Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2018

Vol. 966 No. 8

European Council: Statements

I will participate with my EU counterparts in a series of European Council meetings in Brussels tomorrow and Friday, 22 and 23 March. Before setting out the discussions expected at those meetings, I would like to say that I met Chancellor Merkel yesterday in Berlin. This was an important part of my ongoing programme of bilateral engagement with other EU Heads of State and Government, which has also included recent meetings in Dublin with Prime Minister Bettel of Luxembourg and the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. All these meetings were particularly useful in advance of discussions at the European Council. My meeting with Chancellor Merkel was positive and constructive. We noted our very positive bilateral relations. We discussed a range of issues on the European Council agenda, including Brexit, trade between the EU and the United States and the tax challenges that arise from the digitisation of our economies. I also took the opportunity to congratulate the Chancellor on her election to office for the fourth time and to thank her again for her strong support and solidarity with Ireland. Both in her comments at the meeting and at the press conference afterwards, she was pleased to reiterate that support and to assure me that it remains "unconditional", to use her words.

The European Council will meet in several formats over the course of Thursday and Friday. The main meeting tomorrow will focus on jobs, growth and competitiveness as well as external relations. In the evening, we will continue our leaders' agenda discussions as part of the debate on the future of Europe, with the focus this time on digital taxation. On Friday morning, we will meet in Article 50 format, without the UK, to discuss progress in the Brexit negotiations, followed by a euro summit at which we will consider how we can further and improve economic and monetary union.

On Thursday we will discuss and adopt conclusions on jobs, growth, and competitiveness, including the Single Market, the European semester, social issues and trade. We will also discuss external relations, including Turkey and the western Balkans. The Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, Deputy McEntee, will say more about these in her remarks. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Mrs. May, will also speak about the nerve gas attack in Salisbury on 4 March. This was a reprehensible and loathsome attack and we stand in solidarity with the UK. We condemn unequivocally the use of chemical weapons and assassinations wherever they happen and whoever commits them.

As Deputies are aware, the leaders' agenda discussions are intended to facilitate an open and free-flowing exchange of views on the future of Europe. These meetings are not supposed to produce conclusions but rather to unlock some of the more contentious aspects of issues on the EU agenda and to allow each of us to understand the others' positions a bit better. We have met in this format on three occasions when we discussed educational and cultural co-operation - that was in Sweden - migration, institutional reform and the multi-annual financial framework. The main focus tomorrow will be on digital taxation, an issue of broad international interest given the significant profits generated by multinational companies. It is important to emphasise that Ireland is committed to global tax reform. I restate that we do not accept that companies, including large digital ones, should pay little or no tax on their profits. Companies should pay their tax in full where it is owed and on time. However, we are very much of the view that global solutions are needed to ensure that tax is paid by companies where value is created and profits are generated, reflecting the highly international nature of the digital economy underpinned by the World Wide Web. Given the enormous complexity of the issues involved and the risk of unintended consequence should Europe act unilaterally and therefore hand an advantage to countries that are not members of the European Union, I will strongly argue that the EU should wait for the OECD to complete its work before deciding on how to act, and should only do so in the context of agreement on an international level. In saying this, I am very mindful of the interim report published by the OECD task force on the digital economy on Monday which highlights very well the potential risks attaching to a rushed short-term or interim measure. As the Secretary General of the OECD, Ángel Gurría, said, this is too important an issue to be rushed.

As the House may be aware, the Commission published a set of proposals today which recommend a short-term temporary levy on certain digital activities, in advance of more extensive taxation measures in the future. I will be making clear my views that any such measure would be ill-judged for the reasons I have set out, and also because it would be likely to disadvantage smaller member states. We will, of course, continue to engage constructively within the EU and with the OECD in the period ahead. On trade, I expect that the Commission will brief us on discussions that have taken place this week on the United States' proposed tariffs on steel and aluminium.

On Friday morning, the 19 eurozone members will meet for a euro summit. The President of the ECB, Mario Draghi, and the eurogroup will be present. The focus will be on the economic and monetary union, EMU. This follows the euro summit in December when we tasked finance ministers to examine a series of issues around the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, and proposals to develop it into a European monetary fund, the banking union and fiscal policy considerations among others. As a contribution to that important debate, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and his counterparts from seven EU member states published a joint paper on economic and monetary union, EMU, on 6 March. This set out a number of common values and ideas with the aim of building a stronger economic and monetary union. We do not expect that any decisions on this will be taken on this before June at the earliest.

Finally, we will meet in Article 50 format to discuss the Brexit negotiations. As Deputies are well aware, this is an important moment in the Article 50 negotiations and it is hoped that we can agree guidelines on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. Last December, after difficult negotiations, the European Council agreed that sufficient progress had been made on the phase one withdrawal issues to allow the talks to proceed to this next phase. On this basis, work began on drafting the withdrawal agreement The first draft was published by the European Commission on 28 February. This text, which will be legally binding, reflects the principles and commitments agreed in phase one, including those on protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts, gains of the peace process, avoiding a hard border, and how this will be achieved. These have been set out in a dedicated protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is attached to the draft withdrawal agreement and has the same full legal effect. After intensive negotiations between the Commission task force and the UK over the past week, there has been good progress on some parts of the withdrawal agreement, including on citizens' rights, the financial settlement, and transition. Having a period of transition is important for public services, citizens and businesses to enable them to prepare for any permanent changes that may take place from 2021 onwards.

I am pleased that there is now broad agreement on these terms, subject to final approval, that the status quo will apply until the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. Regarding the protocol, I am pleased that the UK has now agreed that the backstop solution to avoid a hard border proposed in December will form part of the legal text and that all the issues identified by the EU side in the draft will be addressed to deliver a legally sound solution to avoid a hard Border on our island. Prime Minister May confirmed this in a letter to President Tusk on Monday. As I have said before, and as Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator on behalf of the EU27, repeated on Monday, the backstop will apply unless and until another solution is found. So we look forward to receiving and considering the UK's detailed proposals in the coming weeks. Of course, it is fully accepted by Michel Barnier, the task force, the UK and our EU partners that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will continue to work very closely with them in the period ahead.

On the future relationship between the EU and the UK and based on the UK's stated positions, the draft guidelines for consideration by the European Council propose a free trade agreement. This, of course, would not strengthen the current economic relationship between the EU and the UK but it is an inevitable consequence of the red lines set out by Prime Minister May in her speech on 2 March, which are that the UK will leave the Single Market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. However, I welcome the assurance in the draft guidelines that the Union will enter negotiations on the future relationship with the UK with an open, positive and constructive mind. This is very important should the UK Government's position evolve further and red lines soften in the months ahead.

We fully support and share the EU's view that any future agreement must have the correct balance of rights and obligations and that the integrity of the Single Market must be protected. This is very much in Ireland's interest as membership of the Single Market and its integrity are core elements of our economic policy. I hope that we can agree on Friday to open detailed discussions with the UK on the future relationship. At the same time, our British friends must fully engage on the draft withdrawal agreement, including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. To that end, we have agreed on an intensive schedule of meetings starting next week. They will happen in Brussels and will involve the UK and Ireland.

Cuireann an Comhairle Eorpach ceannaireacht thábhachtach ar fáil chun na dúshláin roinnte a réiteach. Táim ag tnúth le bheith ag dul i ngleic le mo chomhghleacaithe timpeall an bhoird. Beidh m'intinn fós á choinneáil agam ar na suimeanna is fearr don tír seo agus don Eoraip. Beidh mé ag tabhairt tuairisce ar ais chuig an Teach ar an 28 Márta ar thoradh an Chomhairle Eorpach seo agus na cruinnithe atá bainteach leis.

Gan amhras, beidh cruinniú na seachtaine seo mar cheann de na cruinnithe is tábhachtaí le fada. Tá sé tábhachtach don tír seo, don Eoraip agus do mhuintir an domhain ar fad. The run up to the meeting on Friday has presented a false sense of calm which is belied by the fact that none of the major items to be considered is anywhere near resolution. It has been indicated that the Council will note progress regarding the withdrawal treaty which will cover the period from March 2019 to December 2020. With regard to general issues, the current text effectively represents the UK Government facing up to the fact that in order to continue to have access to the Single Market and customs union during this period, it must respect the rules of the Single Market and customs union. Rarely before has so much time and energy been wasted on getting a government to acknowledge the blindingly obvious.

In the text released on Monday, there remain major gaps where there is no substantive agreement and the reality is that the Irish Border is the largest of these gaps. One of the casualties of the Government's obsession with spinning everything is that it is almost impossible to take it at its word any more when it comes to a political issue. It has shown itself incapable of acknowledging setbacks or unanticipated problems. As such, the declarations of happiness with Monday's agreement cannot, unfortunately, be taken at face value. Equally, the petulant aggression which has been shown to any party which has the temerity to question the Government on Brexit is now on daily display. We saw more of this yesterday when the Tánaiste made an extraordinary attack on Deputy Donnelly and my party. He claimed that we were undermining the Government and that "all informed commentary" agrees with the Government. This was followed by the equally bizarre claim that the Opposition was failing to consult the Government sufficiently. The Taoiseach and his Ministers, and I appreciate the comments of the Taoiseach earlier, would do well to understand that others are entitled to disagree with them. This remains a democracy and we have both a right and a duty to challenge them where we believe this is necessary. Equally, they do not define what is and is not a Euro-positive position. As Ireland's most consistently pro-EU party that has negotiated and campaigned for a strong EU for nearly 60 years, we will not be taking any lectures from people incapable of offering a confidential briefing or going beyond vague and self-congratulatory public statements. I would also point out that we have been signalling Brexit as a priority since the moment the British referendum was announced. We were pushing for preparations well before it commenced and we have been relentless in stating in both Great Britain and Europe the fixed political will of the overwhelming majority, which is that Ireland remains committed to a strong EU and that the rights and interests of Northern Ireland need to be protected. The Taoiseach should also look back and see that we were the first to point out the need to provide explicit, treaty-level protection of the EU citizenship rights of residents of Northern Ireland.

The fact is that outside of Ireland, the overwhelming majority of informed commentary has said that Monday's deal represents a potentially dangerous kicking of Ireland's concerns down the road. The UK has reaffirmed that it supports the principle of a backstop. It has absolutely not agreed to the backstop sought by Ireland, which would involve the automatic continuance of Northern Ireland in the customs union and Single Market until we agree some other arrangement. No text covering the substantive content of a backstop has been agreed. Prime Minister May's letter confirms that she is committed to there being no east-west division in the UK. Equally, the DUP has said it is entirely comfortable with Monday's outcome, which is hardly something which inspires confidence given that party's very negative attitude to the EU's proposed text on a backstop. Substantial commentary has suggested that this marks a moment where Ireland is losing traction on the principle that there be no final status negotiations until a final status for Ireland is agreed. Reports from last week's meeting of the 27 suggest that many countries have already started raising their final status demands. We remain highly concerned that the Government failed to put forward any proposal for a special status for Northern Ireland early enough because of a misplaced belief that Ireland could force the UK to agree a major compromise on its overall relationship with the EU. This has now been dragged into a deeply unhelpful and destructive debate where it is being misrepresented as a threat to the agreed constitutional framework on this island and within the UK. Unfortunately we have yet to hear, publicly or privately, anything from our Government about how it sees option two working. Monday's statements suggest that our priority is to make the overall EU-UK relationship as close as possible thereby making option two or a status quo backstop unnecessary. How this might come to pass has not been explained even in the most general way. The background to this is continuing evidence presented to committees in Westminster that a no-impact Border is impossible to create if the UK as a single trade area leaves the customs union or Single Market.

What we need is a lot more clarity and a lot less spin. What exactly is our Government’s bottom line? While it says it does not want a hard border, when will it give us a proper definition of what this means? Is it simply about the physical management of the Border or does it encompass wider regulatory issues? Will we block the withdrawal treaty later this year if it does not include the current proposed backstop? What is the process by which the enormous gap between the EU position and the UK position on the specifics of the backstop will be bridged? Instead of more short-term spin, it is long since past time when we need some clarity on these issues. Unless we get it, the suspicion will be that whatever emerges will be declared a victory irrespective of its likely divisive impact on this island.

The summit will also address the issue of future steps regarding taxation, in particular digital taxation. Fianna Fáil strongly objects to the attempt to push forward a proposal on which even the most basic background work has not been prepared. There has been no attempt to outline its impact on member states. It is a headline, not a policy, and it fails to address any of the causes of economic problems in the eurozone or the Union as a whole. No member state would propose such a speculative measure within its own legislative process.

It should be sent back to the Commission to be reworked in light of the OECD's work and not returned until an impact assessment is produced.

On the wider economic reform agenda, it is the duty of the Taoiseach to explain here the full detail of what he appears to be signing Ireland up to. It has been reported that Ireland is against an expansion of the European Union's budget and is against a number of measures which would give the European Union some fiscal clout. It is also reported that we have aligned ourselves with countries which oppose some important elements of a true banking union. The truth of these reports is unclear because the Taoiseach has made no public statement on them and his normally hyperactive briefers have said nothing to journalists. He needs to deal with this before moving further and he should seek the legitimacy of a Dáil vote. We continue to believe in the need to expand the Union's budget, if necessary through a new dedicated revenue stream, and that addressing the causes of the eurozone crisis requires a more comprehensive set of reforms.

It is also reported that the replacement for Mario Draghi at the ECB is being negotiated. Mr. Draghi is the person most responsible for the recovery of recent years. Under no circumstance should Ireland support a candidate who opposed the policies which saved the euro and addressed the enormous errors which pushed Ireland and others into further difficulties.

The summit will also respond to the murders and attempted murders of Russians in the United Kingdom. There is no credible doubt about who is responsible for this savagery. This is a defining moment for Europe and the democratic world. Will we defend the rule of law or will we allow an increasingly undemocratic and aggressive country to undermine it? While it is understandable that the UK's decision to turn its back on strong co-operation between European states causes real anger, we must not have any doubt that we stand with the UK on this issue.

The response so far has been weak enough. Any proposal to reduce sanctions or appease anti-European Union aggression should be opposed. In this context, the Government should immediately reverse its resistance to Deputy Lawless's Bill to protect our elections and must significantly increase the resourcing to the Data Protection Commissioner. I ask the Taoiseach to reconsider the position he articulated this morning and allow that Bill proceed to Committee where amendments can be proposed to facilitate its early passage. Because of the companies based here we have a responsibility to work with and for other European states in addressing this already real attack on democratic discourse.

I wish to share time with Deputy Cullinane.

Since the Brexit referendum, Sinn Féin has argued consistently and vigorously for the North to be given a special status designation within the European Union. This is the only way to avoid the imposition of a hard border on this island and to ensure that our all-island economy and our peace agreements are protected. Special status means the North staying in the customs union and the Single Market irrespective of what the British Government might decide to do for itself.

It is clear from Monday's meeting between David Davis and Michel Barnier that the British Government has accepted a significant portion of the EU draft agreement, which is to be welcomed. However, what remains unclear is the British Government's position on the so-called backstop on the Border. The British agreed to this in December. Subsequently the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, rejected that section of the draft treaty and we are now told that the draft treaty section is agreed but only in principle. What we need on this matter at this stage is clarity and certainty. Legal guarantees that what was agreed in December is the backstop will be put in place if there is failure to make a better deal.

Sinn Féin's position is clear. As a minimum the backstop must secure the North's position within the customs union and the Single Market. The backstop is a bottom line and a deal on a transition period cannot be progressed without it. It is now up to the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her government to bring forward credible and workable proposals as to how the imposition of a hard border in Ireland can be avoided. This will require a serious step-change from the Tories and the Brexiteers.

Let us not forget that these folks conducted their entire Brexit considerations and debate without once seriously considering the impact of Brexit on Ireland. They carried this dismissive attitude into the negotiations with the European Union. This arrogant attitude led to the fantasy of frictionless or seamless borders - makey-uppy Alice in Wonderland technological solutions. It also produced the ludicrous thinking that a border in Ireland would be like a border between two boroughs in England. Such nonsense will not cut it. That is an important cross-party message. It may be an important Opposition message because perhaps in diplomatic terms the Government cannot say that out loud, but I can and I will.

If the British Government is serious about avoiding a hard border and is serious about minimising disruption to east-west trade, it must bring forward serious and appropriate propositions to match the scale of the challenge. The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, and her government must resolve the four main contradictions in their approach to Brexit regarding Ireland. Let me set these out for clarity. How will Britain avoid the imposition of a hard border while dragging the North out of the customs union and the Single Market, as is its stated intention? How will the Good Friday Agreement be protected in all of its parts, especially given that there are 142 areas of all-Ireland co-operation that will be adversely affected by a Tory Brexit? How do the British plan to accommodate the democratic decision of the people of the North to remain part of the European Union? How will the British ensure that there will be no erosion of rights for citizens living in the North when Britain withdraws from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?

On this issue the report from the North-South Joint Committee on Human Rights is an important contribution to the Brexit debate. Essentially the report recognises the need for special arrangements for the North post-Brexit. It addresses the threat posed to the Good Friday Agreement following Britain's withdrawal from the EU and from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This danger has been amplified by the dismissive political approach taken by the British Government to Irish concerns.

The prospect of the agreement being breached is very real and Sinn Féin has consistently highlighted the need for the rights of citizens in the North to be fully protected in any final withdrawal agreement. The Good Friday Agreement will not be put through the shredder because little Englanders are demanding their Brexit at any cost. North-South equivalence of rights, equality of citizenship and the protection of EU human rights legislation, guaranteed by the Good Friday Agreement, cannot be dismantled to suit the Tory agenda. Those who wish to access their rights as EU citizens in the North must be able to do so.

Everything must be done to protect the all-Ireland economy. Members of the Government, especially the Taoiseach and Tánaiste, have a responsibility to ensure that the Tory Brexiteers and the DUP do not try to undermine what has been agreed. I have previously asked the Taoiseach to convene the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. I believe that should happen as soon as possible. This is especially important to ensure that the rights of people in the North are defended in a way that realises the Taoiseach's pledge that citizens in the North will never again be left behind by an Irish Government.

As the Taoiseach knows, Sinn Féin has given him and the Government a qualified support on Brexit. We do so because we genuinely want the best outcome for Ireland and for Irish citizens North and South. We have acknowledged a degree of progress made on a range of issues in recent times. That was down to the collective efforts of many people, including members of the Government, which we acknowledge.

While the draft plan published this week contains positives for Ireland, other elements demand a more critical reflection.

First, while the agreement commits Britain to having a protocol on Ireland, it completely avoids the detail of such a protocol. It states "a legally operative version of the "backstop" solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found". However, it goes on to state, "There is as yet no agreement on the right operational approach". Therein lies the problem. We were told last November by the Taoiseach that we had a cast iron guarantee on the backstop agreement. The European Commission tried to put that agreement in a legal format. It did, but it was rejected out of hand by the British Government. The British Prime Minister said no British Prime Minister could agree to such an outcome. We were told this week that the British Government would agree to a protocol, but we do not know what protocol to which it will agree or what it will involve. That raises fundamental and profound questions about what exactly different people are talking about. When the Taoiseach talks about a backstop agreement and informs the House of what it means, it seems to be completely at variance with what Mrs. Theresa May and her Government are saying. That is the problem. While Britain agrees to the protocol in principle, it seems that it does not agree to it in practice. That is the current position. The negotiators have agreed to disagree in order to keep the negotiations on the road.

Let us remember that there was always a fear in Ireland that the Irish issue would be parked. The other countries and the European negotiators, understandably, want to focus on the more thorny issue of a trade agreement between Britain and the European Union. While that is important, we cannot allow the Irish issue to be parked and cannot allow a fudge. The difficulty for all of us and the Government is evident. There is a fundamental difference between the political agreement reached last November and a legal agreement. When we try to move from a situation where we go from having a political agreement to a legal agreement and put it in legal text, we do not have any agreement between the European Commission and the British Government. I want to know how we will bridge that gap and what exactly is the position of the British Government. We are all trying to separate the spin from the British Government from reality. We know and are all conscious that the British Prime Minister has to manage different factions within her party, but we are also trying to understand what exactly is going on because the British position is very inconsistent. That raises questions for the Taoiseach in making sure we will achieve the best possible outcome. Notwithstanding the fine words about cast iron guarantees and what the Taoiseach has said in the past, there is no cast iron guarantee when they are juxtaposed with Mrs. Theresa May's speech a number of weeks ago and the stated position of the British Government that it cannot agree to the legal text as set out by the European Commission. While progress has been made, the Taoiseach has a long way to go. He should keep his eye on the big prize which in the final analysis is the final withdrawal agreement. That is on what we need to keep our eyes and if the Taoiseach gets the right result, we, in Sinn Féin, will support him.

When the European Council meets tomorrow and Friday, it will be dominated by the discussions on a digital tax and Brexit. On Monday the draft text of the withdrawal agreement was published and it showed in a clear, colour-coded way in a very dramatic presentation on the big screen behind the Minister, Mr. David Davis, and Mr. Michel Barnier, how far we had to go. Three broad issues remain outstanding in advance of Brexit next March and the end of the transition period in December 2020. First, of central concern to us is the Border issue which remains intractable, as we have heard from many speakers. Alongside and separate from it, a framework must be developed for a future trading relationship. We are no closer to knowing exactly what form that relationship will take and whether it will include British membership of the customs union or a parallel customs union. This is of huge material importance to Ireland as ESRI research published today shows the expensive impact of tariffs on imports from the United Kingdom, with food products potentially costing Irish people up to €1,400 a year more. The most difficult and least remarked on issue is the need for a dispute resolution mechanism. This is also a concern for Ireland because, as it will influence whatever dispute mechanism is finally decided on, how any backstop agreement needed will be enforced or interpreted is an issue. The United Kingdom has ruled out the European Court of Justice as the arbitrator. If we are to have regulatory alignment, somebody will have to judge whether the rules are being applied properly.

The clock is ticking and solutions will have to be found to these difficult problems. However, I acknowledge that progress has been made on many issues. Once approved by the EU 27 on Friday, the draft agreement will allow talks to be opened on the future trading relationship. This pivot on the future trading relationship has the potential, as I indicated during Taoiseach's Questions, to sideline Irish concerns about the arrangements on the Border. If it remains a sticking point in agreeing to a final deal, ultimately, when everything else has been agreed to, it is easy to see how Ireland will come under enormous pressure to relent to enable the national trade interests of member states to move to centre stage, something we have all been trying to avoid all along. The draft legal text does not address the continuing British objections to the current proposals from the Barnier task force and we are no wiser on what exact legal interpretation of the December backstop agreement is acceptable to Britain.

It appears that the United Kingdom wanted a longer transition period, longer than the 21-month period to 31 January agreed to. As I read it, there is no provision in the withdrawal treaty to extend the transition period if there is general consensus that such an extension is needed or desired in the event that there is no deal. The Taoiseach or the Minister of State might indicate whether it is possible to extend the transition period if it becomes an imperative in the next few months. Ireland wanted a longer transition period. Yesterday the Tánaiste spoke about a period of up to four years being required to conclude a proper trade deal. In effect, on Monday the European Union allowed the British to park discussions on the legal text of the backstop agreement for now. That issue will obviously have to be addressed in due course and probably by the June Council. The fudge cannot continue indefinitely.

While the so-called backstop technically remains in place, we have no practical written interpretation of it that is agreeable to both sides. As I said on Monday, Mrs. Theresa May agreed to it, ruled it out and then ruled it back in again. In any set of negotiations that does not and cannot inspire confidence. The lack of a reaction from the DUP and Tory Brexiteers highlights the win for the United Kingdom on that position, or at least the perception of the hard Brexiteers is that it is a win. I read today that 13 Tory backbenchers are signing a motion to demand a rejection of the transition deal. Apparently, the 13 have been joined by Mr. Sammy Wilson on the basis of an objection to the fisheries element of the deal. Apparently, they are to stage a protest tomorrow and dump fish in the River Thames outside the House of Commons in protest about the fisheries element, in other words, Britain remaining in the Common Fisheries Policy during the transition period. Apparently, the reaction of the Environment Secretary, Mr. Michael Gove, who is responsible for fisheries was to say that one should keep one's eyes on the big prize. The big prize is that it will be all right at the end of the day. These are just indications, from the Brexiteers' perspective, that Monday was a good day.

The Irish Government will need to remain vigilant on this issue, as I am sure it will. The danger for Ireland is that there might be progress on all other issues, except our own, and that there will then be a shift of focus by some of our comrades and colleagues in the European Council. I accept that there is no sign of that happening, but it is certainly something we should not take for granted.

On everything else, Britain has accepted the EU position lock, stock and barrel. The only concession appears to be in regard to the permission afforded to the United Kingdom to negotiate trade deals during the transition period, albeit without concluding them. However, it appears to be beyond the power of the British state to do that. Trade deals are lengthy and complicated and some of the big trading partners with which it would like to do deals, such as the Trump Administration, are not currently in the mood for agreeing benevolent foreign trade deals. It is for that reason that a Commons committee on exiting the European Union urged an extension to the transition period but, as far as I can tell, there is no provision for that in the deal so far.

The majority of the Europe Council will be focused on economic affairs, including discussions on trade, jobs growth, competitiveness and taxation. As the Taoiseach indicated to the House, there will also be a euro summit. In light of the move by the US President to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium, we are potentially on the verge of a trade war which would involve the imposition of a series of tit-for-tat tariffs. It is unclear if the EU will be exempted from the American proposals, which have already been modified from what was first announced by President Trump. If the EU response is to place punitive tariffs on US imports, there is a possibility that Irish products such as whiskey or liqueurs will be impacted by a counter-tariff imposed by the US, which would be very bad news for Irish producers and the thousands of employees in the export-focused agrifood sector here.

The proposals for a digital tax will also colour a possible trade deal. The US has made it clear it does not accept the EU position in that regard and is likely to see it as an attack on American companies. This is a very difficult issue for Ireland and on which Members have commented. Ireland has been very clear about its support for the OECD base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, process. As the Taoiseach is aware, there was a strong focus on that while the Labour Party was in government. Ireland has been a leader in terms of that agenda and we must continue to ensure that our laws are best in class and fully transparent so that we dispel with a clear response the common perception that we are soft on this issue, which is raised every time I have discussions with European colleagues. My party has long argued for a standing commission on taxation along with a minimum effective rate of corporation tax, which would address many of the concerns of our European colleagues. However, a move towards an arbitrary turnover tax would cause great concern because it is, in essence, an additional spending tax which would certainly be of benefit to the large economies but would have a seriously negative impact on small economies such as Ireland. It would also undermine national competency on tax.

I am conscious of time. The agenda will include discussion of the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights and the European Commission proposals for a European Labour Authority and I had hoped to have time to discuss those issues. I hope the Government will strongly push for an implementation plan in regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights. We must win back the support of working people for the concept of the European Union, which means impacting on their working conditions and living standards, and that is possible to do.

I am sharing time with Deputy Paul Murphy.

I primarily wish to raise the matter of the very worrying things happening in Israel, both in terms of its treatment of Palestinians and its wider stance in the region, in particular in terms of Iran, which I believe should be discussed at the European Council but was not addressed by the Taoiseach in his speech.

On taxation, without getting into great detail, it is extremely disappointing that the Taoiseach stated that the Government supports the moves towards reforming the corporate tax regime when everybody knows the situation is absolutely unacceptable in terms of tax avoidance structures in both the digital economy and some other big firms. A person contacted me recently in regard to Paddy Power, the C&C Group and other companies that have subsidiaries in tax havens, yet the Government still holds out against tackling such practices. The Taoiseach has gone so far as to congratulate Donald Trump while in the United States for reducing tax on corporations. He essentially suggested that we have something in common with Trump's economic policies, which, to my mind, is pretty deplorable when one considers the agenda of the American President.

The issue of Israel should be raised at the European Council. The Israeli admission in the past 24 hours that it carried out an attack in 2007 on what it claimed was a Syrian nuclear reactor is rightly being interpreted across the world as a very worrying warning of a ratcheting up of the situation and a possible threat against Iran. The logic is that the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the American President, Donald Trump, wish to dismantle the nuclear arrangements with Iran and this admission of a previous attack suggests that they are willing to engage in military attacks if Iran is developing any kind of nuclear capability. That is very worrying.

That must be considered alongside the Trump and Netanyahu axis in terms of the recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, which is a direct insult to the Palestinians, and also in the context of a series of United Nations reports in recent weeks that show a very serious ratcheting up of illegal settlements by Israel in east Jerusalem and Area C of the West Bank. One of the reports suggests that children have been most affected by what is going on there. Hundreds of children are being held in administrative detention without trial or having been convicted of anything. Twelve members of the elected Palestinian Legislative Council are in prison. Parliamentarians are protected everywhere else in the world but in Israel those representatives are rotting in prison. Nine of them are in administrative detention without having been convicted or tried. The UN is not a radical left wing think tank and we should take what it says seriously. It has stated that Israel is flouting UN resolutions at every level and is denying services to Palestinians in areas it is annexing in east Jerusalem and in the expanding settlements in Hebron. It has further stated that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is reaching emergency proportions.

Nothing is said or done and no action is taken by the European Union. If any other country took such actions, there would be outrage and condemnation but we say and do nothing and continue to treat Israel as if it is any other state while it essentially threatens other states in the region with military action, which would be a disaster, is doing unspeakable things in terms of its treatment of Palestinians and is becoming more aggressive, bold and audacious in its actions, all of which are encouraged by Donald Trump. Are those matters of concern to the Taoiseach or the European Council? Does the Taoiseach think we should be saying anything about them? Does he think the European Union should impose sanctions on Israel, which keeps edging forward in its blatant disregard for the most elementary provisions of human rights law, UN resolutions or respect for civilised behaviour in the region or world?

I wish to raise the drive to integrate Ireland into the process of European militarisation and, secondly, the attacks on democratic rights in Europe and its trading partners. We have repeatedly raised the issue of the drive for further militarisation by the European Commission and core European countries. The next goal, as clearly set out in its White Paper, is the European Defence Union. Two weeks ago, at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, Commissioner Oettinger agreed with me that the plan is to triple spending on so-called defence in the next multi-year budget.

It is clear that the Government is committed to going along with that, as indicated by its signing up for PESCO. The Government has responded to that repeatedly by saying there is nothing to see here, that here is no process for Ireland participating in European militarisation. That said, I encourage people to read the discussion document from Fine Gael MEPs entitled, Ireland and the EU: Defending our Common European Home. Mr. Brian Hayes, MEP, made a pre-emptive attack on the far left for criticising the paper. He accused us of using "populist rhetoric". I do not wish to use any populist rhetoric, I want just to quote from the document I think he wrote. He said that "if the outcome to the current debate on the European Defence Union leads to some form of mutual defence pact within the EU, we should be prepared to consider that on its merits", that is, consider joining a European military alliance. The MEPs call for a redefinition of the concept of Irish neutrality, saying the term "independent non-nuclear defence" might be a better way of describing our position, one that is open to active engagement in international security operations but non-militarily aligned. It is short step from that to joining NATO. The MEPs also call for an amendment to Ireland's triple lock system, an increase in defence spending and the development of Ireland's defence industry.

What this is about is perfectly clear. It is about making it easier for Ireland to go to war. It is about Ireland participating in a Defence Union and a mutual defence pact in the European Union. It is about spending more money on weapons of destruction and killing rather than health, education or housing, and making Ireland a profitable centre for those peddlers of death. That is not populism, it is not rhetoric, they are the facts and people should check out the paper to which I referred.

The second issue I wish to raise is what is being referred to now as the so-called democratic recession, namely, the attacks on democratic rights which are taking place globally. The European Union is well able to make points about the lack of democracy, often correctly, in other countries or countries with which the EU has conflict or tension. However, democratic rights are under attack right here in the European Union. At the forefront of that process is what is happening in the Spanish state. The whole world saw the brutal response of the Spanish state to the attempt by the people of Catalonia to exercise the right to self-determination, but it is not just that. Let us look at the events of recent months. On 20 February, a rapper, Valtonyc, was sentenced to over three years in prison for lèse majesté and "glorifying terrorism" in his lyrics. Another rapper, Pablo Hassel, has been sentenced to two years for "glorifying terrorism". Other singers have also been prosecuted, not for any acts but for the expression of their views. Every copy of a book criticising the Partido Popular, PP, has been sequestered. Twitter users have been prosecuted for glorifying terrorism. That is the latest manifestations of a Francoism by the Spanish state to crush any attempt at dissent. We saw the unprecedented feminist strike on International Women's Day when there was a tsunami of millions on the streets. Up to 6 million people turned out, which shows the enormous discontent that exists and the potential to overthrow Rajoy and to get rid of the attacks on democratic rights.

I wish to raise the case of Brazil, given that the trade negotiations with Mercosur are due to be discussed. There has been an horrific deterioration of democratic rights since the parliamentary coup which brought Temer to power. There has been an increase in state repression and in violence against those who oppose the Government. The latest victim of an horrific incident was Marielle Franco, a councillor for PSOL, the socialist party in Rio, who was assassinated. Nine bullets were shot into the back of her car, bullets which were sold to the police in Rio. She was a black LGBTQ activist and a very prominent activist for human rights. As in Spain, the response has been for tens of thousands of people to come out on the streets, standing up bravely against the repression.

I wish to share time with Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

While the agenda relates mainly to jobs, growth, competitiveness and taxation, which are all very important, I find it very strange and disturbing that they are going to dominate a meeting when we have such horrific humanitarian crises in the world, some of them involving European countries directly, and in certain ways they involve all European countries. Then there is Syria, where there has been war for seven years. We see incessant bombardment and more and more displacement of people, including a displacement of refugees. We have had very graphic images, in particular of children, many of whom have been born into violence. The most graphic image in recent days was of a young man who was obviously both physically and intellectually disabled, being helped from that war-torn area. It appears Syria is not even on the agenda of the European Council. Other trouble spots include Yemen, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar and Libya. Europe could do an awful lot more and it could be stronger in terms of engaging in building peace-promoting initiatives in those areas. The UN has shown itself to be ineffective on the issue.

We all signed up to the sustainable development goals but not one of them can be achieved in a conflict zone. Sustainable development goal No. 16 relates to peace and justice. There is a discrepancy between what we are agreeing on paper and what we do in reality. Europe is supposed to be liberal but it is under threat from reactionary forces both inside it and outside. The European motto is supposed to be “united in diversity” but what we are seeing is a Europe and a world that are increasingly more divisive. The lack of unity is especially seen when it comes to refugee policy. Where is the commitment to the Geneva convention on the protection of refugees?

Trade, jobs and taxation can change that. Many of Europe's economies are also struggling themselves from decisions made during the financial crisis and there is unemployment, in particular youth unemployment, and increasing wage disparity. Trade and taxation decisions made in the EU affect countries in the global south and the developing world. We have seen the disastrous effects on countries in Africa as one example of taxation decisions by the EU. The reality is that international tax rules and decisions are keeping people in poverty in those countries and in continued inequality so we need to do more to look at the way tax is being paid and the way in which tax is being collected.

We said that we will address issues that cause migration such as war and conflicts but economic inequality also drives people to leave their countries of origin, so when we are discussing jobs, competitiveness, taxation and trade what importance will be given to the impact of those EU decisions on countries in Africa and other similar countries? I heard what the Taoiseach said earlier about global tax reform and ensuring payment of taxes and I hope we will see action on those, not more rhetoric.

It is opportune to remind us of the report recently published by the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the national plan, human rights and business, which is about promoting responsible business practice in keeping with the protection of human rights globally. In the foreword the Tánaiste makes a commitment to the two being complementary, namely economic growth and trade and human rights. That is the challenge and we will see what happens at the EU Council.

I echo the points made by Deputy O'Sullivan. I regret that the EU is not elevating more the issue of Syria and the role being played by Israel at present in the Middle East, not least the recent announcement of Israel's expansion plan into 40 km of the Golan Heights, effectively annexing another chunk of Syria, with the help of al-Qaeda allies, the Golan Knights, who have been appointed as border guards. When it is not exploiting the horrific slaughter in Syria to grab more land for itself, the fact that Israel is flagrantly breaching Syrian sovereignty is absolutely appalling. The head of the Israeli airforce recently proudly boasted that it had carried out thousands of missions in Syria in the past year alone. None of the attacks was carried out in response to military action emanating from Syria and none could be justified as legitimate self defence. They were all in flagrant breach of international law. As a neutral country we should be raising those issues in the EU. In that context the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, was very helpful last year when a group of Irish citizens was deported from Israel in September 2017. Sadly, last weekend two other Irish citizens were again deported from Israel. They were part of a group of 22, mainly Irish people, who landed in Tel Aviv on a flight from Istanbul on the evening of Friday, 16 March. They wanted to take part in a study trip meeting Israelis and Palestinians and to see for themselves what was going on in the area. Most of those people had never been to that country or area before. They ranged in age from 20 to 80.

Some of them were planning to have St. Patrick's Day celebrations in a refugee camp in Bethlehem. Sadly, they were intercepted at the airport in Tel Aviv, held for seven hours and subjected to massively aggressive questioning. Two of those citizens were deported, having spent over seven hours in a dirty room with no natural light or fresh air. Appalling newspaper articles appeared about those people claiming that they had been in Palestine previously, that they had taken part in violent protests and so on. They had never been to Palestine previously. One was a young Kildare mother of two small children and the other a young man fulfilling a lifetime dream to go to the area and meet people, and they were deported. We offer hospitable contact to Israelis coming to this country. The least they could do is afford the same respect to our citizens who go to their shores. I expect the Government to be raising these points with our peers in the EU.

Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by US military forces, facilitated by the then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. Since that time, the use of Shannon Airport has been facilitated by the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government and now this Government of Fine Gael and the Independent Alliance. It is a very sad tale. As someone writing about the issue this week pointed out, the invasion of Iraq was not just a catastrophe and a shambolic disaster; it was also a crime. Whether they like it or not, history will judge poorly the politicians of the various parties in Ireland who have facilitated the use of Shannon Airport for the destruction of Iraq and other countries since then.

When Ministers go to Europe, I get the impression that they do not really challenge the unquestioning support for the US military machine. We do not seem to be overly concerned about the fact that 17 million people in Yemen currently lack food and 6.8 million are at risk of famine. The horrific scenes taking place in that country beggars belief but I am not convinced our Government is raising it as a serious issue of concern, whether it is the EU support for the Americans' involvement in the region or the direct role of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, UAE.

The EU is seriously preoccupied with the role of Russia in Syria. The number of people in this country who have bought into the mainstream media agenda where Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are the real criminals now that Ghouta has been bombed is mind-boggling.

Myself and Deputy Clare Daly were in Damascus a few months ago where bombs were exploding every five minutes. Most of the car bomb attacks in Damascus and the constant shelling across the centre of the capital for the past four years have come from Islamic forces in Ghouta, especially from the Duma district. That is hardly surprising. Only last week, Robert Fisk was writing about this and he stated:

Here are some cruel facts about the sieges of Ghouta. They have become buried in the real rubble and blood and the sham and apocalyptic expressions of horror from the West.

Yet how can we complain when we will not ourselves deal with the armed Islamist opposition to Assad ...

After all, we've been arming these people for years!

The west has armed Al-Nusra. It has armed al-Qaeda, and it has added dramatically to the incredible slaughter that has taken place in Syria. The Irish Government might actually raise the issue that if we want to stop the horror of what is going on in Syria, it is time to talk to all sides.

I too am happy to speak on this issue. I note from the agenda highlights issued by the European Council that the spring focus will be on economic affairs. Heads of State or Government will also look at a number of the other pressing issues, including taxation and foreign affairs. Finally, EU leaders will also discuss Brexit. That is strange. I would have thought we would demand that Brexit be at the top of the agenda because it is coming ever closer like a train on autopilot and we do not know where we are on it. It is all over the shop, so to speak.

I imagine that the results of the recent Italian election will also play a significant part in the discussion, even if the great and the good of the European project have been uncharacteristically silent about its results. Will we continue to get these results or wallops, as the Minister of State's former leader called them but as European institutions are talking about now, before we sit up and take notice of the terrible disconnect between ordinary citizens and the European institutions, more so the heads of those institutions?

We have seen in the Italian election how, once again, the majority of the people have expressed deep-rooted frustration with the entire European political process. It is a timely warning and we should sit up, listen and try to make sure we address that because we are sleepwalking. The Italian people believe, as do many in Europe, that they are isolated from the agendas set out by the likes of those in the European Council. That is what it is, and other speakers referred to it also. There is a huge disconnect and also abject poverty in Italy and people do not believe they are in any way supported or that their lot is improving. That is not to mention the refugees. I am talking about ordinary families and small business people who believe they have been left behind.

This is a radically dangerous path for Europe to follow. Italy is not on the fringes of Europe. It lies within its very heartland. Towards the end of the British empire when England was at its weakest, we were stuck out off the west coast of Europe and saw the impact of that. This vote has taken place in the very heart of Europe. If the people of that great state are sick and tired of the disconnect between their lives and European policy pushers, that is incredibly dangerous news for us all. That is what the result has thrown up. How many more warnings do we need?

The European Continent is all too aware of what happens when Europe becomes a fragmented and divided landscape. We need to take note of that also. As we know, Italy featured in the top 15 of Ireland’s top trading partners in terms of Irish export sales, that is, countries that imported the most Irish shipments by dollar value during 2017. That is a serious issue and we need to be cognisant of it, address it and not have us undermined in that regard. Irish trade with Italy is estimated to be worth $2.9 billion. That is a huge amount of trade. In light of that I hope the leaders at the European Council will heed the messages that are coming from the great state of Italy because inevitably we will be affected by any obstacles to trade imposed on us by those on the European mainland. It is very important to wipe our eyes and look honestly at what is going on, and I am not talking about the Minister of State or the officials, and recognise this for what it is. There should be no back-slapping and saying that everything is great, we are doing fine and the European project is hunky-dory. Clearly, it is not.

What are we going to do about the huge crisis in Europe with the refugees? What are we going to do about the situation in Syria, which is diabolical and has been going on for many years? There are millions of refugees, displacement and Israel is bombing the hell out of the place whenever it feels like it. We seem to be silent on those issues. We are a neutral country. We are meant to be always proud of our neutrality, but we seem to be acquiescing now with what the big boys in Europe want. We want to be the good boys in the class.

I appeal to the Minister of State to do her best to let her voice be heard from this proud Irish nation. I will pass over to Deputies Michael Healy-Rae and Danny Healy-Rae.

I express my appreciation of the consistent engagement and work of the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, with the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. All members of the joint committee very much appreciate her involvement and hands-on and workperson-like approach. She takes her job very seriously.

We have reached a juncture where the future of the European Union is at stake. We can talk about Brexit forever and clearly we must deal with the problems and issues arising from it. However, we must also be conscious of the need to formulate a plan of work for how the remaining European Union member states will perform, interact, work and trade with each other. From now on, people want to hear what type of European Union we will have post-Brexit and where it will take us. This applies to farming because farmers are struggling - smaller farmers, in particular - finding it extremely difficult to make a living and to trade and export, given our reliance on trade with the United Kingdom. It also applies to the Border and Northern Ireland in general, including the paramount importance to the future well-being of the country of safeguarding and maintaining the peace process.

When we look around the rest of Europe, we see problems, including the results and aftermath of elections in various countries. Where will this place us in the future? The respect Ireland has earned internationally is very important. The country's excellent reputation is the result of the people we exported, if Deputies will excuse my use of that word. Aunts and uncles of mine left the country in the 1950s and made their way in other parts of the world. We must recognise them because it was they, not politicians, who earned respect for the country. Those who worked abroad, made their way in business or took jobs in different sectors of society made our name on the European and world stages. We will all work together for the future of the European Union and Ireland.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important matter. Brexit is a major concern in my constituency, especially among those living in rural parts of County Kerry who depend on farming. Small business owners are also worried about what will become of them after Brexit.

Significant expectations were created before Christmas with regard to the border with the North. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade suggested the matter had been sorted out and that there would not be a hard border. People are not sure what happened and whether it was Britain or the European Union which had sold the story to the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste because they surely did not make it up for us.

Brexit is of critical importance and we need to find out how it will materialise. We certainly do not want to return to the days of a hard border. Many people are sad that the Border was not mentioned in the recent talks between the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May, and the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk. The way in which the Border issue will be addressed has been left to very late in the day. That is the big question and I ask the Minister of State, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to do everything possible to ensure we will not end up with a hard border. It is difficult to see how it can be avoided. However, given that we were told before Christmas that we would not have a hard border, I ask the Government to ensure we have will a soft border. As I stated, it is of critical importance to small farmers and small businesses who deal with people in the North that Brexit not affect or hurt them.

This is an extremely important moment in the history of Ireland. As we find our former friends and allies in Washington and London drifting off in the direction of economic nationalism, we must reassert our place in Europe. Last week's events in Washington will be as important as the meeting of the European Council later this week. The controversy surrounding remarks made by the Taoiseach in Washington last week does not only revolve around the issue of trying to ingratiate ourselves with President Trump regarding Doonbeg golf course. Of equal or perhaps greater significance were some of the Taoiseach's other comments and the manner in which he, on behalf of the country, sided with the Republican Administration. He did do so in his American dream speech, in which he took a gung-ho approach to individualisation and the misguided direction in which the United States had moved. However, he also congratulated President Trump on adopting Irish corporate tax policy, which was a deeply mistaken approach that will haunt us in our negotiations with our European colleagues.

The traditional argument we have made in defence of our corporation tax policy has been that it is necessary because Ireland is a peripheral country in an isolated location without an industrial past. This line was used to justify a differentiated corporate tax system. However, to use this argument to justify President Trump's tax break for his rich friends undermines our case and promotes what can only be viewed as a global race to the bottom in terms of the percentage of corporation tax paid. This approach is not in our interests and places us in a bad position for the forthcoming European Council meeting at which the key issue will be whether the European Union should adopt the OECD's approach to taxing digital monopolies or take immediate action in this area. The comments made by the Taoiseach in Washington will hinder our arguments and capabilities in the debate at the weekend and were, therefore, a major mistake.

We must start to review our position. The Green Party very much welcomes Ireland's connections with the United States. US companies have been extremely beneficial in developing the economy and are very welcome in this country. However, there is a fundamental injustice in the world. My colleagues in the European Green Party, including Philippe Lamberts and others, have carried out detailed research in this area. They estimate that Europe is losing approximately €1 trillion in unpaid corporation tax as a result of improper avoidance. We must remedy this problem. Notwithstanding the Taoiseach's comment that we do not "accept that companies, including large digital ones, should pay little or no tax on their profits," the truth is that that is what is happening. These companies are not paying 12.5% corporation tax but 1% or 2%. We cannot prevaricate or stop every initiative from our colleagues aimed at addressing this matter. The issue will come back to haunt us.

Our negotiating position has been weakened in the sense that in seeking a good Brexit deal - by and large, our European colleagues are showing great solidarity towards Ireland - we are being bad on climate change. I have just attended a meeting of the Select Committee on Communications, Climate Action and Environment at which I asked the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, to state whether he supported the European Parliament's proposal to increase the target for renewable energy from 27% to 35%. The Minister made clear that we were not in favour of the proposal. Ireland is in the low corporation tax, high carbon, get-everything-we-can school of economic nationalism, which is not a clever position to take at this time. We will be caught out at some point and the goodwill towards us will be undermined by this approach.

People can read the Taoiseach's speeches the same way I can and we will be seen as being closer to Donald Trump's Washington than we are to our colleagues in Europe, which is a real shame.

I take a slightly different position from my Fianna Fáil colleagues on the Brexit aspects of the Council meeting. I listened to Deputy Donnelly's comments yesterday and my instinct is that at this moment it may not be a bad thing for us just to pause slightly for breath on the Border issue. It is not that we should undermine or change our basic strategy, which has been the right one, but it is about thinking ourselves in some depth about the nature of the protocol and the east-west relationships that we must maintain. That will have a consequence on the North-South issues. If we can minimise the east-west disturbance between Ireland and Britain, it makes it much easier to get a North-South agreement. By having a singular focus on the North-South aspect, we may detract from that task.

Taking a pause for thought and not being centre stage in every single debate on Brexit just for the next few weeks would also give us the chance to look at the nature of the deal going through. Colleagues of mine are today echoing what I believe Mr. Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, has said in arguing that we should be very careful that we do not just buy into a deal that gives us a customs union connection with the North but does not give us the same conditions as Single Market access. From my understanding and the briefings we have had with the Department, the protocol we have does not give us Single Market status on the island. We may need to strengthen it. For that reason it makes sense to consider it.

The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney, have done a very useful service in the sharing of information on how these negotiations are going. I was very taken in listening to the some of the commentary on where we are with the withdrawal agreement. The likes of Ms Patricia King from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made the very valid point that the nature of the deal that is starting to take shape is one that does not include strong labour and environmental standards. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, might correct me on that. It is my recollection of some of the conversations I have heard in this regard. It goes to my earlier point that we cannot just see the world filtered all the time through the eyes of economic and short-term trade interests and not take into account the need for environmental and labour standards. That seems to be the way the UK is going and it is willing to sacrifice everything just to get some sort of mythical ability to form trade deals.

To restore some of our reputation as a country that helped negotiate the 17 sustainable goals in New York and which has an interest in some of the big environmental and economic justice challenges of our time, we should be looking to see how we can stitch into any exit or withdrawal agreement some sort of maintenance of environmental and labour standards. That is where it is at its weakest. We have a particularly valuable role to play because we can and should have a good relationship with the UK Government in this regard and we have such strong cultural and familial ties. I have ten first cousins in the UK and we are not going to give up on them or connections with friends and relations on that island. For a range of cultural as well as economic reasons, we more than anyone else should be using this period to work with the British as best we can, as deranged as they seem to be currently. We must see what environmental, climate and energy standards can be worked on with the British. It should be the same with our colleagues in the North.

The Taoiseach is never here for the closing statements on the European Council meetings. I know he has a busy diary. I was taken by what he said when I asked him recently who he has spoken to in the North. He divided Northern politics into a top and bottom five. The Green Party is in the bottom five and nobody in the Government speaks to it because it just deals with the sectarian politics. The Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, and Sinn Féin are effectively the only people listened to or spoken to. That is not working and it needs to change. By speaking with the likes of my colleague, Mr. Steven Agnew, in the North, the Government might get a connection with people from the unionist tradition to whom we must speak. It should not just be about the DUP and Sinn Féin. The Government could speak to Deputy Paul Murphy's colleagues in the North as well. Why is it that this Government is just buying into the idea that there are two types of politics and that we speak to the sectarian parties but forget about the others? That needs to change.

I thank the Deputies for all their contributions. As the Taoiseach indicated, I will focus my remarks on the external relations items scheduled for discussion tomorrow in Brussels. I might touch on the fact that a number of Deputies have raised matters not on the agenda. The spring meetings always tend to discuss jobs growth and competitiveness and it is important for that tradition to continue, as such areas are of the utmost importance for member states, citizens, our economy and standards of living. At the same time, issues relating to Syria, Israel, Palestine and Africa are being raised by Ireland through the foreign affairs committee and in other formats. They are certainly on the agenda at a European level and we will continue to engage on them.

The European Council is expected to discuss Russia. This was expected in any case, given the fourth anniversary of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea on 18 March, but at the request of the UK, the European Council is now likely to discuss and adopt conclusions on the nerve agent attack that took place in Salisbury on 4 March. It is something that I discussed with colleagues at the General Affairs Council and, for the most part, there was condemnation of such attacks. Ireland utterly condemns this reckless attack and we are at one with European partners and other member states in offering solidarity with the UK and supporting its efforts to ensure a thorough investigation so the perpetrators of this heinous crime can be held accountable. The use of chemical weapons, including the use of any toxic chemicals as weapons by anyone anywhere is unacceptable and abhorrent. The attack in Salisbury is not just an act against the UK but an affront to the international rules-based system on which we all depend. The UK has concluded that it is very highly likely that Russia was responsible for the attack and it has announced a series of measures in response. There is a very clear onus on Russia to address all the questions that have been raised about the attack in Salisbury, including providing full and comprehensive disclosures of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The European Council will also discuss and adopt conclusions in advance of an expected EU-Turkey meeting in Varna on 24 March, where the EU will be represented by the Bulgarian Presidency, the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Ireland recognises the security concerns of Turkey after the 2016 attempted coup, but we are disappointed that Turkey's relationship with the EU remains under significant strain. Together with our European partners we have voiced our concerns about negative developments in Turkey with respect to human rights, freedom of expression and democracy, and the rule of law. There are also tensions in the eastern Mediterranean and we reiterate our call on Turkey to act in accordance with international law and respect the sovereign waters of its neighbours. It is fundamental to ensuring a positive climate in the region, not least so negotiations for the establishment of a comprehensive Cyprus settlement can resume. Ireland's overall position on Turkey is that the lines of communication must be kept open, and this was again stressed and reiterated by the Commission yesterday. Our view is the EU's continuing engagement is in the interests of the Turkish people, and to this end we support the 24 March meeting at Varna between the EU and Turkey.

On the western Balkans, the March European Council will also adopt conclusions ahead of the EU western Balkans summit, which takes place in Sofia on 17 May. The three main deliverables foreseen for the summit will be the reaffirmation of the European perspective of the western Balkans region, an enhanced engagement on connectivity, and an enhanced security partnership. The objective for the March European Council is to discuss the summit in these terms. Separately, the European Council will confirm that enlargement will be addressed by the Council in June. Ireland is a strong supporter of the accession of the western Balkans states. We welcome the Commission's strategy for the region published in February. I have visited Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro in February. It was an extremely useful and engaging visit. We will work with the Bulgarian Presidency to ensure the summit in May is a success.

I thank all Deputies for their statements today. The Taoiseach will report back to the House on Wednesday, 28 March on discussions at the European Council. A few questions were raised. Deputy Howlin raised the issue of the withdrawal agreement and the extension of a transition period. To my knowledge, there is nothing specific in the withdrawal agreement to extend the transition period past 31 December. The Commission has said it will keep this under consideration closer to the time. The issue of connectivity or connectedness between citizens was also raised. This is why we are having our Citizens' Dialogue on the Future of Europe meetings. I ask all Deputies to engage in the process and encourage their constituents to engage also.

On discussions in the North, I attended meetings recently where members of the SDLP, Ulster Unionist Party, UUP, and members from all political parties were in attendance representing the various council borders. I also engaged with different representative groups from industrial areas as well. We are engaging with as many groups as possible, and not just in the political sphere but outside of it as well

On the future framework and areas of the environment and other issues, it is important to note that a lot of this will fall into the future framework and what that looks like. I hope we can begin discussing that in greater detail after tomorrow's European Council meeting. However, I take the Deputies' comments into account.

Sitting suspended at 3.40 p.m. and resumed at 4.40 p.m.
Top
Share