Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jun 2018

General Affairs Council: Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Apologies have been received from Deputy Brophy and Senator Craughwell. I remind members to switch off their mobile phones or put them in silent mode. The purpose of this meeting is an engagement with the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy McEntee, on the work of the General Affairs Council. I am glad she and her officials were able to take time out of their busy schedule to be here today. They are all very welcome. The next meeting of the General Affairs Council takes place in a couple of weeks. The committee's engagements with the Minister of State on her work in the Council on the strategic issues facing the European Union are useful, particularly in light of what is happening in England.

The General Affairs Council agenda is likely to be full. As we cannot cover all the issues, we will focus in particular on the Brexit negotiations, the future of Europe's work, the Government's position on the enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans and the future budget of the EU. We had an interesting meeting yesterday with an official from the European Commission on the Commission's proposal for the future budget, which I am sure will be added to in today's discussion.

Before I invite the Minister of State to make her opening statement, I remind everyone that the normal rules of privilege apply. I welcome the ambassadors and embassy staff and members of the public in the Visitors Gallery. The Minister of State may make her opening statement now.

I thank the committee for the invite. As always, I am delighted to be here. It has been a particularly busy period since we last met. There have been many developments and so, as mentioned by the Chairman, I will confine my remarks to the four key areas. If there are other areas on which members have questions I am happy to deal with them in the questions and answers session. As highlighted by the Chairman the four key areas are the current state of play in the Brexit negotiations, which I am sure is top of most people's agenda at this time; the debate on the future of Europe, including the national citizens' dialogue which concluded last month - I take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and all members who attended the events throughout the country and also the final event; the EU enlargement perspective for the Western Balkans, particularly following on from the summit in Sofia, which I attended with the Taoiseach; and the multiannual financial framework, MFF, which the committee addressed in detail yesterday with the Commission but on which members may still have questions.

I will start with the multiannual financial framework as it dominated much of the General Affairs Council which took place in March. We had an initial discussion on the Commission's recent legislative proposal for the MFF, the EU's next seven-year budget framework. This issue will also be discussed by the Taoiseach and other Heads of State and Governments at the European Council on 28 and 29 June, which is approximately two weeks away. This is the beginning of the negotiating process between the Commission, the Parliament and member states, which will last into at least the middle of next year. As the current framework runs to the end of 2020, it is crucial that agreement is reached before that deadline.

I warmly welcome the fact that Ms Jennifer Brown, an official from the Commission, travelled from Brussels to Dublin yesterday to address this committee and other interested stakeholders. I am sure the committee is well-versed in the details so I hope I do not go over too much ground or repeat what was said by Ms Brown yesterday.

As with any organisation, it is fundamental that as EU member states, we agree on how much we can spend, how and when we spend it, and how to raise the money. It is a question of adapting to the changing global environment and, most important, of prioritising competing and evolving requirements and demands. Since last year, I have been running a series of citizens' dialogues or national engagements about the EU and we are asking citizens what they want to see, and this consultation on the future of Europe will feed into our position on how the EU allocates its resources. The initial proposal was published by the Commission just over six weeks ago, on 2 May. It was a highly anticipated publication and over recent weeks it has been further elaborated, with each sectoral package in turn being published. These cover a wide range of areas in the EU's role, touching on agriculture, cohesion funding, the Erasmus programme, research and innovation, the EU's external actions including development aid, and much more. The whole proposal runs to thousands of pages and it is now the subject of intensive analysis by all member states and the European Parliament.

The Oireachtas involvement has likewise begun, and I greatly appreciate this committee's engagement with the multiannual financial framework, MFF. Given that the budget proposal by the Commission amounts to some €1,135 billion and covers almost all aspects of our society and economy, it is only appropriate that a number of Oireachtas committees should offer their specific concerns and consider specific aspects of the package as they relate to their areas of responsibility. Across all Departments, analysis is now being carried out, closely co-ordinated by the Department of Finance together with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Our representatives in Brussels will also be closely involved throughout the process. Similarly, at EU level, a wide range of European Parliament committees and ministerial councils will closely debate and negotiate a final framework to ensure that our limited resources are spent in alignment with our agreed priorities. The General Affairs Council, GAC, which I attend, will take a horizontal approach to the MFF negotiations, with input from almost all other council formations. At the next meeting of the GAC, in two weeks, we will have a lunch discussion with Commissioner Oettinger, the first opportunity for member states to react in the round on the basis of all the sectoral proposals which have been published since the initial document six weeks ago.

The European Council meeting at the end of the month will also have an initial discussion on the MFF and it will give guidance on the likely timeframe for the negotiations. There are strong arguments for completing the negotiations before the European Parliament elections in May next year. There are strong arguments as to why such difficult and complex negotiations can take time. Either way, the Government will not be found wanting. The important thing, whatever the timeframe, is to get it right. While it is too early to speak in great detail, we know so far that these negotiations will be particularly challenging for Ireland. This is the first time that we will be negotiating an EU budget without the British contribution, and it is the first time that Ireland will be a net contributor from the outset. As our economy recovers and grows, our contribution to the EU will grow. In recognition of the broader value of our EU membership, the Government has stated that we would consider an increased MFF contribution from Ireland to address new and emerging EU priorities and challenges that we face. We can only do so provided that our core interests are met and European added value is ensured. Protecting the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, remains a priority for Ireland. We are also supportive of a range of programmes to support jobs and growth, including cohesion funding, supporting research and innovation with the Horizon 2020 budget, digital Europe and the Connecting Europe Facility. I am very pleased to see the proposal for increased funding for a further expanded ERASMUS+ programme. I know the Commission has suggested that we double the amount of money being spent on our young people, which we need to consider in the overall context of the budget.

I will move on to the Brexit negotiations. We moved on to a critical phase. All phases have been crucial but we are now entering one of the last phases of the negotiations. As members of the committee are aware, the overall objective is that the full legal text of the withdrawal agreement, as well as a detailed political declaration on the framework for the future relationship, should be concluded by the October meeting of the European Council. In order to meet this objective, negotiations have been continuing between the EU and the UK teams in recent weeks and will further intensify in advance of the European Council in June, in less than two weeks. The aim of these discussions is to make significant further progress on the outstanding withdrawal issues, including on the draft protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, and avoiding a border on the island of Ireland. We see the UK's presentation last week of a paper on a temporary customs arrangement, which it sees as relevant to aspects of the island of Ireland backstop, as a welcome, though incomplete, step forward. After its publication last week, Michel Barnier, while also welcoming this step, raised questions and concerns about the proposal. The Commission is the Union’s negotiator with the British Government on these issues. We have to allow the Commission to address some of the concerns which it has already raised and to further negotiate on these issues.

The Government's focus remains on the outcome we need to see, of which a key element is ensuring the protection of the Good Friday Agreement and the gains of the peace process, including avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland. It is welcome that the UK’s commitment to this is reaffirmed in its proposal and that the commitments and guarantees provided by the UK in the joint progress report of December 2017, and repeated by Prime Minister May in the March Council meeting and her letter to President Tusk in March, have been reiterated. While our preference is still for an overall EU-UK relationship which would resolve all issues, it remains essential that a backstop is agreed which provides certainty that, in any circumstances, and no matter what the outcome of the negotiations on the wider EU-UK framework and future relationship, a hard border will be avoided. We must have certainty in all scenarios on the commitments made on Ireland and Northern Ireland. This certainty requires agreement on the protocol to the withdrawal agreement. I therefore very much hope that there will now be further intensive negotiations and discussions between the British Government and the Commission before the European Council on 28 and 29 June. As we have repeatedly stated, substantial progress is required by then. We know that this week, more detailed negotiations are perhaps happening from a legal point of view and otherwise, and next week, higher level discussions between Barnier and Davis are to take place. We will keep a watchful eye on how that progresses.

The debate on the future of Europe, which was energised by the UK's decision to leave the Union, is continuing across Europe. This committee held its own very successful public outreach initiative and I look forward to seeing its findings when they are available. Last November the Taoiseach, accompanied by the Tánaiste and me, launched Ireland's own national citizens' dialogue, which culminated in a major event at the Royal Hospital Kilmainham on 9 May, marking Europe Day. I thank the Chairman for accepting our invitation to participate in the event, including as a panellist for one of the sessions. It was very much appreciated, not only by me, but by all concerned. I thank the members who attended and contributed on the day. Between November and May, I travelled the country, covering 2,000 km getting to and from Galway, Cork, Limerick, Maynooth, Letterkenny, Navan and many other venues. Hundreds of people turned out to our regional sessions and the level of engagement at each of them was impressive. From the outset, we were adamant that this would essentially be a listening exercise. To give some shape and continuity to the various dialogues, participants were encouraged to focus on the five questions posed to citizens deriving from the Bratislava Declaration, agreed by EU countries in 2016. These centred on jobs; competitiveness and consumer rights; peace and security; better management of our natural and built environment; equality and fairness; and education and training in order to maintain the EU's competitiveness. If there was a theme which emerged throughout these discussions, it is fairness. People wanted to ensure fairness in an increasingly competitive world. They want the environment to be protected so we can hand it on to future generations in a fit state. There is also a demand for inter-generational fairness. People want to ensure that our young people are given the best of opportunities when they start their careers and their families, and also that older people are able to enjoy their retirement in dignity and comfort. Education at all ages and all stages in life played a key part in that discussion.

We are taking that information and compiling a report which I hope will feed into the wider consultations that are still taking place in Europe. On 9 May next year, at a summit in Romania, EU leaders are expected to mark the culmination of this process with a renewed commitment to an EU that delivers on the issues that really matter to people. We will be well placed at that stage to actively input into that summit, based on the experiences of our national consultations.

Our consultations are over but we hope to continue our engagement with people in various different formats, so we will have a lot to input into next year's summit.

Let me now turn to the latest developments regarding EU enlargement. Ireland is a supporter of the European perspective of the Western Balkans, and will continue to be. I was pleased that the renewed focus on the region provided by the Bulgarian Presidency was reflected in the successful EU-Western Balkans summit on 17 May last. At this summit, the Taoiseach and I were pleased to engage with our EU and Western Balkans counterparts across a range of issues. In the summit declaration, the EU pledged unequivocal support for the European perspective of the Western Balkans, and the associated priority agenda set out six flagship initiatives to drive progress in the areas of rule of law, security and migration, socio-economic development, connectivity, the digital agenda, and good neighbourly relations in the Western Balkans. It is our hope that implementation of these initiatives will lead to deeper continued engagement with the Western Balkans.

We believe that the European perspective of the Western Balkan countries must be a credible prospect in order to advance the stability and security of the region, and are clear that candidate countries must give the rule of law, justice and fundamental rights the utmost priority in terms of reform. We need to encourage the Western Balkans to continue to pursue these reforms vigorously, and we, as the EU, need to give practical assistance and ensure our message is communicated effectively across the region.

The next discussions on enlargement will take place at the General Affairs Council on 26 June, which will review the European Commission country reports published in April and make recommendations for the coming period. Four countries in the Western Balkans currently have EU candidate status. They are Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania. Of these, both Serbia and Montenegro are well advanced in their accession negotiations, while Albania and Macedonia have not yet opened negotiations. Ireland will support opening negotiations with Macedonia and Albania in line with the Commission's recent recommendation. Although significant work remains to be done in both countries, we feel they have made sufficient progress to warrant opening. Opening would also serve as a signal of EU commitment and provide motivation to the region. The Albanian Foreign Minister, Ditmir Bushati, visited Ireland last month.

I said I would touch on four topics but because I know the Chairman has a meeting later today I will briefly outline just one important issue that has been preoccupying the General Affairs Council, namely the issue of the rule of law and Poland, which was discussed at the May Council and which will be discussed again in the coming weeks. Commission Vice-President Frans Timmermans provided an update. As the committee will know, the central issue here is the rule of law and its application in Poland. Ours is a union based on shared values, including democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is essential that all these commitments be reflected clearly in the internal arrangements in all member states.

At the last Council meeting, the Commission informed member states that, while Poland had amended some of the changes recently introduced to the operation of the judicial system, these amendments did not address the primary concerns that have been identified by the Commission. At the May Council, I welcomed the fact that dialogue had taken place and stressed that the dialogue should lead to an early outcome that addresses the very real concerns that have been identified. This, I said, is clearly in all of our interests. The Commission has now called for a hearing on the rule of law in Poland at the General Affairs Council later this month. It is important that, in the time available, concrete proposals to address the outstanding concerns can be agreed by the Polish authorities and the Commission.

I understand the committee will be discussing this further with the Polish ambassador, who is to appear before the committee later this afternoon. I wish the members well in those discussions.

As I said in my introduction, there are other issues I could discuss but I have taken up enough time. I want to hand over to members to ask questions.

I thank the Minister of State. We appreciate very much her comprehensive overview and the work she put into it.

I thank the Minister of State for that very comprehensive address. The entire committee is grateful, as always, for the level of engagement she and her officials have had with it over her time in office. It has been an interesting time, to say the least.

I will touch on all five key issues the Minister of State raised and work backwards. On Poland, I agree absolutely that we need to protect the European values. We must emphasise increased dialogue between the Polish authorities and the EU authorities over the coming weeks and months to ensure that when one signs up to the European Union one respects its rules. A state has the ability to make the rules of the European Union but once it joins, it must implement them.

With regard to the multi-annual financial framework, we had, as Minister of State noted, a good discussion with the relevant Commission budget official yesterday. I acknowledge the great challenge facing the Union as whole with the United Kingdom leaving and Ireland's position. We need, however, to increase our commitment to the European Union. It is actually a healthy reflection of the state of our economy and country that we are net contributors and that we will be required to increase our contribution. We have received wholesale solidarity over recent years from the other 26 member states who are to remain in the Union, particularly regarding Brexit. It is also important that we show that solidarity in turn. I must agree, unfortunately, with the statement of our Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, that Ireland is not of a mind to contribute more to security and defence expenditure. That is a matter we must examine. The threats on the borders of our friends in Estonia, Greece and other countries are equally our threats if we truly believe in European solidarity. I respectfully ask the Minister of State to bring this back into the discussions.

With regard to enlargement, I really welcome the agreement made by the Greek and Macedonian Governments on the name change, which will be put to the Macedonian people in a referendum. Macedonia is a country I have visited a number of times. In a previous life, I was on the consultative committee on Macedonian accession. There is considerable potential in this regard. I truly believe in an ever wider and deeper European Union. We need to examine the positives of enlargement but we must also examine the status of our candidate countries and make sure that we set down the Copenhagen criteria. We require great sacrifices and changes but we also need to return the compliment. We need to show there is a material benefit in order to make sure the pro-European sentiment remains in the countries in question and so we do not witness the kind of frustration that can arise among people who are waiting indefinitely to try to join the Union.

Ultimately, with regard to the future of Europe project, I absolutely commend the efforts of the Minister of State in traipsing around the country over recent months. The level of engagement between the Minister of State and European Movement Ireland at the civic dialogues was breathtaking. It was fantastic to see crowds in places such as Letterkenny and beyond. Huge crowds engaged with major questions. To see the relevance of the European project in Irish people's lives now is phenomenal and reassuring. Does the Department have a timeline for issuing the report on the future of Europe?

With regard to Brexit, I must consult a different page of notes, if the Minister of State does not mind. Could she outline the process we can expect before the key Council meetings on 26 June and 28 June and the activities involving the EU negotiating team and its meetings with its British counterparts? Irish officials were brought into various discussions in April. Could the Minister of State outline where Irish Government officials may be required to have an input?

With regard to the paper produced by the UK Government last week, I agree it is absolutely incomplete. It is not enough. It does not respond to the political agreement of December or the repetition of that agreement by Prime Minister May in March, nor does it really acknowledge the European legal interpretation of those agreements. Therefore, I welcome Commissioner Barnier's swift response and commitment to examining this. I have been blown away by the solidarity on a European level. It is such that we can hold a united, uniform position involving 27 sovereign governments, ranging from the far left to the far right. It is very reassuring as an Irishman who is phenomenally pro-European. It is also reflective of the European position by comparison with the British position, possibly. A number of people have suggested that when we receive the paper, we should pause the negotiations. I believe we need to do the exact opposite. In the coming two weeks, we should intensify negotiations and really get the European and British teams get down to it and work towards a common path that will ultimately lead to what I hope will be a withdrawal agreement in October. It will not be a good deal; there is no good deal. Brexit will be bad. This is a process of damage limitation and we need to engage in that process and try to limit the damage, not just for the rest of the European Union but also for Ireland.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and her officials. I also welcome the ambassadors and embassy staff to the meeting. It is important that we have dialogue with other EU member states to get an idea as to what is happening. Naturally, Brexit is our greatest challenge since the foundation of the State. There is general recognition that the restoration of the 500-km Border is not a practical proposal so it will not be supported by the Irish Republic or the United Kingdom, nor will it be maintained by the European Union. Even if there were a will to staff it, there would be immense difficulties, to say the least. It would not be acceptable to either side.

They would not be allowed to man such a border.

We are an island beyond an island so what options will we face? The Government must be prepared to look outside the box and see exactly what is practical. I am a former Minister of State with responsibility for trade and I was given responsibility by a former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, relating to the Single European Act. I appreciate everything is possible within these negotiations and compromises can be made. We should nevertheless look at the possibility of an economic zone within the European Union containing the United Kingdom and Ireland, both North and South. This would guarantee the future of trade, unimpeded, between both islands. That is absolutely vital to the interests of both islands. All trade from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland going outside that zone would be subject to whatever levies are agreed at the time and, naturally, the Republic would be part of the European Union and have the appropriate exemptions.

It is time for unique thinking in this. We should look at the possibility that because we are in a such a difficult position compared with any other of the remaining 26 countries, we are unique. In those circumstances, the Government must look at a different arrangement. It should consider all possibilities. What is in the best interests of this country and the United Kingdom? We share the UK's interests and a good deal for the United Kingdom is a good deal for Ireland. I also believe that unless there is a good deal for Ireland, we should do everything we can, whether that is vetoing the deal if it is not in our interest or negotiating it as far as possible. I know our officials are in Brussels working hard; I also know the Government and the Minister are working hard. We must absolutely state that Britain's removal from the European Union should not have a detrimental effect on Ireland. It is my wish and I know it is the wish of most people. It is a view shared by most of our friends at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Sligo at the weekend who were very anxious for a deal to be made in the best interests of both countries.

I thank the Minister of State for her comprehensive overview of the issue. I will follow Senator Leyden's comments on Brexit, which is the biggest question facing us. The UK's presentation last week was not anything like a full deal but in speaking about a customs arrangement, it was a stumble in the right direction. Following what I heard from Senator Leyden in Sligo at the plenary meeting over the weekend, there is a slight movement now among British politicians on both sides of the divide on an overall preference for EU-UK relationship. That will eliminate the need for a backstop.

In light of the votes in the House of Commons yesterday, and, more pertinently, the assurances given to the group of at least politicians led by Mr. Dominic Grieve, a Conservative MP, and which are being sought in writing, how does the Minister of State feel about the current state of play? She is closer to the process. What is happening with the negotiations involving the teams led by Mr. Barnier and Mr. Davis, which are ongoing and probably pretty intensive? I am interested to hear the Minister of State's comments in that regard. I very much welcome what Senator Richmond has said in that there is such a unified approach. That must give us hope and encouragement that matters will resolve at the finish. Will the Minister of State comment on what she thinks will come from this June summit? I presume it will allow matters to go on further and be dealt with finally and satisfactorily in October. I look forward to hearing her comments.

Before going to Deputy Durkan, I apologise for Deputy Frank O'Rourke, who had to leave to chair another meeting.

I welcome the Minister of State and her colleagues to the meeting. I compliment her, her ministerial colleague and the Taoiseach on the tremendous stance they have taken and work done relating to Brexit in particular. I will speak to the other issues in a moment. I worry sometimes when I hear comments from negotiators on the British side resembling jingoism in the oldest form. Reference was made by an individual in the past week to "the enemy" but we are not in a war situation yet. If we allow ourselves to go down that road, we will eventually talk ourselves into it. I refer specifically to the European Union.

There is much more at stake here than the UK and Brexit. It is a brick in the wall and it could be the first brick to come loose. The European Union has an obligation and duty to its member states to ensure the Union stands firm. The EU did not decide that some member states should leave. A member state decided to leave by itself on the basis of misinformation given by public representatives. The information was erroneous and grossly misleading. One member of the European Parliament spent 18 years undermining the European Union and its concept. The only thing offered at the end of the day was nothing at all. There were going to be benefits for everybody in the UK but there was nothing tangible when it came down to it.

European Union negotiators, including Mr. Barnier and his colleagues, should be complimented on the way they have handled this. They are negotiating with us and on our behalf, so we must be very careful not to undermine them. If we undermine them it would be an indication to UK authorities that all is not well and we are not all united. In one fell swoop, the European Union could disintegrate. That is what will happen. If one brick is taken from the wall, it will come down. There are people who want to hark back to older and better times, and so on, and I am not certain to what times they refer. I am not sure if they refer to the empire that ruled before or the communist regimes of the past. Do they prefer war when the last world war cost the lives of approximately 60 million people? I do not know what some people are referring to when they are so determined to roll back the carpet. We must be extremely careful and the Irish Government and European Union have adopted the most fortuitous position that could be found. It is the only workable position, and deviation from it will lead to disaster.

It should be remembered that very little reference has been made by UK authorities to the fact that the Good Friday Agreement is an international peace agreement, signed, accepted and contributed to by the international community, including the EU and the United States. All of a sudden it seems to be no longer relevant and is being pushed away. We must be careful in the negotiations of compromises and what they might mean. In the normal course of events it might be that compromises take place in negotiations but any compromise by the EU will be fatal.

I will very quickly go through other points, including enlargement. I totally agree with the process and it is important that the western Balkans, a tinder box in the past, come under the strong influence of the European Union. That includes compliance with the acquis communitaire and the regulations, as has been referred to with respect to the operation of the European Union. In some countries there is a tendency to move independently of the European Union but membership entails compliance with the rules that prevail within the Union. That is for a very good reason and the benefit of all, so no country can break out and make its own unilateral decisions for its own benefit, now or in the future.

I forgot to mention one thing on Brexit. No country, however big or small, can be allowed to move away from the Union and improve its status as a result. The Union would be finished then. If one country breaks out and decides to get a better deal - for strategic, geographic or whatever reason - the Union is gone. It cannot prevail in those circumstances. We would be back to where we were in the "good old days", to which some people keep referring. That is an appalling prospect. I could spend time on other issues but I will not.

We have all mentioned the peace process and the importance of ensuring the Union prevails. The biggest single process in the history of Europe and the globe was the European Union itself. It came together from the ashes of utter and total destruction when man's inhumanity to man saw new depths and the most appalling atrocities were accepted without demur. We found out about them only afterwards. Many people at the time, however, knew what was going on. We need to learn from that. It was a very bitter and costly experience. If there are those who think there are advantages in harking back to that era, or something like it, they are wrong. We do not need a war to prove that nor do we need the fragmentation of the European Union. It has worked extremely well for the past 50 years and is capable of doing that into the future for as long as it takes.

I thank Deputy Durkan. From my own point of view, we know the Government and the Departments are going through the details but does the Minister of State have any initial impression or is it fair to ask whether Ireland can support the European Commission's proposal on the future budget? I am thinking of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, in particular, following on from yesterday's meeting where we heard an outline of that. From a constituency perspective, we are dealing with people worried about the future budget for CAP and what that will mean for our people on the ground and in our farming community. I often deal with people in that sector. They are worried about the future for young farmers. There is a drive on - I acknowledge work in this regard by the Commissioner - towards making it more attractive for a transition from the present generation of farmers to the newer generation.

As the Minister of State knows herself, farming in future will not be sustainable unless the farm is large and has full time employment for any young man or woman wishing to take over a family farm. I am worried and fearful for what future budgets are going to mean for transitions on what I call the family farm. In the past, different schemes were available as incentives for farmers. They were helpful because people, before they got older, were able to see the financial sense in transferring over to the younger generation. Schemes such as the young farmers installation grants were helpful. I would like to hear the Minister of State's view on this. Also on Brexit-----

If I can interrupt briefly, a vote is being called. Can I be excused? I ask the Minister of State to forgive me.

That is not a problem and I thank Senator Coghlan for his participation. To return to the issue of Brexit, does the Minister of State think a deal will be struck by the time the European Council meets in June? If it goes on beyond that, will there be enough time? Have the chances increased of no deal being reached? We are all worried about what is happening across the water. It seems they are riding rudderless. Things seem to be out of control for some time. There was a bit of saving grace yesterday but there seems to be a lack of coherency. I know one thing. If it was our Government allowing things to carry on the way that things have been allowed to do so across the water, it would not be tolerated by the Government or by the Opposition. We have our act together better than those across the way. I am interested in the Minister of State's views on that. I thank her again for taking the questions from our members. We appreciate it.

I thank the Chair. I will come back with responses and the members can read them later. I will address Senator Neale Richmond's comments first. The increased commitment to the MFF does not identify what we are talking about in respect of that commitment and where that funding will go. The overall negotiations are only starting to take place. Senator Richmond's suggestions on increased security and defence will be fed back in and I will make sure the Minister hears them.

I agree with the Senator on the status of the candidate countries from the western Balkans. We need to support them as much as we can. They have obligations to fulfil on the reform of the rule of law, justice and fundamental rights in their own countries. We need to make sure we are extending the European hand of friendship and supporting them in all those areas. The more visits we can make and the greater the presence we can have, at a European level, in those countries, the more beneficial it will be. On the timeline for the publication of the future of Europe report, we hope to have it published by the end of this summer. We will ensure that all the members of the committee receive the published report and afterwards, if needs be, we could discuss it here if any of the members want to go through it.

Senator Richmond also asked about the process between now and the June summit, and in particular the negotiations and discussions taking place following the publication of the document by the UK Government last week. A further round of intensive discussions and negotiations is considering some of the legal aspects. The legal team is looking at the document, how feasible elements of it are and whether it is a basis for further discussions and negotiations. That will then feed into the fifth round of negotiations between Mr. Michel Barnier and the EU task force and Mr. David Davis and the UK Government. That will be the fifth of five. The last one was last week.

A question was also asked about the Irish involvement leading into the summit. Our officials, here in Ireland, in Brussels and throughout Europe, are engaging daily with the EU task force. Any information needed on the Irish issue or protocol is, of course, fed into that process. Mr. Michel Barnier and Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker will visit Ireland next week. They will make known their thoughts and sentiments on the discussions to date on the proposal paper published last week. We will have in-depth discussions on that and we will make known our comments in the summit the week after.

Senator Richmond raised the fact that there are a number of concerns on the customs document. Mr. Barnier was very clear, when it was published last week, that three questions needed to be addressed. First, is it an operational text and will it ensure there is no hard Border on the island of Ireland. The answer to that is "no" because it is only one part of the Irish protocol - regulatory alignment is another key part of it. It is, however, an element of it, so we have to welcome that part. Does it impact on the integrity of the Single Market and the customs union is the second question. Questions on that, and the more technical detail, have been asked this week. The final question is on whether it is an all-weather solution and will it work in all circumstances. Concerns were raised because of suggestions of a 2021 date mentioned in the document. A backstop for us is what it says it is. It is there unless and until another solution is found. We and the EU task force have been very clear on that. We have to allow continued discussions and negotiations on the document to happen.

A question was asked as well on a pause in the negotiations. We do not see that happening. It would only further jeopardise the process and the likelihood of us reaching an agreement by October. Instead of pausing it, we need to increase and intensify the discussions and negotiations in as much as we can. Senator Leyden suggested we need to think outside of the box. I agree.

On the idea of a specific economic zone just for Ireland and the UK, it would essentially suggest Ireland also leaving the EU if we were to have in place a different system or measure from the rest of Europe. The most recent survey undertaken shows that 92% of Irish people want to remain within the European Union, so I would not agree with any suggestion that we be in any way separate or different. We have a huge amount in common with the UK, not just in terms of trade but also historically and in the links between our people. There is €65 billion worth of trade between Ireland and the UK overall. However, this represents between 16% and 17% of our trade, although that percentage is much higher for agriculture. The EU represents 35% of our overall trade. While we are very much focused on getting the best outcome with the UK, that will be achieved through the wider EU-UK future relationship. Separate from the backstop, we are focusing our energy to make sure we have as close and comprehensive as possible future relationship between the EU as a whole and the UK. I agree that we would want there to be as little disruption as possible to the lives and livelihoods of our Irish citizens. That is our key priority.

Senator Coghlan raised the issue of the votes in the House of Commons yesterday. While I do not want to get into internal UK politics, the votes are still being discussed and there have been a number of amendments. It is very clear that come what may, whatever result we have in terms of an overall agreement on the withdrawal Bill, come October the House of Commons will have a part to play in the overall agreement of the deal that is reached. We also know, however, that other member states will have to bring back any deal to their own Governments for ratification. We want to ensure this happens by October so that other countries have an opportunity to ratify the agreement in their own individual Parliaments.

Deputy Durkan raised the issue of supporting Monsieur Barnier. I fully agree. At every General Affairs Council we have attended, Ireland and the other 26 member states have fully endorsed the manner in which he and his negotiating and task force team have been carrying out the negotiations and this support will continue. He made it very clear that no country can be better off outside of the EU than it was when it was inside it. A number of outlines have been made in respect of ensuring that the Single Market's four freedoms of movement are upheld, particularly in terms of the customs union. It is clear there can be nothing that interrupts the integrity of either of those and that is our position also.

The Deputy is absolutely right that the EU is the best example of a peace process that we can see anywhere in the world. While the EU is not expressly mentioned very often in the document of the Good Friday Agreement, the EU membership of Ireland and the UK, and hence Ireland North and South, has through our membership of the Single Market and customs union removed those physical barriers and infrastructure. Our EU membership has thus played a key part in bringing about the peace process and has allowed people to go about their lives as they have for the past 20 years.

The Chairman made some remarks on the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. We are in the very early stages. Various sectors have been publishing their initial reports on it over the past six weeks. There is still a lot of discussion to be had on the CAP. The Minister, Deputy Creed has met a number of his counterparts from Spain, France, Portugal, Greece and Finland to suggest that the proposed 5% cut should not happen and that we should essentially have the same budget as the last time. That is why we are saying we are willing to pay more money. However, we want to see that our key concerns and priorities around the CAP, cohesion, research and innovation and investment are upheld as well. The discussions will be going on for some time. We will give our initial reaction in the next two weeks at the General Affairs Council. We will do everything in our power to make sure our key concerns, particularly the CAP budget, will be addressed and we will make every effort to ensure that budget is impacted as little as possible.

By the June European Council we have said we want to see as much significant progress as possible. If we do not see it, the idea of reaching an agreement in October will be in jeopardy. While we have had an additional proposal on the customs element of the backstop, we would very much like to see additional progress on the regulatory alignment piece of the backstop, which is in a sense bigger than the customs element as a key part of ensuring we have no border on the island of Ireland. We have two weeks left. Intensive discussions are happening this week and a further round of negotiations is taking place next week. We will then have a greater sense of whether anything else will be proposed by the UK Government.

It is very important that I clarify something. I am speaking in my own capacity as a Member of the Oireachtas and as one of its longest serving Members. I am floating these ideas at this stage to at least get people to think. I floated them in Sligo at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and there was a tremendous response from all sides. All who were there felt there was some merit in looking at this. It is like the regulatory arrangement about which the Minister of State is talking. That is a special arrangement. I am not advocating in any way that Ireland be a lesser member of the European Union after Brexit takes place. We must consolidate our position but we must recognise that we make up about 1% of the population of the EU. The effect on us as an island off an island is unique within the European Union. The Good Friday Agreement, as mentioned by my colleague, is unique within the EU and was endorsed by it and the United Nations. There are cross-border operations in place which must continue after Brexit. I am talking about joined tourism, fisheries and all those issues. They are unique and cannot be scrapped after the UK leaves, if it actually leaves. That is not certain yet. Those bodies will still continue and will have to be recognised by the EU and will have to continue in place.

I understand the unionists' point of view that they will not accept a border on the Irish Sea. The border between the United Kingdom and Europe will be across the Channel. I can understand their worries in that regard but other than that, they want to see the continuation of trade between North and South. This is a unique situation. I am saying to the Minister of State's officials here and in Brussels that they should be prepared to think outside the box. From my experience as a Minister of State with responsibility for trade, when we and the UK put forward proposals, they were supported by our colleagues in the European Union. We never had a vote when we negotiated the Single European Act and the representative at that stage was John Redwood, MP, who is now a Brexiteer - but that is another day's work.

I am throwing out this as a point of debate today. I ask the Minister of State to at least consider these issues as a possible last resort solution. The Minister of State must not feel that Monsieur Barnier and the European Union will reject unique situations in the context of Ireland's unique position. We would be in great jeopardy if there was any danger of a hard border or a breakdown in trade between Ireland the UK.

I thank the Senator for his comments. Michel Barnier, the task force and the 26 other member states have already recognised that Northern Ireland is a unique scenario. That is why we have the Irish protocol. It is why the Irish issue was one of the three key issues in phase one and continues to be one of the key issues being discussed. It will probably be the main issue for discussion at the June European Council in terms of the overall Brexit discussion.

As the Senator has pointed out, there are indeed many areas of co-operation North and South, including electricity, tourism, health and agriculture. At least 142 such areas have been already identified by the UK Government itself. That is very much part of the Irish protocol and it is what we are working towards.

The task force has been very clear that the backstop and the unique scenario for Northern Ireland cannot be applied to a whole-of-UK position. This is one of the concerns that was raised when it was suggested that customs proposal could apply to the UK as a whole, including Northern Ireland, but as a temporary backstop measure. We have consistently said that the backstop would be specific to Northern Ireland and that business would not have to change rules and regulations more than once. The transition is there to ensure it has the time to adapt if it was then, as a whole, to have to change.

Essentially, we are talking about the future relationship and obviously the backstop is very separate from the future relationship. In terms of Ireland and the UK having the best relationship possible into the future and Ireland getting the best outcome out of this because, while North-South is important, east-west is equally important and that will have to be dealt with. We have to work to the best possible outcome of a future relationship between the UK and the EU as a whole. Obviously that is our priority in terms of dealing with the Border issue and protecting the Good Friday Agreement, but we must have the backstop separate from that to ensure our interests are protected. In that regard, it cannot apply as a whole to the UK; it must be specific to Northern Ireland. We will obviously work to ensure that what was agreed before Christmas in the December joint report is translated in full into a legally operational text that will apply and that will be part of the withdrawal agreement in October.

The problem is that the DUP will not accept that. It has ten Members of the House of Commons and they will veto any deal that proposes that. We need to be realistic about this. This would bring down the British Government, if they proceed with this alone. The Minister of State can believe me; the DUP will bring down the British Government on this issue. Let us be quite clear about it. I met them in Sligo and I know their feelings.

We also need to be cautious not to show weakness in our negotiating position. If we are seen to waiver in any way in our negotiating position, negotiated by the European Union on our behalf, then we are lost because that then becomes the starting point and then there will follow a series of compromises. That is not the way those negotiations should take place.

A country decided to leave the European Union of its own accord. It has been repeatedly stated that Brexit means Brexit, regardless of what anybody else thinks. That is fine, but there are consequences arising from that for the country leaving as well. There obviously will be consequences for the countries remaining.

I have a different attitude to the vote in the UK House of Commons yesterday. I think it shows a weakness in its government and its opposition. There is no alternative. There is only one show in town, which worries me. Brexit means Brexit and so they are going anyway. If others want to follow, they can do so. That is what it means.

We are at a very precarious point. We need to hold our nerve. We need to fix our vision firmly on the interests of our European Union, uphold the principles in that and not deviate from it. If we do, we will be the weak part. We will become an appendage of the UK, which will be a dangerous place to be. They will be speaking for us because they are going. We need to be cautious about it. I had hoped at this stage that we would have seen the emergence of a stronger pro-European sentiment within the UK, but that has not happened and it will not happen.

If it happens the other way, it follows on that the UK goes. However, the British cannot dislodge the fundamentals of the European Union on their way out. They cannot destroy the European Union on their way out. They cannot reform it in such a way as to make it unworkable. They cannot create an option for others to follow that will entitle them to envisage an improvement arising from being outside the European Union. In other words, as the saying goes, a house divided within itself cannot stand.

Based on my reading of European history, we are in a very precarious position. Of most concern to me is that the UK authorities seem to be hell-bent on going in this direction. They treat the debate as if they were releasing themselves from oppression. When we listen carefully to the dialogue, we pick up many warnings that we need to keep in mind. In the course of negotiations, there is only one place we can be.

The UK never took ownership of the European Union. It never regarded the European Union as being part of its territory - politically, socially or economically. It was always a them-and-us situation. If the European Union member states wish to go about it in that fashion, they could all decide at some stage to go back to the old days when they were much better. Were they much better then? That is salutary thought for us all. I strongly urge us all to recognise where we would be heading, if we went down that road.

Did the Minister of State get a chance to digest that?

Ireland's future is very much at the heart of Europe. Europe is very much at the heart of Irish citizens' future and that will not change.

I think we should send out Deputy Durkan as well. He might help.

I thank the Minister of State and her officials. We appreciate that she has some very important meetings over the coming weeks. The committee is not 90% or 95%, but 100% behind her in the work she is doing. We are all flying the same flag on this issue and we are very supportive of her and the people working with her. I wish her the best of luck with everything.

Sitting suspended at 3.07 p.m. and resumed in private session at 3.19 p.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.12 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 July 2018.
Top
Share