Mr. Phil Hogan:

It is my honour to address this House for a second time as EU Commissioner. I was due to be here in February, but circumstances intervened. The whole country had to batten down the hatches and wait for the snowstorm to pass before getting on with things when the weather improved. It is clear, if Senators will forgive my use of weather metaphors, that Ireland and the EU have had to weather some heavy storms in the last decade. First, we were battered by the global economic crisis, which almost brought Ireland to its knees and forced the EU to drastically recalibrate its priorities. Thankfully, that particular storm is now in the rear-view mirror and today we are meeting in better times.

The European economy has picked up, with Ireland leading the charge. The EU's economic growth hit 2.7% in the final quarter of last year and should hit 2.8% this year. Investment is picking up. The employment rate is above 72%, which is higher than ever. Unemployment has fallen from 10.3% three years ago to 7.3% now. In the four-year lifetime of this Commission, the economy has created 9 million extra vacancies, which is a major achievement. Last year, the European economy grew faster than the US economy for the first time in many years. Heavy storms force us to check the strength of our foundations and that is what the EU is doing at the moment. The EU Commission, under Jean-Claude Juncker, can and should claim a fair chunk of the credit for the recovery I have mentioned. It was Mr. Juncker who proposed that large-scale investment programmes should be financed by the European Investment Bank to add EU value to what member states were doing to facilitate investment opportunities. The co-ordination of EU countries' economic policies has been improved. The social pillar promotes fair working conditions, equal opportunities and greater social protection for EU workers. These actions are helping to storm-proof the European economy. Deeper reforms will help member states to withstand future crises. Economically speaking, the wind is in our sails.

Another storm appeared on the horizon in June 2016. We are still waiting to see the final cost of its impact, particularly here in Ireland. Brexit was a hurricane force storm. It caused an existential panic at the heart of the EU. There was a real fear of a domino effect that would tear the EU apart. By late 2016, Eurosceptic forces were on the rise across Europe. They polled well in a number of key elections and were supported across the Atlantic Ocean by the new US President, Donald Trump. The proportionate and quick response of the EU was to check the foundations and see what defences needed to be strengthened. Mr. Juncker has initiated a bottom-up process to ascertain what type of Europe our citizens will want in the future. I am glad that Ireland and this House are playing their part in these matters. The citizens' dialogue on the future of Europe has a programme of discussions and consultations that will continue throughout the country up to Europe Day on 9 May next. The Government and the Joint Committee on European Affairs are making their own contributions to the debate on the future of Europe. This is to be warmly welcomed. I commend the Members of this House on their contributions.

The EU institutions have been shaken from their slumber. It is noticeable that there is a new energy and a new desire to get things done. In a world of rising nationalism and retrenchment, the EU is occupying the space that has been vacated by others to lead from the front across multiple policy areas. The EU is now the unquestioned global leader in promoting open and fair trade that is based on rules. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, in the past two years we have signed important new deals with Canada, Japan and Singapore. Earlier this week, I was delighted to announce an agreement with Mexico. Many of these deals are immensely positive for our agrifood producers and our pharmaceuticals and financial services sectors. This is very good news for Ireland. Size matters in trade. As the world's leading trading bloc, the EU is in a position of strength to build mutually beneficial agreements with our global partners. We are driving the global agenda on climate and sustainability, which remains the single greatest challenge of our time. This country urgently needs to step up its contribution to meeting this challenge. We are trying to relight the flame of Europe's enlightenment values by making truth and reason relevant again in a world of mistruths and fake news.

Again, Brexit is important in this context. EU membership was a successful policy in the UK and was accepted as such by the majority of politicians and commentators. That did not stop a majority of people voting to scrap it. That is strange because one thing the Brexit story has shown is that the UK does not - by a long shot - have an alternative policy to EU membership. Even Brexiteers are happy to keep one foot in the EU, for example by continuing to participate in security and transport agreements and certain EU agencies. The fact remains that people in the UK voted to leave. As politicians, we might think successful policies always commend themselves, but that is not always the case. Successful policies need to be defended, articulated and communicated. Brexit has taught us all a sharp lesson in this regard. We need to understand this and incorporate it into our political lives as part of our stocktaking. We cannot take it for granted that people will vote for the EU, or like the EU, just because it happens to work.

As I mentioned earlier, this has been a wake-up call for the European institutions. We have to look at how we can do things better in this regard. That is what we are discussing with member states and, through them, public representatives and people. Perhaps we can go a stage further by asking how everyone failed to spot that a disconnect was arising between citizens and their representatives. This disconnect dominates so much of our politics today.How did we allow our public discourse to be dominated by fake news and half-truths? How can we begin to remedy things and stop it happening here? Here again, Brexit should be a lesson, because another thing the Brexit story has shown us is a brand of politics in which concern for people's real well-being has gone out the window, the soundbite has become more important than the truth and people can groom a majority to act against its own welfare. In short, we now have a brand of politics and commentary that, all too frequently, misleads rather than leads.

It is remarkable that a successful UK economy is determined to be divergent rather than convergent with its neighbouring countries in Europe. If we look a little more widely, we see it is not only Brexit. Our political arguments are becoming coarsened and are having knock-on effects on our behaviour. One sign is the trigger-finger readiness of so many people to play the immigration card, even the race card. Much of this is the result of fake news and the way in which what we used to call tall stories and gossip no longer goes from mouth to mouth but from one set of fingers to a million sets of eyes, with a tap on the keyboard.

Brexit shows us how vulnerable we are in that regard. That is why the Commission is alerting member states to the dangers and advising them to set up an infrastructure that can counter what is happening. The respected Irish Independenteditor-in-chief, Mr. Rea, is making a sterling contribution to this work, having been appointed to the European Commission's high level expert group examining the issue of fake news. Next year's elections to the European Parliament gives this added significance and urgency. We must be on our guard.

My final thought on this issue is to underline the difference between bad publicity, contrary opinion and fake news. As politicians we all know about bad publicity and contrary opinion. It comes with the turf and we deal with it, but we do it in the world of truth. We have been slow to recognise that fake news is something else. It is not bad publicity, it is not contrary opinion, it is not in the world of truth. It is a fiction - a harmful fantasy. It is urgent that we find the way to reveal it for what it is, namely, political mischief and a wrecking ball. These are the positive actions taken so far by the European Union to withstand the Brexit storm, but of course that storm has not yet passed by a long shot.

If we look ahead for the moment to the post-Brexit Union, one thing is already becoming evident, namely, the changing relationships between member states. The disappearance of a member state, and a large one at that, makes this inevitable. Ireland will be separated from a friend and partner in EU discussions. We joined what was then the Common Market together - indeed it was unthinkable that one of us should join without the other - and have worked together on many of the major issues. Now Ireland has to reconsider its role, its objectives and its relationships. Sometimes, for example, starting next year, we shall be speaking for the whole island. The development of new relationships has already begun. For example, the Irish Government is in the forefront of efforts to co-ordinate the views and voices of like-minded members. On the trade question, Ireland is alongside Nordic and Baltic states in the informal Hanseatic League, mark II. On digital matters we have other allies and friends.

However, there is another, strategic level for us to consider. When the European Union talks security, eyes normally turn east or south. For us, bordering the Atlantic Ocean security questions may sometimes seem remote but is this a moment for us to review our thinking on these wider, strategic questions? Despite our secure position in the west, we have come under a security threat - from Brexit. It is a threat that An Taoiseach and the Government are resisting pressing until a soft border between us and the North is guaranteed. They have mobilised themselves to carry the case to Brussels and have done so with great clarity. The Union, with its other 26 members, stands with us shoulder to shoulder, never wavering. We have felt the strength and benefit of EU solidarity over the past couple of years. Imagine what it means to our fellow members in the Baltic region, for example, who border Russia and have large Russian-speaking populations. Imagine what it means to those member countries that are in the front line in dealing with immigration from the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

As part of the European Union we all share the Union's destiny. We, who have felt, and are still feeling, the benefits of its solidarity should be ready to ask how we may better contribute to the solidarity offered to others. We value our neutral status but we should not stand aloof because of it. We should also want to play our full part in the European Union's security. Brexit can only be declared over when the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom is known. That is perhaps most urgent in relation to the Irish Border. The UK has twice said it wants a soft border and Prime Minister May said in her Mansion House speech that the UK was not about to walk away and leave it to Ireland or the European Union itself to deal with the question. That is positive, but we are still stuck fast in the UK's self-imposed contradiction between its reassurance on a soft border and its hardline demands, its red lines, which have led the European Union to offer a free trade agreement. The UK wants to keep its red lines. It understands that a free trade agreement means a hard border, and is trying to escape by inventing a new type of border. It says a soft border can be assured - even in a free trade agreement - through new customs practices and modern technology, which I call a cyberborder. The European Union has looked at the UK's ideas and it is not convinced that it can give us the border security we need, within the Brexit timescale, and has sent the United Kingdom back to the drawing board. Meanwhile, it insists on the back-stop of a customs union for the whole island of Ireland.

An Taoiseach and the Government, supported by all parties in this House, and by the European Union, have made it clear that they are not fudgers. The UK has to face up to the fact that decision time is here. The European Union must be satisfied that the UK's invention will work or it is the back-stop that will be implemented. The deadline is set for June. If there is no decision, there will be no withdrawal treaty. If there is no withdrawal treaty, there is no transition. The Government has the border issue under close surveillance. Let us consider for a moment the final piece of Brexit business, namely, the future arrangement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Here the target is to agree the broad lines by the autumn and fill in the detail ready for the agreement to be in force by January 2021.

In her Mansion House speech in March, Prime Minister May revealed that the United Kingdom wants to retain many of the advantages it gains from EU membership. She has given us a long list of what the UK wishes to keep. It is a very long list. On the other hand, she maintains the red lines to which I referred. Future discussions will show us how badly the UK wants what the Prime Minister has asked for, and by future discussions, I do not just mean between Brussels and London, I mean also the London-London discussions. Indeed, I would say that the London-London discussions are more critical. Now that its battle is won for the Brexiteers and the UK is within a year of leaving the EU and becoming a third country instead of a member, can London -London climb down from the barricades and evaluate the future arrangements it wishes to have with the European Union to find a solution which will be in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom as workers and as consumers? In my view, a landing zone involving some form of customs arrangement and a softening of the red lines by the United Kingdom must be in the best interest of the people of the United Kingdom and the people of this country and of the European Union.

Do the Brexiteers want to carry on the civil war until there is not a building left standing on the other side? Is that the sort of victory they seek? If so, they do not only endanger the UK's economy but they also endanger its society. Recent statements by people such as Mr. Jacob Rees-Mogg on Irish beef are a good example of a comment that is both unhelpful and irresponsible, but of course that is his stock in trade, if Members will pardon the pun. His comments highlight that the rift between the Brexiteers and the Remainers risks going on and on. Instead, both sides should compare and honestly weigh the costs and benefits of a free trade agreement versus a customs union. This is a moment for balanced judgment, not costly immoderate ideology. Now that Brexit is irreversible, such a review would be the statesmanlike option.

The importance of this for Ireland cannot be overstated. The more the red lines are softened, the less disturbance there will be to our UK trade and the easier it will be to achieve a soft border without relying on technical and bureaucratic wizardry. Ireland certainly has its own preference for the outcome of the talks between London and London, but it is not in either Ireland's or the EU's power to realise that. Both are on the sidelines when it comes to the discussion in the UK. The UK has asked, in effect, for a free trade agreement. It wants all sorts of additions, but its basic demand is a free trade agreement and that is what the European Union is forced to offer. However, wrapped up into the argument between a free trade agreement and a customs union is the ambition of global Britain. In her Mansion House speech, Prime Minister May listed the UK's freedom to negotiate its own trade deals as an advantage of Brexit, but for this freedom to improve the lives of the people of the United Kingdom, the UK would need to offset its losses in trade with the EU, which are certain to take place as businesses cut British companies out of their supply chains, and gain additional benefits. That is the ambition of global Britain. I do not think it is realistic. The freedom to seek and negotiate trade deals seems intimately connected to sovereignty but the UK needs to look at this issue with cold-eyed realism. Its overall objective is to achieve a better future for UK citizens. That cannot be achieved on a wing and a prayer.

What are the factors that make me so certain that global Britain is not the answer? First, outside the European Union, the UK will see its standing and importance reduced. Global Britain will feel that pain. As I mentioned earlier, size matters in trade.Second, a trade deal with the US will be very difficult to negotiate, despite the sometimes effusive language. "America First" will be ringing in the ears of the US negotiators. The US certainly will seek market access in areas that will bring the UK into direct conflict with European standards, for example on genetically-modified crops, hormone beef, chlorine-washed chicken, etc.

Third, the UK also wants to turn again to the Commonwealth. Yes, it has a common language and similar legal systems but it is not a cohesive bloc. There is no single negotiating partner, nor is it geographically compact. Commonwealth countries also have their own demands. India is determined to keep its high tariffs on Scotch whisky, for example, and would probably want the UK to ease restrictions on work visas. That would not be interpreted as the UK taking back control and would not be acceptable to the Brexiteers.

Global Britain is stepping out of the huge network of global trade deals that the EU has negotiated and into a difficult world. It is legitimate, therefore, to doubt whether it can achieve more trade for the UK than at present, at least on any realistic timescale. It takes about seven years to do any meaningful trade deal, as it took with Canada. On optimistic assumptions, even British civil servants say it cannot achieve more trade. They forecast that Brexit will cause a 2.6% reduction in gross domestic product, GDP. If, however, some of their assumptions on trade are made more realistic, the potential losses become greater. Ireland could feel the winds of this as well. Doubts about betting the house on global Britain only increase when we count the loss of benefits on the Prime Minister’s negotiating list – benefits that do not accompany a free trade agreement. The facts say “reconsider”.

Senators, the Brexit storm has yet to pass, although we have, in the past couple of months, made good progress towards safeguarding our future. The Mansion House speech by Prime Minister May has been a gamechanger in respect of more realistically and maturely identifying the difficulties and issues that must be resolved. However, the UK will not have it all its own way. The EU is standing with Ireland as one of its members. We would not expect it to be any other way except to stand with a country that continues in the EU and wishes to continue in future. The Union has defended Ireland and, in doing so, has demonstrated its value. We are not out of the woods but we can draw confidence from everything that has happened in recent times. I believe firmly we have a European Union that is proud of us as members and of which we can be proud. I want us to build further on this foundation. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.