Deputy O'Sullivan like to go first? I do not mind.

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

It is up to Deputy Wallace. He can go ahead.

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

The Lisbon treaty provides that a group of member states can strengthen their co-operation in defence matters by setting up a permanent structured co-operation, which is known as PESCO. When we pointed out that there was not nearly enough debating time on this matter and that the public is not aware of it, the Government pointed out that as the provision was in the Lisbon treaty, it has been in place since 2009. If that is the case and if this was a foregone conclusion anyway, why did the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, say she could never have imagined at the start of her mandate three years ago that the EU would take such steps? Why did she say that? I do not understand that. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, likened the defence push to a fairy tale come true for EU integration. If this was all on the cards anyway, why would he say that? It actually was not.

There is a notion that this does not affect our neutrality. The Minister and I exchanged views on the "Saturday with Claire Byrne" programme. He said that our neutrality cannot be interfered with and Claire Byrne responded that the people of Ireland would not have a vote on a referendum on opting in or out. The Minister said that if it impacted on the Constitution it would obviously have to go to a referendum, as we are a constitutionally neutral country. That is not actually true. Neutrality is not enshrined in the Constitution. Edward Horgan tested that in 2003. Mr. Justice Kearns ruled that Irish neutrality is not in the Constitution but is Government policy, to be implemented as it sees fit.

As it turns out, we know that we abandoned neutrality in 2001 by allowing Shannon Airport to be used for military purposes. The Minister will remember that on the same programme, I asked whether, were an alternative government to appear in the coming years that allowed the Russians to use Shannon Airport as a military base, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour - which have all backed US military use of Shannon Airport - would say that alternative Government was acting neutrally? They would not. They would be right not to. It would not be neutral to let the Russians in, no more than it is neutral to let the Americans in.

There is an amendment in the Constitution for which Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, who is a Fianna Fáil man believe it or not, was responsible.The amendment states "The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State." We are actually breaking the rules. We are joining a common defence. That is a fact and that is against the Constitution. We have checked it out and it looks like we would find it difficult to win an appeal on the issue but it is a fact. Our neutrality has been sold down the river.

The Irish people in general have no interest in being involved with any country militarily, be it the Russians, the Americans, the French, the Brits or whoever. We do not want anything to do with them. For whatever reason, however, a certain section of the establishment in Ireland has a love affair with American military efforts. The militarisation of the world has gone out of control. The US has just announced an increase in its military budget for 2018. It will spend €700 billion in 2018 on defence when it has 50 million people at risk of poverty. It is nuts and we are helping it to bomb places.

There is a love-in with President Kennedy. There is a school in Wexford named in honour of him. It is such nonsense. People must remember that Kennedy proactively laid the foundations for what was probably the most savage war since the Second World War, namely, the war in Vietnam. Some 3 million Vietnamese people and more than 57,000 US military personnel died. In May 1963, Kennedy was asked to assess the situation in Vietnam. He said:

We don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out of there at any point. But I can’t give up that territory to the communists and get the [American] people to re-elect me.

What did he do? He put his electoral ambitions before the lives of US soldiers and millions of Vietnamese people. What a lovely man. His picture hangs over the mantelpiece of many houses in Ireland and we have a school named in honour of him in Wexford. One would not be well.

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

I wish to raise a couple of issues in respect of the European Council on which I do not think it has been at all effective. The first is the issue of Spain and Catalonia. There will not be another meeting of the Council before the elections there take place. This is not about taking sides. The Spanish Government called the elections. There is a body of thinking that this is an internal matter between Spain and Catalonia, but I believe there is a role in it for the European Council. That role is to ensure that the elections are open, transparent and free from the kind of violence we saw in recent times. There is also a role for the Council in ensuring that there is respect for the results of those elections.

There are a couple of issues in that regard. One concern is that those people who wear a yellow ribbon going to vote may be prevented from going into the polling stations. There has also been evidence of pressure on the media not to give space to the Catalan candidates. Of course, that would be a violation of the principle of freedom of expression. The organisation DIPLOCAT has also been closed down by the Spanish Government. I hope the European Council would support the presence of international observers at the elections. My understanding is that it is not keen because the Spanish Government does not want this. It is most important that the results of the election are respected. If there is a majority from those parties that are in favour of independence, the European Council should encourage dialogue. Even if the parties opposed to Catalan independence win, there would still be a need for dialogue to address the very real issues the Catalan people have. Basically, the Council should be a voice advocating respect for democracy.

I draw attention to Amnesty International's report on deadly but preventable attacks on, killings of and enforced disappearances of those who defend human rights. The findings are damning in respect of states which are failing in their duty to effectively protect those who defend human rights. These are people who are defending women's rights and the rights of LGBT people. They are environmentalists, trade unionists, teachers, community leaders, lawyers, journalists and farmers. The list is increasing, as is the list of those forcibly disappeared by these states. We hear about the threats, the attacks and the assassinations but they are not being properly investigated and therefore perpetrators are not being brought to justice. What message does that send? Again we return to a UN declaration on human rights defenders back in 1998. It states we protect and we recognise the work of human rights defenders, but there is no follow-up when there are attacks on human rights defenders. One has to ask what the point of declarations and statements is if there is no meaningful action.

On the Jerusalem issue, Jerusalem is an important city to people of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. The recent announcement by President Trump has certainly not been helpful. It has led to violence in the area. It also undermines the efforts of Fatah and Hamas to reconcile and create a political vision for Palestine. It also undermines the recent ceasefire announced by Hamas. In a bizarre, ironic way, something positive could come from this. For the first time in ages attention is focused on the situation. For too long lip service has been paid to the two-state solution but nothing has been done to bring it about. There is no impetus or urgency in getting talks under way again and in the meantime, more land is being taken in order to build settlements.

Two committees of which I am a member met various Israeli and Palestinian delegations, all of whom are committed to a just and lasting peace and who want to live their lives without any fear of violence. Perhaps it is time for the EU to consider further recognition of the Palestinian state as an impetus to bring about further talks.

As regards official development assistance, ODA, from Europe, our ODA is focused on poverty reduction and the poorest countries but there seems to be a possible change in the definition of ODA in Europe to include expenditure on in-country refugee costs and peacekeeping, which would be a very retrograde step.

PESCO has the potential to complement NATO. There was a couple of hours of debate on the matter with the Minister at the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence and a couple of hours of debate in the House, which is very much in contrast with the level of debate, discussion and presentations in respect of the repeal of the eighth amendment or on our foreign aid policy and which led to the One World, One Future policy. I hope that at the European Council, Ireland will not present that PESCO is something with which everybody in the country agrees but, rather, that there has been much criticism of it and that discussion in that regard is not yet over.

3:10 pm

Photo of Michael HartyMichael Harty (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish the Minister of State the best of luck in the EU meetings on Thursday and Friday. The agreement that has been negotiated is a result of the united front the Government has been able to provide in its negotiating stance. That is in contrast to the obvious divisions within the Government of the United Kingdom, which have been illustrated by a solemnly negotiated report and agreement being almost immediately disparaged by that Government. That shows very poor political judgment on its part and that it does not have a coherent Brexit policy. The UK Government is in disarray on Brexit. It is very important that we maintain a unified front. The trustworthiness of the British Government has been called into question by remarks made by senior figures in recent days but we must nevertheless maintain a unified front. The British Government is trying to act tough in advance of phase 2 of the exit negotiations and realises how difficult it will be for it and that Brexit is not in its best interests. The enormity and impracticality of the task it faces are coming to the fore. Losing all advantages of European Union membership to be replaced by the uncharted waters of trading arrangements with third parties and trying to forge new trading arrangements with the EU will be very difficult. What occurred in phase 1 has crystallised for the British Government the difficulties it faces in respect of Brexit. It is very important that we have played an important part in bringing about that crystallisation. It was very positive that the Irish question was part of phase 1 because it has crystallised people's thinking on both sides. It will eventually dawn on the British Government that membership of the EU, far from being contrary to its national interest, is complementary to it. Staying within the common trade area and the customs union is far more likely now that it has had to face the reality of dealing with what will happen in Northern Ireland. It is also critically important that an Assembly and Executive be reinstated in Northern Ireland in order that people there have a forum to debate their future in Europe and how they see their future being aligned with the United Kingdom and with the Republic.

The agreement states that the Good Friday Agreement will be upheld, there will be no hard border and that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom and the UK internal market. That is crystallised in paragraphs 49 and 50, where North-South and east-west relations are identified. There is a core contradiction. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South co-operation and guarantees to avoid a hard border and intends to achieve those objectives through an overall EU-UK relationship. However, that is difficult to reconcile with the fact that Northern Ireland will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. How can that be reconciled with no hard border and maintaining full alignment between North and South? That is the core contradiction that must be resolved in phase 2 of the negotiations. It is very important that the principles that have been agreed are incorporated into the final agreement. It is imperative that we maintain our stance and are not in any way distracted by negotiations in phase 2. We have to be to the fore of the negotiations and must keep North-South alignment to the fore.

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

There is a disconnect in what we hear and read emanating from Brussels and elsewhere on PESCO. Throughout the discussions and again in the House today the Taoiseach has said it concerns issues such as cybercrime or peacekeeping training. However, what has been said by President Tusk and others leads one to believe that it is the culmination of years of aspiration for a move towards a European defence union. I am very concerned that because of that dishonest disconnect, we are not being straight with the Irish people as to what we are doing and entering and we are making a mistake in that regard. If we are to progress towards a more integrated Union, it cannot be on the basis of inaccuracies or deceit or not telling the whole truth. That is what I fear and it is one of the reasons I opposed and am concerned by our commitment to PESCO.

I am particularly concerned about the nature of the development because it seems that the entire focus is on the southern borders of the EU and the security situation in terms of the relationship across the Mediterranean with north Africa and the Middle East. In that regard, as was earlier mentioned by Deputy Boyd Barrett and others, Libya was previously thrown into anarchy and chaos by the actions of our neighbours, Britain and France, in their application of military solutions in that country. Investment in military infrastructure will not address the security and peace issues on the southern borders of Europe.

If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and our relationships with countries in that region, the Taoiseach must show a lead in joining and going further than the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, by stating that we cannot tolerate the actions of the US President in threatening to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli State. There is a possible opportunity at this time. The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, today said that the US can no longer be seen as a mediator or accepted as an honest broker in a negotiated settlement. Rather than deploying military force and might, Europe should take diplomatic and political actions against the State of Israel, seek compensation for the damage done by Israel to European-funded investments in Palestine and recognise that the actions taken in illegal settlements cannot be tolerated. Europe must step up to the plate and not allow the further vacuum created by the actions of President Trump go without response.

As regards Brexit, I said last week to the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and her colleagues that I was proud and thought it was a good week for Irish politics. We were united in the Dáil and with our European colleagues, which helped us get an agreement that two weeks previously I did not think we would have been able to get.

When I read on Monday last week the original transcript I was surprised that there was such specific clarity regarding future full alignment in the North of Ireland with the Single Market and customs union. That wording surprised and pleased me. In a strange way, what happened last week, the political mess of the DUP having to be appeased, led to a further improvement in the communiqué regarding a commitment to try to avoid east-west divergence as the Northern Assembly might manage and administer it. Everything we have heard since from British Government members has completely undermined that confidence because the question Deputy Brendan Howlin asked earlier is the vital one: is their backstop guarantee a real guarantee? Was their word their bond when they wrote the words "in the event of not getting a trade deal"? We all know, as does anyone involved in this process, that the chances of their getting their flight of fancy trade deal is so remote that the backstop guarantee is called immediately into question. We have a particularly difficult situation because the main opposition party in the UK seems as duplicitous as the Government in answering the obvious, straight questions we must ask. We will continue to support the Government in trying to get straight answers to these questions. We believe there needs to be change. My colleague, Steven Agnew, sits in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Assembly itself needs to look at how this will be worked out. We cannot just leave the current situation stuck as is. We need to consider the constitutional arrangements in the North in implementing this and we will help in that process.

3:20 pm

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the few minutes I have I wish to concentrate on aspects of the agreement reached last week in respect of Brexit. It is remarkable and unfortunate that we have not had Dáil time this week to express our views on the agreement and I hope this will be corrected early in the new year.

I have concerns that differing perspectives as to what the Brexit agreement actually means will undoubtedly cause problems over the coming year or so. The deal references the Good Friday Agreement in several parts and on several occasions. While the idea of a fudge in the Good Friday Agreement may have been a necessary evil in allowing people from a number of different sides to claim victory, the same does not apply in respect of the Brexit agreement. We need to know at an early stage exactly what the deal means and that is far from clear at this point. David Davis's "statement of intent" comments over the weekend show that there is some degree of malleability in the understanding of the phrasing being used, in particular given that the DUP has been placated, as it were, by Article 50 of the agreement. A particular issue in Article 49 of last Friday's agreement now also needs to be clarified. Article 49 states, "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement." In the context of "a guarantee" of no hard border, the use of the weasel phrase "those rules" is quite worrying as it is open to interpretation, particularly when read in the context of the preceding part of Article 49, which states, "[T]he United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the...circumstances of the island of Ireland" if a hard border cannot be avoided through the future relationships between the EU and the UK. We know that the UK had 18 months to come up with these solutions in the context of phase 1 and failed to do so, so where is the succour there regarding the ability of the UK to do so in the future? The concern is that we could be left with four or more radically different interpretations of what "those rules" that support North-South co-operation and so on actually mean. Different interpretations are possible from Dublin, London, Brussels and, at least potentially, Belfast. The Government needs to clarify what it understands by the phrase "those rules". What does it actually mean? The Government also needs to ensure that its understanding is the same as that of the European Commission and the 26 other member states.

Let us be clear as to what rules we are talking about. While the main focus of the sections on Ireland and Northern Ireland is trade and the prevention of a hard border, there are aspects of Articles 52 and 53 that need to be examined in much more detail. Article 52 states, "The people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens, including where they reside in Northern Ireland." Furthermore, Article 53 states, "The United Kingdom commits to ensuring that no diminution of rights is caused by its departure from the European Union, including in the area of protection against forms of discrimination enshrined in EU law." The text of the Good Friday Agreement states, "The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, with direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency." However, that is all changed now, so it is very difficult to envisage a situation whereby people will have rights as European citizens, including access to the courts, if they hold Irish passports. What about people in Northern Ireland who do not hold Irish passports? What about their rights in terms of what they understood those rights to be under their previous status as members of the European Union? Article 56 of last week's agreement states that the issues related to Ireland will be examined in a distinct strand in phase 2 of the negotiations. It seems to me that in the rush to nail down a deal, some very difficult issues were parked and left open to interpretation. We need to bring clarity to all those areas I have identified and others before too long because we cannot continue with this level of uncertainty surrounding such critical issues, neither in respect of how the Border might actually work nor in respect of the rights of all citizens within Northern Ireland. That circle still has not been squared and we need clarification as we go forward.

Photo of Eugene MurphyEugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To conclude the debate, I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee.

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

I know Deputies have raised other issues but, as the Taoiseach has already indicated, I will focus my remarks primarily on the social, education, cultural and migration issues scheduled to be discussed tomorrow within the European Council in Brussels.

Although Brexit is extremely significant for Ireland, it is of course not the only item on the European agenda. We have been very clear that the future of the Union is as important for us as it is for other European partners. There have been a number of discussions on the future of Europe, including at the summits in Bratislava, Valletta, Rome and Tallinn recently. The House will be aware that on 15 November we launched our own national citizens' engagement with a view to ensuring that everyone on this island has the opportunity to make his or her views known on this extremely important topic.

I have been involved in a number of events since then, engaging with the public, stakeholders and, as recently as an hour ago, our European Commissioner for Education, school students and other people from across the board. I know that the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs is also consulting actively with stakeholders, including on the basis of the various papers published by the Commission. On 20 October the European Council endorsed the Leaders' Agenda proposed by President Tusk. The aim of this agenda is to guide action over the next two years on the basis of a concrete work programme and set a course for the future of the EU. The first discussion under this format took place in Gothenburg on 17 November alongside the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth. The outcome of these two meetings will form the basis for discussions at the European Council tomorrow and was discussed yesterday at the General Affairs Council, which I attended with the Minister, Deputy Coveney.

On the social dimension, in Gothenburg an inter-institutional proclamation on the pillar of social rights was signed by the Presidents of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament as a signal of the Union's shared commitment to strong social values and social progress. The aim of the Gothenburg summit was to ensure that, as we continue to develop and co-operate economically, we also protect and promote the necessary social standards and labour rights.

As with the social dimension, culture and education are largely areas where member states retain competence but where the Union plays an important role in co-ordination, co-operation and the sharing of best practice and this is a formula that to date has worked.

This year, 2017, marks the 30th anniversary of the creation of the ERASMUS programme, which is a prime example of what co-operation in this area, along with some imagination, can achieve for our citizens. In preparing for tomorrow's discussions, we are mindful of the limits of co-operation on these matters, while remaining optimistic about the possibility of delivering positive outcomes, including, for example, around greater mobility and improved language learning, by continuing to work together into the future. This approach fits well with the national language programme launched some days ago by the Minister for Education and Skills.

Although Ireland has been somewhat removed from the full effects of recent mass migration, we have worked to make a positive contribution to the EU response. We have contributed more than €93 million since 2012 to support those affected by the Syrian crisis. We have supplied a series of fully crewed naval vessels to humanitarian operations in the Mediterranean which have saved the lives of more than 17,500 people. We recently joined Operation Sophia in order to support common EU efforts to tackle the activities of people smugglers. In addition, we have committed to taking up to 4,000 people under EU resettlement and relocation schemes. There has been significant progress by the EU and its member states in handling both the root causes and the effects of migration. Although the full force of the crisis has receded, the challenges will continue for years to come and we need to consider how best to respond into the future. The President of the European Council, Mr. Tusk, has selected this issue for discussion tomorrow under the leaders' agenda format, which will facilitate an open exchange of views on the basis of a paper which addresses both the internal and external aspects of migration. Formal conclusions will not be adopted tomorrow, but the discussion should pave the way for further work in this area in the first half of 2018. Ireland is not automatically bound by measures on migration but, under Protocol 21, we may choose to opt into them. We acknowledge the need to reform the common European asylum system and we intend to play a constructive role in finding shared solutions that work for all member states.

Several colleagues queried whether we have what amounts to a backstop or fail-safe in the text agreed last week between the United Kingdom and the EU. At yesterday's meeting of the European General Affairs Council, Mr. Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator in the Brexit process, was very clear in his statement that the agreement reached last Friday stands. One can describe it as a gentleman's agreement or something else, but what is certain is that the Government will uphold it on our end and the European Commission very much expects the United Kingdom to do the same. We are very clear in our interpretation of the text that irrespective of the outcome of the second phase of negotiations, there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland. The UK will have to square any circles that need to be squared to achieve that end in the course of the negotiations on its future relationship with the EU.

Deputy Micheál Martin asked about any impact assessments that have been undertaken in respect of Brexit. The impact of the UK's departure will very much depend on what the future relationship looks like between it and the EU. In the meantime, contingency planning is ongoing across all Departments, encompassing all possible outcomes and scenarios. This includes an assessment of the various different implications for specific policy areas. We will keep the House updated in that regard.

Regarding the Palestinian situation, there is complete unity among member states that the EU will not emulate the unilateral recognition by the United States President, Mr. Donald Trump, of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The only solution to the conflict is a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the shared capital. Ireland's position in this regard has not changed and is aligned with that of the EU.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and questions. The Taoiseach will report back to the House in due course on the discussions at the December European Council meeting.

Sitting suspended at 3.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.35 p.m.