Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to address the House ahead of tomorrow's meeting of the European Council in Brussels. Before addressing the agenda of tomorrow's meeting, I would like to recall the informal meeting of the European Council which took place in Malta on 3 February. This dealt with the external aspects of migration, with a particular focus on the central Mediterranean route and the related situation in Libya. We adopted the Malta declaration, which set out some concrete actions to be taken at EU level to improve conditions in countries of origin and transit in the first instance and to stop people risking their lives in trying to cross the sea. Following this, the 27 member states met without Prime Minister May to exchange views on the future direction of Europe and also on preparations for the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome on 25 March. I am pleased to report there was broad agreement that the EU should focus on unity, the importance of our core values and delivering for our citizens. Our planning on this will be further progressed at another meeting this Friday.

Brexit was not on the agenda at Malta, although it arose in discussions on the margins of the meetings. I took the opportunity, as I do at all meetings, to engage with my EU counterparts and to explain our particular concerns arising from Brexit. I also discussed these issues in detail in a separate bilateral meeting the following day with the Maltese Prime Minister, Joseph Muscat, who currently holds the rotating EU Presidency. Since then, I have travelled twice to Brussels for a series of meetings with the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament, as well as the Commission's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier. I also met with the Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, during one of those visits and we had a very useful exchange of views on Brexit.

The European Council will start tomorrow with the first exchange of views with the new President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani. The European Parliament will play a significant role in the Brexit negotiations, not least in considering and approving the final agreement, and it is important that it is fully involved in the process. I met with President Tajani in Brussels last week, and also separately with a number of key MEPs, to discuss these issues.

2 o’clock

There was an understanding of Ireland's concerns, particularly about the Border and the common travel area, CTA. However, we will need to continue to engage with the parliament to ensure our particular issues are addressed throughout the negotiations. After the exchange with President Tajani, a decision will be taken, under the Maltese presidency, regarding the election of the President of the European Council.

The Presidency will then deliver a presentation as a follow -up to European Council decisions which will lead into the item on migration. Coming so soon after the Malta summit, I do not expect a lengthy exchange on migration. However, the High Representative will provide updates including on the current situation along the migratory routes, the EU-Turkey statement and the migration compacts. Ireland continues to play an active role in the context of the EU response and also at our own initiative. More than 600 people have arrived from outside the EU since the start of 2016 as resettlement. In relation to relocation from within the EU, more than 300 people have arrived, and we are expecting to receive up to 1,100 by next September.

The next agenda item, jobs, growth and competitiveness, incorporates a number of issues, including the annual growth survey, national reform programmes, the economic policy of the euro area, growth, unemployment, the European Fund for Strategic Investments, Single Market strategies, trade policy, including agreements with Canada and Japan, banking union, and the social summit which will take place in Sweden later this year. President Draghi will join the meeting for these discussions. These are all extremely important issues but I would underline in particular the Single Market and free trade as having been fundamental to Ireland's development over recent years. Deputies will recall that I led an initiative last December to push for greater ambition in the digital Single Market, which will be crucial to our economic prosperity in the future. Free trade has also brought enormous benefits within the EU and externally, and we will continue to support this in the future. I have asked the Minister, Deputy Breen, to address some of the items under this important heading in greater detail in his wrap-up remarks later.

The evening session will begin with an exchange on security and defence. The December European Council outlined proposals for further co-operation in this area, and foreign affairs and defence Ministers adopted conclusions last Monday on the implementation of security and defence aspects of the global strategy. These conclusions will form the basis of the High Representative's input at tomorrow's meeting. The EU common security and defence policy, CSDP, is designed to advance the role of the EU in crisis management and peacekeeping in support of international peace and security within the EU neighbourhood and beyond. Ireland's approach to CSDP is constructive and realistic. We are strong supporters of initiatives which improve the capacity of the EU to contribute to international peace and security, especially in support of the UN, and to delivering the necessary civil and military capabilities in this regard. The EU global strategy commits to promoting peace, democracy and the rule of law. It has a positive focus on disarmament, the UN, the Middle East peace process and multilateralism. It also recognises the need to invest further in conflict resolution, tackling the root causes of instability, including socio-economic development, and supporting international peace and security through the EU comprehensive approach.

Tomorrow's session is expected to provide direction for concrete measures to be assessed at the European Council in June. Discussions will cover a decision to establish a new military planning and conduct capability for training and capacity building missions, designed to deliver greater synergies and increased co-ordination with civilian missions as part of the EU comprehensive approach; modalities for the development of permanent structured co-operation, PESCO; and the establishment of the initial parameters for an EU-wide co-ordinated annual review on defence and the development of civilian capabilities. Formal proposals from the High Representative in these areas are being discussed in Council fora.

Ireland acknowledges that the development of a military planning and conduct capability, appropriately configured and supported through an effective joint co-ordination cell, could deliver more effective CSDP operations. The key objective is to plan and organise civil and military missions better to maximise efficiencies, delivering a holistic and comprehensive approach in EU conflict management operations in accordance with UN mandates. Permanent structured co-operation provides a mechanism whereby military crisis management capabilities could be developed by member states in support of CSDP operations.

Ireland can support the development of an inclusive PESCO which delivers essential capabilities for CSDP operations in the area of international crisis management. Participation in PESCO is entirely voluntary as provided in the Lisbon treaty protocols and, in the case of Ireland, is subject to the approval of Dáil Éireann in accordance with the provisions of the Defence (Amendment) Act 2006. The co-ordinated annual review on defence will focus on capability development and the potential to address shortfalls. Participation in the process is voluntary. Defence policy, including spending plans and investment, is a national competence. We will continue to consider proposals and developments in these areas carefully to ensure all decisions add value to EU international peace support efforts and are grounded in the EU treaties and related protocols.

The last item for the European Council will be external relations, specifically the western Balkans, where High Representative Mogherini has just visited. It is important to acknowledge the European perspective of the countries of the western Balkans and the transformative effect of enlargement in this region. Foreign ministers adopted conclusions on this last Monday which outlined EU support for reforms in these countries, as well as the challenges they face, not least by Russian efforts to increase that country's influence. Ireland believes that the EU must remain firmly committed to realising the European perspective of the western Balkans and that the future of the region lies in its relationship with the EU.

The European Council will adopt conclusions on the European Public Prosecutor's Office. No discussion is anticipated on this item. I note that, under Protocol 21, Ireland will not be participating in this arrangement.

On Friday, the Heads of State and Government of the 27 EU member states will meet to discuss the future direction of the Union and the summit planned for late March to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. A declaration will be adopted in Rome which will outline the many achievements of the European project, which should never be taken for granted, the challenges we face and the approach we should take to respond to these. This work will build on our discussions in Bratislava last September and in Valletta last month and will take account of the European Commission's White Paper published last week, which outlines a number of possible scenarios for the EU by 2025. These range from taking no new action to making major leaps forward in terms of co-operation.

Ireland has been clear in this debate that our core European values are central to our future peace and prosperity and that we need to remain united. Rather than getting side-tracked in debates where there is no chance of agreement, we should focus on where we can work together and add value. I have stressed the need to press ahead in these areas, especially in jobs, growth and investment. As I said earlier, Ireland attaches particular priority to progressing work on the Single Market and the digital Single Market, and we will continue to push for ambitious approaches in these areas.

Brexit will not feature on the agenda of these meetings until Prime Minister May has formally triggered Article 50. Once this has happened - expected to be later this month - the 27 member states will meet again to discuss and agree guidelines for the negotiations ahead. I look forward to reporting back to the House on the outcome of tomorrow's European Council meeting. As mentioned earlier, the Minister, Deputy Breen, will focus in some more detail on some of the economic issues in his wrap-up remarks.

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

Deputy Micheál Martin has just left for Brussels where he will be meeting the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, to discuss Brexit and other issues. He will be wearing the green jersey, so to speak, as he highlights the issues that are important to the country in the context of the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. As has been said before, this is a moment of great uncertainty for the future of the EU, yet this week's summit involves no significant move to address any major challenge. It is a business as usual summit in which all the items on the agenda appear to have been agreed in advance and no new ideas will be considered. For all those who wish the EU well and want it to be more dynamic and effective, this summit is far from encouraging.

Inevitably the decision of the UK to leave the Union has led to a huge amount of uncertainty about future policies. The arrogant and blustering approach of the London Government over the past eight months has made a bad situation worse. There is no clarity whatsoever on how relations with the UK will be conducted. While Ms May has said she wants a "red, white and blue Brexit", she and her colleagues fail to understand that this is exactly the narrow, backward-looking type of approach designed to minimise the chance of a constructive deal. Why on earth would any other country want to agree to a "red, white and blue Brexit"? Mr. John Major’s excellent speech in Chatham House made the case very persuasively that the London Government has to start showing some respect for the interests of others or the consequences will be grave.

We do not have the time to discuss fully the details of Ireland’s position on Brexit, but there are points that need to be made about developments in the past two weeks. From the beginning, the London Government has claimed that Northern Ireland and Scotland will have their interests listened to in the negotiations. They may have been listened to, but they certainly have not been responded to. In fact, there is no case evident of a Northern Irish or Scottish concern being reflected in the Government’s public position. Prime Minister May has now said that she is not proposing to transfer any power repatriated from the EU to the devolved Administrations.

If we take this, along with the stated objective of the White Paper, that is to say, "Strengthening the Union", it appears Brexit is seen as a way of increasing London's control over the devolved Administrations. Assuming that the DUP-Sinn Féin axis can re-establish the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive and that Northern Ireland has political leadership again, the powers of the Assembly and Executive are not to be decided on unilaterally in London. The complex architecture of powers, as reflected in the peace settlement, is a matter for negotiations between the Governments and with the parties. This explicitly reflects the position of policies currently decided at EU level. The Northern Ireland Act, which was the product of negotiations, reflects this.

I am putting it clearly to the Taoiseach that he has an obligation to say to the UK Prime Minister, Ms May, when he meets her on Thursday, that London is directly undermining the spirit and letter of the settlement by failing to negotiate on how the repatriation of policies will be treated for Northern Ireland.

This reinforces the fact that we need to begin substantive discussions immediately on the impact of Brexit on the Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act. The Article 50 negotiations do not have to be completed for us to proceed with these discussions. The 1998 referendums reflect the established will of the people and they must be respected. Unlike others, I fail to see how, legally, they can prevent Brexit. However, they certainly prevent London from taking any unilateral action in a series of areas. Human rights law is the most important of these areas.

These matters are entirely distinct from the common travel area and potential special status for Northern Ireland. The longer we go on without a definitive statement from London to the effect that it accepts the need to negotiate before changing past agreements on Northern Ireland, the longer we risk a major crisis. The House should note that the Tory Government appears increasingly likely to use Brexit as an opportunity to squeeze regulations that protect workers and consumers. Indeed, there is already a push to expand free trade greatly with lower wage economies. All of this makes the support of Brexit on the part of the hard left here all the more striking. Given that Sinn Féin has decided that it hates everything the EU does but is fully committed to keeping Northern Ireland in the EU, I hope it will work to persuade its uniformly anti-EU group in the European Parliament to change its mind.

Last week, the European Commission President, Mr. Juncker, published the Commission document on where the Union should go from here. It is called a White Paper but in reality it is nothing of the sort. It is a short document that contains some useful perspectives but actually proposes nothing concrete. A total of five general options have been presented. Effectively, these are the same options that have been on the table for 30 years. More helpful would be the presentation of hard evidence on how a reformed Union could help to a greater extent. Instead of ratcheting up the rhetoric, we need to undertake the far harder work of identifying the areas where enhanced or reduced activity would deliver a quantifiable benefit to citizens. If that document is the basis for further discussions, then we risk another return of the frustrating, technical and ineffective negotiations of the past.

We must also be careful of the approach of deciding on something simply because it is possible to do. A good example of this is in the area of security and defence. The current arrangements are effective and allow member states to co-operate on a basis that respects the particular tradition of everyone. The predictions of nuclear weapons being paraded down O'Connell Street that were made during numerous referendum campaigns have been shown to be bogus. Instead, we have states working closely to serve humanitarian causes. This co-operation has strengthened the wonderful work of Óglaigh na hÉireann.

The case for change in respect of the security and defence agenda has not yet been made. Before the agenda moves from generalities to specifics, we should make it abundantly clear that we are content with the current strategy. The summit is due to discuss the outcome of the semester process and responses to country-specific recommendations. The greater flexibility of the Commission is to be welcomed, as is the change of its tone.

Unfortunately, there has not yet been a change of policy on Greece. Syriza has long since abandoned its original approach of demanding the right to abandon debts, receive more money and implement a vast expansion in spending. Greece needs significant debt relief, whether by a freezing of debt or some other measure. Greece cannot achieve sustainable growth without further relief. Allowing this issue to continue to roll along risks a return to the debt crisis of recent years. Its impact will be felt by all through rising costs of borrowing. Ireland should speak against the drift and call for a new urgency on this issue.

Donald Tusk has filled the role of President of the European Council excellently. He has shown strength in moving the agenda forward as much as he can and he has shown an ability to speak hard truths. I have been particularly impressed by how he has been consistent in speaking up for the rights of small nations, especially those threatened by outside aggression. The Fianna Fáil position is that President Tusk absolutely deserves a new term and that Ireland should actively support him.

The summit will briefly discuss external affairs. The humanitarian crisis caused by the Syrian Government, with the active aid of the Russian Federation, remains as acute as ever. To read and watch families in Mosul under consistent attack is heart-breaking. An entire generation of children will never be able to have a normal life after seeing indiscriminate bombings, shootings and random assassinations. Historians will look back and ask why Europe did not do more to stop it at this time in our history.

Given the position of the Trump Administration on refugees in the USA and its intention to cut overseas aid significantly, Europe must take a different route. The case for a significant increase in direct humanitarian aid remains overwhelming.

The awkwardness of holding an anniversary celebration at the moment when a member state begins the process of leaving is obvious. I would hope that the Treaty of Rome events to be held on 25 March will have some substance and that they will be a demonstration of respect and solidarity. Europe has achieved incredibly positive progress in the past 60 years and rejected the destruction of the ideological extremes. It is worth renewing. However, to achieve this we need leadership, urgency and ambition.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of my remarks will be around the situation in the North of Ireland, the situation with regard to permanent structured co-operation and the whole issue of the militarisation of Europe.

Last week's election in the North was historic. The results have transformed the political landscape on that part of our island. The Unionist majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly is gone. The belief in the permanence of Unionist domination has been shattered. The decision of Martin McGuinness to resign has been vindicated by the significantly increased turnout. The process of restoring the political institutions will be difficult but not impossible. Sinn Féin wants the institutions to be up and running on the basis of equality and respect and we are keen for the outstanding agreements to be implemented in full. Does the Taoiseach intend to discuss this with his European counterparts?

I understand the Taoiseach will meet Theresa May on the sidelines of the summit to discuss the North. It is important to remember that the British Government is not a neutral party in the talks that started yesterday. In fact, it is part of the problem, as it has continually refused to implement and honour its agreements and responsibilities.

The Irish Government can no longer stand back and allow the British Government to abdicate its responsibilities under a range of agreements. In his meeting with the British Prime Minister, will the Taoiseach demand that the British Government honours the many commitments it has repeatedly broken? I have in mind, for example, its failure to implement an Irish language Act or to deal with legacy issues.

The election in the North was also about DUP arrogance and the alleged corruption inherent in the renewable heating scheme. However, Brexit was a fundamental part of the debate and it shaped how people voted. We all know the consequences of Brexit for jobs and the livelihoods of citizens throughout this island, especially in Border regions. One group of workers will be immediately penalised by the introduction of a hard Border. This group includes the hundreds of small farmers who travel back and forth every day across the Border. Many of them live and work in my constituency.

The huge difficulty that an imposed Border will create is one of the major reasons the majority of people in the North voted to remain in the EU. The EU is not perfect and, in fact, needs radical reform. However, an arrogant and contemptuous Tory Government in London is preparing to trample over the Good Friday Agreement and the principle of consent by dragging the North out of the EU and introducing a hard Border on this island. That is one of the reasons there was a huge increase in voter turnout in Border areas last Thursday. Sinn Féin’s demand that the Irish Government must negotiate for special status for the North within the EU was backed by a majority of Deputies last month when a Private Members' motion on the issue was passed by the House. This demand also strongly resonated with voters last week across the North.

Sinn Féin received the most first preference votes in every Border constituency and every Border constituency now has two or three Sinn Féin MLAs. In contrast, the Tories did not seek election in one Border constituency and came last in every other Border constituency, except one. The highest support they got for any of their candidates was 85 votes. British Tories have no mandate, no support and no understanding of the reality of life in Ireland, yet Theresa May last week again emphasised her intention to centralise decision-making in Westminster following Brexit. The Taoiseach must use this European Council meeting to inform his European counterparts of the pressing need for the North to be granted a special designated status within the EU. If matters remain on schedule, the British Prime Minister will trigger Article 50 this month and the real negotiations for Britain’s divorce from the EU will commence. The Irish Government must state that it wants special status for the North and that it will not allow the British Government to impose a hard Border in Ireland.

Last Monday, at a joint meeting of EU foreign affairs and defence Ministers, it was unanimously agreed to set up a new headquarters in Brussels for EU military training missions. While it is only focused on training missions at present, it will be reviewed in 2018 and it may take charge of combat missions. This is a further militarisation of the EU and an advancement towards the creation of a EU army. The Taoiseach need not take our word for it. Speaking after the meeting on Monday the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs called the new headquarters "a first step" to "a European army". The German Minister of Defence said, "We took a very important step toward a European security and defence union", while the foreign affairs representative of the European Commission said, "The EU always takes a soft approach to hard security, but we also have some hard power that we are strengthening".

Irish neutrality was further eroded at this meeting and there does not appear to have been a whimper of opposition from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade or the Minister of State at the Department of Defence. This is not surprising considering that Fine Gael has always tried to undermine and dismantle Irish neutrality. The sheer support for neutrality among the Irish people is all that has prevented it from doing so in the past. Fine Gael's policy is clearly to let the EU quietly create a standing army. This is something that is feared by the people of the country. There is a statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, about the meeting on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website. It mentions a discussion about the EU's global strategy but, interestingly, there is no mention of this huge decision to create a military headquarters. Strangely, there is also no statement about such an important meeting from the Minister of State at the Department of Defence, Deputy Paul Kehoe, on the Department of Defence website.

There are reports that there was a lengthy debate about whether the head of the new EU military headquarters should be called a "commander" or "director", before "director" was chosen as the more appropriate title. That seems to have been the height of the debate, and the Government wonders why people are increasingly frustrated and fed up with the EU. There are no reports of Irish Ministers standing up for Irish neutrality and against the further militarisation of the EU. These issues must be discussed at the European Council meeting. Will the Taoiseach confirm he will speak out against the creation of an EU army and that Ireland will play no part in its creation, or will he be honest with the Irish people, for once and for all and state his Government’s support for an EU army? It has to be one or the other, and it is time we were given the truth on this issue.

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

I noted a report at the weekend that the Taoiseach might be in line for the job of President of the European Council. I wonder whether the possible job for Deputy Enda Kenny in Europe is the reward for the best-boy-in-the-class routine he has pursued in terms of implementing some of the misguided and cruel policies of the European Union directed against both the people of this country and millions of people across the wider European Union. There was also the EU's brutal and inhumane treatment of desperate people trying to come to Europe and flee war, civil conflict and desperate circumstances in north Africa and the Middle East. The Taoiseach has failed to speak out against the failures, cruelties and injustices for which Europe has been responsible and, worse, has enthusiastically endorsed the cruel, misguided and bankrupt policies that have been pursued. I will cite a few of them and ask the Taoiseach what position he will take on them. Will he speak out about what is right or will he continue to stay silent and toe the European line to secure the top job in Europe?

The European Union has just concluded a deal with Libya, if one can describe Libya as a state. It is a failed state. It has collapsed and there are now three factions running it. Incredibly, the European Union claims to care about women and children. We heard the Taoiseach speak today about how much he cares about the women and children who suffered in the Bon Secours institution in Tuam. Does he care about what human rights organisations are saying about the EU's deal with Libya? They have described the deal as one in which the EU is ready to sacrifice thousands of vulnerable men, women and children to stop them reaching European shores by herding them into warehouses run by armed militias in Libya. The EU will pay these Libyan forces - one could not call them a government - €200 million to prevent physically 1 million refugees in Libya trying to get away from the disaster in Libya and these horrific warehouses where, according to those who reach Europe's shores, people are being raped, abused and starved. The civil rights situation in Libya is horrific and it is the major incentive for people trying to flee across the Mediterranean, where many drown, to gain access to Europe, where the doors are closed.

This is the second shameful deal the EU has made. Previously, it made a deal with Turkey, whose regime also has a brutal human rights record. Undoubtedly, these deals run counter to the European Convention on Human Rights in terms of their treatment of migrants by shoving them back into appalling conditions and into the hands of regimes that have no regard for human rights.

Why is the Taoiseach not speaking out on these matters, on the shameful treatment of desperate, vulnerable people?

Incredibly, it appears that there has been a blanket ban operating for the past two years in this country on Libyans being granted family reunification. In many cases, these Libyans are qualified professionals. I know of one Libyan who has submitted a family reunification application. He is a medical doctor and has been offered a job as a registrar in Galway University Hospital but his application has been turned down. He has been told that it is okay for him to stay in Libya, where an horrendous situation pertains. There seems to be a blanket ban for people like that doctor and other desperate people from Libya but with two notable exceptions. If a Libyan is associated with the oil or beef industry, he or she can come here. We all know how important oil is to Europe and beef is to the beef barons in this country. Is that our immigration policy now? Is that what the Taoiseach is doing in terms of speaking up for the human rights of desperate, vulnerable people in Europe?

Europe often portrays itself as a defender of progressive social values. However, a report published today, on International Women's Day, shows that the gender pay gap is widening and getting worse. The gap between what men and women earn for doing the same job is growing in Europe. Ireland is at the bottom of the league table in this deteriorating scenario of increasing gender inequality in paid employment. Incredibly, the situation is getting worse.

In stark contrast, as we speak we see scenes on O'Connell Bridge and all across the country, of a generation of young women demanding an end to their second class status as women and an end to the horrendous treatment that has been meted out to them by this State, from the Magdalen laundries, the Bethany homes, the Tuam Bon Secours scandal and so on. These women want equality. They are on the streets today, demanding equality but the European Union is not only failing to deliver that equality, it is actually presiding over worsening inequality in terms of the treatment of women.

Does Deputy Paul Murphy wish to speak?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

The Deputy is late but I will give him my last two minutes. I hope the Taoiseach will speak up about some of the issues I have raised if he wants a job in Europe.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late but I could not see whether Deputy Boyd Barrett was actually speaking because the cameras in the Chamber are pointed sideways because of his jumper.

To mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the European Council worked on a draft declaration on the future of the European Union, in which we see Italy, Germany, France and Spain endorsing-----

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

I am sorry Deputy Murphy, but Deputy Mattie McGrath wishes to speak.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am wondering about the wearing of badges and emblems in the Chamber because I was prevented last week from coming into the Chamber with a daffodil.

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

Had the Deputy spoken to me about the daffodil, I would have told him that it was not a political emblem.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was stopped when I was coming in here. Is Deputy Boyd Barrett's jumper not a political emblem?

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

It is not.

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

Let us get on with the debate. I do not know what the Deputies are repealing. Let us get on with the debate Deputy, please.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not know what it is. We all know what it is.

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

It is not party political-----

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

The Deputy assumes he knows but circumstantial evidence is not good enough for me.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Anti-Austerity Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We see the endorsement of the idea of a multi-speed Europe which is a reflection of the crisis within the European Union. It is also a reflection of the crisis of the so-called extreme centre which has borne within it the extreme right that we currently see. The reality is that the EU is an institution that was founded, and which has acted, to enhance the interests of imperialism and big business on a global stage but none of that will be mentioned in this declaration.

The road being pushed forward is a two tier or multi-speed Europe but the reality for ordinary people is that there have always been two speeds or two tiers in Europe, with the fast lane reserved for bankers, big business and privateers who take precedence over the victims of austerity, namely working class people and migrants. We see this taking place in particular with regard to the militarisation of Europe, which this Government refuses to acknowledge. In the last few months we have seen the speeding up of a process of militarisation and military co-operation in the EU. In the last six months the EU has taken decisive steps towards militarisation with its proposals for a common military research and development budget and for 2% of the GDP of each member state to be spent on the military. The Taoiseach has continually tried to avoid the issue by saying the Dáil and the Irish Government have a veto on the deployment of troops. That is a pathetic excuse which amounts to tacit support for the militarisation of the EU, in the context of the setting up of a common military headquarters.

The other shame that I will not have time to deal with in depth is the racist, anti-migrant policy that has turned the Mediterranean into a graveyard for those who are trying to escape the horrors caused by imperialism. Will the Taoiseach stand up to that? Will he stand up to defend the right to asylum? I seriously doubt it, given that he will be presenting shamrock to Donald Trump next week.

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

I wish to share time with Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.

When the Taoiseach goes to Europe I would like him to use his time there to defend the Palestinians who are at the mercy of Israeli military forces on a daily basis. There has been much talk for a long time about the two state solution but that solution is actually dead now. Its death began in 1967 when the Israelis took over so much of the Palestinian land. After the Palestinian elections took place in 2006, which were fair and were monitored by UN bodies, the US and Israel, supported by Europe, refused to recognise the result because they did not like the fact that Hamas had actually won. They decided to support the Palestinian Authority. Sadly, the Palestinian Authority is now part of the problem rather than the solution. The authority has been armed and trained by the Israelis and the Americans and its main task is to control the Palestinian people.

The two state solution never offered much to the Palestinians, even when there was a slim prospect of it happening. It offered nothing to the huge number of Palestinians living in Israel under an apartheid system. They have no human rights and there is no justice for Palestinians living in Israel. The two state solution offered nothing for the more than 2 million Palestinians living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan either.

The European take on Palestine and Israel is really important. The US has had no problem with supporting Israel's attempts at genocide in Gaza in recent years but the EU could play a positive role. However, when the EU refused to recognise the results of the 2006 election, it removed the pressure on Israel to stop building settlements. It also gave Israel carte blancheto continue building its wall and it ended any possibility of a genuinely independent Palestinian state. That is not feasible anymore. It is not socially, economically or geographically feasible any more. That possibility is now gone and we must face up to that. What does that mean? Where are we going now? We are heading for a one state solution and what we want is a state where Israelis and Palestinians live together on equal terms; a state where there are human rights, civil rights and democracy for all. Of course, that would mean an end to the Zionist dream of the Jewish state which is currently operating in Israel.

We pay lip service in this country to caring about Palestinians. If we really cared about them we would not allow Israel to do what it does. We would be a very strong voice in Europe, trying to get Europe to change its position on Palestine. Two weeks ago myself and Deputy Clare Daly were invited to Iran to speak at a conference on Palestine which was attended by representatives from 80 countries, mostly in Asia and Africa.

An opinion poll within Palestine between the West Bank and Gaza indicated that two thirds of Palestinians now realise that the two-state solution is not possible and they want a one-state solution where they will get equal rights and justice because they are a long way from it at the moment. One of the biggest disgraces of the past 50 years has been how Europe has allowed Israel to engage in crimes against humanity and genocide against the people of Palestine. It is horrific. It is very disappointing that our Government is not taking a strong position on it. We have no problem doing business with the Saudis who probably cut off more heads in a month than ISIS does. Ireland used to be a neutral country until we allowed Shannon Airport to be used to bomb the living daylights out of so many homes in the region. We used to be proud to be a neutral country, but it is gone.

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

Tá cúpla rud gur mhaith liom caint faoi san am atá agam. Tá dhá rud i gceist agam atá ag cur imní ar dhaoine. An chéad ceann ná CETA. We know CETA will apply provisionally from April, but we are told it will not be brought before the Dáil for ratification until a judgment has been handed down by the European Court of Justice on another trade deal. The concern is that this is only on one deal, the Singapore one. Under CETA a commercial tribunal will adjudicate - not an Irish or EU court - when a company takes legal action against a state. There is a glaring absence of a cost-benefit analysis and due diligence. Another concern is that this commercial tribunal will remain in place for 20 years even if future governments do not want it.

We claim we are committed to European values. One of those is surely the right to trade without recourse to investor-court systems by foreign-based companies. Therefore, will Ireland seek a reference to the European Court of Justice on the legality under EU treaties and law of the investor-court systems? I asked that question of the Taoiseach some weeks ago and he said he would get back to me on it but he has not done so to date. Such legal clarity on the investor-court system is required before any ratification vote.

The second area of concern is migration. We know the figures on migration and internal displacement. One in particular is very striking. The number of registered Syrian refugees in countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan is the same as Ireland's population. There are challenges regarding humanitarian needs and the threat from radical terrorism. We need to ensure that we continue our commitment to protecting the human rights and dignity of all. We all need to be aware of our obligations under international law. Under the Geneva Convention we are required to protect those fleeing war and oppression. Under the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we should support and protect one another regardless of race, religion, nationality or economic circumstances.

However, we are increasingly hearing the growing securitisation narrative. Security-related language is starting to penetrate the human rights area. It is a shift from the humanitarian paradigm to the security paradigm. The UN special rapporteur pointed out how, instead of deterring terrorism or radicalisation, the securitised approach is having the opposite effect. It polarises us and feeds into the narrative of terrorism. That report states that efforts for education, employment, inclusion and respect for human rights represent the most effective approach in countering the spread of terrorism.

We know the root causes of migration are land grabs, war, famine, extreme poverty and rights displacement. Those root causes need to be tackled in order that people do not feel they have to leave their country of origin. While the EU has been a major contributor when it comes to development aid, two recent approaches are very alarming, namely, the EU migration partnership frameworks and the EU emergency trust funds. The alarm is coming from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, institutions and civil society, which claim there has been minimal if any involvement from them in designing the trust funds or in allocating the funds. There are concerns over the heavy persuasive methods being used to get African countries to comply and the sanctioning of African countries if they do not comply.

There are concerns that those approaches are diverting from the real aim of development aid, which is to tackle the root causes of poverty. There are concerns that these trust funds are going to countries where there are serious human rights violations. For example, Sudan is being seen as a partner in addressing migration. It is a country that fails to respect international refugee law. It has a repressive regime that forcibly returns refugees to Eritrea. It is a country of forced displacement and there is also evidence of cluster bombs. We know about the problems in Libya. We must ask where people will be sent if they are caught by the Libyan authorities.

Oxfam has pointed out that the EU is now bargaining with countries that it previously would have held at arm's length due to their abuse of human rights. Returning to European values, there is supposed to be inclusion, respect and dignity from all the European countries that have signed up to the sustainable development goals. Very alarmingly, the EU is using distorted figures, particularly from Niger, to claim that these new policies are working but they are not.

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

Glaoim ar an Teachta Michael Healy-Rae, atá ag roinnt a chuid ama leis an Teachta Mattie McGrath. Tá deich bomaite acu san iomlán.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment Deputies Michael Healy-Rae and Haughey, as well as other members of the European affairs committee, who have done much work on the ground. While not a personal criticism of the Minister of State, Deputy Breen, that is work the Government should be doing. The Taoiseach referred to the last Council meeting which 27 member states attended without the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, to exchange views on the future direction of Europe and preparations for the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome on 25 March. Brexit was not on the agenda in Malta, however. I do not know what the Taoiseach was doing in Malta if Brexit was not on the agenda. It is on everyone’s lips, man, woman and child where I come from. There was a timely presentation this morning from the IFA at which it announced its action plan for Brexit. It is a sad state of affairs if we are going to depend on NGOs to deal with Brexit.

With 65% self-sufficiency, the UK is a net importer of beef. Ireland is the main import supplier, accounting for almost 70% of UK beef imports. The UK is the market for 50% of Irish beef exports, with a further 45% going to the EU market. Overall, a reduction in access to and the value of the UK market would have a negative impact on the Irish beef sector and, potentially, on the overall EU beef market. As a mature market, the capacity of the EU beef market to absorb increased imports is low. Irish beef exports of 270,000 tonnes to the UK represent almost 10% of the intra-EU beef trade. The displacement of these exports would, therefore, have a destabilising and devastating effect on the overall EU market.

In 2016, 34% of Ireland’s dairy exports went to the UK. This comprised 53% of cheese exports, 29% of butter exports and 12% of skimmed milk powder exports. Exports of cheddar cheese were 78,000 tonnes, representing 82% of all cheddar imported by the UK in 2016. Retention of tariff-free access to the UK market is critically important, particularly for Irish cheddar exports. Overall, the loss of or disimproved access to the UK market could have a destabilising impact on the overall value of the Irish dairy sector. I thank Ms Rowena Dwyer, the IFA’s chief economist from Tipperary, for her excellent research and figures.

Ireland exported 13,000 tonnes of sheepmeat to the UK in 2016. In the UK market, almost 90% of UK lamb imports come from outside the EU, namely, New Zealand and Australia, while EU exports go predominantly to four EU member states with France accounting for 50% of these. The key issue for the sheep sector will be the decision taken on the division of the large EU tariff-rate quota, TRQ, for New Zealand lamb. Any displacement of New Zealand lamb imports, which currently go to the UK market, will have a negative impact on the overall value of the EU lamb market.

It is the same with pigmeat and poultry. There is significant bilateral trade between Ireland and the UK in pigmeat and poultry products, built up over many years. The disruption to existing trade flows, through tariff barriers or other increases in costs, would reduce the overall value of these markets. In addition, the continuation of cross-Border trade of pigs for processing is a critical issue, reflecting the overall processing capacity of the sector on the island of Ireland.

On tillage, Ireland is a net importer of grains. The geographical closeness to Northern Ireland results in some grain farmers exporting their product to Northern Ireland, rather than selling to more distant parts of the island. The imposition of tariffs on UK imports would potentially result in a resourcing of imports from the EU with increased transport costs. The already struggling mushroom industry has been decimated with the change in currency rates because of Brexit.

I cannot understand why the Brexit issue was not on the agenda in Malta. However, the Government better get its finger out and start talking about it everywhere, anywhere and at any gathering of EU member states.

I have tried to raise the issue of the persecution of Christians, minority Muslims and the Yazidis in the Middle East. There is genocide against them but we cannot have a proper debate about it while Europe stands idly by. I must take up Deputy Wallace on Hamas. This is the same group that has been designated as a terrorist group by the US, Canada and Japan. Its declared goal is the destruction of Israel. We cannot mete it out on one hand and not take in the other. We have to look at genocide overall wherever it comes from. The slaughter and persecution of Christians is clearing Christian civilisation from the Middle East. It will destabilise the whole world. Under the different dictators there in the past, people of whatever religion had freedom to practice and protection. Now, they are being slaughtered and persecuted wilfully while a blind eye is being turned to their plight.

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

I hate to ask the Deputy to conclude when he is in full flight, but his time has concluded.

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

Thank you for that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

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

I am glad to be able to make several comments in advance of the European Council meeting at this historic time when we are coming up to the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome and our nearest neighbour and closest colleague in the European Union is about to exit it. It will be seen as a historic mistake because we live in a world where increased solidarity, not just in the Union but across the world with other countries, is what is required to be able to meet the great challenges of the 21st century, to live sustainably on this planet, to feed 9 billion people by the middle of the century and to live in peace, which we failed so clearly to do in the 20th century.

Earlier, I raised with the Taoiseach the issue of the White Paper on the future of Europe which the European Commission had presented. For what I understood from the Taoiseach, that will be an item for discussion at this upcoming Council meeting. It is important we declare some of the positions we will take in that regard. First, we should not be looking for a two-speed Europe. That takes from the very core of the philosophy behind the Treaty of Rome and the sense that collaboration and international co-operation are what is required. I fear if we do see a two-speed Europe, it will breach that fundamental approach. It is better for us to get consensus and win common agreement.

It does not mean Europe just has to be a monolithic organisation. We have learned, as has the Commission and others, that we need to breathe within the European rules. There needs to be a genuine commitment to subsidiarity, as well as allowing flexibility and innovation in a whole range of different strategies. Not everything has to be regulated from the centre, controlled by increasing bodies of directives or by central European funding.

There are a couple of areas in which we need to declare our position. One is in security. It is appropriate and right for us to go back to the very principles involved in our membership of the Union. As I understand, in our application in the early to mid-1960s, there was a certain pressure at the time that Ireland would possibly join NATO or would be engaged in common military activity. It is interesting, as I understand from reading the history of the time, that it was the German finance Ministry and the American State Department which in the end relented on that and accepted Ireland's original application on the basis of our tradition of neutrality. It is right for us to stand with that tradition, which has benefitted Europe.

3 o’clock

It has strengthened Europe to have a country like Ireland that is so actively engaged in UN peacekeeping missions and that has a different history or connection to other countries, particularly in the Middle East and elsewhere, because of our colonised past compared with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Britain, Italy any of the other main European countries. Europe is strengthened by having a country like Ireland with a different tradition. We should stand up for that and say that while there is real pressure to increase spending on defence, it should be spent on peacekeeping and overseas development aid and not connecting that to trade but to the United Nations values we also espouse. We should set the sustainable development goals - negotiated by an Irish civil servant and signed in New York by all members of the Union in September 2015 - as a manifesto for the European Union. Those goals already provide a manifesto for the northern and southern hemispheres in the context of development.

We should stand up for an open Europe in terms of the free movement of people. I listened to what Deputy Boyd Barrett and Deputy Paul Murphy said about not believing in the European Union because it does not show solidarity in that sense. However, it is our best vehicle for solidarity. If that is what we need in terms of international order - I believe it is - I do not see an alternative. Neither do I see what is their alternative, other than trying to bring the European Union to that sort of position. That is the strategic role we have to play in these talks about the future of Europe. In the context of those discussions, the free movement of people - both within the Union and, in the context of refugees seeking asylum, from the outside - is critical because if we do not provide that, effectively, we are saying that the free movement of capital, not the free movement of people, gives undue power and influence to capital in the entire process of the way our economy develops. That is not what we need now. We need a balanced approach and it is only the European Union, in the scale it provides, that can give us that control on capital and that power against the power of corporations. I do not understand what the Anti-Austerity Alliance's alternative is if it does not see the Union as a vehicle to impose that control on corporate capitalist interests.

It is important that we start to stand up for climate action and see the European Union as a vehicle in that regard. In that respect, we are in a slightly shamed position at present. Ireland is one of only two countries that will not meet their 2020 emissions reduction targets and one of only four that will not meet their renewable energy targets. Ireland is increasingly seen in Europe - I have observed this up close in recent years - as akin to Poland in being a denier of effective action on climate, not only in the agricultural sector but also in areas of renewable energy and climate adaption plans. We are not taking this issue seriously. We are not leading on it in Europe. The risk for us is that not only will we be shamed in that regard but we will also miss out on the economic opportunity that is developing for those countries that want to lead. Europe should be what it says it wants to be, which is a leader on environmental action. We should take up that mantle. We should carry that as our vision of the future and as our brand within the European Union. We are not doing that. It is not Europe but Ireland that needs to change in that regard.

In terms of economic integration, we also need to change. We must be aware that Ireland is seen as a tax haven across the rest of Europe. Regardless of whether we like that view or disagree with it, that is how Ireland is perceived. If one were to take a blind survey of ten people on the corridors of power in Europe and ask them how they would view Ireland regarding the application of tax justice, they would say it is a tax haven and that it is undermining the ability of the European Union to have a social and just economy. Ireland is seen as being centre stage when it comes to the social justice issue relating to the €1 trillion in tax lost each year due to inappropriate tax avoidance by corporations. We are not going to go to Europe and say we want common tax bands. There must be some flexibility and subsidiarity but we must stop being seen as the ones who are leading the worst sort of practice, which is how we are perceived at present. These are the broad principles in terms of how change should be applied.

The Taoiseach has a responsibility to report to and involve this House on how the Brexit negotiations will proceed. It is interesting that, as we speak, the House of Lords is engaging in a debate on whether it will have a vote on the Brexit negotiations as they evolve. It is important that this House should have a real role and responsibility in the context of whatever negotiating position the Government adopts in these historic negotiations. It is not acceptable for us to sit back and say it is a European Council decision. I presume that Christian democrats still probably comprise a majority of the membership of the European Council. This deal will be done in the side rooms of Christian democrat meeting houses, but that is not appropriate. The question we must ask is what is our role when it comes to the crunch in advising the Taoiseach in terms of whether he says "Yes" or "No" to any deal. As I understand it, national governments still have the power to "Yes" or "No" to whatever is the final arrangements relating to any deal. It is not acceptable for this to be left to a Taoiseach operating on his or her own and not consulting or involving this House. In the coming months and as this process commences, I would like us to debate what exactly is the role and involvement of this House in terms of the negotiation strategy that will be undertaken. To date, the only answer we have to that is that we cannot discuss it until the trigger is pulled. The trigger is about to be pulled. We need to be involved in a much more integrated way.

Other Deputies stated that the Government is not active enough. This Parliament is not active enough. In the context of every matter I consider, be it EURATOM, energy policy, digital services and what is the effect of not listening to the European Court of Justice, the credible implications of these negotiations on every aspect of life is clear. We should be involved in this issue. It should not simply be hived off and dealt with at a European Council meeting, with the Taoiseach coming back and stating "This is the deal, I have already accepted it and you have not had a say". That would not be good enough.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank those who contributed this debate. As the Taoiseach indicated, I will address in greater detail some of the economic issues for discussion at the European Council meeting.

Leaders will conclude the first phase of European semester 2017 - the Union’s annual cycle of economic policy co-ordination - and will provide guidance to member states for submission in April of their stability programme updates and national reform programmes. The European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, will join the meeting and there will also be a broader discussion on economic developments.

There is welcome evidence that the EU is on a recovery trajectory, with all member state economies expected to grow this year. The Commission’s winter forecasts, published on 13 February, indicate gross domestic product, GDP, growth of 1.6% for the euro area in 2017, and 1.8% for the EU as a whole. This is still a fragile recovery, with several uncertainties facing us, not least in the geopolitical context. However, the more positive economic outlook continues to slowly feed through to Europe’s labour markets. The emphasis on investment in general is seen as helping to make the recovery sustainable. As stated in the winter forecast, real GDP in the euro area has grown for 15 consecutive quarters, employment is growing at a robust pace, and unemployment continues to fall, although it remains above pre-crisis levels. Measures on youth employment and schemes dedicated to young people appear to be bearing fruit; figures published by the Commission in October indicate that there are 1.4 million fewer young people unemployed in the EU than in 2013. A key risk for Ireland is prolonged weakness in the euro area, so this more positive economic forecast is very welcome. Ireland’s recovery, while still incomplete, remains firmly on course.

I expect that the European Council will give strong political reinforcement to the key pillars of European semester 2017 as set out in the Commission’s annual growth survey: boosting investment; a renewed commitment to both national and EU-level structural reforms; and continued fiscal responsibility.

The proposal on extending and expanding the European Fund for Strategic Investments, EFSI, is evidence of the political prioritisation of the investment agenda by the Commission and member states. The EFSI has directly supported and underpinned a range of strategic priorities, including infrastructural investments. While the impact in Ireland has been modest to date, the Government continues to evaluate where EFSI lending might complement other sources of funding for potential Irish programmes.

The Commission has now presented a comprehensive assessment for each member state under this year’s European semester. In Ireland’s case, the assessment is again broadly positive, reflecting the strength of the economic recovery under way and growing employment. The report also points to the decline in public debt, diminishing financial sector challenges and the considerable strengthening of our external accounts among the important positive developments.

The country report assesses Ireland's economy in light of the Commission’s annual growth survey published on 16 November 2016, which called on member states to redouble their efforts on the three elements of the virtuous triangle of economic policy - boosting investment, pursuing structural reforms and ensuring responsible fiscal policies.

Our country report acknowledges progress but highlights the need to continue to work to resolve legacy issues such as non-performing loans and to remain vigilant to potential external shocks. It finds that progress is broadly on track in addressing the country-specific recommendations provided to Ireland last year. Thanks to a streamlining of the semester process, we now have some time before draft proposals for the next round of country-specific recommendations are produced by the Commission. This window allows for stronger national-level engagement with the Commission's assessment, which should in turn encourage greater national ownership of the semester process. I know the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs attaches particular priority to its role in respect of the semester.

In addition to the broader economic recovery and our country report, which are of particular relevance to Ireland, the European Council will address several other items under the heading of jobs, growth and competitiveness. I wish to highlight two of these in particular, namely, trade and the Single Market. Ensuring free and fair trade while showing commitment to a robust trade policy is essential for creating jobs and growth. It is one of the foundations of European prosperity and Ireland will continue to be a strong supporter of free trade in the future. Another foundation stone is the Single Market. Removing barriers has led to economic growth and is clearly in Ireland's interests. Despite all the commitments in this area, the Single Market, particularly the Single Market for services, is still incomplete. We would like to push ahead with a forward-looking agenda, particularly in respect of the digital Single Market, DSM. There have been positive steps on, for example, roaming charges and portability of digital subscriptions but there is still much more to do. Ireland, as exemplified by the Taoiseach's initiative in December, will continue to push for an ambitious approach on the proposals under the DSM strategy. As the Taoiseach has indicated, he will report to the House on these and other issues following the meeting of the European Council.