Conor Murphy (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister of State's presence here today and his statement celebrating Europe Day. Senator O'Loughlin correctly paid tribute to John Hume and his role in the European Union over many years. Many others from the North have done so since. It points to a tinge of regret that we must have in celebrating Europe Day that the part of the island he represented is no longer in the European Union, despite having voted to remain and being taken out against its wishes. A number of issues continue to flow from that, which are not just matters of interest north of the Border but to the whole island. When the Government takes up the Presidency next year it must be mindful of some of these issues. We have had the Brexit experience and the potential damage it did to the all-Ireland economy, in particular such sectors as agrifood. Unlike the British Government at the time, the Government here and the EU played a very strong role in recognising the damage the process would have on Ireland. People like Michel Barnier, Maroš Šefovi and others stepped up to negotiate in the interests of this island. That was of great benefit to us all, even though there are still issues arising. I acknowledge the work done by a previous Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, to secure the re-entry of the whole of the island into the European Union in the event of a successful unity referendum. That again demonstrates the interest the European Union has in the island as a whole, even with the development of Brexit. Part of that has been a significant organic growth in cross-Border trade from approximately €2 billion in 1998 up to €12.4 billion last year. I also acknowledge the work InterTradelreland does in that respect.

There are ongoing negative effects due to the continued outworking of Brexit. While the whole of Ireland is in the EU market for goods, which is important for manufactured goods and agrifood, tradeable services, which the Minister of State referenced as playing a key part in improved competitiveness, are not included. That is an important sector north of the Border. We also lost EU funding. It is very welcome that PEACEPLUS will continue for some years, which demonstrates the ongoing interest of Europe and its contribution to the island, but we are losing single farm payments, structural funds and access to EU workers. The lack of farm payments and access to EU workers are critical matters that damage the agrifood industry on the island. Therefore, it is an area of continuing interest.

The other issue I wish to mention is the free movement of tourists on the island. Despite multiple petitions to the British Government, including meetings in which I was involved, it has introduced an electronic travel authorisation process that is damaging to tourism on the island as a whole. Even when we presented evidence of potential damage gathered by Tourism Ireland, it still went ahead with its plan. As a consequence, we are already receiving anecdotal evidence of the damage to the tourism industry.

While the Executive north of the Border still has its Brussels office, it does not have a presence other than that. It is important that the Government here continues to recognise the ongoing impact of Brexit and that the absence of the North from the EU, with the exception of it being in the EU market for goods, is still problematic for the island as a whole. The Government must also continue to give voice to that in the future, in particular when it has the Presidency. One way to mitigate the damage is to support observer status for MEPs elected north of the Border, which would not impact on the 14 seats in the rest of Ireland. It would be very welcome if the Government could raise that at the Council and try to offer support for that prospect.

I listened to Senator Ahearn's contribution on neutrality. I am glad to hear he spoke passionately in defence of it. When the Government moves to undo the triple lock process, which protects neutrality, it will in turn undermine the United Nations, a critical international organisation involved in world peace and security. Given the genuine concerns that arise, I look forward to a debate on the issue that is free from scaremongering on imminent threats to communications and our seas and waterways. I am happy to engage in such a debate in a mature fashion in the future. I will now share my time with Senator Andrews.