Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 12 Apr 2017

European Union Issues: Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach

We have received apologies from Senators Coghlan and Richmond.

I am glad that we are having an engagement with the Minister of State for European Affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, and his officials. On behalf of the committee, I warmly welcome the Minister of State. We always appreciate the time he gives to the committee and the level of engagement we have with him. There are important times ahead for Ireland and the European Union and this strong engagement remains vital. Since our previous meeting, the United Kingdom formally indicated its intention to withdraw from the European Union and last week this committee met the British ambassador to discuss that matter.

We have a number of important issues to cover with the Minister of State, namely: the ongoing work of the General Affairs Council; how the Minister of State sees the key developments on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union; the future of Europe, a strategically important issue for this committee that we will focus on in some of our future work; and the European semester process this week.

I would like the Minister of State to make his opening remarks on these four issues before a question-and-answer session.

Members are reminded of the longstanding parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter but continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I call on the Minister of State to address the committee.

It is a great pleasure to be here and I thank everybody, including members of the diplomatic community, for being present. I welcome the opportunity to contribute and I thank the Chairman for his kind remarks just now and during last night's Dáil debate on Brexit. I will give an update on Brexit but I will comment on the future of Europe following the meeting to mark the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. This will be an important discussion for our country and the Oireachtas and this is the obvious forum to have some consideration in respect of that going forward. I will also comment on the European semester, which was discussed at the General Affairs Council, GAC. This is an ongoing process and, for example, the Minister for Finance will appear before the finance committee tomorrow to discuss it.

There has been a high-level activity on Brexit since I last engaged with the committee. In the intervening period, the committee has been particularly active and not just in terms of engaging with Departments and meeting key interlocutors in Brussels. The Chairman and Deputy Seán Haughey referred to their successful visit during yesterday's debate in the Dáil. The committee may have to make another visit. Such visits are beneficial in the context of giving our opinion. As they both stated in the Chamber, such visits also provide an opportunity for us to hear the concerns of other member states. That has been a significant element of my visits throughout Europe, which have been interesting and beneficial. The committee has also heard from other stakeholders, including the British ambassador. I commend the Chairman and the committee on the important work they are undertaking.

The important milestone was the triggering - finally - of the Article 50 process by the British Prime Minister ,Theresa May, as she formally notified the European Council of the UK's intention to leave the EU. The second milestone was the consequent circulation of draft EU negotiating guidelines by European Council President Donald Tusk to the 27 member states on Friday, 31 March. These draft guidelines will provide the political framework for the negotiations and will be discussed by the EU 27 in the coming weeks. They will be adopted following the GAC on Saturday, 29 April. Both Prime Minister May’s letter of notification and the EU’s draft negotiating guidelines represent a constructive starting point for the negotiations to follow. From our perspective, we welcome the reaffirmation in the letter of the British Government's commitment to maintaining the common travel area and its stated objective of avoiding a return to a hard Border on the island of Ireland. We are similarly pleased that the draft guidelines include a strong acknowledgement of Ireland's unique circumstances, the need to protect the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement and our intention to maintain strong bilateral arrangements, such as that relating to the common travel area, with the UK. Helpful language on Ireland was included in a comprehensive resolution approved by the European Parliament on 5 April. The committee's engagement with fellow parliamentarians was part of a national movement to have strong language included in all documents and credit must be given to the committee members and others.

More broadly, we are happy that both Prime Minister May’s letter and the draft EU guidelines are constructive in tone and show a pragmatic approach to key points, such as the need for transitional measures. That will go a long way towards providing certainty for citizens and businesses alike. It is also welcome that both the UK and the EU share the objective of having the closest future relationship and that discussions on this future relationship should begin in parallel with the exit negotiations. We were keen in that regard but, in order for this to happen, sufficient progress should be made on citizens' rights, the UK’s financial commitments and issues specific to the island of Ireland. It is a significant achievement that our issues will complement the other issues. We will continue to study the draft guidelines carefully. Our Sherpas were in Brussels again yesterday and we will keep an eye on the issues unique to Ireland and to the many other issues that arise.

The draft guidelines will now be discussed throughout April and the objective is to have them adopted by the European Council on 29 April. Presuming that the guidelines are adopted, negotiating directives will subsequently be prepared for the adoption by the Council. I will attend this meeting in May. One meeting is scheduled at the moment but that may not be the case. The negotiating directives will provide a formal mandate for the Commission negotiating team led by Michel Barnier, whom the committee has met, and will authorise the opening of negotiations with the UK, which will start at the beginning of June.

We can be happy with the extensive political, diplomatic and official campaign of recent months. There is understanding and recognition of our unique circumstances and specific issues, but this is the beginning of a long process and our work will continue. The fact that we have made a good start should serve to encourage us but that does not mean we do not have a significant body of work to undertake. We will continue our strategic engagement with EU partners, both in discussions among the EU 27 and bilaterally.

In the past nine months I have met 18 or 19 committees of member states that are similar to this one and their Governments and so forth last month. Last week I visited Lithuania and had very useful discussions. It was most interesting to hear their concerns about Brexit. It was an opportunity for me to emphasise our shared areas of concern and, once again, to reinforce that elements of the UK's decision to pursue Brexit are unique to Ireland. I have recently visited other countries such as Spain, Italy, Norway, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Greece and Romania. Norway is not an EU country but it has specific concerns as a member of the European Economic Area, EEA. We must continue negotiations into the future. There is a year and a half left of the first phase of Brexit negotiations before the matter goes to the European Parliament. It will play a role in due course.

I will touch on the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the future of Europe. As the committee will know, EU leaders met on Saturday, 25 March to mark the anniversary. They adopted a declaration that highlighted the achievements of the past six decades and set out the main focus of the European Union's agenda for the future. They committed to working towards four key aims: a safe and secure Europe; a prosperous and sustainable Europe; a social Europe; and a stronger Europe. The Rome Declaration is timely and welcome. It is a clear endorsement of the value and achievements of the European Union since its creation and a statement of determined unity of purpose that our future peace and prosperity is best preserved and promoted through the European Union.

As part of the Commission's contribution to the 60th anniversary, it presented a White Paper on the Future of Europe on 1 March. In addition to setting out the main achievements of the European Union, it addresses the challenges that Europe is facing. It presented five scenarios for how the Union could evolve by 2025, depending on how we, as Europeans, choose to respond. The main thrust of the paper is an attempt to look at some of the options or different paths that the EU could take over the next decade. The scenarios in the White Paper cover a range of possibilities. They are not exhaustive. While there are five options it is fair to say that they are not mutually exclusive. The Commission will further contribute to the debate in the months to come with a series of reflection papers on the following topics: the development of the social dimension of Europe; the deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union on the basis of the Five Presidents' report that was published in 2015; the harnessing of globalisation; the future of Europe's defence ; and the future of EU finances. Current indications are that these further papers will be released before the summer break. The White Paper has been presented as the beginning of the process, and not the end, with the intention of starting a wide-ranging debate between the Governments and, more importantly, the people of this continent on where our common future lies. It will start by asking what is the level of ambition that we hold. We welcome the publication of the White Paper. It provides lots of food for thought. It has set out a number of scenarios on how the EU might evolve in the period ahead. It is a non-prescriptive approach and is presented as an initial contribution. It is important that Ireland engages with this debate. As I said at the beginning of this meeting, it seems to me, and not speaking on behalf of this committee, that the obvious place to discuss this matter is with this joint committee that represents Members of both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann.

The final element that the Chairman asked me to discuss was the General Affairs Council, GAC, and the European Semester process. The most recent meeting of the GAC took place on 7 March. As is the case in advance of a European Council meeting, the main topic on the agenda was preparation for the European Council. The Taoiseach has reported on this matter in the Dáil and I spoke about it on the same occasion.

I will give a brief report on the European Semester that was also on the agenda. As members will know, the European Semester is the EU's annual cycle of economic policy guidance and surveillance. Each year the European Commission analyses the fiscal and structural reform policies of every Member State, provides recommendations and monitors their implementation. The aim is to create the conditions for more competitive and sustainable economies and social policies right across the European Union. This guidance from the Commission assists member states in co-ordinating their economic policies in order that we can all benefit from a shared EU economic agenda. It is important to note, the system enforces policies that we, as member states, have agreed to. It is not a third person coming in and enforcing European Union rules. These are rules that the Irish Government, and successive governments, have believed are in the best interests of all European Union citizens, collectively and individually. Each semester starts with a publication in November by the Commission of the annual growth survey that identifies economic and social priorities for member states. It concludes with the issuing of country-specific recommendations. These recommendations are concrete, targeted and measurable.

As part of the process, the Commission publishes country reports in February that analyse each member state's economic and social policies. Each April, Ireland, like other member states, submits its national reform programme to the European Commission, in conjunction with a stability programme update. Last week the committee received a copy of the national reform programme, NRP. The NRP is prepared on a whole-of-Government basis. It provides an overview of structural reforms and policy actions that are under way. It sets out the policies being advanced in response to the issues raised by the European Commission in its country report on Ireland. It responds to the country-specific recommendations addressed to Ireland as part of last year's semester process. Some of the issues addressed include: the decision of the UK to leave the European Union; public finances and investment; labour market activation policies and child care; the sustainable resolution of non-performing loans, which is a long-standing issue now; housing supply and spatial planning; and cost effectiveness of the health care system. We, as politicians, in these Houses are already aware that these are the burning issues that we must address. The NRP also reports on progress towards our national targets under the Europe 2020 strategy that covers: employment; research and development; climate change and energy; education; and poverty reduction. Stakeholder engagement is considered to be an important part of the process. Input and views are welcomed from a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of civil society and regional representatives.

Together with the stability programme update, the NRP helps to inform the Commission's approach to drafting country-specific recommendations for Ireland for the coming year. We expect draft CSRs next month. These policy recommendations are then discussed in the relevant Council formations and will be discussed at the European Council meeting in June.

I would be more than happy to brief the committee afterwards about the process and any other element of the country-specific recommendations and I am sure other Ministers and their finance Departments will do likewise.

Every time I am before this committee I apologise for the length of my intervention. They are substantive issues and I thank the committee for staying with me while I go through them. I am happy to take questions.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive overview. I understand it takes some time and I hope he never thinks that anyone is trying to rush him. We need to take our time in order to do our work properly and right because if we do not do it right, it is wrong.

I thank the Minister of State for his work in Europe. It cannot be easy to find oneself in Latvia one day and in Greece the next, it is tough going. When we visited Brussels, I was very impressed at the level of work being carried out by the ambassador and his team there. The one down-side to the Minister of State's work and that of the ambassador is that not enough citizens in Ireland are aware of the level of work and commitment which has been put in by both offices in Europe. We have to find a way to bring that message back home. People are genuinely concerned about where we are going and that there is not a plan in place. As things unfold, like any good game of poker, we begin to see more and more of the plan emerge. Having seen some of the work close-up, I believe the Minister of State is putting his back into it and I wish there were more opportunities for it to be set out for the public.

I am concerned by a couple of issues. The Minister of State cannot do much about one of them himself but I want to raise it. Some 100,000 UK citizens living in Northern Ireland are excluded from the benefits of the Good Friday Agreement insofar as they cannot apply for a dual passport or Irish passport. The reason is that they had moved from other parts of the world to Northern Ireland. Many of these people have children who have dual passport entitlement. As we progress through Brexit, we need to look at this question and address it. Any opportunity I get to mention this, I do so.

On the issue of UK finances, not long ago a group from the House of Commons came before us. We broached the subject of their living up to their 2020 commitments. The view among a small number was that when they were gone, they were gone and their money was gone with them. Can the Minister of State offer any enlightenment on this area from what he has heard on the other side?

People are tired of hearing the terms of the soft and hard Border. I believe that in the short time available to negotiate Brexit, 16-odd months, it is more likely to be a disorganised or disruptive Brexit rather than hard or soft. There will be a lot of things that will have to be pushed out that cannot be dealt with in this short period. I am interested to hear the Minister of State's views on this.

The Minister of State referred to a strong Europe during his opening remarks . If we have learned nothing else in recent months, it is that there is a cohort of people in Europe who are disaffected and becoming more and more so over time. I am particularly concerned about young people. When young people have nothing else to do, it is very easy to radicalise them. Whatever comes forward in the new Europe, post-Brexit, must have policies that are not wishy-washy but that offer serious career opportunities to young people on the continent of Europe. That fits into the area of the social dimension.

It is possible to make all the plans in the world, but if it is something unpalatable we blame Europe. This is part of what drove Brexit and we still have not learned that in this country. We say that we were given a directive, we have to comply with European law. In his opening statement, the Minister of State said that we negotiate. We agree policy. Has anyone thought of how we feed this down to the public, that the policies are agreed and it is not some type of Big Brother, looking over our shoulders and telling us what to do?

On health, I do not understand how I can go to Lanzarote and buy a year's worth of medication at a fraction of the cost of what I would pay in Ireland for exactly the same thing. If we are talking about an integrated Europe and about the buying power of Europe, with the large pharmaceutical companies - we have just seen the debacle here over Orkambi - surely to God we must be able to negotiate central purchasing. If we can do it for defence, why not for health?

I mentioned defence but I am concerned that we are focusing on defence and not policing. There should be much closer co-operation of police forces throughout the European Union. If anything, there should be a single European police force that feeds into the national police forces of every other country.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for his presentation and bringing us up to date on developments in Europe. I agree with Senator Craughwell and the Minister of State. There is a growing recognition across Europe about the pivotal nature of Brexit discussions, and the Irish authorities have played a significant role in informing our European colleagues about that. We need to emphasise that again and again. I was at a meeting recently where we were complimented for being the most eloquent in terms of informing our colleagues at all levels, in Parliament, the Commission, and with the chief negotiators and I compliment the Minister of State, the Taoiseach, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, and others who each took their turn at working on this. It is recognised and the sensitive nature of the Irish position is at the finger-tips of every person of influence in Europe.

We have to proceed in negotiations in a way that is to our benefit. We did not cause this situation, it came upon us as a result of decision by a member state, which it is entitled to do. However, there are consequences which remain to be seen. It is essential that we reiterate what the Minister of State, the Taoiseach and various people in this room and in opposition have stated, that the island of Ireland is an entity and must be treated as such and that the island, North and South, retains all the benefits including the protection of the peace process and all that goes with it. We need to retain all beneficial aspects that we have enjoyed, including the peace process from European membership.

Transitional measures have been mentioned. I would warn against transitional measures being used to ease our thinking on matters that might be unpalatable to us in the future. Those transitional measures should not be rugs that can later be pulled from under our feet, when it is too late to negotiate the main issues arising from Brexit.

I do not need to say this to the Minister of State, but we need to emphasise that it is vital we ensure that we continue to attract foreign direct investment to this country. We must not be forced to impose taxes on profits that FDI firms in this jurisdiction make in other jurisdictions, along the lines of the proposal before the European courts.

The danger of something like that happening would be hugely detrimental to foreign direct investment in this country. It would be far better for all foreign direct investment to go to whichever country it saw fit or chose, in the first instance. For one European country to become the tax collector for moneys earned in other European countries in respect of any foreign direct investor would be a huge blow to the attractiveness of this jurisdiction as a location for investment. I do not have to tell the Minister of State all of that but it would do no harm if he emphasised this to our European colleagues.

The future of Europe is a hugely important issue. Presumably, the intention is to address the issues that have been particular barbs over the past number of years. I can never understand - I repeat what I have said in the past and it has been said by everybody else as well - why each member state feels it wishes to have more influence and as a result exert its influence on the European Union. Somebody has missed the point somewhere along the route. Each member state should have brought to the table a collection of measures to which each can subscribe and which can become part of the strength of the European Union, to which each member state can continue to subscribe. That is not happening at present and has not happened over the past number of years. Individual member states have poked holes in the European fabric. They have sought to set themselves apart from the general direction in which Europe was supposed to be heading. As a result, our next door neighbour has taken a route that it viewed as available. Other member states are developing similar thoughts, a situation that will have consequences for us. I hope that during the current debate on the future of Europe, it should address those issues with a view to ascertaining the extent to which each member state contributes to a package of measures to which they can subscribe and support. As the previous speaker has said, going home afterwards and blaming the European Union for things that have not been to a member state's satisfaction is not the way to do things and we will not have such a Europe.

Ireland's geographic position in terms of isolation from the centre of Europe must be borne in mind. Each remaining member state must recognise that Ireland, as importers or exporters, is unable to drive across Europe to deliver or collect goods. We can only remedy the situation by establishing new transit routes. We will continue to be members of the European Union after Brexit. We will negotiate in the current climate as members of the European Union. We should use all of that to good effect to ensure that we are not part of the swings and roundabouts that are convenient for other countries but where we pay the price. I do not think we will and I hope we will not pay the price.

Energy and climate change are focal issues in the discussion on the future of Europe. It is hugely important that Ireland maintains a strong position on the area for many reasons, such as the substitution of imports and so on.

One of my criticisms of Europe over the past number of years surfaced when some member states felt that they should unilaterally take a decision on, for example, the refugee crisis. Why should one or more members states decide they cannot accept refugees? I refer especially to those member states that are located in areas that have a considerable historical experience of refugees. I mean in the context that they should and could be quick to recognise the plight of refugees. The saddest element is the barbed-wire response, which must never happen again. It was a blight on Europe. We were able to see the iconic vision of razor wire to greet children who were on the run from something over which they had no control. The fact that nothing happened when an individual or individual member states took that route was a weakness in the cohesive image of Europe. It was a huge drawback in terms of achieving what we all need to achieve and thought we were part of. I am not directly criticising the countries that shall remain nameless but are well known to us all. Those countries should have felt that the European Union as a whole would have supported them in the location, treatment and protection of refugees. There should not have been a departure from unity throughout the European Union on those issues. Razor wire was a sad sight to see and the image has been broadcast all over the world. It is not a great advertisement for Europe. I am annoyed the most when some spokespersons in individual members states in the Union try to justify the situation. There is no justification for such images, there should never be and they should never be accepted.

I welcome the Minister of State, his officials and the diplomatic corps for attending. He is responsible for European affairs, data protection and the EU single data market. I thank him for attending these briefings on a regular basis. He is a direct conduit for this committee and is our line Minister as he keeps members fully briefed on current events. Is it true that Spain has a veto on the future of Gibraltar? Roughly 30,000 people live on the peninsula of Gibraltar that is located at the tip of Spain. Ireland did not negotiate a veto on Brexit and negotiations even though we have a 499 km Border with the United Kingdom that also acts as a border with the European Union and the United Kingdom.

Ireland will be the greatest loser in the Brexit negotiations because €1.2 billion worth of trade is done on a weekly basis between the United Kingdom and Ireland. Why did Ireland not demand a veto? Surely the situation cannot be decided by a simple majority of the 27 countries. They cannot decide to damage our economy, destroy our jobs and destroy our exports to the United Kingdom. We must take whatever action is required before agreement is reached. We must let Europe know that Ireland will not stand idly by. We must take this matter very seriously. Ireland should demand a veto and, if not, we must filibuster. As far as I am concerned, there can be no agreement without agreement by the Irish Government and Irish people. If this matter must be decided by a referendum then so be it. If that is the ultimate decision then let that be the case. If this matter must go to the people then so be it because I trust their judgment on a negotiated deal. If the deal is not up to standard then Ireland must reconsider its position. A hard border will destroy the beef trade and farming in Ireland. I wish to put down a marker that Ireland must be at its toughest. The current negotiations will be tougher than the ones that took place for the Good Friday Agreement and the Downing Street negotiations in the 1920s. Brexit is a do-or-die situation for the Irish people.

I also thank the Minister of State for regularly attending and briefing us on issues to do with the European Union. I wish him well in his travels. He has visited a number of countries and we appreciate the work that he does on behalf of the Irish nation state.

To follow on from Senator Leyden, the Minister of State said in his contribution that we will continue to study the draft guidelines carefully in terms of the overall approach to the negotiations and the many issues that arise beyond those and are unique to Ireland. I am not asking him to divulge our negotiating strategy. Have we sought changes to the draft guidelines before they are approved by the European Council? Is there much activity by other member states in terms of the draft guidelines? Have our EU partners sought to include or exclude new issues? Have negotiations and tick-tacking got under way? Does he think the draft guidelines will be more or less adopted? I am interested in hearing a progress report on the matter, having regard to some of the issues mentioned by Senator Leyden.

I welcome the Rome declaration, particularly the four key aims, namely, a safe and secure Europe, a prosperous and sustainable Europe, a social Europe and a stronger Europe. We can all subscribe to those as they ensure peace, prosperity, progress and the future of the European Union. On the latter point, there has been talk of a multi-speed Europe and a two-speed Europe. What is the position of member states on these issues? Is pressure coming from member states for a two-speed or multi-speed Europe? What issues arise in this regard and what areas of competence are relevant? The Taoiseach has informed the Dáil on several occasions that Ireland wants to be at the forefront and to lead the way on this.

I was very interested to learn about the national reform programme and country-specific recommendations. Perhaps the committee could return to them at some point. One issue relates to housing supply and spatial planning, which are huge issues in Dublin and the rest of Ireland. I would be interested to know what the European Union had to say on these issues. This committee should give more attention to the national reform programme and country-specific recommendations because they touch on all areas of Irish life.

I thank the committee for its extremely well-informed and detailed questions. I thank members for their compliments on the work by ourselves and particular Government Ministers. I add the work of the committee to that, as I do the work of the Opposition, which is also important in this process, although the Fine Gael group is influential with the presidencies it holds. I met Deputy Haughey and others at a meeting with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, ALDE, group, which is one of a number of groupings that also have influence. We can all do ongoing work because it is a space in which we do not have disagreement about what we want to achieve for our island.

Senator Craughwell raised a specific issue about the difficulties facing the 100,000 UK citizens living in Northern Ireland who have dual citizenship. Issues pertaining to UK citizens are matters for the United Kingdom Government but they will be addressed in the round one discussions on acquired rights and citizens' entitlements. My hope is that, as discussions evolve, there will be reciprocity and European Union citizens will be treated in the United Kingdom in a similar fashion to how United Kingdom citizens are treated in the European Union, which will cover the 100,000 citizens referred to by the Senator.

The second and third key areas to be discussed in round one will be costs and financial commitments, which have been the subject of statements by some UK politicians though not, of late, by Government Ministers. We have to restate that this is not a fine, levied on the good people of the UK for leaving, but relates to pre-existing commitments that have been signed up to. I hope work will continue on the methodology of how we define how the commitments were entered into and, after it has been agreed, a figure will be arrived at. This will be a fair and transparent way of dealing with the issue.

Senator Craughwell talked about youth. It is true that the younger one is, the less one is aware of the many crises there have been all over the Continent, including on this island. The peace dividend on the Continent is less evident to young people and we must continue to demonstrate to them that Europe is a force for good in areas of security and prosperity. In the UK referendum, however, younger people were more pro-EU than their older neighbours and family members. The Senator also made a point, which was followed up on by Deputy Durkan, Senator Leyden and others, about blaming Europe for the rules. Nobody should believe the European Union is perfect as it is far from perfect but one of the most distressing parts of the UK referendum was the constant reference to it in the third person, as "them", "technocrats" or "those Europeans". Every decision that affects us, including the European semester which we have today and the so-called rules, was agreed by Irish Ministers, British Ministers, German Ministers, etc. They can cause difficulty, burden and disagreement subsequently but they are our rules. If we do not like them, we should try to change them and we should use a collective term when we talk about the European Union. It is "our" union and they are "our" policies.

Drugs, health and pharmaceutical spending is looked at in the context of a semester and a new framework agreement between the State and the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, IPHA, was agreed last July which will deliver savings of some €600 million over the next four years. There is also scope to extend the agreement. The Senator also asked about police co-operation, which is developing and strengthening through the justice and home affairs arrangements. Europol is undertaking extensive work, such as with the European arrest warrant which is now very successful. In the face of terrorist attacks, further and deeper co-operation among police forces is absolutely vital and we are in the process of signing up to the Schengen information system.

Deputy Durkan asked about foreign direct investment into Ireland, which is of crucial importance. It is vital that we work together as a country, given the challenges that our neighbours have set us and which we did not want. We must continue to maximise foreign direct investment into our country, not to be punitive or exploit any difficulties anyone else has but because it is clearly in our national interest.

The Deputy also mentioned tax. While there is an ongoing court case involving an historic issue there are no proposals to change the rules surrounding how taxes are determined. This is a national competence and we are not changing our tax policy. Tax is only a part of the suite of measures with which Ireland presents itself as a good country in which to invest.

We have had the same policy with respect to taxation for 40 to 50 years. It is the quality of our workforce, the certainty of our membership of the European Union, our membership of the currency, the fact that we speak English and are a hard working, competitive economy that attracts inward investment. We must work to ensure that continues. In regard to our geographic status, isolation and access to European markets, as stated yesterday by the Minister, Deputy Ross, during the Brexit debate we will have to review how we access European Union markets as the negotiations continue.

On the issue of climate change with respect to the future of Europe, the climate change issue goes far beyond the future of Europe from a political perspective. It is also a key point with respect to the future of our planet. On the guidelines and the reference to Spain, it is important to clarify that there is a specific section in the guidelines that deals with Ireland and the common travel area. The guidelines also reference the Good Friday Agreement. The only reference in the guidelines to the word "unique" is in reference to the issues pertaining to Ireland. This was extremely important to us. There are many other parts of the Continent where there are issues around territory, nationality and so on, but we wanted the issues around Ireland to be separate, distinct and unique, and they are. We very much welcome this.

With respect to the talks and how decisions will be taken, it is important to clarify the issue of a Spanish veto. When it comes to the new arrangement, which will discussed in the second round, every member state will have the potential to block it but the decision will have to be a unanimous one. It is within the confines and the context of the new relationship that the issue of Spain and Gibraltar will pertain. One could make the case it already will have a veto in any event. These issues will not be discussed in round one, which is where the qualified majority voting element will come into play. The issues about Spain and Gibraltar are different from the issues surrounding the island of Ireland, the common travel area and the peace process. We already have an agreement with Britain in the form of the Good Friday Agreement. That agreement addresses some of the crucial elements, including, for example, if the people of Northern Ireland through a referendum vote for a united Ireland, how that process will take place. In the context of the negotiations, we are adamant that nothing can happen to remove that. If in the future the people of Ireland vote for a united Ireland, Northern Ireland will then return to the European Union, as was the case with respect to east Germany joining Germany. Not only are these separate issues involving different parts of the European Union, they are issues that are at different stages of discussion. We have agreed the process with the British. People on both sides of the island have voted on it and the process is clear.

When it comes to the common travel area and Ireland's relationship with the UK, we do not want change. We have a legally binding agreement that cannot be changed even by a vote in Dáil Éireann. For example, we cannot request that the status of Northern Ireland's place within the United Kingdom, or within the European Union independently, be changed. As I said, these issues are separate and it is vital that they remain so. In terms of the statements from the United Kingdom Government, the Commission and the Parliament and everything that has been said around this table, in the Dáil and in the Seanad, we agree on the principles around the Good Friday Agreement and the common travel area. Unfortunately, in other parts of the European Union they do not agree. We want this to be incubated within the talks. We want to maintain the status quo. For this reason, the language in terms of what different countries have looked for within the guidelines is different.

On the question of whether we are looking for changes in the guidelines, we are not. The text in the guidelines is text proposed by Ireland. The negotiating position on the section pertaining to Ireland, which is now European Union policy, started as Irish policy. That is why we welcome it. I accept that in terms of how we maintain the common travel area, give effect to maintenance of the peace process and ensure we have the softest possible Border in the context of Brexit, the devil will be in the detail. We will have to work through all of that, including with this committee.

On Deputy Haughey's question regarding the future of Europe, the position of other member states and how many positions there might be, I get the sense that in many member states there are different levels of ambition politically. This was evidenced in some of the high level commentary we have heard from Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande. We must accept in the context of the European Union that member states will move forward at different paces and at different times. This is already the case. The Irish public has expressed strong pro-European sentiment in opinion polls, yet we are party to certain measures and not to others. For example, we are not in Schengen but we are in the currency. My own view is that we should move forward in co-operation at a pace that is suitable to our country and allows others to do the same within the overall strong framework of the 27 member states supported by other close groupings, including the European Economic Area and, in the future, our close neighbour, the United Kingdom.

I hope I have responded to all of the questions raised.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister of State for his engagement here today. I am sure this will not be the last time he engages with us. The committee has a big job of work to do and we look forward to working with him and his officials in the future.

The committee went into private session at 3.10 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 10 May 2017.
Top
Share