Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Apr 2016

Vol. 907 No. 2

EU-UK Relations: Statements

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the House today on this topic, which is of major significance and importance to us in the context of our national, bilateral and international interests. We are now approaching a critical juncture.  In just nine weeks, on 23 June, the UK electorate will answer the question that is being put to them in their referendum; it is a straight choice on whether the UK should remain as a member of the European Union or if it should leave. This referendum result is, of course, solely a matter for the UK electorate to decide but it must be recognised that the answer they give is of enormous interest and importance not just to us, the UK's nearest neighbour, but also to the wider European Union and international community.

I will set out a few essential elements of the Government's approach.  As the UK’s closest neighbour, Ireland has a unique perspective and interest in the outcome of the referendum. We will remain a member of the EU irrespective of the referendum result. We want the UK to remain part of the European Union and to work with us to make it better. We will continue to build on the strength of the British-Irish relationship that has benefited from our common membership of the European Union, especially in the Northern Ireland context, and as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement. We will continue to articulate our position and promote engagement and understanding on the issues. We will deepen our analysis and understanding of the risks associated with a Brexit and ensure that any necessary contingencies are put in place.

At home, in London and in Brussels, we will continue to engage with our partners and work to ensure that we meet all of our objectives. From the Government’s perspective, there are three distinct phases to this. Phase 1 was the period from the UK election result to the conclusion of the new EU settlement deal and the setting of a date for the UK referendum. Phase 2, the current phase, is the lead-up to the date of the UK referendum. Phase 3 will commence once the referendum result is decided.

In respect of phase 1, the discussion of the UK's position within the EU has gained in intensity since Prime Minister David Cameron’s Bloomberg speech on the issue in January 2013.  In 2014, our national risk assessment named Brexit as a strategic risk for the first time.  This helped to stimulate public debate on the issue while also informing the Government's need to intensify preparations. In May 2015, the Conservative Party formed a new UK Government and Prime Minister Cameron set about delivering on his commitment to negotiate more favourable arrangements for continuing British membership of the EU and to hold a referendum on the issue.

During this time, the Irish Government has been very active in our engagement with the UK Government and with our EU partners in outlining our concerns and our interests in this matter, in working for an acceptable deal at EU level and on assessing the implications in the event of a UK vote to leave the European Union. In early 2015, I reorganised my Department specifically to prepare for this issue and established a new division in my Department to focus specifically on relations between Ireland and Britain, including bilateral issues that arise in the context of the EU-UK debate.  During this phase, work has been under way across Departments to identify the key strategic and sectoral issues that could arise for us if the UK were to vote to leave the European Union.  My Department’s EU division has also been centrally involved in these discussions and was responsible for preparations and input to the EU negotiations that resulted in the agreement in February.

Both I and my Government colleagues have emphasised at every opportunity that Ireland has a unique relationship with the UK, which is recognised widely, including within the UK itself. We have made it clear that Ireland's best interests are served best by the UK remaining within the European Union. It is a position that I have emphasised on numerous occasions, including when I spoke at the CBI annual conference in Belfast in March last year, at the British-Irish Association in Cambridge last October, at the CBI annual conference in London last November and more recently at an event organised by Irish interests in London this January. I met Prime Minister Cameron six times on a bilateral basis since 2013 and have ensured that our discussions cover our position and our concerns.  Those conversations have also been continued in the context of our frequent meetings at European Councils.  The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and our other colleagues in government have had extensive engagements on the issue with their UK counterparts. I have also discussed Ireland's concerns with Northern Ireland's First and Deputy First Ministers and the Scottish First Minister. EU and UK issues have been discussed by the North-South Ministerial Council.

The position of the Government and our strong preference for the UK to remain as a member of the EU remains unchanged. It is a view widely shared across the Irish political spectrum and by the great majority of business, non-governmental organisations and academic or media commentators here. Essentially, we have set out four reasons we wish the UK to remain a member of the EU.  These relate to the economy, Northern Ireland, the Common Travel Area and the effectiveness and credibility of the European Union itself.

The importance of the Irish-UK economic relationship is apparent in the €1.2 billion in goods and services that we trade every week.  Last year, 41% of our total agrifood and drink exports went to the UK.  They export more to Ireland than they do to China, India and Brazil combined, making us the UK’s fifth largest market.

This trade sustains approximately 200,000 jobs each side of the Irish Sea. The UK is the third largest investor in Ireland after the US and Germany. In 2012 and 2013, investment by Irish businesses in projects in Britain helped to create and sustain almost 2,800 jobs.

Overall, studies show there would be an adverse impact on both the British economy and, in turn, on the Irish economy were the UK to decide to leave the European Union. The ESRI report on the potential risks associated with a Brexit noted that a 1% decrease in UK GDP leads to a 0.3% decline in Irish medium term GDP or GNP. Clearly, the beneficial economic relationship enjoyed by our two countries would be at risk in the event of a vote by the UK to leave the European Union. Research has shown that Irish-owned enterprises and SMEs in sectors such as agrifood could, in particular, face significant challenges. In addition to trade, issues could arise for the energy sector in areas like security of supply and the single electricity market.

There has been some suggestion that a UK exit could give Ireland a marketing advantage in foreign direct investment terms, but we have to be realistic. We would also face intense competition from other EU member states and the ESRI research suggests that we would not necessarily see major gains. It has also been suggested that opportunities might arise for us in the financial services sector, but it is important to note that capacity issues may well arise here. In considering negative impacts, research also suggests that Northern Ireland would be the most adversely affected region of the UK.

The EU has made an important contribution to sustaining peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and has provided a broader context for relations on these islands. Much-needed funding, including through programmes like PEACE and INTERREG, will provide almost €3 billion in the six years to 2020. It is also the case that North-South co-operation is simply much easier when both jurisdictions are members of the same Union.

Our Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement and our officials and agencies work together every day in many small and big ways to support the social, economic and political transition of Northern Ireland coming out of the difficulties that it experiences. The trust that enables that kind of close co-operation was forged at least in part through years of working side by side in Brussels since 1973.

The fact that we and Northern Ireland make up the island of Ireland is also a key consideration for us in the context of the EU-UK debate. The common travel area, which has been in existence since Irish independence, is an important feature of the close relationship between our two countries. It allows free movement between Ireland and the UK and ensures that Irish citizens and British citizens are treated on a par with access to social welfare. It is an arrangement that is valued on both islands and I believe that both Governments would work hard to preserve its benefits in the event of a UK vote to leave the EU. It is particularly important as regards the Border between North and South, which has in practical terms been effectively eliminated.

This cannot be guaranteed, however. We should be aware that the common travel area has only ever operated where both Ireland and the UK were either outside the European Union or within it. Any uncertainty that is created around the seamless flow of goods, services, capital and people between our two countries would not be welcome. These would be key issues for Ireland both bilaterally with the UK and also in the context of new terms and conditions for the EU’s relationship with the UK, but the precise outcome would by no means be clear.

Our close relationship with the UK is also an important feature of our engagement on EU issues. The UK is an important voice at the table in Brussels and we want that voice to continue to be heard. We are allies on many of the key issues facing the EU, above all on economic issues, and we share a broadly similar vision for Europe. We want to see a Union that is globally competitive, with a fully functioning Single Market, including in the digital area, internally efficient and outwardly coherent on trade, innovation and world affairs, including migration. We also want a Europe that respects and draws strength from the differences between member states.

The withdrawal of the UK would change the balance of opinion within the Union on these and other issues in a way which could damage Irish interests. More broadly, it would weaken the Union internationally and at home, in terms both of substance and reputation, at a time of serious challenges.

I must emphasise that whatever the outcome of the referendum, Ireland will continue to be a committed member of the EU and the eurozone. That is what our people have said on many occasions and it is repeatedly borne out by opinion polls. We value our access to a single market of over 500 million people and the benefits our exporters derive from EU trade agreements with other countries.

Our EU membership is a key asset for Irish business, as IBEC underscored last week in a valuable report, and in attracting inward investment. Irish agriculture continues to benefit greatly from the CAP. More broadly, we are conscious of the significance of being part of a Union with other like-minded democracies which share our values and interests. There is no doubt, however, that the Union we most want to see is one with the UK in it.

A Cheann Comhairle, I know I am over my time, but I have some other issues to raise here if the House agrees. I can read it here, or put it into the record if you wish.

I think the House will be anxious to hear what you have to say, Taoiseach, and we may facilitate other leaders, if necessary.

I appreciate that, a Cheann Comhairle. It is an important subject.

We will get it back on track.

Thank you, Deputy.

On 18 February, EU Heads of State and Government paved the way for the UK referendum date to be set following their agreement of a "New Settlement for the UK in the EU". In this, we successfully addressed many of the issues of concern to the UK, and reached an agreement which was acceptable to all EU partners and which allowed Prime Minister Cameron to launch his campaign for the UK to remain within the Union.

Given the major importance for us of keeping the UK in the EU, I was active in those negotiations. I sought to be constructive and supportive, and Ireland’s role in securing a positive outcome at the European Council has been widely recognised. As I reported to the House last month, agreement was reached across four principal areas: economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty, and social benefits. Having participated fully in the agreement, we have now entered the critical pre-referendum phase of this debate. The UK electoral commission has formally designated the remain and leave campaigns, and the referendum campaign has, as of Friday last, formally begun.

In the run-up to the referendum, we will continue to articulate our views on these truly significant issues as an interested friend and as a neighbour. Let nobody underestimate the scale of the challenge here. Irish citizens living in the UK will have a vote. Voters in Northern Ireland are estimated to be about 1.2 million. Around 120,000 UK citizens living here are also entitled to vote. The British embassy in Ireland is targeting them with a view to ensuring that they are registered to vote. While fully recognising that the outcome of the referendum is entirely a matter for the UK electorate, we will continue to ensure that the Irish perspective is presented to all interested parties. We support calls encouraging those eligible to register, to vote and inform themselves on this crucial issue.

I urge all Members of this House to use their connections and influence to reinforce the case. This is a matter on which we should be united. I also hope that people in Ireland will reach out to family, friends and business colleagues in Britain. Briefing information will be made available by the Department to Members of the House who require it. I hope that voters in the referendum, including the Irish in Britain and the people of Northern Ireland, will be aware of and understand our close economic ties, the importance of the EU to the development of Northern Ireland, and the importance of the EU partnership between Ireland and Britain. This is also a critical time in deepening our understanding of the many implications for Ireland if the UK were to vote to leave the European Union and the uncertainties that could arise for key areas of our relationship.

In this pre-referendum phase, the work already carried out by Departments is being further developed to deepen our understanding and analysis of the potential impacts in the key areas of concern that I have outlined. Through all Departments, we are ensuring that a whole-of-government approach is taken to this vital work. Those sectors of concern cover trade, market volatility, migration, social welfare, public services, energy markets, the peace process, foreign direct investment, financial investment and services, and so on.

The next phase will commence once the result of the referendum is concluded. The direction that this takes will depend on that result, but let me consider what will happen in the event of a vote to leave. Mr. David Cameron has made it clear that this is a once-only deal for the UK. If they decide to vote to leave the EU, a period of two years is provided for under Article 50 of the EU treaties, during which the exit terms of a member state would be negotiated.

Although negotiations could well take significantly longer, any extension would need to be agreed unanimously by the remaining 27 EU member states.

If the UK was to vote to leave the EU, a number of very different scenarios could be envisaged. The Government will continue to plan for any contingencies so that we are prepared to deal with the potential consequences in the event of a UK vote to leave but we need to be realistic about how far we would be able to pursue bilateral negotiations with the UK. A future EU-UK agreement would set the overall framework and determine future arrangements in very many sectors. We would have to deploy all our political, official and diplomatic resources in a negotiation which, in many ways, could be as important as our EEC accession negotiations so many years ago.

It is worth noting that there is already a clear framework in place for bilateral co-operation between the Irish and UK Governments under the joint statement which I signed with the Prime Minister in 2012. We review progress at our regular summit meetings. This provides a framework for co-operation on a joint Ireland-UK work programme covering issues such as the common travel area, energy and climate change, economic and financial issues and trade and investment. As part of this, Departments meet regularly with their UK counterparts and annual plenary meetings take place between Secretaries General of Departments and UK permanent secretaries to progress the key areas I have mentioned. Such bilateral engagement will continue regardless of the outcome of the UK referendum but will take on added importance in the event of a leave vote.

In the event of a vote for the UK to remain in the EU, the agreement reached in February would take effect. This means that the agreed measures relating to economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty, and freedom of movement would be effective immediately. Those measures on social benefits and addressing the abuse of free movement would be implemented by amending or complementing existing EU regulations. While they would be taken forward quickly, they would, therefore, not take effect immediately after the referendum.

Two social welfare changes could be implemented as part of the EU agreement. First, child benefit for the children of EU nationals working in the UK could, after a period of four years, be index-linked to reflect conditions in the country where the child lives. Second, access to "in-work" benefits could be limited for four years for people newly entering the UK labour market. This would not apply to any EU citizen already residing in the UK. The Government has raised with its UK counterpart - at both political and official level - the possible implications of these measures for Irish people in the UK. I have spoken to David Cameron on a number of occasions. The British Government is fully aware of our concerns and of the unique status of the Irish community in Great Britain over very many years.

As necessary, we will continue these discussions where we will continue to actively pursue the best interests of Irish people living in or moving to the UK. I recall that, during post-European Council statements on 22 March, Deputy Martin raised the potential implications of the proposed social welfare changes for Irish citizens in the UK. I propose to circulate a paper early next week addressing this issue. This would also respond to other specific points which will be raised by Deputies today and which are not fully dealt with in this speech.

During the course of the next nine weeks, we will see an intensification of the EU-UK debate as the "Remain" and "Leave" campaigns in the UK battle for the hearts and minds of the electorate. We cannot, and will not, tell the people of the UK how to vote but it is vitally important that we continue to clearly articulate our views on this issue - to set out what is at stake for this country and to clearly and unequivocally state our support for the UK remaining in the EU. Of course, it is our sincere hope that on 24 June, we will be welcoming a vote for the UK to remain. If that is not what the people of the UK decide, we will be as prepared as it is possible to be to manage the consequences and deal with the uncertainties that arise. There is one thing of which I have no doubt, namely, that we will continue to work unstintingly to maintain a strong, positive and productive relationship with the UK whatever future course is determined by its people on 23 June.

In recent years, with EU institutions appearing to be led more by the head than by the heart, many people have begun to question the wisdom of the European project. The fundamental importance of union has slipped out of view. There are people in this Chamber whose parents lived through not just one great war but two. When I was growing up, a dictator called Franco was still ruling with an iron fist in Spain and another dictator called Salazar ruled in Portugal while a group of colonels took over Greece and snuffed out democracy. The EU has been an essential force not just in building peace but in spreading democracy. Similarly, it has been an essential force not just in promoting prosperity but equality and human rights. It was the EU which put equal pay and other rights for women firmly on the agenda and prioritised the rights of people with disabilities. That approach to human rights, including women's rights and the rights of particular groups such as people with disabilities or minorities, brought about many changes in Ireland in the past number of decades.

When the standing of the EU was at its highest, countries were queuing up to join. I think in particular of the situation after the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. Now, sadly, we are looking at a situation where one member state is considering the option of leaving. I believe that would be a terrible mistake that would have consequences not just for the UK but for Ireland and the EU as a whole.

This is a year that underscores the degree to which Ireland and the UK are intertwined. On one hand, we are commemorating 1916 and the Rising that sparked the flame of independence from the British Empire. As we speak, President Higgins is in Kerry recalling a member of the British establishment who was executed for taking part in the 1916 Rising. We are at a unique moment in Irish history when we recall the relationship between the UK and Ireland down through the centuries. We acknowledge that over the past 25 years, as we gradually worked towards peace in the North, relations between Ireland and the UK are closer than they have ever been.

When we broach the issue of Brexit, we do not do so in an attempt to interfere in the decision of a sovereign state. We do so because our economies, societies and histories and the fates of our people are intertwined and the UK's decision will have implications for Ireland. This is why I suggested that we hold this debate today as a matter of priority because the referendum is drawing nearer and we must be ready come what may. In nine weeks' time - little more than the short period during which we have been teasing out Government formation - the people of the UK will go to the polls on this vital issue. The Government's position is clear and has been for some time. We want the UK as our friend, closest neighbour and partner to remain a member of a reformed EU.

The word “reformed” is important in this context. As a social democrat, as someone who believes that the single best protection against poverty is secure and fairly paid work, I was appalled by the EU’s initial response to the financial crisis. It was too slow, dictated from the centre, and ideologically blinkered in approach. As a Minister from 2011, I repeatedly argued, together with my colleagues in the Labour Party, that the EU needed to shift from austerity towards a policy based on investment, growth and job creation, with full employment the central target.

I pressed the case for that shift at European level at every opportunity, something I continued to do when I became Tánaiste and Labour Party leader. Thankfully, the EU’s approach did change, even if the pace of change was frustratingly slow. From the EU-wide Youth Guarantee to help young people find work, training and education, to the ECB’s attempts to boost member state economies, the EU finally got onto a better track. I mention this because it is perfectly legitimate for European citizens to have questions and doubts about, and to be disappointed with, the EU. However, I still fundamentally believe that all member states, including Ireland and the UK, are stronger within. The task we face is to restore the great solidarity that underpinned the European ideal because that solidarity will be essential if we are to tackle today’s global challenges. Going it alone is not really an option when we talk about climate change, terrorism and the myriad other challenges that face different societies and countries today. We are stronger working together. The migration crisis is the latest and tragic demonstration of that. The same can be said for terrorism, with the horrors of the attacks in Belgium and France to the fore in our minds. No single member state can combat that spectre alone. Energy security, climate change and a world economy that recognises no borders are just some of the other spectres. We want the UK to remain because, as a general principle, we are stronger working together in a globalised world.

There are also three specific reasons we want the UK to stay. The first is the economy. More than €1 billion worth of goods and services are traded every week between the UK and Ireland. Anything that might get in the way of the seamless flow of goods, services, capital and people between our two countries is not welcome. The second is the North. The EU has been an important factor in sustaining peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. John Hume, as the leading architect of the peace process, was, I believe, the first person to recognise that and to seek to involve the EU intrinsically as a guarantor and friend of the peace process. Much-needed funding, including through programmes such as PEACE and INTERREG, will provide almost €3 billion in the years to 2020. North-South co-operation is much easier when both jurisdictions are members of the same Union. I cannot remember when we last had border posts. They are gone and who would want to see any semblance of, or reference to, their returning?

The third reason relates to the EU institutions. The UK is an important, influential voice at the table in Brussels. We are allies on many of the key issues facing the EU. The withdrawal of the UK would weaken the Union both in substance and reputation at a time of serious challenges. Should the UK vote to leave, we would enter uncharted waters and a period of instability that could be enormously damaging to Ireland at a time when we have just begun to get back on our feet. That is why it is crucially important that there is a clear understanding of the issues.

Irrespective of the outcome of the UK referendum, Ireland as a competitive, diversified and global economy will remain a committed member of the EU and a full member of the eurozone. As a small, open economy, we value our access to a Single Market of more than 500 million people, but we also recognise that the project has been tarnished, that it has lost traction in recent decades, and that we must tackle this problem. The European model worked extremely well for many of its first 50 years, when member states developed a rough consensus on how to tackle economic and societal issues. Many of the solutions put in place were those advocated by parties of the centre left such as the Labour Party: the welfare state, public health services, workers’ rights, women’s emancipation and social dialogue. There truly was a social Europe.

In recent years, leading up to and after the financial crisis, policy shifted to the right, the consensus weakened, progress stalled and we have not faced today’s great challenges with the vigour or sense of fairness that Europe brought to tackling them in the past. The only way to do that is to work together to restore the social Europe to the benefit of all our people. As Jean Monnet said, “beyond [people’s] differences and geographical boundaries, there lies a common interest”. For Irish citizens living in the UK, the proposed referendum poses real challenges. As people return home and holiday here, there should be a clear message for those living in Britain and those of us at home that Irish society has benefited enormously from involvement in the EU. Before we successfully negotiated our entry into the EU, a series of studies led by the OECD found that if Ireland was to prosper and develop investment and industry, it had to invest in education in order that people could find employment. That became one of the reasons for the social agreement in Ireland to invest in education and opportunity - so that people could get employment and build businesses. Not only did that help to grow the EU but it had enormous dividends for us here in Ireland and for many in the UK.

I wish people in the UK well during this debate and say to them that we respect absolutely citizens' right to vote as they decide what is best for them and the United Kingdom, but to those with links to Ireland I say we feel we have done well out of this and would like to see our friend, neighbour and trading partner stay with the EU. Let us have the debate on reforming it as necessary, but in a globalised world we need to work together and not separate.

The issue of Britain’s possible exit from the European Union has been raised regularly in this Chamber by Fianna Fáil from the moment Prime Minister Cameron first promised an in-out referendum. The record of the House shows that I and Deputy Brendan Smith were consistent in calling for Ireland to adopt an active approach to the issue.

In the past year the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, has taken several important and welcome initiatives to state Ireland’s position and to indicate that we seek to be prepared for any eventuality.

The issue will soon come to a head and no one is currently capable of saying with any confidence what will be the outcome.

This is no time for the populist euroscepticism so favoured by many of our smaller parties. Ireland must be very clear on where it sees its interests and how it will react, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Let us be very clear - Brexit would be bad for Britain, bad for Ireland, bad for Europe and, as the IMF pointed out last week, bad for the world.

The economic and political case which is being made for Brexit is simply risible. As Britain's review of European Union regulations showed, the vast majority of them are actually an aid to business and trade. They are the foundation for fair and open trade. They provide the practical foundation for the bulk of workers' rights and have been proven time and again to be the most powerful weapon available to support socially and environmentally responsible development. Member states retain the ability to shape their own destinies. The European Union enables them to maximise this sovereignty in an era where prosperity is impossible without strong international co-operation.

At the heart of the "Leave" case is an expectation regarding how the departure negotiations will proceed. This is very similar to the nonsense spoken here by our own eurosceptics when they opposed every change in Europe. The idea that Britain could leave the European Union but retain all the benefits of being a member is a profoundly dishonest argument. There is simply no way that the European Union could or should allow membership to be stripped of all practical benefits. This is where the concern for Ireland is most acute. We have a strategic national interest in having a European Union which is more dynamic and which addresses clear failings of current policies. We also have a strategic national interest in being able to have the freest possible interaction of people, trade and capital with Britain. Reconciling these interests has always been difficult. In the context of Brexit, it could rapidly become impossible. Over the years we have worked in the European Union to be constructive regarding the concerns of Britain. We have actively worked to keep the discourse respectful when others have been playing to domestic political audiences.

Clearly, Ireland must be ready for either outcome. If Britain takes the road of leaving the European Union, there will be no positive outcome. There will simply be two years of working to limit the damage. If Britain chooses to remain a member, we must move forward and end the damaging rhetoric of the past 30 years. Turning every issue into a matter of national sovereignty and the search for new and more creative ways to show one is standing up to Brussels is the direct cause of this situation. Pandering to insular and often xenophobic expressions of nationalism has led many politicians who should have known better to enhance the growth of English euroscepticism.

There are parties and Deputies in this House who subscribe to the view that the European Union is a vast neo-liberal conspiracy designed to suppress workers. As we can see in Britain, the overwhelmingly dominant voices in the "Leave" campaign are right-wing neo-liberals who claim that the European Union is a socialist conspiracy designed to destroy capitalism. It is highly instructive that the British trade union movement is strongly supporting the "Remain" case. This position has evolved dramatically over the past 40 years due to the undeniable evidence of the EU’s role in defending workers. For many, and particularly the more centrist elements of the British Conservative party, instead of taking the balanced approach of being critical but nonetheless clearly supportive of the EU, they demonised it and used it as a cheap populist applause line. If the "Remain" side is to win it should remember that pandering to scepticism has led to a vicious circle of ever-expanding aggression against the European Union. Equally, the deal reached with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, cannot be invoked to prevent the Union reforming its work to make it more effective in serving the people of Europe.

Fianna Fáil is absolutely committed to the position that Ireland must remain a committed member of the European Union no matter what happens. There is simply no credible case for suggesting that Ireland would benefit from being outside the European Union and there is a growing argument that a strengthening of the Union’s powers in certain areas would benefit Ireland.

In the past, I have raised the issue of the potential impact for the residency, welfare and other rights of Irish citizens in Britain of a "Leave" vote. Reassurances seem to have been given on this front but the full extent of them is not clear. Obviously, the position on the impact between the two jurisdictions on this island would be very serious. I welcome the fact that a paper on those issues will be circulated next week. There is no need to go into the extent to which the free movement of people and trade on this island is of benefit to all communities. The failure to move forward with more ambitious cross-Border activities in service provision and economic development represents one of the greatest missed opportunities of recent years.

I welcome that the party, which is today called Sinn Féin, will, for the first time since its foundation in 1970, be supporting a pro-European Union vote. Having opposed European Union membership, campaigned against every treaty and accused the European Union of provoking Russia to invade its neighbours, this support for the "Remain" case is clearly pragmatic, but it is welcome nonetheless. Other parties including the SDLP and Alliance have of course a lengthy and principled stance of seeking to use common European Union membership as a way of enhancing connections between both sides of the Border, as well as between communities often hostile to each other.

The Dáil should note the consistent and generous record which the European Union has in supporting peace, reconciliation and development on this island, which has not often been acknowledged by many Northern Ireland politicians. It was something I experienced in my time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. The degree to which that was just brushed aside by many senior politicians in the North was incredible, notwithstanding the very substantive contribution the PEACE moneys made to reconciliation between communities in Northern Ireland. Those in Northern Ireland supporting the "Leave" position have yet to address any of the major concerns about the economic and social impact of the possibility that the North will no longer be a member of the Union.

We held a significant seminar on Brexit, organised by Deputy Brendan Smith, in Cavan town last July. We heard some stark facts about the implications of Brexit on Northern Ireland farmers. The IFA economist, Rowena Dwyer, gave an outstanding presentation on the practical bread-and-butter implications for farmers in Northern Ireland if Britain should leave the European Union. Having heard that, it is very difficult to comprehend how any Northern politician could advocate a "Leave" position. We also heard from representatives of the Centre for Cross-Border Studies, lecturers at Queen's University and others at the seminar. The Dáil should note the consistent and generous record which the European Union has in supporting peace and economic development in the North.

Clearly, a position where the will of a majority in England on this matter is forced on other parts of the Britain and Northern Ireland has not been thought through by many of those campaigning for a "Leave" vote. There is no point served by speculating now on its impact. One thing which is for sure is that the case of Scotland’s possible membership of the European Union as an independent state will become much less complicated.

There has been some considerable speculation about actions Ireland might seek to mitigate the inevitable damage caused by a "Leave" vote. Rather than spending time on this, we should agree that we will have a dedicated session on this issue immediately after the vote. Should there be a "Leave" vote, Fianna Fáil will seek the appointment of a special committee of the House to oversee policy in the two-year period of negotiations and we will seek a number of other specific actions by Government to ensure that our interests are protected and promoted.

I have outlined in great detail my party’s approach to the reform of the European Union in a series of speeches in the Dáil and elsewhere. In addition, we set out our position on both reform and Brexit in our election manifesto. We believe Ireland must be more assertive in supporting reform which deepens the ability of the European Union to support growth and not just to control public spending. This point remains irrespective of what happens in June.

This referendum is the inevitable outcome of 30 years of a steadily worsening rhetoric in British politics whereby blaming Brussels has taken centre stage. Whatever happens, we need this to be the end of the destructive cycle and the beginning of a more sustained focus on delivering a European Union focused on the needs and aspirations of the citizens of all of our countries.

I always find it amusing to listen to lectures from Deputy Martin on consistency. Consistency is hardly his middle name with regard to issues throughout his career.

I spent the past couple of days attending the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I used that opportunity to talk to many of its members on this issue, which was useful in that one was hearing both sides of the debate. One point which came out in the discussions, both from those who were pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit, was that the opinion polls are not necessarily reflecting what the actual vote will be, with a strong possibility of the vote going for a Brexit. Those who favour the Brexit have some idea they will get some sort of favourable agreement. I do not know from where they are getting this idea but there is almost an arrogance that this is a right which will naturally flow in their favour post Brexit. We know it will impact on trade; it has already impacted on sterling and on investment. Some of it is down to a Johnny Foreigner attitude and the red top newspapers. However, among many of the electorate in Britain, there is a genuine disaffection, dissatisfaction and disagreement with many of the things coming out of the EU.

The referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will likely have significant ramifications for people on this island. In my role as Sinn Féin's spokesperson on foreign affairs, as well as a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, and the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I have raised my concerns on a possible Brexit many times. Accordingly, I welcome this opportunity to debate and discuss the issue here today.

The EU affairs committee published a report on some of the ramifications of a Brexit. The reported detailed that the view of the committee was that the Irish Government had a role to play in voicing its opinion, in particular to the Irish community in Britain and to British citizens in Ireland, on the impact a Brexit would have on Ireland. I welcome that the Irish Government has undertaken this work and I note the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan's visits to Britain recently.

Britain is one of Ireland’s major trading partners, while Ireland is Britain’s fifth largest trading partner. A potential Brexit would be damaging for the economy of this State. Figures for Irish citizens living in Britain are estimated to be approximately 400,000, an important voting bloc. I hope these Irish citizens will vote against a Brexit. Another of the EU affairs committee report’s recommendations was that the Irish Government has a voice on the future of the North which it must use and ensure features in the Brexit debate. I do not think this has happened as much as it could have, however.

A Brexit would have a disastrous effect on cross-Border trade and the all-island economy. Ireland is the only EU member state to share a land border with the British jurisdiction. The free movement of people and goods across the Border is significantly important for the North and for Border counties. A Brexit would mean this would now be an external EU border, which could see the introduction of custom posts and border controls between Irish counties. I note the statement by the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, that this would not be a fact but there are still concerns about this. The implications of this would be very significant for the all-island economy, altering natural trade and investment patterns. It would also impact negatively on citizens, particularly those living in the Border region.

Additionally, a Brexit would be significantly damaging for the Northern economy, for small businesses, for the volunteer and community sector, and for peace and reconciliation projects. The EU provides important funding for peace projects. It has assisted in the formation of North-South implementation bodies, while the special EU programme to administer INTERREG and PEACE funding is vitally important. Other funding from the EU has concentrated on cross-Border initiatives, which have led to some positive social and political outcomes in small cross-Border communities. If one looks at the record of the Tories in government in Britain with regard to the North, it is clear they will not be rushing to replace any of this vital funding.

The current Tory Government is continuing with its plans to repeal the Human Rights Act, which essentially signs Britain up to the European Convention on Human Rights and is an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. It is clear the Tory Government would have no appetite to fund these important groups, some of which are legally challenging the British Government over its role in the conflict and its human rights violations.

The British Government has refused Sinn Féin's demands that a separate and binding referendum be run in the North. Should a vote to leave the EU occur, Sinn Féin is calling on the British Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, to commit to holding a Border poll. If there is a vote in Britain to leave the EU, there is a democratic imperative to provide Irish citizens with the right to vote in a Border poll to end partition and retain a role in the EU. The people of Scotland probably hold a similar view. I am calling on all Members of this House to support the call for a Border poll provided for in the Good Friday Agreement.

The whole debate about Europe in this State and in Britain is founded on a big lie. It is a propaganda technique which involves a lie so big that nobody could believe it is a lie. The central lie is that the European Union is a bringer of economic and social progress, democratic and is founded on the basis of human rights. When we debate Europe, that big lie is combined with Project Fear. Today, Alistair Campbell is trying to recruit Irish people into joining Project Fear to spread its message. The Government would also like Members to join in with the message of Project Fear. I, for one, will not participate in it. I am not going to participate in what is the favoured weapon of the European establishment used here whenever we have had referenda on particular EU issues. It has also been used to an incredible extent in Greece and is now being used in Britain, as well as in the North where it has an added sectarian edge. We do not accept the central line of Project Fear that, if one does not go along with the neoliberal orthodoxy and undemocratic nature of the European Union, disaster will unfold.

The reality of this European Union was shielded for a long time behind an extensive facade of rhetoric and propaganda. However, while it might not be clear to many Members, that facade has been crumbling and the reality has been brutality laid bare because of the actions of the EU institutions in the economic crisis over the past several years. It is now clear to whole numbers of people that the Europe we have is not one of democracy or human rights but, instead, one of institutionalised austerity, of attacks on workers' rights, of war and racism.

Taking the issue of the rights of refugees, the big lie is that the EU welcomes refugees and defends their rights. “Not for us the policies of Donald Trump”, it claims. The reality is that the policies of fortress Europe are directly responsible for turning the Mediterranean into a graveyard of refugees. The new report, published two days ago, Death by Rescue, confirmed what I argued here six months ago, namely, that in withdrawing Operation Triton and replacing it with Mare Nostrum, the European authorities knew more refugees could die and did so to try to discourage people from coming. A 2014 Frontex internal assessment stated: “It has to be stressed that the withdrawal of naval assets from the area, if not properly planned and announced well in advance, would likely result in a higher number of fatalities.” What was predicted is what happened, which means that Charles Heller, a co-author of the report, was correct when he said, "European policymakers and Frontex have made themselves guilty of killing by omission".

The same approach is evident in the rotten deal with Turkey for the mass expulsion of asylum seekers to that country with a record of human rights abuse and persecution, turning Turkey into an open prison camp for those trying to escape the horrors of the Middle East and enter Europe.

As for the idea we have a social Europe that is a force for workers' rights and social progress, that idea can only be maintained by closing our eyes to the actions of the troika over the course of the economic crisis.

In this country, the ECB and European Commission pressured the then Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government to agree to the biggest bank bailout in the world, for which we are still paying the price. They imposed, and governments agreed to, an immense programme of austerity here that resulted in deep crises in our public services, deep inequality and a low wage economy. Why? They did it to save the big European banks and to ensure the bondholders got their money back. That is who this European Union works for: it is a club for the bankers, the bondholders and big business. They did the same with Greece, with even more horrifying consequences, and with Spain and Portugal. The result is a humanitarian catastrophe in Greece, with wages cut by a third, public services cut by a quarter, and widespread poverty. Every single index of deprivation is completely off the charts. It has not worked to resolve the crisis, but it has worked for those for whom it was meant to work, namely, the 1% in Europe.

Social Europe was always a myth. It has just been exposed over recent years. Those elements like equal pay for equal work in EU law were not granted by the European Commission or the European Council from above. They were won by struggles from below. In that case, they were won by the struggles and strikes of French women workers in the bread and roses strikes of 1946, before it was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in 1957 but not implemented since further waves of strike movements and mobilisations in the 1960s and 1970s. With the interpretation of the posted workers directive in cases like Laval in Vaxholm, we see the reality of how this works to facilitate a race to the bottom in terms of workers' wages and conditions. This policy of the dictation of austerity is not a temporary aberration for the crisis. It is a permanent policy and has been written into law, first by the Maastricht treaty, then by the fiscal treaty, the six pack and the two pack. They are the reasons we had this ridiculous debate during the elections about the so-called fiscal space. That is the almost non-existent space within the right-wing, neoliberal, Thatcherite EU rules which outline the policies we can implement that stay within those rules. With optimistic growth projections, they were able to say there was up to €10 billion to put back into public services when €40 billion was taken out in the course of the crisis. If that growth turns into recession, those same fiscal rules mean the fiscal space becomes a negative figure and more austerity is demanded by those rules, as we pointed out at the time of the fiscal treaty, so there is a crisis and then more austerity is imposed, driving a downward spiral.

The lie that the EU is democratic or a force for democracy deserves to be utterly ridiculed. We have had at least three silent coups driven by the unelected European Central Bank over the past six years. The Italian and Greek governments were removed in 2011 and both were replaced with government by bankers and for bankers, operating in the interests of bankers. Then there was the coup last year in Greece, with which, unfortunately, Tsipras was complicit. This was directed against the Syriza programme and against the 61% rejection of austerity measures. The ECB, which is responsible for the banking system in Europe, deliberately brought the Greek banking system to the brink of collapse, with the Irish Government screaming at them to pull the trigger, to try to force people to accept austerity.

These right-wing policies apply not just internally in the EU but also in its external policies. If we look at the trade deals the EU does around the world, they are designed to exploit the natural resources and workers of the global south. It is currently negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, which would be the biggest free trade deal in the world. It is a charter for corporate rights, driving a race to the bottom of the Atlantic in terms of worker, consumer and environmental rights. It would also grant corporations the right to sue states for doing anything that interferes with their right to profit.

The notion that the EU is in some sense a project for peace also does not relate to the facts we have. For example, we have the establishment of battle groups, which means the EU can field 50,000 troops anywhere in the world within five days. Article 42.3 of the Lisbon treaty sets out very clearly that, "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities." The EU has war and imperialism at its heart, rather than peace.

The resources exist within Europe to have a decent life for everybody, to have decent wages and conditions and good, quality public services for everybody, to protect the right of asylum for everybody, and for everybody to have the right to a decent home. The problem is that those resources are hoarded by a small, super-rich minority, corporations in particular, which collectively hoards €3 trillion in the EU. That wealth needs to be nationalised. That wealth, from the major financial institutions and the big corporations, needs to be taken into democratic public ownership and used in a democratically planned way to meet the needs and aspirations of people. In other words, we need a socialist Europe. A socialist Europe would be built democratically from the bottom up, without the dictatorial powers of the European Commission or the European Central Bank. That is the vision of a democratic and socialist Europe that we and socialists across Europe are fighting for.

When people go to the polls for this referendum, in Britain and in the North, there will be no option of voting for that socialist Europe. The choice is for or against this Europe - the Europe of austerity, of war and of racism. Therefore, socialists in Britain and in the North, including the Socialist Party, are campaigning against this right-wing Europe as a way of removing barriers to socialist change. They have zero in common with the right-wing Tories and UKIP members who, unfortunately, have been allowed to dominate the campaign to leave. Their vision of a more neoliberal, more anti-immigrant, more anti-worker Britain outside the EU is anathema to socialists. Instead, socialists see this as an opportunity to take out two barriers to socialist change - the Tories on one side and the European Union and its restrictive rules on the other. We are for a vote against this EU on a socialist and internationalist basis. It is not a vote for isolation, but a vote for building a democratic and socialist Europe that works for the millions instead of the millionaires.

A vote against the EU is a real possibility. If it happens, it will cause a deep crisis for Cameron and the Tories. It could also precipitate a general election, which could lead to a Corbyn-led Labour Party coming to power. If that government were to implement socialist policies in Britain, it would transform the debate about what kind of society we have, about how our wealth is used and owned, and what kind of Europe we need. It would be an important step to building the socialist Europe we need.

Regarding the debate in this country, the indications are that in the event of Brexit, IBEC would use it to try to attack and undermine wages and conditions. It has said that even the paltry 50 cent increase in the minimum wage was a mistake and that in the event of Brexit and sterling devaluation, the minimum wage could be 40% higher here than in Britain. That indicates IBEC would go on an offensive against the minimum wage and against wages in general. A strong signal should go out against that so-called Project Fear to say that IBEC should back off and that Brexit will not be accepted as a reason to attack wages and conditions. We reject that whole notion of the so-called Project Fear and we join in that struggle for a Europe not of the 1%, of the bankers, bondholders and big business, but a socialist Europe of the 99% and of the millions right across Europe.

Obviously Ireland has concerns about whether Britain stays in the EU and they are very much linked to trade. I am not convinced quite so many problems would develop around trade between Ireland and Britain if Britain were to leave the EU. Needs must and there are different ways of doing business. I think the issue would be dealt with in such a way that both countries would continue to do plenty of trade and make new agreements, which they would make work. I would not be nearly as concerned about that as some are. With regard to the EU and our role in it, I am not a nationalist. I am an internationalist and I have always liked the idea of Europe. I go there as often as I can and I love the place, but I am not so fond of the European Union any more. I do not know whether it is still so much in Ireland's interests anymore, given the nature of it.

I mentioned yesterday at the Committee on Housing and Homelessness that if we are serious about dealing with the housing crisis, we will have to tackle the EU fiscal rule that prevents us from investing in infrastructure without being pushed into the hands of public private partnerships, PPPs. Ireland, thankfully, can borrow money at less than 1% at the moment. The notion that we cannot borrow the €10 billion or so that we need if we are going to build social housing directly again, through the local authorities, at 1% but might have to pay 15 times that through a PPP just does not make sense to me. If the EU is all it is made out to be, it should recognise the fact that we have a serious crisis. We have an emergency in housing and it should give us a break from the fiscal rules in order that we can borrow about €10 billion at less than 1% to deal with our housing crisis.

If the EU does not allow that, I will have serious concerns about where it is coming from given that we are all supposed to be in this together and that it is supposed to care. The Lisbon and Nice treaties brought in measures which made things a bit more difficult for us in that area. They enhanced the powers of the private sector to make money from the states of Europe. That was worrying at the time.

I am also very concerned about the EU's role politically and its relationship with the US military machine which has not been positive and has led to the serious destruction of a huge part of the world in the Middle East and beyond. I am very worried about the poor role it has played in Palestine where we are witnessing a genocide of a people. The EU does not seem to have an awful lot to say about it, which is really disappointing. The fact that the EU has been so comfortable working with the US military machine is directly linked to our refugee problem.

Last weekend, Deputy Clare Daly, a solicitor called Gary Daly from Dublin, and I went to Calais for the weekend and spent three days there - two days in the Jungle camp in Calais and a day in Dunkirk. It is hard to be well after what we witnessed. It is hard to be well thinking about the role that the EU is playing in the issue of refugees at the moment. It is bad enough that Ireland has been complicit by allowing Shannon to be used as a US military base. We seem to be very comfortable with it - 2.5 million troops have gone through Shannon since 2001. Anyone who pretends to think that this is nothing to do with the refugee problem is living in cuckoo land. We have been complicit in the destruction of the homes of millions of people. We saw the end result of it in Calais and Dunkirk last weekend. It is just horrific where these people are today. It is horrific that the EU has played such a poor role in it. Last year, we had the release valve of Germany doing the right thing and taking close to 1 million people. They cannot do it again this year. There will be a serious problem. The EU can block all the borders it likes but the refugees will come.

In terms of the Greece-Turkey situation it will be a bit more difficult for them now there but it means there will be more of them on the Mediterranean this summer. The deal the EU did with Turkey and Greece is shameful. We met Kurds in Dunkirk. The notion that Turks will actually arrive on islands off Greece and be forced back to Turkey is beyond thinking about. We talked to a guy called Beshwar Hassan who is the head of a refugee council in Dunkirk. These people are afraid of their life of the Turks because of what the Turks have been doing to them. Today in Turkey it is possible for ISIS to get direct access to hospitals and there are special supermarkets that it can access. How in God's name could the EU take the position of allowing Turkey to play this role? We pay them for doing it. This is not the answer to the migrant problem. Turkey will make things worse for these people and it will not solve the problem that is arriving in Europe. We are still saying we will not take people who have arrived in Europe and that they will have to be assessed outside of Europe. We met kids of 11, 14 and 15 years of age, a lot of whom were Afghan. Calais is dominated by Afghans. There is a fear in Ireland that a lot of these people are terrorists and could cause trouble here. Afghanistan is in bits. The pretence that things are sorted in Afghanistan is total nonsense. We met a lot of Afghans over the weekend and most of them were running from the Taliban and from ISIS. This time last year, they reckon that there were 100 ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. Last week, they claimed that there are 10,000 of them. The Afghans that we met were at pains to point out that ISIS is now more powerful in Afghanistan than the Taliban and that the Government is a sideshow. Most of the people we met in Calais who had to run had nothing to do with the Government, the UN or the US army, but some of their cousins had. They are afraid of their life of the Taliban and ISIS, both of which said that their cousins would have to stop doing this, that or the other or that they had done this, that or the other in the past and will pay a price for it. They have had no choice but to get out of the country. They told us of an Afghan who, after spending six months in Calais, just could not take it anymore. He had mentally had enough of it and decided that he was just going to hand himself in and go home. He went home and was dead in two weeks. It is not a safe country to return anyone who has run out of the place. It is out of the question. I think the Irish Government should look at the camps in Calais and Dunkirk. We have met many good people there - people who have a lot to add to society here. It would be such a gesture to go over there, process people, take them from these camps and bring them to Ireland to settle them. It would mean so much and it would be a beautiful thing to do.

Most of the focus of the debate has been on trade and our trade with the European Union and the UK. We recognise that we are a small open economy and that our biggest trading partners are the UK and the US for historical and emotional reasons and because we have a shared language. There is no doubt that it is of critical importance if we want people to stay at work and to have people to trade with. Clearly we are not a big enough country to be self-sustaining in terms of producing for ourselves and that being sufficient to run the economy. The Social Democrats would prefer for the UK to continue to be part of the European Union, but a changed European Union. We would prefer to see the UK address its concerns as a member state.

The European Union has changed since the EEC. We have shared additional sovereignty and made different agreements over the years, which were not always honestly sold. Most of the treaties, such as the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty, were sold to people here on the basis of how much we would get in monetary terms rather than what, in fact, those treaties meant. I suspect that now that we are more a net contributor than a net recipient, it is part of the reason why people will look more critically and why it has been more difficult to have treaties passed, because people are more likely to look at what the treaty is about.

There is an influential sociologist called Jürgen Habermas, some of whose work and writings I am fond of reading. At the time of the debt crisis, people were not highly critical of the European Union until they saw how crisis management happened but he made a comment regarding the euro in an argument that equally could be made about the migrant crisis. He stated:

The actual course of the crisis management is pushed and implemented in the first place by the large camp of pragmatic politicians who pursue an incrementalist agenda but lack a comprehensive perspective. They are oriented towards “More Europe” because they want to avoid the far more dramatic and presumably costly alternative of abandoning the euro.

Much fear and insecurity has been evident in the debates that have taken place here, such as the debate on the fiscal treaty. The point Deputy Wallace makes regarding housing is interesting and is one to which I subscribe. While one is told it is necessary to grow the economy and to be competitive, it is impossible to be competitive in the absence of affordable housing or modern public transport systems that address issues of how people move and which adhere to our climate obligations. At the same time, the fiscal rules prevent us from borrowing the money to do this. Ireland must increase its population because it is not large enough to pay pensions into the future, as its ratio of people at work to dependants is out of sync with its ability to so do. Nevertheless, these restrictions are preventing us from doing the very things we must do, were we taking a longer or a more collective view from the perspective of what the European Union should be in its totality. Consequently, it is not simply a question of considering this issue from a perspective of self-interest or with regard to the interests between Ireland and Britain. We must consider this in the context of the kind of Europe we seek and advocate for Britain to remain in a different kind of Europe, because this Europe has been one of intergovernmentalism and of nations' self-interest. It has not been a Europe of solidarity and certainly has not been a democratic Europe. I accept fully there have been benefits with regard to workers' rights, which would not have been put in place without Ireland being told of its obligation to have equal pay for equal work. I was at work on the day on which I was paid the same as a person beside me who did the same job. It is a day one remembers and it was shameful it required the European Union to more or less insist we did this. Certainly, women's rights and environmental improvements have been as a consequence of the European Union. Undoubtedly, if one considers this in a balanced way, there are pluses and minuses.

From an Irish perspective, there is no doubt but there is a degree of self-interest we must consider. As has already been pointed out, Ireland is the only country within the European Union in this context with which there is a land border. Most of us who encountered that Border when it was a hard Border will be aware it is not merely about it being a barrier to trade. It is a physical reminder of the division of our country, which has been less pronounced by virtue of the absence of a hard land Border. This is not a minor issue because it has an impact when one arrives at the Border only to be asked by somebody, perhaps a young guy who happens to be dressed in an army uniform, where one is going. Moreover, we cannot be sure this will not be the case. The Border issue is important both from that point of view and with regard to the time it would take people to cross were a hard Border post put in place. In addition, consideration must be given to the land bridge issue and Ireland's access to the rest of the European Union, were Britain required to set up customs posts in Liverpool, Holyhead, Dover or wherever. This would give rise to a real issue with regard to delays, trade, tariffs and many other similar matters. I do not doubt but there is the prospect of a real problem for Irish trade in this regard.

I remember that when the Lisbon treaty was being debated, several of the great and good from the European institutions arrived to instruct us what to do. I must state this nearly sent people the other way. Can we please be respectful in this regard, as the people of Britain have an entitlement to make that decision for themselves? It certainly is important to introduce valid arguments in the case of people perhaps not completely understanding or perhaps having not factored in the idea of the possibility of the Border or the issues of tariffs, that is, practical matters. However, one thing we should not do is to lecture any other country on how it should vote in an election. If any country can state how that felt, Ireland probably is the best place because we were obliged to do it twice in respect of two different treaties. I do not merely seek a debate about our relationship with Britain regarding Brexit, as we must have a different debate about the European Union. Serious practical issues exist as to how Ireland is hamstrung by decisions, some of which were self-interested, that have been made regarding wealthy people and more powerful states. I believe this is shaping the view Irish people have of the European Union, which is a matter that must be addressed.

On behalf of the Green Party, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to set out some of our thoughts and, if I may, to take a wide and long-term perspective. This is because Members present are engaging with a decision to be made across the Irish Sea of historic consequences and they must think in the long term and must consider the bigger picture regarding their commentary and advice in that regard. It is interesting in itself and I cannot help thinking of an Irish Parliament advising the United Kingdom to stay in a Union. If one goes back to 1800 and the passage of the Act of Union here, it is strange that 216 years later, pretty much all Members - perhaps with some exceptions - are advocating they should not go but should stay in the Union, while a Tory-led campaign on the other side is advocating a break-up of the Union. This is the sort of perspective Members must consider. If one takes that timeline and considers what happened in the interim - I will not go through the full annals of Irish history and the injustices done in the 19th century - it is clear that what happened in the world during the 19th century was an inability to manage the industrial revolution that was developing in the United Kingdom in particular and in the rest of Europe, as well as an inability to manage the inequities in the relative power balances between capital and labour. The consequences of our inability to do this became evident in the 20th century in the form of demagoguery, fascism and the wars that wreaked such havoc in Europe during the first half of that century.

Obviously, the central story of the European Union is that it was established as a Union in response to the horror and the failure of the European Continent to manage the Industrial Revolution and the changes that came with it. This is how one must consider from where the roots of the Union came. It was not simply in Europe as in its establishment of the National Health Service, the United Kingdom obviously took a similar response. It took time for the United Kingdom, together with Ireland, to join the European Union but there was the same experience in the United States with the introduction of the GI Bill. There was a general collective consciousness, as it were, within the political system that the development of societies must be managed in a fairer, more equitable way. If one takes a long-term perspective, any assessment would be that the European Union has achieved internally a level of peace.

Moreover, after the Cold War eventually came to an end, that the first and immediate priority of ten of the eastern countries was to join the European Union says something in itself. Even in recent years, despite the many failings of our Union, the fact that most countries on our borders are looking to join says something that we should be conscious and aware of in terms of our assessment, or any assessment I would recommend to the UK, of how that Union is working.

I share some of the comments of colleagues who spoke earlier. Without doubt, it is not a perfect union. It is a union that failed in many ways. When looking at the bigger picture and the balance between the control and power of capitalism versus labour, the Union itself lost its way. The expression of that was clear during the financial crashes of 2008. Across the western world, we had put excessive faith in the power of markets and competition to deliver our needs. The European Union institutions failed. Anyone who has worked closely with the Union sees that the competition commissioner dominates all. Europe cannot be blind to the fact that the European Union in Brussels has 30,000 civil servants - a very compact and capable civil service - who are matched by 30,000 lobbyists, most of them coming with a business perspective. There are, therefore, failings in our Union.

We saw it here as much as any country. The lack of community in the response to the financial crisis was perhaps the biggest failing. We went back to the old style 19th century and early 20th century deals where France and Germany thought they could sit down together and work out the issue. We should be conscious of that and other failings. There is the continued failure within the European Union on the migration crisis. It is a failure of lack of community. We are not strong when we are not united. There are several examples. When one looks at the failings, a lack of union rather than excess union is what is behind many of them. A further failing is the failure in our western European approach to work and connect with the rest of the world in a way that is fair. The UK and French Governments seem to have a particular historical attraction to thinking that one can effect or lever international peace through war. What happened in Iraq and Libya in recent years are recent examples of how we still seem to have not learned the lesson about how we as a wealthy Continent connect to the world in an effective way.

Our union has failings but the response has to be to change the Union rather than leave it. To take the big picture again, if we want to create a secure future for our people, the response should be to see the biggest challenge of our day is not just to re-regulate and rebalance the balance between capital and labour but also to recognise there is a third element which should dominate our thinking in so many different ways. That third element is how we should manage our natural capital and live in an integrated way in this world with each other and with the natural world. To do that, we need the Union. Otherwise, we will not be able to do it. The very nature of how that capital works is that it does not recognise borders. It does not work in that 19th century, reductionist way. We now know and have a more ecological understanding of the world and how we and the whole system are interconnected.

We need our union because we need to regulate international capitalism. No country in the European Union is strong enough on its own. If one works in digital tech systems and so on, where a revolution is happening, one realises the Union itself is barely big enough to control and shape it. However, at least we have the size to try. This country on its own would not be able to do it. If we break off, split and have a much smaller Union, we will not have the ability we need to regulate international finance. We will not be able to regulate the Internet in a way that makes it citizen-centred, empowers citizens and brings up and opens the opportunities the digital revolution brings.

More than anything else and taking that historical perspective, Europe was the cradle of the first industrial revolution but we will not be the centre of the new, clean energy industrial revolution unless we work together. We will not have the necessary scale, investment or capabilities if we split. That new industrial revolution will happen in China or the US. We will be followers. We will be buying our hardware from Asia and our software from the US and we will be diminished as a people.

We therefore have this task to change the Union. As stated by our President, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, in a speech he gave to the Irish Association of Contemporary European Studies at the Royal Irish Academy earlier this week, our task extends to developing "solidarity within the Union and solidarity in the wider world". Our task is to use that undoubted revolution to be hyper-efficient in everything we do, recognising that we, the wealthiest 20% of people in the world, can no longer assume that we will consume 80% of the resources. We have to let the rest of the world rise out of poverty and maintain our standard of living by using these new revolutions taking place in digital and clean energy systems so that our people have a peaceful and secure future.

If Britain leaves, it will have less influence on how that works. If it leaves, its union will be broken up, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland heading in a different direction. Deputy Catherine Murphy might think it might turn in to some socialist idyll if Britain were to leave, but I fear it would turn into some weird tax haven, like Singapore, in the north-west Atlantic. I do not believe it will work. If Britain leaves, Ireland will be worse off. It will be Ireland further divided. In this the 100 year anniversary of the foundation of our State, I cannot help but think all the time about how we have failed in allowing our island to be divided and having not brought back that great Scottish, Presbyterian, dissenting, Republican tradition and connected it more closely with ourselves. I do not want to see an island further divided if Britain leaves the European Union.

If Britain leaves, Ireland will be worse off because there will be an economic shock. Too much of our emphasis here is on the trade and economic aspects but they are real. It would be significant at a time when we are just getting over the worst of it. I do not want to see our country trip into another recession. If Britain leaves, we will lose an ally that we need. We have a good relationship with this country. We all know it. We are strong now in our independence. We are strong and confident in our own sense of identity. That comes with supporting British soccer teams, as needs be, if they are playing the right type of football.

In our most difficult time, in 2008, Britain was an ally. I experienced and was closely involved in it. Britain pumped approximately €20 billion into our banks, a sum that not many take into account in the calculus of what went on then. When things got really tough around that time with the troika, Britain was close and helped. It did not go into a distant working arrangement. We need to hold that ally and it needs not to fear. As the President again said:

we should not allow [our] best informed pessimism to petrify our will to act and think daringly ... what is required [now] is no less than the paradigm shift, a theoretical leap in our scholarship ... we [need to] breathe new life into the enabling and inspiring principle of solidarity [as I said, both within the union and in the wider world].

As he says, we need to express "our humanity itself in a sustainable way and [save our] collective future". That is what is at stake here. We must not trip up and make the mistakes we made in the 19th century and which led to the war in the 20th century.

I will be writing to my first cousins. I have ten of them in the UK. We have to be sensitive in how we tell them to vote. However, I will be writing to them. Perhaps I will send them a tune with the immortal words of one Irish song. It is a beautiful spring day here in Dublin. It is good to be alive:

There’s a smell of fresh cut grass

And it’s filling up my senses

And the sun is shining down on the blossoms in the avenue.

There’s a buzzing fly hanging

Around the bluebells and the daisies

And there’s a lot more loving left in this world.

[So] Don’t go.

Don’t leave [us] now...

Stick around and laugh a while.

They had to shut down the Berlaymont after they did that video, through the Chair.

Deputy Eamon Ryan was just short of the guitar. I thank the group leaders and the party leaders for their contributions. I wish to observe, before I call on the Minister, that we have run significantly over time. This is understandable, but could those involved in ordering the business have some regard in the future to the fact that adequate time should be provided for the opening contributions from leaders?

I call the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, who has 15 minutes, as have all subsequent speakers.

I listened to the contribution of Deputy Eamon Ryan of the Green Party. It is on occasions such as this that we all welcome the Green Party back to the Parliament. I wish him and his colleagues success during the lifetime of the Thirty-second Dáil. I enjoyed the Deputy's comments.

With nine weeks to go to polling in the UK, it is important that we have an opportunity to debate what for us is a vital strategic interest. As the referendum draws closer, I would like to set out the Government’s core policy and actions in this area, as well as my hopes for active engagement in this debate by as many people as possible across Britain and Ireland. I also wish to take this opportunity to address the issues relating to Northern Ireland and the Border.

We believe Ireland has a unique perspective and interest in the outcome of the referendum for a number of reasons and from various standpoints, including as a fellow EU member state, as a neighbour sharing a land border, as a partner in transforming British-Irish relations in recent years, as co-partner in our €62 billion per year trading relationship, which is growing, and as facilitators and co-guarantors of successive agreements aimed at securing peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland. Given this context and progress, the Government has been actively expressing the view that we believe British-Irish relations are better served by the UK remaining in the EU. I know from my own contacts, including with my UK counterpart, Philip Hammond, and British Labour Party parliamentarians, that Irish voices are welcome in the debate and that said debate is richer when there is an opportunity to hear different perspectives as voters seek to become informed between now and 23 June. However, I wish to stress that we fully respect that the question of whether the UK remains a member or leaves the EU is ultimately for its electorate to decide. I reiterate that the clear position of the Government is that, irrespective of the outcome of the British referendum, Ireland will remain a committed member of the European Union and the eurozone.

In terms of the importance of the UK's EU membership to Ireland, this can perhaps be broken down into three areas. The first of these is the economy. Successive studies have shown that there would be an adverse impact on the British economy and, in turn, its Irish counterpart if the UK leaves the EU. Not a single study has indicated that the overall impact could or would be positive. Earlier this week, the UK Treasury published a comprehensive report which concluded that the UK economy would be "permanently poorer" in any scenario should the country leave the EU. In terms of bilateral trade, over €1.2 billion in goods and services are traded between our countries every week. Anything that might get in the way of this seamless flow of goods, services, capital and people would be regressive. Any negative effect on UK GDP will spill over to Ireland and have adverse consequences.

The second area of importance is the Northern Ireland dimension, which is a critical concern for the Government and for me, as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. The EU has been an important, if often low-profile, factor in sustaining peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. It provides a broader and benign context for relations on these islands. Much-needed funding, including through programmes such as PEACE and INTERREG, will provide almost €3 billion in the six years to 2020. In essence, North-South co-operation is far more straightforward when both jurisdictions are members of the same Union.

The final area of importance is the EU itself, its historic achievements and its wider goals for the future. As Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am acutely aware of the conflicts and violence in many parts of the world, including near the borders of the EU. However, in a year when we will commemorate the centenary of the Battle of the Somme, where so many Irish soldiers lost their lives, it is important to reflect on the origins of the EU and on the peace, stability and prosperity that this has delivered for our continent. As has been said many times before, the EU is, at heart, a peace process, and it is one that must succeed.

The UK and Ireland joined the EU at the same time and over the 43 years since our accession it has been clear that, for historical and cultural reasons, we share many common perspectives on policy matters. The UK is an important voice at the table in Brussels. We want that voice to continue to be heard. We are allies on many of the key challenges facing the EU, above all on economic issues. We want to ensure that the EU is competitive, with a fully functioning Single Market, including in the digital area. We want a sustained focus on completing trade agreements with our global partners. The withdrawal of the UK would shift the balance of opinion within the Union on these issues. More broadly, it would weaken the Union in substance and reputationally at a time of serious challenges. This is a view shared by partners around the world, including the US Administration. I heard it directly when hosting the British and US ambassadors at a business event in Iveagh House earlier this week.

The Government and its diplomatic teams in Britain, Northern Ireland, Brussels and across the EU have been very active on this issue since the moment Prime Minister David Cameron signalled his support for a referendum as far back as 2013. The momentum of this work has never eased at any stage, with work continuing at official level across Government during the recent general election campaign. Our first core objective was to help to get agreement on a settlement package for the UK which would be acceptable to all EU partners, and which would enable Prime Minister David Cameron to recommend and campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. The Taoiseach was heavily involved in working to secure such an outcome at the February European Council. With that agreement reached, the focus turned to the referendum. In tandem with EU negotiations, since 2013 we have also been systematically setting out the Irish case for the UK remaining in the EU. The Taoiseach set out Ireland’s position in keynote addresses in Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as with Prime Minister David Cameron during their regular summit meetings.

For my part, I have addressed influential audiences at Chatham House, the European Council for Foreign Relations in London, the British-Irish Association in Oxford and Cambridge, Queen’s University in Belfast, the University of Edinburgh and many audiences here at home. I have also promoted the Irish perspective in media interviews, including with Irish community-focused media across the UK. During these engagements - and in meetings with the UK Foreign Secretary, the Scottish Government, party leaders in the UK and many other stakeholders - the Irish Government perspective has been welcomed and valued. At all stages I, along with Government colleagues, diplomats and officials, have ensured regular contact with the Irish communities across Britain and it is to these communities that we now appeal for participation in this vital decision for all of us. I say this because under UK electoral laws Irish citizens resident in the UK are eligible to vote in the referendum. I take this opportunity to reiterate my call on those eligible to please register to vote and inform themselves on the issue. I hope everyone inside and outside this House will play their part in echoing that call. The British Embassy has estimated that at least 120,000 British citizens living in Ireland will be eligible to vote and I welcome and support the active outreach efforts undertaken by it in encouraging such citizens living here to register and vote. Ambassador Chilcott updated me on the progress of this campaign at an engagement in earlier this week.

During my most recent visit to London on 5 April, I met with over 30 Irish community organisations and encouraged them to inform and involve their members, most of whom, as Irish citizens resident in the UK, are eligible to vote in this referendum. Last week I met a cross-section of Irish employers and business groups to hear their views on the referendum and what actions they were taking. I was heartened to hear some of them talk of plans to hold meetings of their UK-based staff and would encourage others to do the same.

Our own particular experiences with EU referendums over the years mean that we are acutely conscious of what is at stake in a referendum such as that facing UK voters. We are also very much aware of the challenges of engaging and motivating voters. The Irish business community, which is in regular contact with UK partners, has an important role to play in communicating its concerns and points of view across a range of issues dealing with what is at stake. The Irish interest in referendums is also visible in the UK, where some leading individuals in the Irish community have come together to form an independent campaign group, lrish4Europe, some of the representatives of which I met during my recent visit to London.

They told me they are open to anyone who wishes to help them with their important work, both on the ground in Britain and also through contacts from home to relatives in the UK. In this context, I also welcome European Movement Ireland’s “Phone a Friend” registration drive which was launched earlier this week.

In Northern Ireland, I and my officials have discussed the referendum with politicians and with civic society groups, in particular by underlining our view that the EU has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. The fact that Ireland and the UK have both been members of the EU for 43 years has provided a shared, valuable and reassuring context for the people of Northern Ireland, whether they consider themselves Irish or British, or both. There is also the valuable EU funding and the fact the island as a whole is currently within the EU Single Market. The Border between North and South is an open border between two EU member states, with all that has to offer. Today, this practically invisible Border is a major symbol of normalisation and development in North-South co-operation. Any implications for the current Border arrangements would only arise if the UK voted to leave and, in that event, its future would depend heavily on the terms and conditions of a new relationship between the UK and the EU. In other words, the Border’s destiny would not be determined by the sole wishes of the Irish and British Governments. The outcome would be the result of a wider negotiation involving all of the EU and, therefore, nobody can say with certainty that nothing will change with the Border if the UK votes to leave the EU.

If anyone needs proof of that uncertainty, they need only look at two official reports published in recent months by the UK Government. The UK Treasury report on the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives states:

Outside the EU customs union, goods being exported across the border could be subject to various forms of customs controls and their liability to duty determined according to complex rules of origin. This would affect the current high level of cross-border activity and trade flows.

Another earlier report from the UK Cabinet Office referred to implications for the Border and for EU funding. It stated:

...if the UK left the EU, these arrangements could be put at risk. It is not clear that the Common Travel Area could continue to operate with the UK outside the EU, and Ireland inside, in the same way that it did before both countries joined the EU in 1973.

Of course, in the event that the UK voted to leave the EU, customs posts would not be set up overnight. A negotiation period of two years or more would apply. Ireland would work hard with the UK and with all our EU partners to avoid customs posts being established and to preserve the benefits of the common travel area as a whole.

As regards contingency planning more widely, the Government continues to deepen its understanding and analysis of the impact of a possible British exit from the EU. The Government commissioned important economic research on the issue and valuable work has been carried out by the Central Bank, the NTMA, Teagasc and bodies such as IBEC and the IIEA. However, I wish to repeat that the full implications for Ireland cannot be assessed without knowing the terms and conditions of the future relationship between the UK and the EU, which would in all likelihood take several years to negotiate.

The referendum is still ahead of us. Some 46 million voters are entitled to cast their vote and it is solely in their hands on 23 June. Our task between now and then is to put forward our view to those who may factor the Irish dimension into their decision, whether they are Irish citizens, people with close links to Ireland or members of the British public who want to be reassured that they have partners and friends in Europe. This is a task for all of us here in Ireland. I hope this debate in Dáil Éireann will demonstrate a large consensus among the people’s representatives across the floor of this House, a consensus that Ireland wants the UK to stay in the European Union - in our own interests, in the interests of Irish-British relations and in the interests of the EU as a whole.

In 1973, both Ireland and Britain joined what was then known as the European Economic Community. In the years that have followed, both countries have undergone a dramatic transformation, in many parts thanks to membership of the European Union. In the Republic, Structural Funds have vastly improved our infrastructure, the Common Agricultural Policy has been a key catalyst in the enormous and welcome development of our agrifood sector, while the Single Market opened up new countries in which to trade, study, travel and work. Furthermore, we have benefited greatly from our position within Europe as an attractive location for foreign direct investment.

The Republic has also experienced a social revolution. As a result of our membership, Ireland is now a more diverse, plural and open place to live, study and work. The EU has been at the helm of innovative and transformative policies that have enhanced social, cultural and legal rights in Ireland, introducing measures such as equal pay for equal work and promoting the rights of people with disabilities. The Organisation of Working Time Act, for example, put into law rights for workers in regard to the maximum number of working hours, entitlement to rest breaks and so on, while the Equal Status Act outlawed discrimination on nine grounds, including gender, race and religion. As a consequence of our membership, the Republic of Ireland has been transformed from a primarily agrarian and insular society to a progressive, dynamic and outward-looking country and the EU has played a significant part in the modernisation of Irish social policy.

The benefits of EU membership are also visible in Northern Ireland. Much of the social, cultural and economic functioning between North and South, and between Ireland and Britain, is simplified by the fact that both are EU members, which has allowed us to forge common bonds at EU level and to foster good working relationships. Undoubtedly, the positive relationships and common bonds developed at EU level were and continue to be central to the workings of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. I know from my own limited experience as a Cabinet Minister attending Council of Ministers meetings that, in many instances, the British are our closest and best allies. We may have very fundamental differences in some areas, be it CAP or otherwise, but on most issues that come before the EU we are close allies. EU funds have played an integral role in facilitating peace and improving relations on the island of Ireland. These funds have been used to support peace and reconciliation initiatives and cross-Border projects, as well as addressing the disparities that arise from peripherality, which are all the more acute in the Border regions.

It is 43 years since Ireland and Britain embarked on this journey. As I said, much has changed in those years. Now a bloc of 28 countries, Europe as a whole holds considerable sway in international affairs. The EU derives its visibility and influence on the world stage to a large extent from its unity on subjects such as its trade policy but also on terrorism, crime and illegal trafficking. As we know, crime and terrorism know no borders and the EU works collectively to address threats to our peace and security. Unfortunately, we have seen the difficulties in that area in recent times. The EU supports actions intended to increase operational co-operation, such as strengthening networking, information sharing, mutual confidence and understanding. The EU also works closely with other international organisations such as the United Nations and has positively positioned itself as a key player in the developing world, assisting some of the most vulnerable people in some of the poorest regions on this planet.

A recent report published by the ESRI highlights the possible economic implications of Brexit for Ireland across four areas: trade, foreign direct investment, energy and migration.

The findings make for sobering reading and it is clear from the report that the consequences for the entire island are indeed far-reaching and wide-ranging. Among the findings of the report is an estimation that a Brexit could reduce bilateral trade flows between Ireland and Britain by 20% or more. Less foreign direct investment is likely to result in slower economic growth in Britain, which in turn would impact negatively on Ireland's economic growth. The report also refers to the all-island electricity market that has existed since 2007. If the electricity market in Britain remains independent of the rest of the European Union, interconnection with Britain only would leave Ireland vulnerable to any problems in the British market.

The report also refers to migration and underscores that a British exit from the EU opens up the possibility of restrictions on the free movement of people between Ireland and Britain for the purposes of work. As we all know, Britain has long been a destination for many Irish people seeking work, especially during times of high unemployment. An exit from the EU could have significant repercussions for the Irish labour market. The findings of the ESRI report are stark and underscore the seriousness of the issue.

The referendum will take place on 23 June. It is clear that we need to give a major impetus to a national conversation on the implications of Brexit and what it would mean not only for Ireland but for the European Union as a whole. If Britain were to leave the EU, the nature of the most successful transnational organisation ever created would be irrevocably changed. Fianna Fáil believes that a far greater awareness needs to be created throughout the country of the gravity of this issue in respect of trade, employment, tourism, free movement and Northern Ireland, since Britain is our nearest neighbour and our largest trading partner. If Britain votes to leave the EU, the knock-on effects would be felt throughout the country but in particular in the Border area. This includes my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan where serious consequences would be felt.

As has been stated earlier, in particular, by the Fianna Fáil party leader, Deputy Micheál Martin, we must re-establish EU solidarity. This is vital if we are to convince Britain and Northern Ireland to remain part of the European Union. The normal EU spirit of solidarity and co-operation between member states is best illustrated in the Border region. PEACE funding has been vital in supporting the fledgling agreement framework. Co-operation between Ireland and Britain has been the engine of the Good Friday Agreement. Our role as co-guarantors binds us together. Those links were forged in the common ground of the European Union and they need to last. Breaking this link by a unilateral British and Northern Ireland withdrawal would deal an immense blow to our capacity to work together. We must do everything we can to safeguard Ireland's political and economic future. Fianna Fáil has been and will continue to be vocal in supporting Britain remaining as a full member of the EU.

Britain has a population of 64 million people and GDP of £3,000 billion, making it the second-largest EU member state in population and economic terms. Britain is Ireland's most important trading partner. Importantly, our exports to Britain are wide-ranging with the computing, chemical, pharmaceutical and agrifood sectors being the most prominent. Irish agrifood exports to Britain represent approximately one third of Ireland's total merchandise exports to that country. Therefore, Brexit represents a major concern to the Irish agrifood sector. In 2014, Ireland exported €4.5 million worth of agrifood products to Britain, primarily in the form of beef and dairy products and processed food. Any impediment to this trade would have major knock-on effects on the entire farming and agrifood sectors. At present there is no certainty in respect of the loss in Irish agrifood export value. Obviously, this would depend on Britain's future trading relationship with the 27 other member states of the European Union as well as the direction of British agricultural policy, both of which remain unknown. Some commentary by the leave campaigners suggests there is a ready-made trading arrangement should Britain exit the EU. This is blatantly false since an exit from the EU would necessitate a new trade deal.

A recent economic report outlined clearly that Brexit would have a bigger impact on Northern Ireland than England Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland agriculture policy would be most under threat due to its dependence on transfers from the Common Agricultural Policy to support the farming sector there. Davy Group stockbrokers has estimated that sterling could drop by up to 25%, which would have major ramifications in respect of trade between Britain and the eurozone area. Fianna Fáil is committed to creating a cross-Border economic development zone to promote job creation in the Border counties. European support will be vital in this regard. North-South links in the areas of education, health, justice and enterprise have always been framed and assisted by our common membership of the EU. The prospect and necessity for further economic development based on the all-island model would be dealt a serious blow with the prospect of new border regulations from Derry to Dundalk and co-operation would be adversely affected.

The Irish and British labour markets are heavily integrated and our relationship with Britain in that respect is markedly different from continental European countries. Historical ties, common language, ease of travel and social networks reflect emigration by earlier generations, and enterprise integration in Ireland and Britain facilitates this movement of labour. The common travel area established in the 1920s is of particular importance to both countries. In effect, we have a special relationship, including passport-free travel and the sharing of immigration data between both countries' immigration authorities. Brexit could entirely change these relationships which date back almost a century. There would be adverse effects on the labour market and on trade and tourism. I believe that it is absolutely incorrect for the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Ms Theresa Villiers, to state that in the event of a Brexit, the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland would remain unchanged. The question must be posed as to how she can make that claim. It should be fairly clear that there are no other external EU borders that do not come with concrete border controls. While Britain and Ireland may have a special relationship, Ireland's relationship with the EU will require it to protect the EU's borders. We could be sure that in the event of Brexit, the State would be pressurised by the European Union to establish border controls along the EU's external border. We need to be cognisant of a British Cabinet Office report which found that in the event of a British exit from the EU, the re-introduction of customs controls on the Border would swiftly follow. That would mean a major security presence along the Border. The Northern Ireland Secretary of State referred subsequently to common-sense arrangements being established. We all know that it is often hard to build common-sense arrangements into international agreements. How would we write those regulations? We would be in a totally new situation as the only land frontier between Britain and a European Union state. It is also worth noting the comments of a senior pro-Brexit figure, the former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson. He said categorically that Irish Border posts would have to follow a British withdrawal. He was supported in his remarks by another eurosceptic Conservative member and junior minister Mr. Crabb. In the event of a vote to leave the EU, the timing of Britain's departure is also unknown. Let us consider the chaos and bureaucracy associated with the winding down of the EU programmes in Britain. Many EU programmes such as CAP run to 2020. How does a sector disengage from those programmes while at the same time forging new trading relationships?

This British referendum on EU membership and any resultant negotiations mark a potentially defining shift in British-Irish relations.

The prospect of a fresh wall of regulation being built between Derry and Newry would deal a massive blow to years of efforts on cross-Border reconciliation and growth. A British exit from the EU would remove the common ground that facilitated much of the progress in Northern Ireland. Ireland cannot afford its largest trading partner and only state with which it shares a land border to leave the EU. While not participating in the referendum in other jurisdictions, we as a party wish to see a vote that will ensure Great Britain and Northern Ireland remain in the Union. I believe there is an obligation on all of us in public life to make our position clear

As a person who grew up in a Border parish and who lived beside permanent vehicle checkpoints and customs posts, I do not want them to return to our island. The message needs to be clear about the potential damage to our country, from an economic point of view and from a social point of view and from the point of view of all of us going about our daily business, of the difficulties, hindrances and obstacles that would become part of our normal day-to-day living. Thankfully, today along the Border in south Ulster, there is a huge movement of people between counties Cavan and Monaghan and Fermanagh and Armagh to work and vice versa as well as along the Border between counties Derry and Donegal and counties Down and Louth. We have to ensure those people do not face the obstacle of customs posts and other controls while they go about their daily business.

I had the privilege of speaking at the SDLP party conference last month on this issue. We need society to be engaged. I am glad most of the political parties in Northern Ireland are active in a campaign to seek support to remain in the Union but I am disappointed that the DUP, which gains widespread support from the farming community, is advocating a "No" vote. The Minister will be aware, as will anybody who has the privilege of serving in government, that on a weekly basis, Government representatives at official level and at political level support the Northern Ireland administration as well Northern Irish farmers and fishermen and other sectors to derive the best benefits from the EU. Often, the people of Northern Ireland depend on our Ministers to champion their cause at the Council of Ministers. We want, as a State, to continue to do that work.

I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on the upcoming Brexit referendum, which has the potential to cause major changes, not just in the relationship between Britain and Ireland, but in relationships on the island of Ireland, in the event of a "Yes" vote to leave the European Union. As I am sure Members will be well aware, Sinn Féin's approach to engagement with the European Union is a critical one. We have made that position clear over the years of troika interference in the affairs of the State and in various EU referenda that have been put before the people over the past two decades. Our view is not, as some might portray, a position of blanket opposition for the sake of it, nor is it one, like the "Leave" position, borne out of a narrow nationalism driven by UKIP and the hard right of the Conservative Party in the UK.

Sinn Féin wants a different kind of EU. We want a social Europe constructed, where the undemocratic aspects of the current European architecture are reformed, and in which citizens and sovereign national parliaments have a greater say in formulating positive policy positions within the Union; and we want a Europe of equals, of partnership and solidarity in which member states in times of adversity work together in the spirit of internationalist co-operation to tackle problems we face collectively, and to work together to build opportunity and prosperity for citizens of our shared region. Whether that is when member states face economic difficulties, or when hundreds of thousands of displaced people look for our assistance as a prosperous and peaceful region of the world, a social Europe is possible. Over the past decade, the EU has clearly not lived up to that vision but the prospect that part of our nation could end up outside the Union while the other part stays in is not a situation we wish to see. That will be the question facing millions of voters in Britain and in the North on 23 June when citizens go to the polls to decide whether or not to leave the EU.

The referendum was proposed just over three years ago by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, under pressure from the likes of Nigel Farage and the hard right wing of his Tory party. He said at the time that unprecedented levels of immigration were "undermining support for the EU" in Britain. There were also issues for the Tories surrounding welfare payments to migrants, closer EU co-operation and increasing political union among EU states. Two months ago, Cameron agreed a compromise deal which he claims meets his demands around reducing welfare and child benefit payments to migrants, provides for the ability to curb immigration to Britain and rejects closer political links within the Union. Such pronouncements are a clear illustration that the case for Brexit is not motivated or sustained by an alternative based on better strategies and policies, or democratic reform, but is rather the product of a growth of narrow, inward looking nationalism linked to conservative, Tory ideological interests and an unwillingness to assist in tackling the refugee crisis that Europe faces.

Mar atá ráite ag mo chomhghleacaithe, an Teachta Munster, tá an reifreann seo tar éis titim amach de bharr bogadh suntasach go leor i dtreo an eite dheis i bpolaitíocht na Breataine, ach tá impleachtaí suntasacha ansin do mhuintir an Tuaiscirt chomh maith.

This month was the 18th anniversary of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, which has led to a transformation in relations between Ireland and Britain, and between North and South. Due to this Agreement, the Border is now in many respects irrelevant. Families, farmers, tourists and business people travel freely and frequently, which is good for peace and for prosperity. The political and economic implications for our island if the likes of Boris Johnson, Arlene Foster and Jim Allister persuade voters to back Brexit are enormous. It could have potentially devastating political, social, economic and cultural consequences, particularly in the Border region. The Secretary of State recently ridiculed concerns that Brexit would lead to controls being imposed at our border. However, given all other such borders with the EU are marked by checkpoints and controls, why would our border necessarily be any different? The return of any form of border control would be a devastating blow to Border communities and would undermine the massive political progress that has been made to break down barriers on the island.

Indeed, Brexit could present the most serious economic challenge to the Border region since partition. More than €1 billion is traded each week in goods and services between this State, the North and Britain. Much of this is agricultural produce, amounting to €150 million each day in trade. In the North, the end of the single farm payment would result in a loss of €2.5 billion to farmers, and Britain exiting the EU would mean an end to the Rural Development Fund, a loss of €1 billion in Structural Funds and dedicated funding towards the PEACE scheme, which has been helping to reconcile communities on both sides of the Border since the Good Friday Agreement. The Secretary of State has refused to answer whether the British Government would replace funding lost to the North as a consequence of withdrawal by the British state from the EU and that is a significant cause of concern to farmers and communities in the North. Our fear is that no British Government will make up the gap in vital funding that Brexit would create.

Tá go leor imní ann go gciallóidh vóta i bhfábhar an AE a fhágáil go lagófaí cearta daonna, agus go mbeidh impleachtaí suntasacha ag an vóta sin don Tuaisceart ó thaobh ceisteanna slándála, póilíneachta agus próis chuí sna cúirteanna. In particular, the danger that the ability to use the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a defence against regressive or punitive British legislation would be removed. Prime Minister David Cameron's stated intention - it was part of the Tory Party manifesto and very passionately expounded by very many of its candidates during the campaign - is to repeal the Human Rights Act. The Good Friday Agreement has a commitment to equivalent human rights protection North and South of the Border, so it would be endangered in that regard.

The chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has stated that the repeal of the Human Rights Act "would have negative consequences for the uniformity of human rights standards across these islands". That would again have an impact on the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. The directors of Amnesty International in Britain and Ireland have expressed "deep concern" and warned that repeal of the Act could undercut "public confidence in the political and policing arrangements that stem from the Good Friday Agreement". Needless to say, considerable work was done to create any level of confidence in the policing structures and the criminal justice system, and that could be damaged in repealing the Act.

I underscore my comments by saying that our attitude to Europe remains critical. It is an institution not without achievements but it is our belief that is not adequately democratic and that it has, along with the International Monetary Fund, facilitated vicious austerity programmes and influenced changes of regime in places such as Italy and Greece not consistent with ordinary democracy. Policy is directed primarily by a detached and disconnected Commission and it tends in a direction that has been for some time towards the right. Nonetheless, in responding to some other arguments, that is not an adequate argument to support a referendum that will ultimately lead to vandalisation of Britain's human rights obligations and will not see one iota of progress towards a social Europe. It will have significant implications for Ireland. Ultimately, this will be decide by a vote but we should not be timid or meek in making the case for Ireland in all this. This decision would, after all, mean part of Ireland would be in the EU and part of it would be outside the E.

Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to the Act of Union and some sort of parallel in the debates then and now, but there is a major difference. The big implications for Ireland of this decision are largely a result, direct and indirect, of the colonialisation and partition of Ireland, of which the Act of Union was part. What Britain decides, it may also decide for a part of Ireland. Mar focal scoir, beidh Sinn Féin ag rith feachtas láidir sa Tuaisceart ag éileamh vóta i gcoinne an reifreann seo ar an 23 Meitheamh. Táimid ag tabhairt cuireadh do chuile Theachta, iad siúd atá i bpáirtithe polaitiúla agus iad siúd nach bhfuil, obair leo siúd atá gníomhach i dtalamhaíocht, i gceardchumainn agus i ngnó, le lucht eagraíochta na Gaeilge agus lucht na n-eagraíochtaí pobail, agus le gnáthdhaoine an Tuaiscirt san iarracht seo atá á déanamh an reifreann seo a stopadh.

I am happy to make some comments on behalf of the Labour Party, although I know my colleague and the Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, contributed earlier. This is one of the most important debates we will have in this Dáil, focusing on the Brexit referendum and the implications for Ireland in the event of the British people voting to withdraw from the European Union on 23 June. We can clearly identify the issues that would arise for us as a result of a Brexit, as the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, did so eloquently, but it would be exceedingly difficult to put in place precise contingency plans. It would, effectively, amount to guesswork in the context where there will be at least two years of negotiation. It will probably be three years or more, going on what Greenland had to go through. It will be a considerable period and some people have said it will take five years to negotiate the exit strategy. Subsequent negotiations will exercise people's minds for a considerable period.

The negotiations will be complex and will have to be conducted on a pan-European basis to work out the relationship between the EU and UK. Complexity is not even an adequate description of what will follow. Our Government will have to develop a new relationship for this country with regard to trade and Northern Ireland, as noted by Deputy Brendan Smith, and all of this must be thrashed out with other member states. The economic effect of Britain leaving the EU would be substantial and the ESRI report, Scoping the Possible Economic Implications of Brexit on Ireland, is an excellent body of work. Dr. Edgar Morganroth, the lead author, and his colleagues analysed the impact and done a very worthwhile job. The ESRI estimates that trade between Britain and Ireland could fall by 20% if Britain leaves the EU and Britain is the main export market for indigenous firms, particularly in the food sector. Approximately half our exports go to the UK. Outside the EU, Britain could impose tariffs on Irish imports. The report considers all of this.

Our overall dependence on the UK for trade has lessened since accession, as it accounted for more than 50% of overall trade then. Nevertheless, it remains extremely important to the Irish economy, especially if one considers the totality of services, merchandise, exports and imports together. This arises from the sheer size of the United Kingdom, which has the third-largest population in the EU at 65 million, with a projection that over the next generation it will rise to approximately 74 million people. It is projected to be the largest population over the next generation if things remain on their current course. It is the second-largest economy in the EU, with Dr. Morganroth estimating that a Brexit would reduce total EU GDP by 18% while leading to a population reduction within the EU of 13%. These are significant figures when we consider trade and economic interactions between countries, particularly in the context of us still having significant business with the EU.

Another aspect requiring careful analysis is the fact that Irish exports to the UK are concentrated in specific sectors, such as food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, financial and business services, as well as optical and electrical equipment. These are critical areas, and, as I noted, outside the EU, Britain could impose tariffs on Irish imports. Irish food producers would have to seek other markets for exports and they would probably have to reduce prices, leading in turn to downward pressure on prices paid to farmers for beef and milk. People have today indicated that Ireland and Britain exchange more than €1 billion in goods and services each week, and Irish exports to Britain this year are worth more than €1.2 billion per month. A 20% loss of exports to Britain would cost €240 million per month or €2.8 billion per year. Those are the figures.

It is apposite to point out that Brexit would be more likely to have a negative impact on Irish-owned firms. Our indigenous companies have historically depended on the UK market and do so to this day. Dr. Morganroth points out that Irish firms export just over 50% of output, whereas non-EU foreign-direct investment firms export virtually all their output. The important point is that of the 50% of output exported by Irish firms, more than 40% goes to the UK market, whereas only approximately a tenth of the non-EU firms' output is placed on the UK market. This arises for a number of reasons, including history, commonality of language, proximity to market and the close relationship in the legal systems operating in each jurisdiction, especially with regard to contract law. There are also similar consumer preferences.

On the other hand, there are significant levels of merchandise imports from the UK. That is no surprise as there are important UK retailers operating in the Irish market. In the event of Brexit, the possibility of import tariffs and border controls would clearly add to the cost of imports, with an obvious effect in high prices to be paid for goods by the Irish public. That is another aspect that would have to be examined in due course.

As the Labour Party spokesperson on agriculture and food, it is important that I set out our view of the possible and indeed likely implications for the agricultural sector in the Brexit context. I am aware the Irish Farmers Association and other farming organisations, as well as the advisory and research body, Teagasc, have made comprehensive observations on the implications for the future trading relationship, both internally and externally. The trade links with the UK are well understood, as I noted. The UK has been home to 43% of exports from Irish firms. It was worth over €14 billion in 2014 and €15 billion in 2015. The UK represents huge high-value markets. The combined trade between the UK and Ireland supports over 400,000 jobs, half of them in Ireland.

There is still a very special relationship between the UK and Ireland in terms of agriculture and the agrifood industry. In 1973 some 70% of all Irish food exports went to the UK, while in 2014 the figure was 42%. While Ireland is diversifying into other geographical markets, the UK remains extremely significant.

As stated on previous occasions, the UK is still a highly important trading partner for Ireland. Some €1.1 billion, or 50%, of our beef exports went to the UK market last year, as did €1 billion, or 33%, of our dairy exports and €330 million, or 60%, of our pigmeat exports. On the other hand, UK agriculture depends upon the EU, with seven of the top ten countries for UK food exports - Ireland, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Belgium and Italy - being member states. Nine of the top ten countries for UK food imports - the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark and Poland - are also EU member states.

In the event of a Brexit, we must speculate upon the shape of future trading relationships. These would not be known for between three to five years because this will be the first exit negotiated under Article 50. When Greenland exited, the process took three years. The question is whether the UK will, like Norway or Iceland, negotiate a relationship as a member of the European Economic Area, with access to the Single Market and an obligation to pay financial contributions but with no seat at the decision-making table and with much of its agriculture and trade subject to restriction by quotas. Will it negotiate a separate free trade agreement, FTA, with the EU as Switzerland and Canada have done? Will it leave the EU and Single Market and apply to become a member of the World Trade Organisation, WTO, and become subject to the latter's rules, with tariffs on products and non-tariff barriers? Will the UK leave the EU but not the Single Market? All of these questions arise. There is also the question of whether Ireland be allowed to negotiate a special trade relationship with the UK. Brexit could mean a jeopardy for trade deals as there could be new significant tariffs or the application of new international trade agreements in respect of non-tariff business such as import licences, origin of sale sources, etc. Let us make it abundantly clear: the reintroduction of these barriers or tariffs would increase costs and reduce the competitiveness of Irish exports. Ultimately, their reintroduction would also have an adverse impact on the attractiveness of the UK as a destination for Irish agrifood exports.

In view of the shared land border between Ireland and the UK, there is significant all-island co-operation and co-ordination on animal health issues. If different regulatory regimes were to apply in the UK and Ireland, there would be changes to the trading relationship between the two jurisdictions and there would be a risk of regulatory divergence arising in a sector in which co-operation is absolutely critical. It is no surprise that a UK exit from the EU would have a huge impact on the agrifood sector. It must be remembered that Ireland exported almost €5.1 billion worth of agricultural food products last year.

It is projected that there will be huge population growth in the UK - from 65 million now to 75 million or 77 million - in the next 30 years. On that basis and were it to remain, the UK could become the largest country in the EU from the point of view of population. That is an important point.

Another significant issue that would arise post-Brexit relates to the exchange rate and, in particular, the depreciation of sterling. This is already an issue for businesses. A drop in the value of sterling of up to 8% or so since the start of the year has given rise to a real challenge for Ireland's export-led businesses. It is estimated that there is likely to be a further significant weakening of sterling of 15% or more post-Brexit. This would represent a significant dent in Ireland's cost competitiveness and would clearly have a negative impact on our GDP growth.

Brexit would also have a negative impact upon the EU budget in the context of the UK's contribution thereto. Questions would arise as to how this would affect the budget relating to the CAP. Any reduction in the latter would have a knock-on effect for our farming community. Ireland currently receives €1.5 billion annually through the direct payments system and the rural development programme.

Many Deputies referred to border controls. This matter has been the subject of debate between strong advocates of Brexit, such as the UK Secretary of State, Ms Theresa Villiers, and former UK Chancellor, Mr. Nigel Lawson, particularly in the context of how such controls would operate post-Brexit. A recent important and informative article in The Irish Times by two distinguished academics, Sylvia de Mars and Aoife O'Donoghue, highlighted the fact that since the foundation of the State in 1922, the position of Irish citizens in the UK and that of citizens of England, Scotland, Wales in Ireland has been unique, with nationals from each treated virtually identically to citizens. The article also points out that a very special relationship exists between the countries to which I refer and asks how a UK withdrawal from the EU would impact upon this. It also asks how that special relationship would fits within current EU rules. Deputy Brendan Smith referred to the fact that the Northern Ireland Secretary, Ms Villiers, has asserted that in the event of a Brexit, border controls between Ireland and Northern Ireland would remain unchanged. It is difficult to understand how she can maintain that stance. The common travel area has been in operation since 1952 and it enables UK and Irish national to be treated virtually identically in both states and to enjoy access to employment, social welfare, health care and voting rights, as the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, indicated. Aoife O’Donoghue and Sylvia de Mars forensically explored the position and concluded that the common travel area still matters and is the main reason that Ireland and the UK opted out of the Schengen Agreement, which encompasses all other EU member states as well as Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein. The learned authors to whom I refer made clear that if the UK fully withdraws from the EU, Ireland would face difficult choices. They also indicate that if Ireland joined Schengen, the EU would determine how Ireland–UK border would operate and that this would mean that the Union would also determine how UK nationals would gain access to Ireland, whether as residents or visitors. Aoife O'Donoghue and Sylvia de Mars also ask whether, if Ireland were not to join Schengen, the common travel area would survive and if so, would this suit the UK. They state that EU nationals with the right to reside in Ireland can become Irish citizens and gain access to the UK that way and that this would give credence to the argument made by others that uncontrolled migration arising as a result of the special relationship would occur and, therefore, might necessitate the implementation of specific border controls.

In their excellent thesis, Sylvia de Mars and Aoife O’Donoghue argue, quite logically, that Ms Villiers's argument to the effect that the possibility of illegal migration through Ireland could be dealt with by the UK authorities after they arrive does not stand up to scrutiny by virtue of the fact that EU nationals who have a right to reside in Ireland can become Irish citizens and can lawfully travel to the UK under the common travel area arrangement. Most importantly, they also point out that following a Brexit, the UK-Irish Border would represent an external border to the EU as a whole and that Ireland's membership of the Union would require it to protect the latter's borders. The authors pose the question as to which relationship Ireland would prioritise in the event of Brexit, that with the 27-member EU - with its Schengen areas - or that with a stand-alone UK? The authors of the article in question have skilfully got to the nub of this particular problem and have raised questions as to the correctness of Ms Villiers's analysis.

Brexit would also have profoundly negative consequences for Ireland's energy market. An all-island electricity market has existed since 2007, and interconnection between Ireland and Northern Ireland is particularly important for the North, which relies on electricity imports from Ireland to make up for insufficient local electricity generation capacity. If the electricity market in Britain remains independent of the rest of the EU, then interconnection with Britain only would leave Ireland vulnerable to any problems in the British market. In such circumstances, enhanced interconnection between Ireland and the rest of the EU could provide a useful but costly diversification and reduce risk for Irish consumers. If the UK left the EU, it would no longer be subject to the latter's rules on climate change policy and renewables. This would reduce the likelihood that the UK would reopen discussions on trade in renewables. There are significant issues which must be addressed in this regard.

This is not to say that everything is all right with the European Union. As previous speakers pointed out and as most of us are aware, there are significant areas in respect of which the possibility of reform should be examined in the context of the EU. We need a more reformed Europe which is more open and democratic and less intrusive and interfering. For example, Ireland must comply with EU rules for procurement and tendering and this precludes many of our small and medium-sized companies from competing for contracts for services and supplies. Ireland has supported some of Britain's demands for EU reforms. In my opinion, we could be even more supportive in this regard. The EU treaties provide for a multi-speed Europe which should enable member states to opt out of certain policies while remaining committed members of the Union. There is some merit in the argument of those who support Brexit that some EU policies may have gone too far in limiting the sovereignty of member states. The solution to this is a reform of EU policies and institutions. It would be better for Britain and Ireland if the former remained in the EU and continued, with strong support from Ireland, to seek those fundamental reforms. A focus upon mutual solidarity is paramount at this point.

The next speaker on my list is Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett but he cannot be here. He may be back. After that, we have Deputy Clare Daly, who is here. Is the Deputy sharing time?

He has already spoken.

Story of my life.

There has been some amount of nonsense spoken in here this morning. Top billing would have to go to the Tánaiste's efforts to laud the wonderful institution that, in her opinion, the EU is for its democratic principles. It is a bit ironic to the Irish people who had to vote on multiple occasions when we gave the wrong answers in various treaties, never mind the irony that we had to listen to the Tánaiste go over her time, even though her party received a resounding rejection in the recent general election, and as a result of which I cannot go and show my solidarity with the Luas drivers because the time has run over.

Brexit or no Brexit, one of the key points we need to discuss today is the fact that if the EU continues on the path it has pursued for the past number of years, it will shake itself apart. There can be no other way. As George Monbiot put it last year, everything good about the EU is in retreat while everything bad is on the rampage. I could not have put it any better. The pipe dream of a European Union where together we are better - the yarn that is told to children in school - has been comprehensively destroyed by the actions of the ECB, the European Commission, the European Council, the Council of Ministers, the increased militarisation of the EU and, not least, the flagrant breaches of international asylum laws with the appalling recent deal done with Turkey. Turkey is a country that was recently responsible for 40 people being shot on the Syrian border, a country where ISIS can openly organise and a country that has funded ISIS, supposedly the enemy of the West. The idea on which the EU was originally sold was in part a result of what happened to people who had to move from their countries after the Second World War. Now we are pushing asylum seekers back to Turkey, which cannot in any way be said to be a safe place for them.

Any conversation about Brexit must also be one about the death of the dream of a union of nations working towards social progress and the good of all the people within it because nobody could now say that the EU is anything other than a bureaucratic core to implement neoliberal policies. One only need to look at the fourth railway package, which has caused huge concern for workers in Great Britain. These are controversial proposals that seek to foist the British role of rail privatisation on the rest of Europe. We could have a scenario where privatisation happens anyway, despite the reservations of many MEPs and protests from rail workers across the Continent. The enforced liberalisation of the postal services and the EU farm subsidy, which has enriched those at the top, are other issues.

Ireland's tendency to attribute progressive social democratic motivations to the EU is flawed. The main point on which I will concentrate in respect of this myth is the increased militarisation of the EU. It is that militarisation that has sparked the largest challenge facing the EU, namely, what is commonly called the refugee crisis. Talking about Europe having a refugee crisis is the wrong way around because it is refugees who have a Europe crisis. Let us be very clear about that. The refugees that are coming to the shores of Europe in their hundreds of thousands, and they will come again now that the weather has improved, are doing so not for accidental reasons or because they think Europe is great. It is a direct consequence of the interference in their countries by US imperialism, facilitated directly by Great Britain and France and indirectly by countries like Ireland and the other countries of the EU, which has displaced those people like never before. When one is responsible for and complicit in something, one has a responsibility to deal with that. The appropriate response to the humanitarian catastrophe, which is putting it mildly, is a humanitarian one rather than a border control one, which cannot work in any circumstances.

I will deal with the UK's relationship with the EU in the context of its role in respect of refugees. It was a bit sickening to listen to the Taoiseach talk about Irish emigrants when he said, "The British Government is fully aware of our concerns and of the unique status of the Irish community in Great Britain over very many years." He spoke about the best interests of the Irish people living in and moving to the UK. I have no problem with the Irish people who live in the UK or people who want to move around any country, but what are these people but economic migrants? I do not have a problem with that but that is a derogatory term in many people's book. What about the people who are not economic migrants - those who are fleeing for their lives and have left their country, the mothers and fathers who have sold everything they had in their own countries to give money to their children in the hope that those children will make it across Europe to a safe life? It makes me sick that the Taoiseach would get up and talk about Irish people and at the same time, show an utterly callous disregard for unaccompanied minors, poor people, women, men and children who are being driven out of their countries because of actions resulting from our facilitation of the US military through the use of Shannon Airport.

As Deputy Wallace said earlier, we visited Calais and Dunkirk over the weekend to see at first hand the consequences of our interference in the Middle East. That is one horrific scenario. Who are the people in Calais and Dunkirk? They are people who never wanted to come to Europe. They told us that before the war in Syria, they had everything they ever wanted. They told us that they did not want to come to Europe. They included Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds and Syrians. The Syrians we met were made up of computer technicians, telecommunications experts, a doctor, a pharmacist, a chef and a teacher. One of them told his story.

He was a young man named Mahmood who was aged 28 years of age. He was an English teacher who was clearly psychologically destroyed because of what had happened to him. His troubles started when the forces of Assad bombed and occupied their town. His brother was injured and had to go to hospital. They had to go to another town because there was no hospital in that town. The people in the hospital were then worried about spies and that Assad's people would come looking for them because they had to be moved. They moved to another town. The story went on for a very long time but this young man who had been in part a student and a teacher had long avoided military service. He did not want to do it so he was partly on the run. He said, "To be a soldier, a killer, to kill my brothers or be killed, why?" As we sat with these highly educated people in a hut in Calais with rain lashing down, rats outside and basically covered in tarpaulin, all he kept saying was, "Why? Horrible." He spoke about moving to another town that was a playing field for the Al-Nusra Front and the Free Syrian Army. They had to move again. He talked about a 13 km walk made by a group of 40 people in his family - four men and 21 children under the age of nine. They had to carry their granny on a chair over the mountains. That group had to sleep outside in December with no blankets or food. Children as young as three were crying because they had to walk that far. He eventually ended up in Lebanon. He said that they used to go to Lebanon to go to the beach or to go shopping but they are now pariahs there. They need a visa and $1,000 in their pockets and are marshalled into refugee camps, although they are obviously glad to have the security there.

If I had an hour here, the story would take longer. Let us just say that man was ripped off during every part of his journey to end up in that mud-soaked tent in Calais and he was one of the lucky ones because while he described his story as horrendous, it was mild by comparison with a lot of the other stories we heard. Why do these people want to go to Great Britain? Some of them want to go there because they have family there, some of them because they speak English and some of them are naive enough to think that countries in the EU are democratic and that Great Britain is an example of democracy, but that is not true because look at what is happening to Afghans.

The lie is being propagated that there is peace in Afghanistan when everybody knows that the conditions there are much worse than they have ever been. We know from secret papers produced by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that the Afghan Government has pleaded with the UK not to send people back to Afghanistan because those people are vulnerable individuals. Over 2,000 young men, mainly, who were reared in Britain, having come there as unaccompanied minors, went to school and made friends there, have been deported back to Afghanistan, where, as Deputy Wallace said, inevitably they will be killed. We know from talking to people that many lost family members who were taken and killed by the Taliban. One young man we spent time with said his father was executed by the Taliban and his body was dumped outside their house. That young man is on the run across Europe now. We met a young man who lost all of his family in Iran. He has no one in the whole world, nothing in England, but an illusion that he will find safe haven there.

Rather than our telling the British people how to vote or saying we would like them to stay in, we should be telling them to honour their human rights obligations, to stop sending people back to certain death. We should tell the French Government to stop using the CRS and riot police against vulnerable young people, splitting open their heads when nobody is looking. We should tell the mayor of Dunkirk, an admirable, wonderful man who cleaned up the conditions people there were living in that he has done a good job and is an example of a true European. Better, we should not be telling anybody to do anything. We should be doing it ourselves as an independent, neutral country.

Border controls, which the EU proposes, do not stop refugees. The only way to stop refugees is to stop interfering in their countries and facilitate a peace process. We should support the Kurdish fighters who are taking on ISIS on the ground. Border controls only kill people like the hundreds who lost their lives in the Mediterranean this week or enrich smugglers. The going price for a family in the back of a refrigerated truck, where they might end up dead or frozen, to make the short journey from Calais to the UK is £20,000. Is that what we want for teenagers? I do not know about the Minister but I have a teenage child, as I am sure many here do. Do we want teenagers, who have shown the resilience to go half way around the world, to be abandoned or sent back to certain death? What can we do? We can always do something.

I am utterly ashamed of how little we have done and the pretence that we put up about this. We talk about how we mistreated children in this State in the past and we did do that. Now we have a chance to do something for children. I am an atheist but many people here claim to be Christian. The Pope at least went out and took a few families back. Why are we not doing that? Why are we not promoting the idea that, given that Irish people are in every part of the globe, we will take some people in? It is not good enough for the Minister to say he went to Greece and no one wants to come to Ireland. That is not true. We have not positively marketed the fact that we would welcome people here. There is no awareness of Ireland. I would compare our Government’s lack of action with the unbelievable action of Irish citizens: the young woman, Karen, from Rathfarnham, who gave up her job and works with unaccompanied minors out there; Sinéad from Dundalk, a law student who goes out there every couple of weeks to help; Gary, a solicitor in Dublin, who goes out every month; the retired couple from Tyrone who we met, who have taken their caravan over there for six weeks and get stuck in and help. We do nothing. We stand idly by. We should be facilitating, inside the EU, a process where people can apply for asylum in any country they choose from Calais and Dunkirk so that they do not have to risk their lives every night trying to jump onto a truck and maybe get their heads mashed by an axle or be beaten up by the French riot police. We could be pioneering and leading that situation. Why would we not? What would be wrong with that? It would be a wonderful addition to our society, if, instead of telling people in Britain and everywhere else what to do, although we would advise them, we led by example and went to those camps, set up an immigration office and facilitated the unaccompanied minors, those brilliant, wonderful young boys we met over the weekend. If we do not do that, the Minister will be responsible for the most appalling crimes meted out to humanity. Rather than our telling people what to do we should be leading. This is the start of this conversation. If we get a government together in this State this should be our leading priority for the future.

I thank the Deputy. The next slot goes to the Social Democrats, who are not present. Next is the Green Party, Deputy Catherine Martin, who is not present. Next is Independent, Deputy Pringle, who was anxious to be here but he is not here.

This is it. There is a meeting on. The next speaker is from the Government, Deputy Dara Murphy, who is not here. Next is Fianna Fáil, Deputy Cahill, who is not here. Next is Sinn Féin, Deputies Ó Caoláin and Funchion. Deputy Funchion is here. Is she sharing time?

I understood I was sharing time with Deputy Ó Caoláin. I have a very short speech, everyone will be glad to hear. First, I commend Deputy Clare Daly. Her speech was fantastic. The passion and emotion she showed was fantastic as is the fact that she went out there.

The Brexit referendum, which takes place on 23 June 2016, could have profound ramifications for this island. I note that this acting Government, and the previous Government, have been very concerned about the negative impact that a Brexit would have on the economy of this State. This is a legitimate concern that needs to be discussed and focused on. However, the major impact of a Brexit will be felt by citizens in the Six Counties and this State. It is estimated that the combined loss of EU investment, subsidies, and funds arising from a Brexit, would cost the Six Counties £3.5 billion.

This money is used to tackle endemic patterns of societal inequality and under investment; the consequences of decades of political conflict; and the structural weakness of the regional economy, limitations of the public expenditure budget, and the lack of fiscal independence. It will not be replaced by a Tory cabinet in London that is determined to privatise all public services, demolish the welfare state and social protections, and to facilitate deepening inequality. A Brexit could also harden the division between North and South in Ireland, and harden the Border, with the potential for customs checkpoints and trading tariffs. This would hugely affect the all-island economy and have severe implications for the natural trade pattern that happens on this island.

This does not mean that Sinn Féin is uncritical of the EU. We have deep concerns about, and strong criticism of, the EU which has massively shifted to the right in recent decades and which continues to attack state sovereignty and economic freedoms. We continue to work with likeminded parties to reform the EU institutions from within, and to demand a more progressive union, a democratic union, a Europe that does not just talk about solidarity but delivers for all of its people. The structure of the referendum is hugely undemocratic. Even if voters from the North vote to stay, along with voters in Scotland and Wales, their votes will not be binding if the overall vote is to leave. Due to the sheer population differences, it is clear that this referendum will be decided by voters in England.

The British Government has refused Sinn Féin's demands that a separate and binding referendum be run in the North. Should a vote to leave occur, Sinn Féin is calling on the British Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, to commit to holding a Border poll. If there is a vote in Britain to leave the EU there is a democratic imperative to provide Irish citizens with the right to vote in a Border poll to end partition and retain a role in the EU.

The Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour parties have continued to refuse to support calls for a Border poll in recent years. I hope that in the case of such a negative development as Brexit, which will be a political and economic game changer, all parties and Members of this House would support the call for a Border poll, which is provided for in the Good Friday Agreement.

The so-called Brexit referendum to determine whether Britain and the North of Ireland should remain in the European Union will take place on 23 June. The prospect of such an exit is a cause of major concern for many people, including for those living in Border counties north and south of the Border. There is a dread among many people regarding the implications of such an exit and not least among people living in my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan.

There is no doubt that a North of Ireland exit would harden the divisions between North and South on this island, with the potential for the reintroduction of customs checkpoints, trading tariffs and adverse knock-on effects for all-Ireland economic activity and co-operation. This would reaffirm and harden the Border and could be the most intense development on the Border landscape since partition. A British and North of Ireland exit would also damage the agri-economy, especially in the Six Counties, and have huge negative impacts on many local businesses. Ultimately it is clear that such an exit would have implications for the natural trade pattern that has grown across this island.

Aside from the negative implications on trade, from the get-go, Sinn Féin has strongly criticised the referendum structure as undemocratic because if the North of Ireland votes to remain in the European Union but the overall result is to leave, the wishes of the people of the North are not respected. Due to the sheer differences in population, it is clear that the result therefore will be dependent on the wishes of English voters. English voters should not be allowed to decide Ireland's relationship with the European Union. If there is a vote in Britain to leave the European Union, there is a democratic imperative to provide Irish citizens with the right to vote in a Border poll to end partition and to retain a role in the European Union, if that is the choice of the people of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement provides for a Border poll to be conducted, with Britain bound to legislate for any change arising.

Given the enormous significance of these issues, my colleague and the North's Deputy First Minister, Mr. Martin McGuinness, has asked the British Secretary of State, Ms Theresa Villiers, to provide a British Government commitment to an immediate Border poll in the event that Britain votes to leave the European Union. I call on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs similarly to press their respective British Government counterparts.

My party is by no means a champion of the European Union as we know it today. We continue to believe that the European Union needs radical reform and on that basis we critically engage with it. We recognise and are deeply concerned that the EU is moving further away from its original emphasis on a socially progressive Europe and towards a right-wing agenda, and we will continue to challenge this. We see a role for European co-operation and a more progressive European Union. We are working with other like-minded political parties across Europe to make this a reality.

What is required now is for all of us to work collectively and to voice our vigorous opposition to a British and North of Ireland exit. Let no one jeopardise our chances of all-Ireland economic recovery and of furthering the peace and political processes that we have worked so hard to build. Let us ensure by our continuing efforts that the social, cultural, economic and political gains made over the past 18 years, since the Good Friday Agreement was so overwhelmingly endorsed, are built upon in the interest of our island and all its people.

As this is the first time that I have the opportunity to address the Thirty-second Dáil since the general election, I would like to thank my constituents for their vote of confidence. I congratulate the Ceann Comhairle on his election to the job in which he is about to serve.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is a very good debate and it is great to see the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of State at the Department here to listen to Members' views on this very important issue.

There is a nervous anticipation across EU member states as UK voters go to the polls on the 23 June. The outcome of that referendum will not only determine the UK’s future relationship with the EU, but depending on the outcome, it could trigger a series of events which would have profound implications for the remaining EU member states and leave countries like ours particularly exposed given our close trading ties and our special relationships with Northern Ireland.

This question mark over the UK’s continued participation in Europe is not only lending itself to a period of uncertainty from now until 23 June, but we could be facing into a few years of uncertainty. If the UK votes to leave the EU, we will find ourselves in uncharted waters. There is no precedent for such a move. No other country has ever sought to exit the EU. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union would come into play. Under this article, a country would automatically cease to be a member of the EU two years after it lodges official notification to withdraw if in those two years there was no agreement by the UK or member states to extend the date or a withdrawal agreement set a different date. Either way, there would be huge uncertainty and given the volatility of the markets, it is more than likely that the uncertainty would precipitate another European-wide recession.

Could Brexit mean the return to border controls? I note the recent comments of the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, that the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland will remain unchanged. Nevertheless, there are questions to be answered. If this Border were to become an EU external border and if at some point this country opted into the Schengen Agreement, it could spell trouble ahead. At the moment, the common travel area allows Irish and UK citizens to be treated equally, particularly in terms of passports and employment. There is also equality of access to employment, social welfare and health care, for example. If at some future date Ireland decided to join the Schengen Agreement and the UK was outside the EU, instead of breaking down borders, we would actually be building ones.

While the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that Brexit would not mean the introduction of UK border controls, we have to protect the common travel area and we must be at the table in any discussions on Northern Ireland in any future negotiations between the UK and the EU if they are to take decisions to withdraw from Europe.

The peace dividend has also brought a new era of cross-Border relations. The increase in tourism and trade is benefiting the entire island of Ireland. Last year, an estimated 8.6 million overseas visitors came to Ireland, North and South, delivering revenue of about €4.2 billion between both economies.

One of the most important developments in terms of boosting cross-Border tourism was the introduction of the British-Irish visa scheme. This scheme was rolled out to replace our short-stay visa waiver programme which was introduced in 2011 and which allows nationals from a number of countries to travel from the UK to Ireland using their UK visa. This scheme was initially opened for visitors from China and India and the plan is to open it further in future. It allows a person to visit Northern Ireland or the UK and Ireland on a single visa. A tourist from China, for example, who might want to visit Titanic Belfast can now cross into the Republic and come down to Clare to visit the Cliffs of Moher or Loop Head on that Irish short-stay visa. It allows them travel back up to Northern Ireland or vice versa, as they do not need a re-entry visa. It is a very pro-tourism and business initiative which is working extremely well as tourism numbers from China, India and other countries grow.

I would be concerned if a joint initiative like this with such tangible benefits for both jurisdictions were jeopardised in the context of Brexit. Any return to the bureaucracy that prevailed before this scheme was introduced would put at risk the opportunities for cross-Border tourism growth, particularly in the Chinese and Indian markets, and would be a step backwards.

Our cross-Border trade is very significant. In 2014, total cross-Border trade in manufacturing came to just under €3 billion. According to InterTradelreland, nearly two thirds of the exports of small firms in Northern Ireland come across the Border while almost a sixth of exports of small firms here go to Northern Ireland.

We have worked hard to cement ties between North and South. We must sustain our strong relationship and maintain our existing special arrangements. This year, we are commemorating the centenary of the 1916 Rising and, 100 years on, a new chapter has been opened in our relationship with our nearest neighbour. Developing and enhancing our bilateral and trading relationships will be critical in maintaining this new era of relations between our two countries.

Every week, Ireland and Britain trade over €1 billion worth of goods and services. Up to 200,000 jobs here are supported as a result of our exports to the UK, making it an important market after the US and Europe. Some 42% of Irish food and drink exports worth €4.1 billion went to the UK last year. Up to 55% of Irish exports in the timber and construction sectors, as well as almost half of Irish clean technology and electronic exports, are to the UK. The ESRI, Economic and Social Research Institute, estimates that post Brexit, it is likely that bilateral trade flows between Ireland and the UK would be reduced significantly by as much as 20% or more. Such an impact on our agriculture, food and beverages sectors would be more acute as they are more dependent on exports to the UK. Our agrifood exports to the UK were worth close to €11 billion in 2014. Teagasc concurs with the views of the ESRI about the impact on our agrifood exports, warning we could see potential losses of between €150 million and €800 million per year in a post-Brexit scenario.

Another significant report worth noting is that of Dr. Alan Matthews, professor of European Agricultural Policy at the Department of Economics at Trinity College Dublin. His report warned that "trading costs between Ireland and the UK would increase". He also warned about the potential additional burden our agri-exporters would have to bear. For example, our animal-slaughtering facilities which wish to export to the UK could have to be certified by both the UK and Irish authorities. The additional costs involved would make our agri-exports less competitive.

There is also the potential reduction in direct payments which Irish farmers could be facing. The UK contributes around 12% to the EU budget. Accordingly, post Brexit, to maintain the current level of payments, the remaining EU member states would have to increase their contributions, an unlikely development in the current economic climate when most EU member states are running budget deficits.

Recent poll trends indicate a narrowing in the gap between both sides. However, there are 62 days to polling day. Much can change during that period, as we know ourselves here. There are over 400,000 Irish people born in the UK who are entitled to vote, with the Irish diaspora at around 5 million, as well as 300,000 UK residents living here. While it is proper not to interfere in the democratic process of another sovereign state, we must raise awareness among the Irish of the consequences to their future entitlements in the UK and for the island of Ireland.

I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, have been proactive in this regard. I also welcome the Taoiseach's comments this morning that we will be prepared as possible to manage the consequences should the decision be for Britain to exit the EU. We must, however, be positive. We need to have a pro-Europe campaign, explaining how trade relations between Ireland and UK are so important. Whatever decision comes from this, we must respect it. Britain is a large country with a growing population. It is estimated that by 2050 it will have a population of 77 million people, which could make it one of the largest countries in the European Union. A Brexit would have a significant effect on Europe as a whole. However, whatever the decision is, we will respect it. In the meantime, we must raise awareness, give our perspective and continue all we can do to play our part in this regard. I welcome this important debate and look forward to ensuring Ireland plays its role in the referendum in whatever way it can.

I apologise for missing my slot earlier but the timetable moved around a bit and I got caught. I was out demonstrating in solidarity with Luas workers at St. Stephen's Green. I am glad I was joined by a cross-party delegation, although no one from Fine Gael appeared. Fine Gael might look into the whole issue of what is actually going on with the Luas books.

The Deputy might stick to the subject matter.

I will make a link between these two points. Obviously, the issue of a possible Brexit is a serious one not just for Ireland and Britain, but for the whole of the European Union. People Before Profit has not formally made a decision on what it will say or whether it will campaign either way on this particular referendum. However, we will meet in the next couple of weeks to make such a decision. It is an important issue for us not just because we are organised in the South, but also because we are organised in the North and our members and supporters there will have to vote in this referendum. I might note in passing that there is an election coming up in the North where People Before Profit is expected to take an Assembly seat in west Belfast and, possibly, in Derry. It is a positive sign that the philosophy of People Before Profit is spreading across the island, gaining ground and traction.

The question for us in trying to assess what to say about the referendum in Britain is whether it furthers an agenda across Europe of putting people before profits and corporate interests. Does it further the increasing momentum in the European Union towards militarisation? On the other hand, does it further an attempt, which we would see as vital, to break down the increasing momentum in the European Union towards a fortress Europe, with the shocking consequences which we have seen for refugees fleeing from desperate war-torn countries, drowning in the Mediterranean, holed up in refugee camps in the most appalling and abominable conditions, or being pushed back to countries like Turkey with terrible human rights records. Which way should one vote, if one wants to challenge that direction in which the European Union is going? It is a tricky question.

Whatever way we decide to go on this issue, it is important we say we want nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are leading the “Leave” campaign in Britain. Whatever about the merits of the pros and cons of an argument about whether Britain, or any other member state, should stay in the European Union or leave it, we should all agree we want nothing to do with the UKIPs of this world, or the far right in Britain and Europe, which are campaigning on the most appalling, despicable racist and anti-immigrant platforms. We should give no truck to that. Indeed, David Cameron deserves considerable criticism for playing around with dangerous racist, right-wing forces in the way in which he has prompted this referendum. Of course, Cameron did not call for this referendum on the basis of trying to move towards some sort of more progressive, fair, egalitarian, peaceful Europe of solidarity. It was quite the opposite. He provoked this referendum by trying to conjure up a threat to Britain and other countries in the European Union from immigrants.

It was really quite disgraceful and despicable and has given succour and encouragement to some of the most foul, right-wing, racist forces in British society. Whatever we say on this, we want nothing to do with that. However, the fact that some of those who are leading the Leave campaign are obnoxious politically and that we should have nothing to do with them should not in any way take from the need to have a cold, objective assessment of what the European Union actually is at the moment and whether it is a good or a bad thing to stay in it, for Britain or for any of us.

I want to echo the comments made by Deputy Murphy earlier when he talked about those who are promoting the Stay campaign using the politics of fear in order to say there should be no debate, that if Britain leaves the European Union, or if anybody leaves the European Union, the world is going to fall apart and it is going to be a disaster. We have heard that in every single European referendum. There was never a positive argument as to why one should support various EU treaties we have had in recent years or why we should stay in the European Union, but always a rotten argument based on fear and blackmail, suggesting to people that there would be dire consequences if we leave the EU. I do not believe that. I was reading through the ESRI's document on scoping the possible economic implications of Brexit and to be honest, it is all speculation as to what might happen. People have legitimate concerns about the possible reimposition of border controls and impacts on trade, but I do not see how it could be in Britain's interests, whether it is in or out of the EU, to impose border controls or to restrict trade or the movement of people between Britain and Ireland. It would be in the interests of Britain and Ireland to negotiate bilateral arrangements on those things to ensure we continue to have free movement of people and trade between Britain and Ireland. I do not think we should conjure up those fears in trying to look objectively at this issue.

In so far as there is now a threat to the EU, where has that threat really emanated from? I argue that it is actually its own policies that are destabilising and undermining the EU, that the EU is its own worst enemy. There are pious and noble aspirations to European solidarity, to ensuring we do not repeat the horrors of the 1930s and that we have international solidarity across Europe, which all of us would support, but is that the reality of the European Union? When we look at the practice of the EU in recent years, it is a very different picture. It was seen most starkly when the economic crisis hit. That economic crisis was, to a large extent, instigated by the actions of one of the European institutions, the European Central Bank, which was essentially pumping cheap money into the peripheral economies in the interests of banks and financial interests in Germany, France and Britain in order to profiteer in the peripheral countries. When that caused an unmerciful bubble, which then burst, those same institutions demanded that ordinary people in this country and in Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal pay a bitter price for that. When anybody here or elsewhere in Europe suggested that actually the bondholders, the ECB itself and the financial institutions should pay the bill, we had threats and bullying from the European Union. It was economic terrorism. Trichet told the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, that a financial bomb would go off in Dublin if we dared to do what was right and made the bondholders pay, rather than ordinary people. That has been the reality of the European Union - not one of solidarity but one of corporate domination of the interests of big financial institutions, the banks and so on, unloading a terrible and bitter cost on ordinary working people in this country and particularly in the peripheral countries.

I have not had time to go into the increasing militarisation of the EU, the creation of a Europe-wide arms industry and a European army, and the shocking facts of Fortress Europe, which I mentioned at the beginning. It is these things, and the hijacking of the European project by multinationals, by militarists and by racists, that are the biggest threats to the EU, which open the possibility of it unravelling.

I welcome the opportunity to make statements on this important issue. It is worrying for many people across Europe, and especially in Ireland because people are trying to work out what the consequences of Brexit would be if that was the wish of the people who will have a vote on that issue in Britain. Of course it is a matter for the British people; they will have to make up their own minds and respect should be shown for the different opinions people have on this issue. I agree with some of those here who have said we should not play into the politics of fear because we have had many referendums on Europe where people from outside Ireland did play into the politics of fear, on both sides of the arguments. However, there are genuine concerns, and we have to articulate those concerns, because of the impact it could have on the North and on the entire island of Ireland, socially and economically. It is reasonable for us to have a debate and it is reasonable for us to articulate our concerns.

I have always had a critical engagement with the European Union. I think that is healthy when one considers what has happened over the last ten years and particularly in the last few years with the economic crash and the role played by the EU institutions in allowing that to develop, and the fact that the neoliberal economic agenda, which is dominant across Europe, comes largely from the institutions of the EU. It is the prevailing economic orthodoxy within Europe. We know there is a democratic deficit at the heart of Europe and there is a real disconnect between unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and ordinary citizens across the EU. That is playing out to some extent in this referendum as well.

There is also no doubt that there are very reactionary right-wing forces driving the agenda in Britain. This is coming from the more right-wing elements of the British Tory party, from UKIP and from xenophobic voices within Britain. I also have no truck with any of those voices who are using this referendum campaign to peddle that right-wing and far-right agenda, which is also in the ascendancy in many countries in Europe. That is one of the consequences of the failure of politics in Europe to react to the economic crisis and to deal with the real problems caused by the policy failures in respect of banking and massive unemployment in working class communities right across Europe - there is 40%-50% unemployment in some parts of Europe. Of course, that is going to breed disconnect and force people to question whether those big institutions that make up the EU are democratic and are working in the best interests of citizens.

It is right and proper to have a critical engagement with the European Union, but I also see the potential and the promise of what a more democratic and social Europe would look like. It is not just laudable and aspirational but also possible to have a Europe of equals, which focuses on the major social problems that affect us all, right across the European Union, whether we are on the left or the right. I am on the left and I work with progressive forces across Europe in order to make sure workers' rights, access to public health services, fair and just taxation and decent work and pay are delivered not only for citizens in this State or on the island of Ireland but across Europe. There is huge potential to have a Europe of equals. We have to be making those arguments in the context of the referendum in Britain and the potential consequences it has for the North.

The prospect of increased or full withdrawal by the British state from the EU has negative implications for Ireland, North and South. It would represent a major setback for the political process in the North and directly challenge the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement as an international binding treaty. It would also undermine all-Ireland co-operation and potentially harden partition.

One of the advocates of Brexit is the British Secretary of State to the North, Theresa Villiers. As the British Secretary of State, she has been asked on several occasions to outline how she believes Brexit is in the interest of the people of the North and so far, she has refused to do so or has been unable to do so. She was also asked to explain how the lost European funding to the North, which would inevitably be a consequence of Brexit, would be replaced. She has failed to explain how that would be done. They are very serious issues because Brexit is opposite to the interest of the people in the Six Counties, from whatever background they come. The combined financial loss of EU investment, subsidies and funds within the North arising from Brexit would be approximately €3.5 billion, which is very significant year on year. The reality is that the North has depended heavily on its relationship with Europe both economically and politically. The endemic patterns of social inequality, under-investment, the decades of political conflict and its consequences, the structural weaknesses of the regional economy, the limitations of the public expenditure budget and its lack of fiscal independence are issues which have been addressed by the European Union and by its institutions.

There have been a lot of positive outworkings of the benefits of membership of the European Union in the North for the citizens in the North. It is important for us to accept that. It is important for us to try to work out what Brexit would mean for the people on the island of Ireland and what would it mean for people in the North.

During the period 2007-13, an estimated 10% of the regional economy in the North's GDP was related directly to Europe in terms of investment, trade, funding and jobs - that is a reality. The arguments for Brexit made by its advocates in the British state and the North do not take account of these factors. They have failed to set out proposals which would prevent even more damage being done to the already weak structure of the economy in the North as well as the destabilising knock-on effects it would have for all-Ireland co-operation and the need for an all-island economy. The case for Brexit is not motivated or sustained by alternative and better strategies or policies. I have not heard any better alternative strategies coming from those who are advocating Brexit. Instead, it is a product of a growth of influence by narrow nationalism, mainly in the UK, which is linked to conservative Tory ideological interests. The momentum for Brexit is a reaction against a lot of different things, some of which I spoke about earlier.

The reality is that unless we address the fundamental problems that exist at the heart of the European project, including the democratic deficit which many people know exists, we will have much more questioning and many more issues arising within Europe. It does not matter whether politicians tell people that it does not exist, they know it exists because it impacts on their lives. The people who are in charge of the big institutions in Europe, many of whom are unelected, are living in a bubble and are not connected at all to the reality of many people's lives and how they see the European Union. As long as that is the case, we will have more and more problems.

Sinn Féin will not be calling for a Yes vote. We have already launched our campaign in the North. We do not believe it is in the best interests of the people on this island for Britain to exit the European Union. If it does, as a number of previous speakers have said, we will call for a Border poll in the North and South because we think that should be a natural consequence of Brexit if that is to happen. It is not what we want to happen - we do not believe it is in the best interests of the people either North or South.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak here on this important issue and I look forward to hearing from the caretaker Ministers on the position of the Irish State on the referendum.

I want to start by reiterating that I am a republican and, as such, the first thought that comes to my head about Britain leaving the EU is that this vote will take place and, whatever the impact may be, it will reinforce Britain's hold on that part of Ireland. It is something that the vast majority of people across this island are opposed to. The unique circumstances of the North will not be considered no matter how the people living in the North vote because they will go with the rest of Britain. The North will be out voted by Britain and that means if the North wants to remain part of the EU and Britain does not, it will be dragged out too. The very nature of this vote is therefore undemocratic from an Irish point of view. British voters should not be allowed to dictate Ireland's relationship with Brussels. I strongly support the call of the Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, for the British Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers, to make a firm commitment to hold a Border poll in the case that the North votes to stay in Europe and Britain votes to pull out. There is a democratic imperative to provide Irish citizens with the right to vote on a Border poll to end partition and to retain the role of the EU. The Good Friday Agreement provides for a Border poll to be conducted with the British bound to legislate for any change arising.

There are other reasons why I am arguing against a British exit from the European Union. It would harden the Border and make it more permanent. As a Deputy from a Border area, I am acutely aware of the effects such a move will have on the daily lives and the economic and commercial life of the area that I represent. I am acutely aware of the effects a British withdrawal from the European Union will have on the agrifood industry, not only in the Border area but also in a rural constituency. Our agrifood exports amount to about €11 billion per annum and for our economy, the reality is that Britain is a main destination for a lot of our produce. It is the single most important market for agrifood products and it is more dependent on that market than any other sector of our economy. If Britain should vote to leave the EU, our already troubled beef and dairy sectors will have to set about renegotiating trading relationships between Britain and EU member states, including Ireland. The recent Teagasc report noted that if Brexit took place, Britain would have a far greater scope to adopt its own agricultural policy and the change in British agricultural policy, in which we would have no influence as we now have via the EU, could have serious repercussions for us both North and South of the Border.

My opposition to Britain leaving the European Union does not mean that I do not have criticism of the European Union and how it manifests itself in the lives of my constituents. There are issues in the Common Agricultural Policy, which needs reforms, and in that way, we have to continue to be positive but critical members of the European Union. We have difficulties with how the EU directives affecting the agricultural sector are implemented here, for example, farm inspections and the implications of other directives. We recognise that many of the arguments put forward by Britain by those favouring an exit have validity and a valid basis but we see our role as reforming from within and consistently challenging an increasingly right-wing agenda within the EU to favour the development of a socially progressive Europe. This is what we do with our four MEPs and in co-operation with other like-minded parties across Europe. I add my voice to those appealing to people here and in Britain to vote against this move. It will not benefit us, either North or South of the Border.

It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to address the House on this very important issue. Given the exceptional ties that bind our two islands together, the issue of the UK's relationship with the European Union is of fundamental and critical importance to us in Ireland.

Our two countries are bound by uniquely close economic, social, political and other connections. Furthermore, from a European Union perspective we share many issues of common concern and interest. These close ties, which are underpinned by the strong belief that the Union as a whole benefits from UK membership, has informed the Government's position and approach to engagement on these EU negotiations. It will come as no surprise to any Member of this House that we want the UK to remain a member of the European Union.

Since my appointment in July 2014 as Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, negotiations at EU level on the question of UK membership of the EU have been a key focus and priority for the Government as well as for me personally. Through my participation in the General Affairs Council and as a vice president of the European People's Party, I have had the privilege of being involved in preparations for the negotiations between the EU Heads of State and Government that took place in December 2015 and again last February. On the substance of the negotiations, as noted by the Taoiseach in his post-European Council statement, a new settlement was agreed by the European Council on 19 February. This is a legally binding international agreement and as such has been deposited with the United Nations in New York. The agreed measures were in four key areas, the first of which was in respect of economic governance. This included moves to prevent non-eurozone member states such as the UK from being disadvantaged by decisions taken solely by eurozone member states. The second area pertained to competitiveness and included completion of the Single Market, cutting red tape and expediting international trade agreements. The third area was in respect of sovereignty and included the introduction of a so-called red card concept to enhance the role of national parliaments as well as language to address the sometimes vexed issue of what is referred to as ever closer union. Finally, the area of social benefits included new restrictions on the payment of child benefit and in-work benefits as well as measures to address the abuse of freedom of movement. In the case of a vote to remain in the UK on 23 June, the agreed measures on economic governance, sovereignty and competitiveness would take effect immediately while those relating to social benefits and the abuse of free movement would be implemented by amending or complementing existing EU regulations and therefore would not take effect for some time after the referendum. The Taoiseach already has addressed this issue in some detail this morning.

I believe it is worth noting here that while the main objective behind the EU negotiations was the need to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to the United Kingdom and all other partners, the negotiations also presented an opportunity to consider and improve the way the Union does its business as well as to address a number of anomalies. Consequently, in many of the key policy areas of the settlement, Ireland and many other member states shared British enthusiasm for the proposed changes. Throughout the negotiations the Government supported measures to give further impetus to growth, competitiveness and employment, which included strengthening the Single Market, building a real digital Single Market - a cause the Government has championed for some time - and expanding the Union's network of trade relationships across the globe. The Government was also supportive of measures to enhance the role of national parliaments and prevent the abuse of free movement. It welcomed advances in areas that have the potential to contribute to long-term prosperity for Irish citizens and equally for the citizens of other member states. Some issues, such as those under the welfare and immigration heading, were of course more difficult to address than others, but even here agreement was achieved. It is worth recalling that Prime Minister Cameron secured a deal that few informed commentators would have considered possible six months previously. Despite considerable reservations in some quarters, there was a shared sense of willingness and a determination to reach a deal which thankfully prevailed over the obstacles. Ireland was to the fore in encouraging such a constructive and pragmatic attitude in the negotiations process. Indeed, the Taoiseach's personal contributions to discussions at European Council meetings were greatly appreciated by both the United Kingdom and our other EU partners. I am confident that our constructive and pragmatic engagement helped to forge the positive approach at EU level, which in turn enabled agreement be reached. This deal alone, although important itself, will not nor should not determine outcome of the referendum. The question is for the United Kingdom's population and is far more fundamental, namely, whether to remain in or to leave the Union of which it has been a core member for more than half of its post-Second World War history. It is a fundamental decision with potentially huge consequences.

In the many exchanges which I and other Ministers have had with EU partners over recent years on the subject of the UK-EU relationship, it is evident, notwithstanding Ireland's unique ties with the United Kingdom, that we certainly are not alone among EU partners in recognising the significance of the UK's membership of the European Union. This reality is central to why it was possible to agree a deal on 19 February, especially given that it covered such sensitive areas as freedom of travel and the treatment of workers from other member states as well as the difficult and real tensions which arise because of the status of the euro as the currency of most but not all member states. From Ireland's perspective, there are particular economic, political and social reasons for the importance attached to continued British membership of the European Union, not least with regard to Northern Ireland, which was mentioned recently by other speakers and which the Taoiseach covered in his statement to the House this morning. In my view, there is an understanding throughout Europe that although the United Kingdom was not a founding member of the institutional architecture that has evolved into the present-day European Union, its history and the history of the Union are inextricably linked, not least in a shared vision of rebuilding the Continent after its darkest hour. Moreover, those partners desire, as does Ireland, that the UK should remain a member of the European Union because the Union as a whole benefits from the UK's membership thereof. As a Union of 28, far more can be achieved together. There are many challenges, which I suspect to be increasing in number, where we can only be effective if we manage to work together as a Union. Acting as a Union of 28 strengthens our ability and our capacity and, in the end, it can strengthen the outcome.

Although not the subject of this discussion, to take but one example I refer to the cohesion among member states on sanctions against Russia, with each member state having different interests and relations but yet still managing to accept the core principle that if we can stick together, we can be more effective. Whether we are discussing climate change or global standard setting in the marketplaces to which we export or from which we import or any other issue, policy formulation and decision-making within the Union benefits from the input of the United Kingdom and the solutions we find are more likely to be effective as a result. None of this nor indeed anything that is said today affects the blunt reality that the decision on the UK's membership of the EU lies with its electorate and they will decide on this question less than nine weeks from now. Moreover, the situation being so uncertain is something that is of benefit to very few. From an Irish point of view, no such uncertainly exists here. It is known that our future lies in the heart of the European Union where we have made our way successfully for many decades. As a small open country, we derive huge benefits from our membership both within the Union and from relations the EU has externally, and in the Union we discern the best means of securing our future prosperity and of advancing and defending values we share with our partners. In my opinion, attachment to the European Union reflects a broad understanding that, taken in the round, the EU has served Ireland enormously well and is likely to continue to do so.

As a friend and neighbour with which we share many common values and interests, we sincerely hope the UK will continue to work with us at the heart of the European Union.

My hope is that on 24 June, we will be looking forward as a renewed Union of 28 member states, but strengthened and ready to work together, to address the many challenges facing us here in Ireland, the citizens of the United Kingdom and, collectively, the citizens of the European Union. I thank everyone for their contribution to today's debate.

I, too, am pleased to be able to speak on this important topic today although I do not intend to speak for too long. I listened to the Taoiseach's speech this morning as well as that of the Minister of State, Deputy Murphy. I am well aware, as are many of us, that this is a hugely important issue which could have huge implications for our trade. It is ultimately up to the electorate of Great Britain to decide on 23 June what they will do. I do not believe too much outside interference can have the effect that is least expected. The electorate are entitled to make their own decision. They committed to having and will have a referendum and we could learn a few bits and pieces from them in that regard. They have achieved a good deal with their European colleagues and partners in the run-up to this referendum by way of leverage to get better bang for their buck and fair play for their situation. Perhaps we could learn from their approach.

We have a unique situation because of the involvement of our trading partners in the Six Counties in Northern Ireland. I have been a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Association for a number of years and enjoyed the relationship and the discussions on different issues relating to trade and bilateral trade. We discussed different arrangements at many of our visits, both North and South as well as over in England. They came here too. It is reciprocal. There were discussions on work and the like as well as exchanges on culture, heritage and social matters.

There are huge economic reasons we need and would like them to remain in the European Union. We are now approaching the critical juncture. In just a few weeks' time, on 23 June, the electorate will answer the question. As I said, we must allow them to do that of their own right without any interference. The economic and social benefits are too staggering to consider if it is that they are not to remain in the Union but that is a matter for themselves.

The economic relationship is important. It is almost €1.2 billion of trade. It is not only trade in agriculture, which many might have believed. It would be a common belief that we just export our agricultural goods. Aside from agricultural products, many other goods and services, including IT, are traded. The amount of trade they do with us here as well is vast. One might think they would export more to other parts of the world but that is not the case. There is a huge amount of trade back and forth between our two nations. I honestly believe that if they were to decide to exit, we would have serious trade issues.

The European Union has stood the test of time. I have been very critical of it on many occasions, and I am still. Its legislation has certainly not been that favourable to us here. I admire sometimes that the English seem to have achieved better deals. From an agricultural point of view, I can point to one straight away, which is the nitrates directive. In the Border counties of Monaghan and Fermanagh, there is a railing marking the Border. The weather and climatic conditions are the same. It is literally the same field but we have more stringent rules here. We could, with common sense, spread slurry on land. Their situation is different. They were obviously more active in the negotiations and more conscious of the issue. That is only one item.

We have become too bureaucratic as a European Union. There are too many rules and regulations and not enough of the spirit of the European Union itself. There is too much red tape and then when we get it over here, we add several more statutory instruments. Perhaps we could learn a bit from the stances the English people have taken on a number of issues. Despite this, still they are not satisfied. They have demanded a referendum and now they are getting it. I believe they will look cold and hard at the situation. Young people to whom I have spoken, who are living and working there and are involved in the economy, believe it will remain in the Union but I will not dare to suggest how they should vote. However, as I said, it is a serious issue facing us. When the referendum is over, we will look at the result and pick up the pieces. Hopefully, we will have a Government by then. If we do not, God help us.

It is important that we let them have their vote without any fear or favour and that we reflect on the result. Perhaps there is one lesson we can take from it which is that whatever the new Government might be, we should stand up to the Europeans more. They have not always been that helpful to us, especially in the time of the so-called bailout with the banks. I called it a clean-out and I still do because the interest rate was nearly 6% whereas the IMF gave it to us for 3%.

We all have to reflect on our positions within Europe. We have to be treated fairly and with respect and we have to let them know that we are not just the good boys and girls of Europe. There was never a time like the present when we needed more support from Europe. We are unable to form a Government because of the stringent rules and fiscal agreements we entered into, yet we seem to be afraid to go back and ask them for leniency. Perhaps we can take a leaf out of another book and look at this on 24, 25 and 26 June, reflect and see how we can leverage - I hate using that word - fairer conditions for us as a small partner and an island nation that needs Europe's support and not stringent regulations. We need to reflect on how we need Europe's financial support without its punitive penal interest rates. We also need to reflect on how we should be respected for the nation we are and for being the good Europeans and on how we should get support when we need it most. Our hour of need has come this year, yet we seem to be afraid. Our most senior civil servants also seem to be afraid to go back and ask for anything to be re-examined and to look for a better deal for our people. We can reflect on that after the vote and see if they would be interested, if not insisting on it, in giving due recognition to our situation and trying to help us on our pathway to recovery. Let it be a meaningful and real recovery. As I said, we await the outcome.

I now call Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, who has ten minutes.

Can I clarify how minutes I have? I had looked for just five minutes so I will be sharing time with Deputy Helen McEntee.

Ten minutes have been allotted to Deputy Corcoran Kennedy.

Okay, I will take what I need. Thank you.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this significant and concerning matter for Ireland. It is not something we want to be talking about here but, at the same time, we as a nation need to make our feelings known. I support fully the issue of the UK remaining in the EU. It is our nearest neighbour. Not only do we share a very extensive Border of 500 km, we also have a unique relationship also with the UK. While I understand we are all aware of it, it is up to the electorate in the UK to decide what it wants to do. However, it is critically important for us to let our views be known and to consider very carefully and plan for the negative outcome we hope will not happen. We have a responsibility to ourselves to ensure we are prepared for this outcome and to let people who have votes, whether they are Irish citizens living in the UK or British citizens living here, know that we urge them to vote against the UK leaving the European Union. It is critical that we do that.

The European People's Movement has been very active in this regard. It requested those of us who care about this matter to contact friends and family here and in the UK who have votes and urge them to register and exercise their opportunity to vote. The figures are significant. I understand in Ireland alone almost 500,000 people can vote.

I refer to our relationship with the UK. In the UK one person in four has some Irish heritage, which is a significant number. Some 60,000 company directors in the UK are Irish born. Our annual trade is in the order of €62 billion and is growing. These are very significant figures, which we must protect and grow.

The UK is our alley at the table in the European Parliament. We joined the EEC at the same time back in 1973 and have a very strong track record of working together and being allies in terms of protecting ourselves when decisions are being made.

If the electorate in the UK rejects membership of the European Union, the impact on Ireland will be far-reaching. The economic impacts will include trade, foreign direct investment and the labour market. The diplomatic effects will include the peace process efforts and the relationships between countries. The funding that comes from the European Union to assist the peace process has been significant.

In terms of migration, the restriction of freedom of movement will have an impact on people moving between the UK and Ireland and vice versa. There is a long history of Irish people working in the UK. What will happen to passport controls? Will they be reintroduced? That would be a horrendous prospect.

Worse again are border controls. As a child I recall very clearly holidaying on the Border with my mother, who was a Leitrim woman. We regularly travelled across the Border to Fermanagh. I remember in Ballyconnell, where Border control used to be, young-faced British soldiers checked that we were who we appeared to be. I remember the discomfort and not knowing exactly why I did not feel happy about the situation as a child but knowing that it felt wrong. On another occasion, we saw a British army training exercise.

I fear that we would return to border controls, which would be regressive for us as a society. There is a generation in our society who do not remember any of that, and that is how we would like to keep it. It is one of the most important issues. We do not know whether it will happen but I would not like to see it happening.

I refer to energy. We have a very good relationship with the North of Ireland. There has been an all-Ireland market since 2007 and interconnection between North and South is very important. In fact, it is more important to the North because it does not have the electricity generation capacity that we have. We are a very important neighbour in that regard. Therefore, it would be a major challenge for us all in terms of our climate change responsibilities, if Britain exited the EU because the EU has rules around what it expects all of us to do to adjust to the impact of climate change on our country and planet.

What would happen in the UK if it was no longer subject to EU rules on climate policy? It is something of great concern to us. Climate change is the number one policy challenge for every country, not only in the European Union but in the world, and it will have to be the root of all policy decision-making across all departments, in particular the Departments of the Environment, Community and Local Government; Agriculture, Marine and Food; and Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We will face major challenges, which will not be helped if our nearest neighbour is doing something completely different.

A new Teagasc report released this month highlighted concerns for the Irish dairy and beef sector. It is concerned about the impact the UK's exit would have on the Irish agrifood expert sector which, as we know, is very important for our economy and has been growing every year. The figures it released are sobering. Irish agrifood exports were worth close to €11 billion in 2014. The UK is our number one export destination, which is incredible.

We need to be very conscious that there will be an impact on various sectors. We do not want to be fatalistic, but we must be realistic about to where this might bring us as a country when we have worked so hard over the past number of years to recover our economic sovereignty. If the UK votes to leave the EU, we may be faced with an enormous challenge which will have earth-shattering effects on our country and society.

I am sharing time with Deputy Pringle.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Britain's relationship with the European Union. I find it very interesting to hear Deputies on the Government benches talk about how important it is for the 500,000 British citizens who live in the Republic to exercise their right to vote and to vote not to leave the European Union, given that over the past five years the Government resisted totally the possibility of giving votes to our emigrants so that the 600,000 Irish born people living in the UK could vote and participate in our democracy.

Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has left the Chamber. In her contribution she referred to crossing the Border in Fermanagh and seeing the British army. The reality is that Ireland and Britain were in the EU when that went on. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether the UK votes to leave the European Union. In terms of the common travel area, we had free travel before we ever joined the European Union, or the EEC as it was in 1973. There were no passport controls or travel restrictions. I understand the common travel area has been in existence since 1949. Theresa Villiers is no friend of mine but she made the position clear at the weekend. The common travel area predates the European Union and if there is a Brexit vote, it will make no difference to the current arrangement between the UK and Ireland.

There is a lot of scaremongering and false information and the tone of the discussion and debate from those opposed to Brexit is completely focused on economics and economic relationships. It is a symbol of what the society in which we live has become. We have become an economy, and the only thing in which we and our Government are interested are economics, trade and how GDP and GNP may be affected. We are more interested in that than how our citizens will be affected or anything else.

While I do not agree with the reasons why the British have decided to have a vote on membership of the European Union, I hope they vote to leave. Anything that brings forth the end of the European Union would be a good idea. If the British vote speeds that up, it would and should be welcomed. All one has to do is consider the history of the European Union over the past number of years. Recently, a treaty was signed with Turkey regarding the removal of refugees and immigrants from Greece back to Turkey. The European Union has declared Turkey to be a safe country.

It is not a very safe country for a Kurd or a Syrian refugee who flees into Turkey to get away from ISIS and the Assad regime and the slaughter they are playing out against their own citizens. Hundreds of Syrian refugees are turned back every week. In the past year, dozens of Syrian refugees have been shot dead on the border by Turkish border guards. The Turkish Government has been bombing Kurdish villages and towns inside Turkey for the past year yet there is no mention of that anywhere.

This great, democratic, peaceful Union we talk about does a deal with Turkey to get rid of refugees and people who need our protection in order to get them back into a country that does not respect their rights and where they are not safe and we are quite happy to go along with that. If we look at what this great Union has done in the past two years, it has carried out two coups within its own member states, where it deposed an elected government in Greece and an elected government in Italy because they did not suit the great economic agenda of the European Central Bank and the European Commission. That is the kind of Union we want everybody to stay in and be part of, without mentioning the move within the EU towards the creation of a European army and the great vision that Manuel Barroso had of the EU in 2007 when he said we now have all the trappings of empire. This is what we want to participate in and of what we are encouraging people in England to vote in favour.

I believe we should leave the English people to make their own decisions, as well as our own citizens in the Six Counties. The sky will not fall in if they vote to leave and trade deals will be done to protect our situation. We should let them make their own decisions and, hopefully, we can see the end of this Union completely.

I agree with Deputy Pringle that we should leave the sovereign state of England to make its own decision. It is noteworthy that we have given aside all of today to discuss, ostensibly in a neutral manner, the effect of the possible exit of Britain, when the real sub-text is, "Please, do not do this because we will be down". As Deputy Pringle said, we have had a discussion of the possible financial and trade implications and a corporate financial advisory service has been mentioned, namely, Davy. What has not been mentioned is that it noted that, if England leaves, it is likely to form a relationship with the EU similar to the ones already in place between the EU and Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein or Switzerland, and that some sort of trade agreement will be put in place. If this happens, there will be significantly less impact on the Irish economy.

I will leave that issue aside because it has been discussed today and figures have been thrown out in the manner of lies, damned lies and statistics, with each being used for the purposes of the speaker. What I would like to the refer to are the Tánaiste's words that the project of the EU has made many mistakes and that it was a social project that had to do with solidarity. Unfortunately, she did not go on to explain what those mistakes were and what it was intended to do about them. However, she did mention that our President would be visiting some place in Cork today. Significantly, she failed to refer to any of his speeches in regard to the inadequacies of the EU project regard to the social agenda or to justice and inequality. I would welcome the day when Labour looks at some of those speeches and puts them into action in government or in opposition.

What I would like to focus on for my remaining time is the EU-Turkey deal which has been done in our name. I am not happy with it and I call on the Government, as do many concerned citizens in this country, to reverse that decision. That agreement was made on 20 March and it means we are now looking at refugees like a game of draughts - one in and one out. The deal sets out that all new migrants crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands will be returned to Turkey, that for every Syrian migrant returned to Turkey, another Syrian will be resettled in the EU, and, in quite an ominous provision, that Turkey will take all necessary steps to prevent new sea or land routes for irregular migration opening from Turkey to the EU. In return, Turkey will benefit from a visa liberalisation scheme, up to €6 billion in EU funding and an acceleration in Turkey's EU accession process.

This is a country the EU has failed to let become a member because of its appalling record and, suddenly, all of that can be set aside. Why? It is because, in the biggest displacement of populations since the Second World War, we have attempted to deal with this with blinkered vision and by putting a most appalling deal with Turkey into action.

We have left the poorer countries to pick up the refugees. Greece, which has been demonised in this Chamber for its courage in standing up to the European bullies, has taken in a substantial number of refugees and migrants, as have Lebanon and other poorer countries. What number have we taken in? We are to take in 4,000 over a period of time but it is not clear what number we have taken into this State.

Twenty. I will conclude as it is late in the day. It is interesting that we gave this day to something over which we have no control, a vote of a sovereign people, but we did not give a day to water charges. We do not have time to discuss water charges, housing or health with a view to tackling the things over which we do have control.

We discussed health yesterday.

As this is my first opportunity to address the Thirty-second Dáil, I congratulate my colleagues on their re-election and congratulate the new Ceann Comhairle. I hope that, in the new spirit of multi-party politics, we can work together and, sooner rather than later, form a new Government.

The prospect of Britain leaving the EU following the upcoming Brexit referendum is certainly of national interest to Ireland and is a concern for the many thousands of people I and other Deputies represent in this Parliament. As a Parliament, we need to be mindful of our responsibility, which is much more than "poor Ireland" and how this is going to affect our economy or trade. We represent a number of different groups in Irish society and it is important to acknowledge them. We have spoken to many of these groups in recent weeks and months, and not just for the purpose of this debate. With regard to Irish emigrants, the British census data shows there are 675,000 people living in Britain who were born in Ireland. During the recession, more than 13,000 Irish people were emigrating to Britain every year, including many of my own generation. There is obviously a logic that Brexit would give a competitive boost to foreign direct investment here in Ireland, in particular to the IFSC, and this would be beneficial for Irish people working abroad who wanted to come home. While that is a logic understood by many Irish people living in Britain, having spoken to any of my friends working there, who would be set to benefit from this, all of them think Irish people working in Britain, in particular young Irish people, are best served by Britain remaining in the EU. My generation of Irish people are strongly opposed to Brexit.

While we know a very significant number of Irish citizens live in Britain, there is comparatively less acknowledgement of the corresponding figures. The last census shows over 110,000 British citizens are living in Ireland, making this the largest ethnic minority in the Republic. To consider the impact Brexit would have for a British person living in Ireland, who perhaps has moved over, married an Irish person, has children who are Irish citizens and who is raising a family here, I feel it would diminish their political status. Having spoken to people about this, I believe many would essentially feel like foreigners in an unaligned country. This Parliament needs to be mindful of our collective duty to them, as well as to our Irish citizens abroad.

To take one area of business, farming, 31% of our agrifood produce is exported to Britain. Obviously, in order to discourage other countries from leaving the EU, I believe there would be harsh implications and that a very tough exit deal would be negotiated with the UK. What would it mean for Ireland if the EU puts up very large walls in order to make things more difficult for the UK? Ireland is the first country that would suffer if that is the case. We could look to monetary tariffs but regulatory blockages that will interfere with trade could mean that the terms of trade between the EU and Britain will become a serious challenge for farmers in Meath and other counties, in particular for Boyne valley producers with whom I work continuously and whom I represent.

For example, the EU has a common approach to animal slaughtering licensing. Possibly, a post-Brexit Britain would operate outside this system. Again, this would be a disastrous prospect for Meath beef farmers in particular.

I wish to move on from specific individuals. We all understand there is hostility on the part of some citizens in Britain to the EU. This is the cause of the referendum and the whole discussion. It is important to understand the main reasons behind this because hostility is felt in various countries. It is evident not only in the UK but in Ireland as well. One of the reasons is the cynicism of politicians and national political parties. For a long time politicians throughout Europe, including Ireland - we are the same, as are our political parties - have been taking personal credit or appropriating credit for their political party for success stories. This means when something happens and it is good and right, we take credit for it. However, the EU has been like a mudguard in many instances. When things have gone wrong we have been able to blame the EU. This means throughout the EU there is much cynicism and this has a knock-on effect on people's view of how we look at the EU. I call on all Deputies to be mindful of this and to make an effort not to abuse the EU for narrow local short-term political gain.

There is a second reason some British citizens and others throughout Europe are hostile to the EU. The EU is often bureaucratic and at times undemocratic in its approach towards European policy-making and the way it impacts on local communities. For example, let us consider the logical integration of services. There is an EU principle that every reasonable person understands and accepts whereby it makes sense for countries to come together to provide health services to patients with extremely rare diseases. By pooling resources countries can provide better medical research and ultimately better health care. One of my colleagues touched on the question of energy security. A common approach to energy security across a large group of like-minded countries makes sense. However, sometimes in working towards understandable policy objectives, EU policies that we try to introduce ride roughshod over our local communities. I see this with the North-South interconnector and how it is impacting on communities in Meath, Cavan and Monaghan as well as on the other side of the Border. One of the main focuses of British-Irish integration in the past decade relates to the idea of a single British-Irish energy market with power to be transmitted by North-South and cross-channel interconnectors. Brexit might signal the collapse of this integration initiative. Such an outcome would not be welcome in many homes throughout Meath, Cavan and Monaghan. The important political point is that a semi-State company is trying to build infrastructure. It is being prompted to do so by the European integration policy objectives. It is trying to develop a project in a part of Ireland where families are reasonable. However, when such a body is implementing the project and pushing it on families, it means they start looking at things in a different manner and possibly not in a positive light.

There are implications for the North as well. I live 40 minutes from the Border. There are deep and natural connections between my area and parts of the North. Only last week a group of Fine Gael activists with whom I work were in nearby Newry to canvass for the SDLP. Indeed, an SDLP member, John Hume, has made the point several times that the European Union provided the setting for the Northern Ireland equality and peace process to develop. Before the broader setting of the European Union, with Britain and Ireland as two member states in a larger union, the dynamic was of one large country against a smaller country. We cannot allow things to go back to that state. It would have serious consequences for the North. I have family living in the North. I have a cousin who is married to a man from the North. Traditionally, they come from separate backgrounds but both are completely opposed to any kind of exit.

As Members of Dáil Éireann we owe it to Irish emigrants, young and old, who are living in the UK, British citizens living in Ireland, people in Northern Ireland, Meath farmers and every other Irish worker and businessperson who trades with the UK and further afield to provide leadership on this issue as well as representation in the debate. There are 159 Deputies in the House who were elected to provide leadership. If we do not have a Dáil we cannot do that, but I hope we will have a Dáil and a Government soon enough. Just as the people of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Britain and many other countries have benefited over the decades from European integration, so it is the case that the people whom we are elected to represent would benefit from new partnerships and joined-up thinking.

I am amazed that some Members believe we should not be focusing on the consequences of this vote in the United Kingdom. Our entire economy is intertwined with the UK economy. We are seriously dependent in many sectors. The consequences of the vote on 23 June are bound to impact on us if the UK people vote to exit. I hope they will not but if they vote to exit, we would be negligent in our duty if we have not prepared and discussed the options and a plan to lessen the impact on our economy.

I intend to focus on the agrifood sector and the implications for our agrifood sector and the food industry in Ireland. At the moment our agricultural industry is in chaos. Our primary producers are being asked to produce food under the cost of production. It sends a shiver up my spine to think about what would happen if our access to the UK market was reduced. It is our nearest customer with a population of 64 million that is forecast to grow to 75 million within a generation. If we have reduced access or if tariffs were put on us because of entry into that market, the consequences would be too frightening to contemplate.

Therefore, given where our industry is at the moment the consequences following a British exit from the EU must be fully understood. Actions must be prepared to save our industry from the possible outcomes. The Irish agrifood sector is far more linked to the UK than it is to the rest of the EU. The EU accounts for 62% of UK exports and 70% of UK imports of agrifood products are Irish. However, the UK takes only 8% of the agrifood exports of other EU member states while it supplies just over 3% of imports. These figures are far smaller than the figures for this country. We exported €5.1 billion to the UK in 2015. Some €970 million of that figure was dairy produce and €1.1 billion was beef product. We imported €3.8 billion from the UK. Therefore, there is an extraordinary amount of interchange and trade between the two countries. More than €70 million of these imports were dairy products and €100 million were beef products. Some 55% of our total meat exports go to the UK and they are worth €2 billion per annum. A total of 54% of our beef goes there. Indeed, 61% of our pigmeat, 84% of our poultry and 28% of our sheepmeat goes there. Fully 30% of our dairy products find a home there. We import 400,000 sheep from Northern Ireland and 500,000 of our pigs are exported live to Northern Ireland. A total of 1 billion litres of milk are imported from Northern Ireland. These figures clearly show our remarkable dependence on each other and the amount of trade between the two countries.

In light of these figures alone, the Irish agrifood sector stands to be adversely affected far more than other member states within the EU if Brexit becomes a reality. Further complications could arise if border controls become necessary in respect of trade within the EU and given the nature of the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. If the UK does exit, I would be concerned about our live trade. We use the UK as an avenue to get to mainland Europe. If the UK exits, further restrictions could be put on our live export business. This is an area we have neglected in recent years. It is something we have to develop and expand. If the UK is not part of the EU, I envisage serious complications in our access to mainland Europe.

The UK contributes 12% to the EU budget. It is a major net contributor to that budget. In 2013, the UK contribution to EU resources was €17.1 billion. EU expenditure in the UK amounted to €6.3 billion. Therefore, the UK was a net contributor of €10.8 billion. In an Irish context, 37% of that budget is spent on agriculture. This means if there is €10.8 billion to be made up following a UK exit, the agriculture budget would come under serious scrutiny. It has already been cut significantly in recent years. If the UK left and €10.8 billion had to be found, I imagine the agriculture budget would come under pressure again.

In the Council of Ministers, under the double majority qualified voting system in place since November 2014, it has 12.3% of the votes based on population. An exit would obviously affect different voting majorities in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and this may compromise Irish interests on the Council.

If we accept then that our agrifood sector is much more vulnerable than that of any other member state, there is an onus on us to prepare properly and to prepare for the worst. The UK will have a number of options for a trade policy with the EU post-Brexit. Will it take the option of the EEA agreement, similar to the relationship that Norway has with the EU? The EEA option would provide the least disruption to trade flows. This is because the EEA extends the Single Market legislation to EEA countries. However, agricultural trade and policy is not a part of the EEA agreement, a worrying thought for our agricultural sector. Only the non-agricultural component of custom duties for processed agricultural products is eliminated, although bilateral agreements provide for some liberalisation of trade in basic agricultural commodities, usually limited by tariff rate quotas. This option would clearly hamper Ireland's future development.

The second option for the UK is similar to the relationship that Switzerland has with the EU. While Switzerland is a member of the EFTA, Swiss voters rejected the opportunity of joining the EEA in a referendum in December 1992, but, following negotiations, Switzerland agreed ten treaties, one of which deals with agriculture and, in real terms, Switzerland enjoys the same economic relationship with those countries that are part of the EEA such as Norway. This is again not a palatable option for Ireland.

A third option for the UK would be to create a customs union with the EU along the lines of Turkey. The customs union does not give Turkey access to the Single Market, but it foresees that Turkey will align its trade-related legislation with the EU in several areas essential for market access. This option would still leave our agriculture industry at a disadvantage.

The final option for the UK would be free trade agreements with the EU, that would be governed by WTO rules, as both parties would be WTO members. Tariffs would apply to the agrifood trade and the economic relationship between Ireland and the UK would be no more important than between any other two states around the world, despite our proximity and long trading history. It is safe to say then that whatever option the UK chooses, if it decides to exit the Union it will leave the agrifood sector in Ireland in a worse position. The generations of agricultural trade between our two countries, a trade that has been regulated and cemented through our mutual membership of the EU over the past 15 years, can only disimprove if the UK decides to exit.

The agrifood sector is under extreme pressure and 23 June will be an important day for us. I hope our nearest partner and largest customer decides to remain within the EU.

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Notwithstanding the diverse contributions, it is one of the one of the most important debates we have engaged in, or are likely to engage in, in the first part of the year. I have listened attentively to the various positives and negatives put forward by both sides. Many issues will affect the country, none of them positive, in the event of Brexit and that should be recognised. While Members can hark after the way they would like to see things and member states can do so, we should compare the position of Europe now, albeit imperfect, with that ten years before the EU existed and the coal and steel community was invented and wonder which is the better option. That should not take long.

I am amazed at the some of the statements made by Members that everything will be all right and it will work out okay in the long run because a deal will be worked out. I have never heard anything so irresponsible in all my life. Where do they think we are headed? Are they serious about this or will they let Brexit happen and speculate about it afterwards before saying, "It is a pity we did not do something at the time"? I believe there is nothing positive about Brexit for this State, Northern Ireland and Great Britain and everything will be negative. There is not only the fear of the unknown but there is also the unknown. When that unknown becomes known, it will then dawn on all of us that perhaps we should have looked at everything differently at the time.

What about the unknown unknowns?

The Deputy, without interruption, please.

I will deal with them and the known unknowns shortly.

However, I cannot understand how people can say we would be better off outside the Union and the Union would be better off if it did not exist. Where in God's name have people been for the past 25, 30 or 40 years? Members should consider all the benefits that have accrued to us, directly and indirectly, from membership of the Union and the progress we have made and compare that with the 40 years prior to that before coming to a conclusion.

What worries me most is what we have learned over the past number of years amidst speculation about the future of the Union and how unsatisfactory is it. It is not ideal and there is no doubt it does not work as well as it should, but it is immeasurably better than anything else that has been put forward. The weakness of the Union currently is the degree to which individual member states refuse to accept it and want to impose their own will on it. It should not be forgotten that the razor wire we have seen in recent times as an emblem of the Union preventing refugees from getting into member states is not the fault of the Union. That is individual member states enforcing their views and refusing to accept the obvious and the responsibilities they have towards refugees. Refugees are not running away from wealth and riches, safety or a good lifestyle; they are running in fear. We should always remember that many Europeans ran in fear in times past and were glad to get cover. Many of us in this jurisdiction went elsewhere for assistance over the years. We should also remember that prejudice should not rule our minds when it comes to dealing with issues of this nature, be they emotive or whatever. I do not blame the Union but if we continue doing what we are now doing as Europeans, we will have failed to do the job that needs to be done now of ensuring the EU speaks with one voice to accommodate people in so far as it is possible and not be so prejudiced and concerned as to shun all possibilities to address this issue on the basis that refugees are a threat to us all. Deputy Clare Daly spoke emotionally about this subject earlier and she is correct that the EU should be ashamed of itself in respect of this. However, the EU is not the perpetrator; it is the individual member states who refused point blank to accept any responsibility and want to hive it off to other countries.

We must consider the options before us. I hope sincerely that the British people respond positively to what lies ahead of them. If the thinking is that by going backwards to the way things were and becoming insular again and looking after our own house to the exclusion of everything else, we will achieve something we have not done previously and economic benefits will accrue to us, people need to think again. Those who dismiss the possibility of Brexit on the basis that something else will be worked out and that we will have the same access to the Union as Switzerland and a number of other countries should consider our geographic position. We are not in the middle of the Union. Everybody does not have to cross our borders before entering another member state. We are on the periphery, as is Britain, and both states need to be aware of the consequences of going back to where we were before the Union existed. If people think that is the simple way to go and that would have prevented the economic collapse experienced across Europe and in this country, in particular, it would not. The only thing that went wrong was individual member states refused to adhere to the principles laid down by the Union in respect of banking, economic strategy and other issues, yet the word "weakness" comes up again and again. That has emerged because at every opportunity when member states and their politicians want to attribute blame for something they do not want to be associated with, they blame the Union.

The latter is an easy target and it is used as a scapegoat again and again. As a result, much damage has been done to the European concept. There is now a dearth of people willing to come forward at European level to defend the principles of the European project. Sadly, that is the case. The longer it continues, the more the European concept will be eroded and the less attraction there will be to continue with the European Union. I would hate to think what would happen if and when the European Union broke up in disorder. Such an eventuality is inevitable if we continue on this tangent and there will be conflict if it happens.

There are those who suggest that in some way this will be a great awakening and will bring a new era with great benefits. We should read our history very carefully. European history - our history - is littered with incidents that clearly illustrate for all the dangers of going down that route. We were delighted to have the benefit and friendship of the European Union for so many years and I hope that will continue. I hope the UK and Ireland will remain within the European Union after the vote taking place in the UK in the next month. If that happens, we will be in a position to concentrate on issues that must be dealt with in the European Union, namely, bringing the Union closer together, recognising each other's positions and trying to ensure that we take ownership of the Union. We speak in this House as if Ireland was not a member of the European Union but was, rather, outside it. Ireland is a member state. As individual members of the community in a member state, we have a duty and responsibility to try to ensure that we act cohesively, along with other member states and the communities therein, to benefit the European Union. Ultimately, the latter will have beneficial consequences for us all.

I am really appalled by some of the depressing and negative statements I have heard today. I will not get into individual details but I wish some of the contributors would go to a lending institution, make a presentation and try to borrow money on the basis of their views. They would find the response to be anything but positive. I have never known any proposals along the lines I have heard today that received any kind of favourable comment from lending institutions. There is not much time left and we should all concentrate on doing what we can to bring about a positive and helpful result. I hope that is what happens.

I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to briefly discuss the Brexit issue. A Brexit would not be in our national interest and there are so many areas where it would make our economic and political future much more difficult than it might be otherwise. However, the debate in the UK is valuable and the British people must be commended on their courage in considering all aspects of the European Union at this time. If they decide to vote for a Brexit, it would bring fundamental change, but it is valuable at least to have the general debate on how Europe operates and particularly the accountability and transparency of European institutions.

People sometimes believe history has an inevitability but there is nothing inevitable about it. I met former Commissioner Richard Burke of Fine Gael, who was in office when Greenland, which is still attached to the Danish crown, decided to leave the then European Economic Community, EEC. There was much sadness about this as a result of the opportunities for development in Denmark, Greenland and the rest of Europe that were lost. During Iceland's terrible recent financial crisis, it was being said very confidently in Brussels that the country would apply to join the European Union. Of course, Iceland has more or less decided it is not coming in and will remain on road similar to that taken by Norway. Nothing is inevitable. On the other side of the Eurasian land mass, although countries share culture and history, nobody would think that Japan or Korea would join China. There are a number of areas which make up a large chunk of the Chinese communist state - I refer, in particular, to Tibet and the lands occupied by the Uyghur people - which do not want any kind of membership of that state. There is nothing inevitable about it.

The party I belonged to for most of my political career opposed entry into the European Union in 1973. One of the issues at the time related to our fisheries. There is no question that our ocean waters - our fifth province - were sold down the river in the deal made in 1972. Our agriculture was protected and enhanced but our fisheries did very badly. Looking back over the years since we joined, particularly the years of social Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, we had many valuable developments and this country was assisted by Europe in bringing our legislation to modern standards and supporting modern social programmes. Since the early 1990s, many people have had second thoughts about aspects of Europe, particularly the development of the "financialisation" of banking and the development of a cutthroat capitalist regime in several members of the European Union. That has given people pause for thought, with individuals feeling that perhaps we should step back and look at how Europe has developed and how it will continue to develop.

During our boom, our annual contributions to Europe more or less evened out. The Minister probably knows the exact detail but we are in the process of becoming a net contributor. We are in the same league as Britain and other countries. In the past four or five years, people have felt very upset that the savage austerity inflicted on this country effectively came from decisions of the European institutions. There was a failure to establish a proper central bank at the instigation of the euro, along with the necessary central banking institutions. There was also the infliction of the burden of debt on our shoulders in order to protect, in particular, German banks. More recently, people have been concerned about the handling of the migration crisis and the way in which Germany unilaterally abandoned the Dublin Convention. It was seemingly prepared to put its political ideals in front of the ideals of the 28 nations; essentially, it was not prepared to work for a European-wide and urgently required solution for people fleeing terror and war in countries like Syria.

It is, therefore, understandable that there has been a rise in euroscepticism. We saw recently in the Netherlands that the Dutch people voted against the EU partnership deal to remove trade barriers with Ukraine. Some 61% of the electorate voted against it and there was a major Internet petition by eurosceptics in the Netherlands that gained approximately 400,000 signatures. It is clear that - leaving aside the Brexit referendum - there are alarm bells ringing with regard to the necessity for European institutions to have much more accountability and visibility in each of the 28 countries.

A final point on that side of the argument is that there have been so many "No" votes in our own country, as well as in France, the Netherlands and other states, in respect of European developments. Nevertheless, those votes have always been effectively overturned because people keep voting. That may well be the case for those of us in this House because the people could be asked to vote again in the coming weeks in order that we might get another result.

It is very striking how people have been asked for their opinion and it has not been respected. I accept that a Brexit would have a significant and detrimental impact on our economy and we cannot underestimate the potential impact on Northern Ireland. While our exports and imports with the UK are vastly different in percentage terms than in the early 1970s, the UK remains a fundamentally important market. Over 90% of our imported energy products came from the UK in 2014. It is very difficult to imagine the UK outside the EU. There are very close bonds that bind us to our countrymen in the North, to the Welsh, the Scots and the English people: maybe 20% or 25% of English people are of pretty direct Irish descent - one only has to look at the surnames - to contemplate them in a different political space than us.

The debate is useful. We are watching programmes like "Newsnight" and other BBC debates across the topic. The UK's apparent achievement in abandoning the principle of ever closer union is probably an important milestone. The diversity of this Continent with all its cultures and languages, along with the common culture of Christianity and our general history from the Roman Empire and before that means that we must have a varied approach to future development. There needs to be much more visibility and accountability from European institutions. For example, the relationship between our MEPs and this House remains unsatisfactory. It is unacceptable that ordinary people, and even political activists, do not know the names of several of Ireland's MEPs a few months after the election. Obviously MEPs should also have to work on that relationship, but they can become very remote very easily.

Negotiations around the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, are reportedly being accelerated yet there has not really been an opportunity for a proper national discussion in the House on TTIP and other significant agreements. I hope that the UK electorate chooses to remain in the EU but that the conversation started by the English Government will continue at a European level to look at the reforms necessary to bring Europe much closer to us and to accept the diversity. The greatness of European civilisation has always been its diversity. Our nation has contributed so much to human history, the arts, literature, politics, economics etc. as other member states have contributed and as will other countries that will join in the future. However, we need to have a Europe that will be relaxed and broad enough to take a different way, maybe a confederate path rather than a federalist path, into the future.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on EU-UK relations and in particular the dangers of the possibility of the UK leaving the European Union. Britain is holding a referendum on 23 June to decide whether stay in the EU or leave. The polls are suggesting that it is too close to call. My position is very clear, I want the UK to remain part of the EU. As a TD for Louth I - more than most - know the importance of the close working relationship between the UK and Ireland. A UK exit from the EU would have very serious consequences for Ireland and particularly for Border counties like Louth.

The UK is our largest trading partner and recently the British Chamber of Commerce calculated the value of trade between our countries at over €1 billion a week. Trade between Ireland and the UK is shown to support over 400,000 jobs directly, half of which are in Ireland. From speaking with many business people in the Border area, including Dundalk, I know the importance of the UK market to their businesses. There is no doubt they fear a UK exit and the possible dangers associated with it. For many small Irish businesses the UK is very often their first export market and I know, from running my own electrical business, the importance of a strong relationship with the UK. Over 40% of all exports from Irish SMEs go to the UK. I will put the huge scale of the Irish-British relationship into context. Almost one in four people in Britain have Irish heritage. Also, 600,000 people born on the island of Ireland live in Britain. There are almost 60,000 Irish born directors of companies in Britain. Ireland is the UK's fifth largest export market, ahead of Brazil, India and China combined.

If the relationship between the UK and Ireland was to change as a result of the upcoming referendum and we were faced with trade barriers and tariffs then the consequences for the Irish economy could be significant, particularly for Border counties like Louth. The easy movement of people and goods between the two countries is extremely important to us and we do not want to go back to the bad old days of Border controls or to a dramatic increase in cross-Border smuggling, which I firmly believe could happen, as a direct result of a UK exit.

Should the UK leave the EU then Northern Ireland would no longer have access to vital EU funding for cross-Border projects which in turn would pose a real challenge for cross-Border co-operation and would have a significant impact on services and infrastructure in areas like Louth.

There are many benefits to EU funding which can be seen on both sides of the Border. We have made great strides in recent years in the area of cross-Border co-operation and it is extremely important that we do everything possible to protect this progress. The Irish Government has worked over the recent decades very closely with UK counterparts to facilitate peace in the North and this process was helped by very valuable EU supports. The close co-operation was clearly seen by the recent Stormont House and Fresh Start agreements which were co-facilitated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Flanagan.

I know from living in a Border county that the people of Louth are aware of the importance of continuing with the very close relationship we currently enjoy with the UK. It is important that we do our utmost to ensure that the level of co-operation with the UK, which we have enjoyed over the last 40 years, is maintained and strengthened. However, we must also prepare ourselves for the possibility of the UK voting in favour of leaving the EU and we must make the necessary arrangements to make the transition as smooth as possible. I urge all Government Departments to have contingency plans in place in the event of a UK exit from EU. I wish to put on record that I am in favour of the UK staying in the EU and I fully support the Government's efforts to highlight to the British public the many benefits of retaining their membership of the EU in the upcoming referendum.

Comhghairdeas on the Acting Chair's re-election to Dáil Éireann. I hope we will not all be on the road again in a few weeks. I will speak for less than five minutes because I wish to allow Deputy O'Loughlin in.

People who have said we should not be having this debate are out of touch with reality. The matter is certainly to the fore. Usually when I make a contribution about such issues at meetings I always consult with my electorate. Over recent weeks I have consulted with my constituents in Roscommon-Galway and it is quite clearly on their agendas. It is being spoken about a lot and Irish people who are home on holidays from the UK are talking about the situation that could develop if Britain was to exit the EU.

This referendum will take place on 23 June which is just a mere eight or ten weeks away. The referendum will be a defining moment in the history of the European Union, the outcome of which could change the nature of the Union. The Fianna Fáil Party is very clear about where it stands on this issue.

While this decision is for Great Britain alone to make, we do not believe that a British exit from the EU would be in the best interests of the Union and it would certainly not be in the best interests of the island of Ireland. As has been stated previously in this debate, Great Britain is our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. I am of the view that the ramifications of a British exit from the EU would be far-reaching and wide-ranging and would definitely have an effect on this country.

Several reports have highlighted that a British exit from the EU would have direct negative consequences for Ireland in the trade, travel, tourism, agrifood - which is a significant part of the Irish economy - and energy sectors. The energy sector is an area in respect of which we need to co-operate with Europe in order to keep energy prices down. A recent report by Teagasc noted that a Brexit could mean a reduction in the value of Irish agrifood exports of anything from €150 million to €800 million per annum. An ESRI report noted that a Brexit could reduce bilateral trade flows between Ireland and the UK by 20% or more. These figures are phenomenal. What I have described would cost the Irish economy €3 billion or €4 billion annually. In addition to the reports to which I refer, the World Economic Outlook published recently by the IMF warned of the possibility of severely damaged regional and global trade relationships in the event of Great Britain leaving the EU.

A number of speakers mentioned Northern Ireland. This is the most significant area of which we should take heed. I am sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, who is in the Chamber, is a man with great experience in dealing with Northern Ireland and with foreign affairs ministers from across Europe and the rest of the world. I believe there would be serious consequences for Northern Ireland if a Brexit were to occur. Much of the social, cultural and economic functioning between North and South and between Ireland and Great Britain is simplified by the fact that both countries are EU members. This has allowed us to forge common bonds at EU level and foster good working relationships. Deputy Pringle was very negative about the EU but never did he mention the importance of the role of the EU in getting rid of our Border, making the surrounding region a better place and attracting more industry to Northern Ireland. We must take those matters on board.

The values of the EU - liberty, equality, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights - have served us well. Fianna Fáil hopes that despite the challenges facing the Union, Great Britain will recognise the many benefits of EU membership and will vote to remain on 23 June. Of course, it is an issue for the British people alone. None of us is happy with what is happening in Turkey but we cannot control many of those things and nobody has an answer to the migrant crisis. Like many Members of this House and many politicians in Ireland, I am not happy with that situation.

This is a small island state on the edge of Europe. We have benefited greatly from EU funds. Education, agriculture, transport and even health programmes have all benefited from European funding. As has already been pointed out, Great Britain contributes €17 billion annually to the EU and extracts just €6 billion. No doubt, if there was an exit by Great Britain, I can see some of the funding that would come to Ireland being lost. I hope that on the day of the referendum, the British people will do what I think is the right thing for Europe. Of course, not everything is right in Europe. We all know that. We all know there are problems but we do not live in a perfect world or a perfect society. If the British people vote to remain, it will be the right thing to do.

It is 43 years since Ireland and Great Britain joined the EU, which is now a bloc of 28 countries and which holds considerable sway in international affairs. On 23 June, Great Britain's electorate will vote on whether to remain within or leave the Union. As always, it is those closest who will be hurt the most if the break-up goes ahead. Great Britain is overwhelmingly Ireland's largest trading partner. Some €1 billion worth of goods and services are bought and sold between the two islands every week. I come from a farming background in County Kildare. For many years, our household income and livelihood depended on the fluctuating rate of sterling for agricultural produce which was being exported to England on a weekly basis. The potential for damage cannot be overstated. Ireland is dependent on its next-door neighbour and the effects that could arise from that neighbour stepping out of well-established free-trade agreements are far-reaching. Great Britain and Ireland are joined at the economic hip regardless of whether we like it.

Many are indeed critical of the deficiencies of the EU model in terms of red tape and frustrating slowness in bringing about a genuine single market fit to compete for global trade and investment but nobody believes that Europe will be stronger without the people and the businesses of Great Britain. The EU has created and maintains an area of peace and stability on a continent that was ravaged by war for centuries. Our countries are highly interdependent and we need to find common solutions to common problems in many areas. Certainly the EU needs to carry out a lot of work. A great deal of that concerns the Single Market and the fact that there are many goods and services that cannot be traded freely at all. Many local standards are still in existence. The EU is not perfect and is facing many challenges. Reform is required. However, it has been at the helm of innovative and transformative policies that have enhanced social, cultural and legal rights in Ireland and Great Britain. The values of the EU - those of liberty, equality, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights - have served us well. We need a European Union that enables us and neighbouring countries to work together in our common interests and we need common rules for our Common Market to provide for fairness, equal opportunities and environmental and consumer protection. My colleagues in Fianna Fáil hope that, despite the challenges, Great Britain will recognise the many positive benefits of EU membership and vote to remain on 23 June. A vote to remain is a vote for European solidarity and cohesion and one that Fianna Fáil strongly endorses. Ireland is co-dependent on the UK and we are Great Britain's largest customer for exports. We are joined in many industries such as leisure, racing and food, to name just a few. It is also worth noting that an estimated 500,000 Irish people based in England, Scotland and Wales are eligible to vote on 23 June. These potential voters are rightly being strongly targeted by the "Remain" campaign.

The recently published report by the UK Treasury warns about the negative impact that leaving the EU would have on Britain. It states that Great Britain would never recover from the economic damage caused by leaving the EU. It places particular focus on the damage that could be done to the Northern Ireland economy and states that leaving would damage trade with Ireland as customs controls might be introduced. The report also states that outside the customs union, goods being exported across the Border could be subject to various forms of customs controls and their liability to duty determined according to complex rules of origin. This would affect the current high level of cross-Border activity and trade flows. If it materialises, the departure of Great Britain from the EU will have many implications for Northern Ireland. Much of the social, cultural and economic functioning between North and South and between Ireland and Great Britain is simplified by the fact that both countries are EU members, which has allowed us to forge common bonds at EU level and to foster good working relationships.

Undoubtedly, the positive relationships and common bonds developed at EU level were and continue to be central to the workings of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. It would be an immense blow to our capacity to work together to secure peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

Despite the challenges, the Fianna Fáil Party remains steadfast in its commitment to the European Union and its founding principles, and while it is a matter for Britain alone to decide its fate on this issue, we are of the opinion that a British exit from the European Union will not serve the best interests of the island of Ireland. I say to those in Britain it is better to negotiate around a table than outside. I have had the honour of representing Ireland on the Committee of the Regions and the opportunity to work with politicians from the 28 EU countries on issues of European and international importance. There is no better way than negotiating, talking, listening, understanding and finding consensus.

This referendum will be a defining moment in the history of the European Union, the outcome of which could irrevocably change the nature of the Union. A Brexit would be the wrong decision for Britain, Europe, Northern Ireland and for the Irish people.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. As this is my first speech in the House, I thank the people of Dublin South-West for voting for me and allowing me to represent them in Dáil Éireann. I will strive to work for the duration of this Dáil to represent and work for them.

This is one of the most important debates we will have in the lifetime of this Dáil, regardless of its length. We cannot overestimate the impact that Britain’s leaving the European Union would have on our country, that country and the EU. Many have spoken about the impact on Ireland and many aspects of that impact. As one who is Irish and who is proud to be European, I think we need to consider the impact on England, the UK and Europe. It would be a disaster for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The United Kingdom belongs in the European Union. It should be an integral part of Europe and should, along with Ireland and the other member countries, lead the challenge on how Europe is shaped and developed. If it leaves, it will turn its back on one of the greatest institutions the world has seen. One of the greatest achievements of the 20th century was developing an institution designed to ensure that the people who live in Europe could live in greater prosperity and without the fear of war. The UK and other European countries had taken part in wars for centuries before then.

The EU has contributed on many levels to the development of Europe, a contribution enhanced by British membership since we, along with it, joined in 1973. If we believe that it is imperative that the UK remain in the EU, we owe a duty, as people living in this country, as public representatives and as citizens of the great republic that Ireland is, to use everything we have in our power to influence our fellow-Europeans, British or Irish people living in Britain, to make sure their voice is heard and they make the case for remaining in Europe. We cannot do that out of a selfish interest in what is in it for Ireland. We must be able to show, particularly to second generation Irish people and people who have lived most of their lives in the UK but who are Irish, that it is to their benefit. Unfortunately, the British media are dominated by a diatribe of endless anti-EU sentiment. A small sectional interest of British society controls the media which never give Europe an even break. The chasm between how many British people see Europe and how we see it could not be wider. We now have an opportunity to try to change that and point out how, on the economic, cultural and European levels, Britain’s future is in Europe and that remaining there will be to the benefit, not just of those living in the UK now but their children and grandchildren.

If Britain remains in the EU, we will benefit by default because our history links us intrinsically to Britain. We have no option but for the sake of our country to try to ensure we use every channel to make sure Britain remains in the EU and that Ireland and Britain remain linked within the EU, pushing a pro-Europe agenda that is good for Ireland, Britain and Europe. That is a pro-jobs agenda that concentrates on how Europe can benefit small countries in particular in developing their economies through closer integration and the ability to trade.

There is no going back. If Britain leaves, a magic wand will not bring us back to 1973. The damaging impact on our economy would be substantial, as would be the impact on free movement between the two parts of our island, between Ireland and Europe and Ireland and the UK. On the micro, macro and European levels, there is no positive outcome from Britain leaving, for Britain or Ireland. It is almost imperative that every Irish person contact their friends and family in the UK, other British people they know in that country and those living in this country who have a right to vote to urge them to make the case, not just for Ireland’s sake but for Britain’s sake. In particular, they should make the case for the part of our island which would be devastated were Britain to withdraw.

Britain is a proud united kingdom with four constituent parts - Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. It is sad that Britain does not see that if a majority in three of those constituent parts were to want to remain within the European Union and a majority, through force of numbers in one part, England, were to choose to leave, the result of Brexit would be not just damage to the European Union but the destruction of the United Kingdom. That is not to anybody’s benefit. We need to redouble our efforts here to do everything to stop Britain leaving the EU, not just for this generation and this referendum, which chances to fall on my birthday, but for future generations of European children.

I have held back on making my maiden speech to talk on this important topic of Brexit. I believe it is essential that Britain makes the correct decision, and its staying in the EU is as important to us as the Good Friday Agreement was, and still is, to these islands. I would be doing a great disservice to the people of Louth and the Border communities if I did not expand on the repercussions of Britain's taking a backward step in the economic expansion of these islands. I equally feel that there is a huge onus on us to point out to those who have a say in this referendum the real effects on Border areas if the decision is to exit.

In the years prior to the North's peace process, many people along the Border stood with their backs to each other for far too long. Since the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, great strides have been made to make sure that we as a nation begin to face each other, face our collective challenges, and participate with a unity of purpose and a spirit of co-operation.

This can be best cited in the memorandum of understanding between Down and Louth local authorities where issues such as emergency planning, tourism and recreation, renewable energy and green technology, sustainable economic growth and job creation are being tackled as if no physical boundary exists between North and South. Indeed, this memorandum of understanding is something that should be used across Europe and has been hailed as a model of good practice and an exemplar of cross-territorial co-operation in Europe.

I want to ask those who will ultimately have a say in Brexit to consider seriously the importance of unity of purpose in remaining part of the EU where both sides on this island can grow and develop as part of the family of the European Union. I am old enough to be able to remind the Mayor of London, Mr. Boris Johnson, and the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, of the need to reflect on my memories of the Border prior to EU membership. It beggars belief to suggest that we would not have a reintroduction of concession roads, unapproved crossings and Border customs huts, not to mention the triptyque that had to be placed on car windscreens if people wanted to do business with my near neighbours in Newry or Crossmaglen. All of this would be a retrograde step, and would reintroduce barriers to progress. An exit would once again create a smugglers' paradise the length and breadth of the Border.

The decision by the electorate is a mere 70 days away, yet it is worth noting that the Irish Examiner in February highlighted that our caretaker Taoiseach admitted that the Government had no plan in place should the UK vote to leave the European Union. The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, is taking an equally blinkered approach, insisting that he has no plan B for a Brexit because he does not believe it will happen. He said he is unwilling to "envisage seriously" a vote to leave the Union. A Brexit may or may not happen but it is something for which we need to plan ahead, even at this late stage.

Many people's everyday lives on the Border would be affected. An article in the Financial Times this month stated that the businessman, Mr. Paul Vallely, is worried about being stranded if Britain leaves the EU. As the joint owner of a rug distribution business in Newry, he ships to customers in Europe and faces logistical hurdles if the UK votes to leave the Union. However, his real concern is the Border, just a few miles to the south, between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Mr. Vallely said he could barely imagine a newly reinforced Irish Border with customs posts, queues and traffic delays on the motorway to Dublin. He finds it hard to envisage the M1 with a Border checkpoint. This is a road on which he, I and many others often travel. My fear is that Newry, and indeed Dundalk, will once again become towns close to a semi-closed Border with a half-hinterland.

Let us imagine the effect of a checkpoint on all those who live in Newry and Dundalk, for many of whom cross-Border trips are a way of life. According to the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, there are now more than 60,000 people who move across the Border to work every day. What would happen every day if that trip involved producing a passport or paying duty on the fuel when moving from one jurisdiction to the other? Northern Ireland Border controls being reintroduced if Britain left the EU was confirmed by a British Cabinet Office report in The Irish Times on 1 March. It is impossible to see how the current Border could function without some kind of checks if Britain were outside the EU.

There is no doubt that if this referendum is successful, it will irrevocably change the relationship between Dundalk and Newry, Louth and Down, and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I agree with what the British ambassador to Ireland, H.E. Mr. Dominick Chilcott, said when he addressed a conference organised by the European Movement Ireland in March. He stated:

Britain exiting the European Union would reduce the contact between Irish and British politicians ... it would create a risk of old suspicions re-entering the relationship between the two countries ...

Before 1973, the British and Irish Governments barely spoke to each other, barely saw one another. The first visit to Ireland by a serving British Prime Minister only happened in autumn 1973 after we both joined the EEC.

H.E. Mr. Chilcott also cautioned that he could see a hardening of the Border if the UK voted to leave the EU.

Unquestionably, the EU has played an active role in facilitating the peace process and when the merits of Brexit are debated, the role of the EU in this regard should not be forgotten. Much of the social, cultural and economic functioning between North and South and between Ireland and Britain is simplified by both being EU members. It has allowed us to forge common bonds at EU level and to foster good working relationships. Undoubtedly, the positive relationships and common bonds developed at EU level were and continue to be central to the workings of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process. A British exit from the EU would be an immense blow to our capacity to work together to secure peace and stability in Northern Ireland.

In a recent interview, Ireland's ambassador in London, H.E. Mr. Dan Mulhall, said, "When you have two countries that are linked in the way our countries are, with a land border between us and extraordinary economic, political, historical people-to-people links, anything that puts a barrier between them has to be a negative thing from our point of view." Ms Noelle O'Connor of the European Movement Ireland has urged Irish people with relatives and friends in the UK to alert them to the issues. In an article in The Irish Times in February of this year, Humza Yousaf, Scotland's Minister for Europe, stated that Irish voters could play a decisive role in the Brexit referendum.

According to the 2011 census there are 601,917 people born on the island of Ireland resident in Britain. In addition, the British Embassy has estimated that approximately 120,000 British citizens living in Ireland will be eligible to vote. More needs to be done to encourage these people to consider voting for the UK to remain in this referendum. What would happen if the people of Northern Ireland vote to remain in the European Union but the overall result is a Brexit? It does not bear contemplating. More vigorous voices from this House are needed to ensure we get the right outcome.

In my first speech since re-election, I thank the people of Galway West for putting their faith in me again. I pay tribute to my new colleagues, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Catherine Connolly on their election. I also pay tribute to the retired Deputy, Mr. Brian Walsh, and thank him for his support in the election, and also to the former Deputy, Mr. John O'Mahony, who was not returned on this occasion.

Mar iar Leas-Chathaoirleach den Comhchoiste um Ghnóthaí an Aontais Eorpaigh, cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht ar an ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo. Rinne ár gcomhchoiste an-obair ag plé na ceiste faoi Brexit an bhliain seo caite agus ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an iar-Theachta Dominic Hannigan as ucht na hoibre a rinne sé mar Chathaoirleach den comhchoiste sin.

Chuaigh toscaireacht ón gcomhchoiste go dtí an Bhreatain i 2015 chun casadh le polaiteoirí, lucht gnó Éireannach sa Bhreatain, grúpaí Éireannacha agus leis an Aire Stáit Sasanach don Eoraip, David Lidington. Nuair a d'fhoilsigh an comhchoiste tuairisc i Meitheamh 2015 i Londain leis an teideal - Caidreamh idir an Ríocht Aontaithe agus an tAontas Eorpach sa Todhchaí: Na Ciallachais a ghabhann leis d'Éirinn - chuir cuid de na meáin ceisteanna orainn an raibh muid ag iarraidh tionchair a bheith againn i reifreann sa Bhreatain. B'shin ceist mhaith agus an freagra a bhí againn ná go raibh ceangal agus ról mór idir an dhá tír ó thaobh trádála de agus gur í an Bhreatain an comhpháirtí eacnamaíochta is tábhachtaí atá ag Éirinn, le níos mó ná 20% den tráchtáil.

The Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs report, the UK-EU Future Relationship: Implications for Ireland, was published in June 2015. Much work was done in meeting various groups to compile the report with much interaction with people in Ireland, as well as with Irish people, businesses and others with an interest in Britain.

At the launch of the report, British journalists asked if we were attempting to influence the outcome of a referendum in another jurisdiction. It was a good question but the answer was that there is a fine line between interfering and expressing our views in a positive manner on the possible implications of a Brexit referendum on this country, our citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in Ireland. We felt we had a vested interest and a right to express our views and concerns about the possible implications. The decision is up to those who have a vote in the UK. However, there will be implications of that vote on this country and our relationship with the UK.

As other Members have said, we have a unique perspective because we are the only country with a land border with the UK. We are rightly concerned about the possible impacts of a return of Border controls, which would be unimaginable. Coming from Galway, I live far enough away not to have the experience some other Members had with the Border. While some would say, including the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers, that there will be no return of such Border posts, can they say that conclusively? With such a focus on immigration in the Brexit debate, can one conclusively state there would not be the return of Border posts were the UK to exit the European Union?

We stayed out of the Scottish independence question. However, the committee discussed the interesting proposition of England voting to leave but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voting to remain. It is for others to comment on the consequences of that.

In the meetings we had with Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and UKIP politicians, both from the Commons and the House of Lords, the issues raised concerned loss of sovereignty, immigration and benefits. The latter was raised not so much by the politicians themselves but they felt that was their constituents’ concern about the European Union and the perception it generates in Britain. As others have said, this is perhaps pushed by tabloids or certain anti-EU newspapers. We asked whether there was also a concern about red tape, imaginary or not, and whether certain laws emanating from Europe caused particular difficulties for business. I am not sure whether it was a perception or a reality but certainly red tape from Brussels was an issue.

The report made several recommendations. If Britain were to leave the EU, it hoped the Irish Government would have a role in the negotiations thereafter on Britain's relationship with the EU and Ireland's relationship with Britain. A recommendation was made on the common travel area. It stated the Irish Government should engage immediately, and in conjunction with the UK Government, to protect the existing common travel area, which has a long history, as the introduction of any restrictions on the right of free movement of people would have a significant negative impact on the operation of the area between the UK and Ireland. The report recommended no external EU borders should be established on the island of Ireland separating North from South and that the Irish Government should engage with the Irish community in the UK and Northern Ireland to raise awareness of the possible impact of any destruction of the common travel area between the jurisdictions. We have a genuine right to express that concern to British citizens here in Ireland who will vote in the referendum.

We also asked that the Irish Government quantify the full potential costs to the Irish economy if the UK withdrew from the Single Market and to ensure Ireland's special status in the context of the negotiations with the EU as a vital economic national interest for Ireland. We also called for the Irish and UK Governments to work bilaterally to ensure in the context of its negotiations with the EU that an accommodation for the continued free movement of goods and services be sought and secured for the highly interdependent Irish-UK trading relationship. We also called for the Irish Government to be involved from the outset in all negotiations on the UK relationship with the EU as an issue of vital national interest to Ireland and that the Irish Government identify Ireland's red line issues to be accommodated in the context of UK-EU negotiations. The committee called for the negotiated exit or reform package for the UK to respect the special status of the Irish-UK relationship and that all existing bilateral arrangements between the UK and Ireland would be maintained, including citizenship arrangements, unrestricted travel, trade agreements and an unhindered Border.

There was a focus in the committee, with representatives from all parties and Independents, that there was a clear national interest at stake in this possible British withdrawal from the European Union and we had a right to have an involvement on behalf of all our citizens, as well as our citizens in the North, those resident in the UK and UK residents living in Ireland. That was accepted at the meetings I had with politicians and the UK Minister, who understood the special relationship between the two islands.

Any impact on the trade between the two countries could be detrimental to both countries' economies. While it is the sovereign right of those who vote in the UK referendum, I hope they will see the benefits of a strong European Union. Unfortunately, sometimes the media across the water puts the perceived negatives of the European Union to the fore. This is a great pity and I hope that the right result will pertain in June. I hope the UK will remain part of the European Union with a solid and significant majority, not a 1% or 2% margin. Such a result would leave the question hanging there for another possible future referendum. I hope the people of the UK will reflect on the positive role the European Union has had on their lives and the lives of millions of others across the Union.

I have followed today's proceedings with great interest. It has been reassuring to hear the general consensus across the House on this important strategic issue for Ireland. Although the outcome of this referendum is for the people of the United Kingdom to decide, today's debate has shown how the decision they make will have a profound effect on Ireland, both North and South. As Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with responsibility for North-South co-operation, I am conscious of the importance of cross-Border economic and social co-operation and how this has benefited the island as a whole.

This co-operation is facilitated and enhanced by both the UK and Ireland being members of the European Union. North-South bodies like Tourism Ireland and InterTradeIreland demonstrate what can be achieved when we pool our resources in key strategic areas and they are making a considerable contribution towards the recent return to economic growth across the island.

North-South co-operation also brings real day-to-day benefits to people on both sides of the Border. I know from my own experience as Minister of State with responsibility for research that research and development, one of the important drivers of economic growth and employment, is a key focus for North-South co-operation. It is important that we continue to encourage and support this valuable area for EU supports under Horizon 2020, where there has been steady progress towards meeting the €175 million target for specific North-South projects. In terms of projects directly supported by the EU, the upgrade to the Dublin-Belfast Enterprise rail service has recently been completed with clear benefits for enhancing people-to-people connectivity between both parts of the island.

As we have heard today, we cannot be certain that nothing will change with the Border if the UK votes to leave the EU. While every effort would be made to minimise any impact in this scenario, any change to Border arrangements has the potential to impact on this type of co-operation. As has been stated earlier, the UK is Ireland's largest trading partner. Trade between Ireland and the UK runs at €1.2 billion per week or €62 billion per annum, with a broad mix of goods and services. Also, according to a Teagasc report, Brexit: Implications for the Agri-food Sector, published earlier this week, our food industry represents about one third of Ireland's total merchandise exports to the UK, leaving this industry particularly concerned about a UK exit from the European Union. This is not the only industry that has concerns. Successive studies have shown that a UK departure from the EU will have an adverse impact across the economy, both in the UK and in Ireland. We have already heard today that the British Treasury stated earlier this week that the UK economy will be "permanently poorer" in any scenario where it leaves the EU. Anything that negatively impacts on the level of trade between our two countries is not to be welcomed.

While this decision is for the people of the United Kingdom, there is no doubt that a vote to leave would have a significant impact on us here in Ireland. The position of the Irish Government is clear: we want the UK to remain part of the EU for three main reasons, namely, the clear economic business case which favours the maintenance of the status quo; our shared interest in sustaining stability and prosperity in Northern Ireland; and the need to retain the UK as an important ally in the EU. The third point has been acknowledged by Members across this House today during this debate.

Entirely understandably, a focus of many interventions in this debate has been on Ireland's preparedness for the possibility of a UK decision to leave the EU. Government colleagues have spoken on this issue throughout the day, but I believe it is useful to set out our approach. If the vote is to leave the EU, a period of two years is provided for under the EU treaties, during which the UK's exit terms would be negotiated. Although negotiations could well take significantly longer, any extension would need to be agreed unanimously by the remaining 27 EU member states. Ireland will, of course, play its fullest part in such negotiations. The Irish Government will continue to plan for any contingencies so that we are prepared to deal with the potential consequences in the event of a UK vote to leave. An eventual agreement between the UK and the EU, as well as anything possible to be agreed between ourselves and the UK, using the bilateral structures the Taoiseach outlined at the outset of this debate, would determine an overall framework and set out the arrangements across many sectors.

We hope that on 24 June, we will be welcoming a vote to remain. If this is not the choice of the UK electorate, then we will be as prepared as possible across all of Government to manage the consequences and deal with the uncertainties that arise. Whatever the outcome, we will maintain strong, positive and productive relationships with both the EU, of which we will remain a member state as well as remaining in the euro, and with the UK. Nine weeks remain to polling day. I urge all of those with family and friends living in the UK to encourage them to register to vote, to remind them of the unique perspective Ireland has on this debate, and to ask them to cast their vote on 23 June, when voter turnout may be the deciding factor in this hugely important referendum.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 April 2016.
Top
Share