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

I would like to warmly welcome the ambassador of the Netherlands, H.E. Mr. Paul Schellekens. He joined the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1977, ten years after I was born. I read your curriculum vitae to date, ambassador, and it is most impressive. Thank you sincerely for coming before the committee today.

The UK decision to leave the European Union, the negotiations that will take place to effect that decision and the associated consequences for Ireland and the European Union are of immense importance and interest to this committee. We are particularly interested in understanding the positions, priorities and concerns of all our European partners in this process. It is our intention to engage with as many of them as we can. We are beginning this engagement with the current members of the Presidency of the EU Council Trio. We will hear from the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic today and from Malta in early December.

It is important that we begin to understand not only the implications for Ireland but those of our partners as well. On behalf of the committee I am delighted to welcome the two ambassadors. The Slovak ambassador, H.E. Mr. Dušan Matulay, has just arrived. You and your colleagues are very welcome, ambassador.

H.E. Mr. Du?an Matulay:

I apologise for being late.

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

That is the traffic. Colleagues should note that while the committee has used the rotating list of those holding the Presidency of the EU Council to inform the order at this stage of our engagement, the ambassadors are before the committee today to speak about the priorities of their respective countries and not on behalf of the Council. This is a small but important point.

I know that colleagues are interested in this engagement. We will begin the discussion by asking the two ambassadors to make opening remarks before opening the floor to questions and comments from colleagues. I will ask you to begin, Mr. Schellekens. We will then hear the remarks of Mr. Matulay.

H.E. Mr. Paul Schellekens:

Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to this meeting of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. It is an honour and a pleasure to be here.

As committee members are aware, we are facing a new challenge in Europe. One of our main allies has decided to leave the EU. I need not convince committee members of the profound effect of Brexit on our countries. We will lose an important partner in the European Union, a neighbour with which we share many ties, including economic, cultural and political ties.

Ireland is a strong, open and competitive economy, like the Netherlands. The UK is Ireland's first and the Netherlands third largest trading partner. Ireland and the Netherlands are two countries very much affected economically if the UK leaves the Internal Market. The consequences do not stop there, however. Our countries have sizeable communities working in the UK whose fate is now uncertain. Our countries will lose an ally on trade-oriented liberal policy making in the EU. Further consequences loom for this beautiful island if Brexit sees a return to the borders of the past. Of course, the Border between the Republic and Northern Ireland is a sensitive issue. We fully understand this and we believe this should be taken into account when negotiations begin.

No matter how things play out, a deal for a new relationship between the European Union and the UK will be challenging. For our economies, which have such links to the British economy, a long period of uncertainty is undesirable. Uncertainty will delay investments and slow down economic growth.

At the same time, we should allow the UK and the EU to prepare carefully for the negotiations. We need an orderly process and we should not rush it. It needs to be an inclusive process and member states need to be involved in the negotiations. A final agreement should reflect the interests of the member states, including the economic interests of the Netherlands and those of Ireland.

Until the UK has invoked Article 50, the position of the EU 27 member states, including the Netherlands, has been clear: there can be no negotiation without notification. The new relationship does not have unlimited scope for negotiation. For example, the view of the EU 27 member states is that access to the Internal Market is connected to the four freedoms. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Rutte, made this clear to the UK Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, during her recent visit to the Netherlands. The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Bert Koenders, has also been clear on this point to the UK. Moreover, he has reiterated this position in talks with the EU 27 countries and during his recent visit to Dublin two months ago.

While we are in this process, the 27 member states will stay on the same page, as underlined at the European Council last June. Sixty years of European co-operation have built strong bonds of partnership between member states and the European institutions. We must build on our strength and develop new ties with the United Kingdom. We will do this together. We will all benefit from a clear, united and swift approach in preparing for negotiations, which will start once the UK has formally notified its intention to withdraw from the Union.

The process for the Brexit negotiations remains unclear. The upcoming Council meetings will bring more clarity to the internal EU 27 group preparations and the preferred negotiating process. Much will depend on the UK in this respect and the eventual notification. Like Ireland, the Netherlands is of course preparing internally for the upcoming negotiations. Our ministers are in close contact with members' counterparts in the Dutch Parliament. I am pleased to say we have a close working relationship with Ireland on the Brexit negotiation preparations. During the coming period, committee members will probably also be in close contact with the other parliaments from the 27 EU member states, as well as the European Parliament, just as their Dutch counterparts are. Furthermore, the Netherlands is looking forward to strengthening and broadening our bilateral relationship in the future. Ireland and the Netherlands are natural partners in the EU 27 group, not only politically but economically.

Finally, I wish to comment on Brexit and its effects. It is the dawn of a new era. It is the case that the British referendum results will have a major impact on the European Union and on individual member states like Ireland and the Netherlands. However, the current turmoil also allows us to really think about the value of the Union and to re-energise our efforts to continue improving it for our citizens. It gives us a reminder of the need to combine our powers and work on improving the European Union together. Ireland and the Netherlands are like-minded countries here. We are natural partners.

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

I thank the ambassador and now call on Mr. Matulay to make his presentation. Then we will take questions from our members together.

H.E. Mr. Du?an Matulay:

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the invitation. It is a pleasure and an honour to be here. It is useful to have an exchange about this pressing and important issue.

I wish to echo what has been said by the Chairman with regard to how this presentation will not set out the position of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, a position Slovakia holds at the moment. This is because it has been agreed that there will be no negotiation without notification. Since we expect Article 50 to be triggered only by the end of March 2017, there is effectively no role for the Presidency at this time.

Brexit is a little like a black hole in the field of astronomy. We know that it exists and we have extensive theoretical wisdom about it but no one really knows how it works or what it does. Indeed, one of the major problems of Brexit and its consequences at this point is the existence of such uncertainty and numerous variables. Another fact is that the impact of Brexit will be different in respective member states. Slovakia, Ireland and Netherlands have diverse degrees of attachment to the UK. There is rather modest economic co-operation between Slovakia and the UK for many objective reasons. These objective reasons are pretty much valid in respect of Ireland as well.

The overall trade exchange is less than €5 billion per year. That is what you produce in one month. Many Slovak exporters will feel and have already felt the weakness of the British pound similar to Irish exporters but it differs from commodity to commodity and some commodities are less prone to be affected than others.

The UK was never one of the largest investors in Slovakia. Its tenth place ranking is due rather to the sheer size of the UK economy rather than some extraordinary or strategic investor activity. That has changed somewhat recently. Range Rover invested €1.5 billion in Slovakia. To show the diversity and variety of possibilities of how Brexit will affect Slovakia, Brexit could be a catalyst for increasing the investment of Range Rover, especially if the process goes towards a hard Brexit. However, that is only as a hypothesis and speculation. An important point mentioned by my colleague is the relatively sizeable number of Slovak citizens living in the UK.

The biggest question for Slovakia is the overall impact of Brexit on the EU as a whole. The Brexit vote is definitely an unprecedented moment in the history of the European Union but also in the history of the post-war multilateral system. We know that we are going to lose the third largest member state, which has the fifth largest national economy in the world and is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I could continue listing the characteristics of the UK. This is a reality we have to face but have to make the best of it.

The decision had much to do with internal politics in Britain but the vote should also be viewed as a wake-up call for the entire Union. We should ask ourselves frankly why our citizens are withdrawing their trust from the EU. After the referendum, the Heads of State of the EU 27 agreed to start a political reflection process and met informally in Bratislava in September. The Bratislava summit was a unique opportunity for the leaders to have an open political debate without immediate pressure to present some instant solutions. Such debate was badly needed because a European Council meeting in itself usually do not give enough space for a more strategic and in-depth discussion. The ambition in Bratislava was twofold, namely, to provide the general diagnosis for the current situation and to agree on concrete areas of action which will have priority in the coming months. There were huge expectations. At the end of the summit, some people were disappointed and said that the outcome was too basic and too simplistic. However, starting a process is never something spectacular where one gets a big-bang solution. Hence, I am not trying to sell the summit here as a game-changing event because that was never the aim. Its purpose was not to craft a master plan for Europe because we cannot start a new grand design without solving the most pressing issues. It was all about starting a new process, reflecting the new circumstances. If members look at the declaration in the roadmap, they will find that the leaders conveyed several important messages that make the Bratislava summit a success. To name a few, it was a strong political message of unity, it was a realistic recognition of weak spots and an agreement on concrete steps forward in the reflection process.

As for the process, let us stop looking for analogies. Let us not talk about the Swiss, Norwegian or other models. Future EU-UK relations will not copy any of the current models of the EU's co-operation with other states. The UK is leaving the EU. That is a unique situation and that is why future EU-UK relations will be unique. It will not only be the final agreement with the UK that is important but also the negotiations process itself and the overall atmosphere during it. It is obvious that there are political forces on both sides of the English Channel who may abuse EU-UK talks for their own domestic agendas, but the good news is that - members can take this from me as a representative of Slovakia - a peaceful divorce, a soft Brexit or whatever we want to call it, is possible. We, as Slovaks, have an authentic right to say so. We have had our authentic experience. We made a valid divorce between the Czechs and Slovaks and the important element of it was the process. Slovakia had a positive experience in the context of the splitting up of the Czechoslovak Federation, regardless of the many emotions and temptations to misuse the process. The negotiations process was dominated by responsibility and good agreements. Those settlements were favourable for both parties and, thus, later became an important base for the subsequent excellent relationships between the countries involved.

We are aware that the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council have built teams for Brexit and appointed their own negotiators. Michel Barnier was recently in Ireland and he will be in Bratislava in two days' time. Each of these institutions will at certain points take part in the negotiations for the approval of the outcome and, furthermore, in many countries the final agreement with the UK will have to be ratified by the national parliaments. Member states must have real influence and oversight of the process and the results of the negotiations. Therefore, they have to agree on a correct negotiating mandate for the Commission. The whole process should be completely transparent, with the full involvement of member states. Further, it is important that there should be a regular reports on the progress of it. For Slovakia, it is hard to overstate that member states must keep control of the negotiations process to the fullest extent possible. Member states should be the decisive factor in the defining the parameters of a future EU-UK agreement.

As for structures, an interdepartmental working group at the state secretary level from respective Slovak Ministries has been formed to analyse issues related to the United Kingdom's departure from the EU, similar to what is happening in Ireland or the Netherlands. The task force in our case is led by our Minister for Europe, who is the state Minister at the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. The task force will focus on identifying sensitive areas of Brexit and on analysing its potential impact on Slovakia.

We note British statements about Article 50 being triggered by the end of March 2017. At this point, it should become also clear what relationship the UK wants to establish with the EU. Within the time left, the EU should prepare for negotiations in terms of the internal process. We need to ensure that the entire process is under control from the very beginning so as to avoid doubts or misunderstandings for citizens and business. To achieve the common goals of the EU 27, we have to maintain unity among member states. We will not accept any cherry-picking during the negotiations with the UK. Access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms, including the free movement of persons and the financial contribution for this access. We do not see any room for compromises there. After leaving the EU, the UK will not go anywhere; it will continue to be one of the closest political and trade partners of the EU. Therefore, it is important to keep the UK as close to the Union as possible. However, there should a clear distinction and added value between being a member and not being a member of the EU. I thank the members of the committee for their attention.

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

I thank two ambassadors for their presentations. I will proceed directly to the engagement with our members. I call Senator Richmond.

Neale Richmond (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both ambassadors for their frank and positive contributions. I have a few questions and I will conclude with a few points on which I hope there is general, if not 100%, agreement.

Ambassador Schellekens, said that Ireland and the Netherlands are absolutely natural partners in this process. Through our history of European relations since Ireland entered the then EEC in 1973, we have demonstrated that in respect of a number of issues, as have the Belgians and those in the UK. One of my greatest concerns - and I picked this concern up from what Ambassador Matulay said at the end of his contribution - is that the negotiations, once Article 50 is triggered, could be used as an excuse to be slightly vengeful. We are annoyed with the UK for taking this decision. I am very annoyed with the people and the Government of the UK for ever allowing this to happen. However, we cannot shoot ourselves in the foot by seeking to make an example of the UK and trying to punish it excessively because that is something that could damage the entire EU as well as ourselves.

There is concern that too good a deal could give confidence to certain governments in the EU not represented at this meeting and certain parties that have the potential to achieve power in upcoming elections. I am very wary of statements to the effect that we must have 100% endorsement of all four freedoms. One priority must be to maintain the highest level of trading co-operation between the EU 27 and the UK post-Brexit. We really need to be open to considering our red-line issues in that regard. Even before entering negotiations, we must have an element of flexibility because countries such as Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark have the most to lose if we decide to go for a harsh deal and be too forceful on the matter of trading. We have to allow the UK as much access to the Single Market as possible, otherwise I fear growing levels of euroscepticism will become quite powerful in that area of western Europe where they have not necessarily taken hold so far. How would the governments of both witnesses take a position on that?

Another concern both ambassadors mentioned is the rise of growing euroscepticism. All around the world today, being the day that is in it, anti-globalisation and anti-free trade movements are growing and the narrative is becoming increasingly insular for many countries. In return, I would argue that over the past ten years in particular, the EU has not helped itself. It has become increasingly aloof, bureaucratic and removed from the citizens of Europe, as opposed to from the European Commission, so I wonder how both ambassadors feel this can be addressed. How do we return the EU to being a wholly positive entity, which I believe it is, and how do we project that image of the EU so we can really attack and dampen down the rising levels of euroscepticism?

I would like to ask Ambassador Matulay specifically the extent of the Slovak diaspora in the UK. What is its population level? He mentioned that there are future opportunities for the Slovak Republic with the UK outside the EU regarding Range Rover. If he is able, maybe he could expand on that and consider other areas for all European countries, especially those in central and eastern Europe which perhaps have less of an historical relationship with the UK than has Ireland.

Before moving on to one of my colleagues, one reason referred to in our own discussions on bringing the ambassadors and representatives of the other 27 member states before the committee was that it would be an opportunity both to hear from them and to discuss and lay out the priorities we feel, as Irish parliamentarians, should be going into the negotiation process. Our No. 1 priority absolutely has to be North-South relations and I appreciate that both witnesses mentioned that point. The Border has become literally a line on a map. A return to a hard Border is not only something we feel would be damaging economically, but it could also have a huge impact on the fragile peaceful situation we have on this island. We have come a long way in a short period, and many people have invested a lot of time and have made a lot of political sacrifices to make that happen. The second priority is the retention of free movement between Ireland and the UK, which has been in place since 1922 and has to remain. The third priority, which I stressed at the start of my contribution, is to maintain the highest level of access to the Common Market for the UK in order to allow us to continue to trade as freely as possible, even though we will no longer be able to trade as freely as if the UK remained within the EU.

I wish to refer to a couple of matters that are a little parochial but which the Irish Government is addressing on a European basis, and we would appreciate it were the ambassadors able to bring them back to their national governments. I refer to the fact that Ireland has applied to be considered as a future location for both the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority. We would appreciate any encouragement from the European representatives in the Irish State to see that these would be great opportunities both for Ireland, the country that absolutely will suffer the most from Brexit, and for these agencies to continue to thrive.

We also have considerable concerns about the latest round of discussions on a common consolidated corporate tax base, CCCTB, and the fact that it is coming back on the agenda. It is a huge issue for Ireland, as I know it is for the Slovak Republic. I fear that if the European centralised authorities and certain larger member states continue to push that, it would be to the detriment of the pro-European feeling in smaller member states across the EU.

Finally, we need to look at how we might do our trade deals better. I was delighted to see the approval of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, but it was done with much difficulty. The opposition to it is a huge warning ahead of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, negotiations, which are in their 15th round. We have no control over what will happen later tonight, but we have to put the EU on the best footing to get as many good trade deals with as many partners as possible across the world. In order to do that, we have to make sure that the European authorities and member state governments approach these trade deals in a new manner to make sure there are increased levels of transparency, communication and buy-in from civic society, as well as the business community and the labour movement.

I thank both witnesses for their presentations.

Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome both ambassadors and thank them for their presentations. I am very concerned by all the issues raised by my colleague, Senator Richmond, and my comments will follow on from what he said. We have a unique relationship with Britain, which the witnesses acknowledge and which has existed since the foundation of our State. I understand the United Kingdom's Ireland Act 1949 provided that in a unique relationship, we would not be considered a foreign country in Britain. Mr. Matulay seems to indicate that Slovakia will take a very hard stance on the four freedoms. Given that there seems to be agreement between the Irish and British Governments and accepted in the North that we could almost have a bilateral arrangement and that we would seek the blessing of the EU and all of its member states in that regard, does he not see any room for compromise on the four freedoms? I noticed from Prime Minister May's visit to India that the question of visas came up. I think the UK will need a larger workforce and it will have to give something in return for that.

We all will wish to hold Britain in the Single Market if possible. In the context of the Netherlands, its elections next year and the fact that the UK might not have triggered Article 50 by then, I am not too sure of the precise date of the elections, but how will the various parties in the Netherlands react to that? Coming into that mix will be the fact that there will be a Supreme Court decision in Britain, presumably by early next year, and we think at the moment that it is likely it will uphold the High Court decision. How does Mr. Schellekens see that playing into the mix? Because of the Netherlands being, like Ireland, so close to the UK, what opportunities does he see when the UK is gone? What are the main priorities of the Netherlands? Presumably the Netherlands, like Ireland, wants the UK to have access to the Single Market, but achieving that in the negotiations seems to be the difficulty. However, as I think the Netherlands and Ireland have common agendas, I would be very interested in Mr. Schellekens' views and indeed the views of both witnesses as to their vision for a future without Britain in the EU.

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

I welcome the ambassadors and thank them for their dissertations. I wish to raise a number of matters, the first of which is the duration of the negotiations that are likely to place from the moment they are activated. There is likely to be a considerable shift in movement in the markets right across Europe that will be affected by the negotiations at various stages and the duration of the negotiations may have a negative impact on various countries which we have not yet anticipated. To what extent do the witnesses see something like that happening? For instance, we see already the shift in the value of the pound against the euro and negotiations have not taken place at all yet. In the course of the negotiations, those differences are likely to be accentuated. As the Chairman knows, I have always held the view that there should be one currency throughout the European Union. I believe that for a union to work effectively, just as in the United States, the necessity for one currency was obvious from the very beginning. There is a presumption on the part of some commentators that it is better to have different currencies within a union. It does not work that way, unfortunately, nor is it likely to work that way in the future. Regarding the countries outside the European Union but within the continent of Europe and the trading areas, there are likely to be huge pitfalls when dealing with the same trading people as in the past, which will impact negatively on one or the other, as the case may be. To what extent has that been anticipated?

Reference has already been made to the necessity for what is called a soft Border on this island.

I do not know how feasible that is or how it would work because I cannot understand how one can have a Union and at the same time have no Union and breaches in the Union. If that were the case every country within the Union would seek to avail of breaches to suit their particular circumstances, especially if there are fluctuations in the markets affecting one or the other. A crisis might develop very quickly and the situation might come to a head.

Has anybody thought of any situation whereby, in the event of one or two years down the road there might be such dramatic movement in the markets as to make it very serious for the entire European Union, with a view to knocking heads together once again and inquiring whether this is a great idea? I have in mind the writings of John Donne, "No Man is an Island". Everybody should read that very carefully. I will not do it now but I have done it many times in the past. It is not a long poem but it was written a long time ago and it has more meaning now than it ever had before. I emphasise the lines, "If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less". That is a very poignant phrase in the poem and it has real meaning for us now.

I wish to make two other quick points. Much has been made of opportunities that might exist for other countries, including Ireland, the Netherlands and various others. We would be very foolish to assume there would not be an undignified brawl across Europe to encourage relocation of facilities from the UK. That would not augur well for either the UK, the European Union or for the individual member states of the European Union. To what extent has that been anticipated? Everybody will see the opportunities for themselves at a particular time.

I have a point relating to smaller countries, which to my mind have more to fear from a broken down European Union. The reason for the Common Market in the first place was very obvious. It came at a time when the attention of Europeans was focused as a result of a particular tragedy, one we hope we will never have to face again. It concentrated people’s minds then. There was a period of relative peace across Europe, of previously unknown duration. Perhaps people have got tired of peace, quiet and progress and they think there are better things. My colleague mentioned the possibility of people resiling from globalisation. To my mind, the real issue has been a downturn in the global economy. The world economies have taken a sharp downturn and the people of Europe, those within the European Union and outside of it, and across the globe have taken a hit in recent times. At such times people have been known to become restless and out of that restlessness sometimes people make very foolish mistakes. To what extent has the diplomatic service evaluated the potential danger in the direction in which we are going?

Another point is one I have mentioned on many previous occasions. Everybody wants to feel they should nationalise Europe, which I presume means nationalising to their own idea of what it should be. Until such time as we as Europeans – we are all Europeans – recognise and seriously espouse the concept that we are Europeans and we have something to offer to Europe as well as something to take away, we should not for one moment allow ourselves to be encouraged away from what has worked extremely well. There are those who say it was not perfect, and it was not, but I warn people to consider what the alternative might be. I will leave it to them to decide that for themselves.

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

Most of the questions have been asked at this stage but I will pick up on a few points. I thank the two ambassadors for their presentations and for enlightening us on the positions of their respective countries on the forthcoming negotiations on Brexit. The ambassador from the Netherlands in particular spoke about the close economic, social and cultural and political ties between his country and the UK. It is the same here. Both ambassadors raised concerns, which we share, about barriers to trade being erected and also our respective communities living in the UK. Those are issues that must be addressed.

It is interesting that both ambassadors agreed with the President of the European Commission and others that access by the UK to the Single Market will involve adherence to the four freedoms. There are difficult negotiations ahead.

I am very pleased that both ambassadors stated their appreciation of the Irish position on Brexit. As Irish parliamentarians that is an issue we will raise at every opportunity. We are all concerned about the barriers to trade, but as my colleagues mentioned, we are concerned in particular about the erection of a hard Border on the island of Ireland. We are also concerned about difficulties relating to the future of the common travel area and especially the position of the Northern Ireland peace process. We are putting our case forward and I hope that some accommodation can be reached with Ireland because of those unique circumstances. Leaving trade aside, I hope the other issues involving North-South relations will be recognised by all the member states of the European Union in the discussions and by the Commission as well and the European Parliament.

I appreciate the briefing on the Slovak Presidency. The ambassador has been in on a previous occasion. We wish him well. We followed the progress of the Bratislava Summit and the Brussels Summit and the Slovak Presidency is meeting the challenges, of which there are many, facing the European Union, and they are being worked through.

The final issue I wish to raise is one other colleagues have also mentioned. The Brexit vote did raise concerns about the future of the European Union and the European project. We all recognise that the European Union has brought about peace and stability in Europe since the Second World War. No doubt the ambassadors would appreciate that far more than we would on the outskirts of Europe. That is a very positive thing. However, as has been mentioned, there has been an increase in populism, extreme nationalism and the extreme left and right and opposition to globalisation. They all relate to problems concerning sluggish economic growth, youth unemployment, disillusion with the European Union generally and the fact that it is seen as overly bureaucratic and not able to communicate its message well. They are all problems that have led to euroscepticism. I am interested to hear what the position is in each of the ambassadors' respective countries in terms of support for the European Union. Generally speaking, Irish people are supportive of the European Union but that cannot be taken for granted the way global trends are going. I wish to hear about the level of domestic popular support for the European Union in the respective countries of the ambassadors. Perhaps they could indicate whether that is under threat given the global trends.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassadors and thank them for attending. I wish to start with a point that was made by the ambassador from the Netherlands. During his presentation he said “ if the UK leaves the European Union”, which is something that is quite common among all of us who are watching what is happening in terms of Brexit. There is a vague hope that in some way this is an exercise that will fall flat on its face. That argument got oxygen during the week when the courts said the issue must go back to the UK Parliament before triggering Article 50. Is that something the ambassador believes himself or is it an indication of a vague hope held by the Netherlands?

I am concerned about workers from other countries in the United Kingdom. It would horrify us to think that workers would in some way have to be enumerated and a census taken of foreign workers in the United Kingdom in a post-Brexit era. That is something on which I would welcome the views of the ambassadors.

I would particularly like to hear their views on the question of the citizens' rights that have come through European legislation over the many years since the European Union was expanded to take in Britain and Ireland.

We talk about a soft and a hard Brexit. Every official I have spoken to and most politicians say we are aiming for a soft Brexit and that this is what we all want. However, when we look at Article 50 and what is required to commence the process, it appears we need all of the leaders of all of the 27 states to agree, we need 20 of the 27 national parliaments to ratify the process and we need a simple majority of the European Parliament to pass the process before we engage in negotiations. To me, that spells horror. There are just too many strings to that bow, too many different things that can go wrong along the way. If we do not get an agreed platform on which to commence negotiations within the next two years, then we are headed for a train crash, and that is the simple fact of the matter. I would be interested to know from the witnesses' experience whether either of their countries, prior to the referendum, modelled how they think a Brexit or any exit would go and how they think the triggering of Article 50 would be handled in the event of any country seeking to leave.

We talk about there being no negotiation without the four freedoms. We have immediately laid down criteria that, if a country is not prepared to sign up to the four freedoms, we are not really interested in a lot of what the country has to say. Maybe I am picking that up wrong but I would welcome the witnesses' views on it.

I am interested in the vision of both countries for a post-Brexit EU. We need to have some vision as to where we are going right across Europe. Deputy Durkan referred to the fate of smaller countries, which are at risk as we go into this process.

I attended a conference recently where we spoke about Brexit and, shortly after that discussion, the issue of a European army came up. As the witnesses know, a European army is anathema to the Irish Constitution, so we would have a difficulty with that and we may signal another exit if that particular agenda proceeds. I am interested to know what is the view of the Netherlands and Slovakia on the European army, or whether it is something they have considered.

On trade, Senator Richmond mentioned TTIP and CETA. The witnesses will be familiar with their own citizens on the ground. The secrecy that exists around these trade negotiations has made the EU the monster it is seen to be by Joe Public. There may be great deals but they are viewed with suspicion by citizens.

This brings me on to the next point. We are members of the European Union. Deputy Haughey noted the Irish people are very favourably disposed towards the EU. However, while we are favourably disposed to the roads it has built and the various other things it has funded, I am not too sure any of us feel we are Europeans. The reason for this, and I wonder if it applies in the witnesses' countries, is that we go to Brussels, sit with the Commission and negotiate hard for our country, and we then come home and blame the Commission for whatever came out of the negotiations. We do not accept responsibility that we actually negotiated where we are going.

The negotiations we engage in tend to be an attempt at one-size-fits-all. The issues of the Netherlands are not the same as the issues of west Connemara and the issues of Amsterdam are not the issues that Dublin or Bratislava faces. If we want to maintain a European Union and if we want to kill off what is euphemistically known as populism, we have to get back to the citizens. In his last visit here, the Slovak ambassador mentioned that this was one of the main issues for the Slovak Government during its EU presidency term, namely, to get back to the citizens. Brexit has put us in a situation where, if we do not get back to the citizens and if we do not become truly committed Europeans, this entire process - the entire Union - is on the high road to disaster. Brexit has given oxygen to everybody who ever wanted to destroy something that was, to my mind, very good.

I thank the witnesses' for taking the time to listen to me. I look forward to their replies on those issues.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go raibh maith agat agus fáilte. The idea of today's meeting was to tease out ideas among ourselves and I do not know if this format is the best route. I listened to both submissions. The witnesses said the position is that there are huge challenges and we are into a difficult period, and that no negotiations are going to happen until Article 50 is triggered. I would like to focus on what we are to do before then. We know it is coming down the track and there is no doubt it is going to happen, so what do we do?

H. E. Mr. Schellekens said:

Further consequences loom for this beautiful island if Brexit sees a return to the borders of the past. Of course, the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is a sensitive issue. We fully understand this and we believe this should be taken into account when negotiations begin.

We all agree with that. If we can agree that the Border is a particular difficultly for us, what can we do during this study period, if we want to call it that, or this false dawn before whatever happens down the track? For example, would it be helpful if the different EU states came to look at the Border, the Irish peace process and the positive involvement of the EU in regard to that process? We need to be build up a greater awareness among EU members in regard to the potential crisis that will impact on Ireland and its people.

People talked about borders but it is not just the physical borders but also the psychological borders. One of the successes of the Good Friday Agreement is that, in many ways, we have eliminated those. There is now co-operation and we work on an all-island basis to sell Ireland, and there is co-operation when Ministers from the North and from this jurisdiction travel to Europe, for example. Do the witnesses see that as a possibility after the British exit? We talked in terms of flexibility and, as an example of that, Denmark is a member but Greenland is outside the Union and still receives EU funding. The EU became an active persuader for reunification in Germany. In the event of Cypriot reunification, Northern Cyprus will be fully integrated within the EU and its seats in the European Parliament are currently allocated on the basis of the populations in both areas. Therefore, there is flexibility.

Do the witnesses believe a similar flexibility or arrangement could apply for Ireland? In particular, under the Good Friday Agreement, there is the inherent right of those born on the island of Ireland to be Irish citizens and, by virtue of that, to have citizenship of the EU. Do the witnesses believe it would be helpful if there was an all-Ireland approach to these negotiations involving those in the Northern Assembly and the Government here? Do the witnesses believe those in the British jurisdiction who want to remain within the EU - those in the North and in Scotland - are in a unique position in regard to these negotiations? Would it be helpful if there was a common position coming from them?

I am looking at and listening to people coming from the Welsh Parliament. There was a majority in Wales and they feel very strongly about what is facing them. I am seeking ideas about what we can do in this interim period. Is the Taoiseach’s civic forum helpful? Are the witnesses following it? Would it be helpful to forward those civic society discussions to EU members? I would be interested in teasing out such ideas today and seeing what we are missing out. We are trying to bring people in and have the discussion. The difficulty is that although everyone is waiting for the trigger to happen, we could do much in the interim. Do the witnesses agree?

Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome both ambassadors and we thank them for their presentations. Given that I am the last speaker, most points have been made. The UK vote to leave the EU is unique to Ireland. We would be very parochial advocating the point for all the reasons my colleagues outlined. It is very important the message is reinforced, given that we will need particular assistance under a number of areas such as trade, business and currency. While there have been many positive benefits and countries have done exceptionally well from being members of the EU and the eurozone, do the witnesses feel part of the negativity to the EU is because the EU is seen as disconnected from the people, is operating largely as a dictatorship and has policies that are not practical or fundamental to particular countries or zones where a one-for-all may not exactly fit, and people are feeling a bit annoyed about it? Is this giving people who are opposed to the EU an opportunity to advocate? In the recent UK referendum on Brexit, the EU sceptics who promoted Brexit are no longer to be seen as a fall-back position as to what to do and where their county goes from here and to be involved in the process. Is the vacuum that has been created being fed into by the negativity and disconnect that is coming through from the EU? As a national politician and a public representative, no matter where I go, I pick it up a lot. In my previous job, when I travelled through Europe, I picked up that people felt there was a major disconnect and a problem, and that if it were not addressed, there would be more scepticism.

There is a major issue in the constituency I represent. The food business is a major industry in Ireland and exports are a large part of it. This applies throughout Ireland, including in my area. There is a major problem with exports to the UK or going through the UK. I have raised it here before. The exchange rate is leaving it very difficult for companies to export and they are not in a position to go after the differential. As a result, there is a problem. How can this be dealt with for sustainability while the vacuum exists as the UK leaves the EU? My colleague, Senator Terry Leyden, who is not here, has previously raised the issue of having an Irish representative on the negotiating team regarding the UK leaving the EU to articulate the difficulties, problems and complexities that affect Ireland. There are many major sensitivities that will affect Ireland. What are the witnesses' view and should it be advocated to assist in a positive way to try to deal with the fallout of what has just taken place?

H.E. Mr. Paul Schellekens:

Those are a lot of observations.

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

You can condense your reply.

H.E. Mr. Paul Schellekens:

I will try. My colleague and I both mentioned the importance of the four freedoms and the 27, as a whole, have said it is important. I mentioned free movement in connection with the Border between the Republic and the North. The Netherlands understands this issue for Ireland and we hope a solution can be found. All the other EU countries believe the four freedoms must be observed by countries that want to come into the Internal Market.

Almost all the members mentioned euroscepticism, and it plays out a lot in my country and in many other European countries, but not as much here in Ireland. One hardly hears remarks that the EU is not good and that it should be different. It is my personal opinion that euroscepticism among the voters is also inspired by politicians who tend to say the EU should do more of something or less of something, but never say the EU has been very good to them and still is and is very important. They only mention the things they do not like, thinking this is appealing to voters. This is my impression. While I do not hear it here, it is the case in my country and other European countries.

Trade relations and the currency might be a major problem for the years to come. My personal opinion is that after Brexit, things will calm down, eventually. The Netherlands and Ireland have important trade relations with the US, which is not part of the EU, which has its own currency which can go up and down, and yet trade relations remain very good. This will also be the case, eventually, after Brexit. I said "if" the UK leaves. It was not on purpose. One could say "when". I did not use the word "if" to have a positive outlook, although one never knows what might happen. There might be another referendum or other elections in the UK, and Brexit might not happen. However, for the moment, our point of departure is that Brexit will happen. There is no talk about creating an EU army but of European military co-operation.

H.E. Mr. Du?an Matulay:

When it comes to trade and relations with the UK, we are very similar to Ireland.

We are a highly export-oriented open economy, so maintaining a high degree of co-operation in economic areas with the UK is a priority for us. There are many unknown unknowns, as a great politician once said, hence many things are hypothetical and I do not want to go into detail on some of the specific questions. For instance, Deputy Crowe asked what will happen in between. Commissioner Barnier was here. There is a lot of talk going on. The Parliament also appointed its negotiation team. The triggering of Article 50 does not mean we are frozen and not moving. That is what we are not doing. A lot is happening in Ireland, Slovakia and the Netherlands. All the departments are busy working out a feasible strategy and approach to this situation.

I mentioned the example of Slovakia and the Czech Republic and the divorce of Czechoslovakia because we believe the negotiation process will be important and that is where we caution. Some members mentioned that there is a risk of some hostile negotiations. That would be truly not good and we do not wish that.

Senator Coghlan and Deputy Durkan referred to the High Court judgment. I do not want to speculate about the impact but many voices are afraid, including in Slovakia, that it might lead to a further postponement of the invoking of Article 50 and that could cause many difficulties. If the negotiations start after March 2017, for instance, there are European Parliament elections in 2019. Will these elections happen in all 28 member states? Delaying the negotiations would trigger plenty of questions. We certainly do not wish that.

Many questions were raised about the specific challenges faced by Ireland. They should be voiced as members are voicing them. The earliest opportunity will be the COSAC plenary in Bratislava a month from now. I assure members that the Slovak deputies will hear them with open ears, as will all the other colleagues.

There were requests for individual consultations to go through the concrete issues such as the diaspora mentioned by Senator Richmond. I would be happy to talk about it individually.

H.E. Mr. Paul Schellekens:

Perhaps I will comment on euroscepticism. The suggestion was that if there was a good result from the deal with the UK, there might be other exits and a question was asked about how political parties in the Netherlands would react to this. If there was a referendum in the Netherlands, there would not be an exit. There may be negative feeling but I am sure a majority of the people would not vote for an exit. According to the law we have now, there cannot be a referendum on the EU. We have had a referendum on the association agreement with the Ukraine but that was a treaty that was not yet working. There cannot be a referendum on an existing treaty in the Netherlands.

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

Thanks be to God for that. I thank both ambassadors very much for their frank and honest presentations. We appreciate them taking time out from their busy schedules to be here. We appreciate their time more than they can imagine and we are grateful for this interaction. We look forward to maintaining this open and frank working relationship in the years ahead. I also thank the members for their contributions, which were valued and important, and for their work.