Skip to main content
Normal View

EU Meetings

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 24 October 2018

Wednesday, 24 October 2018

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4)

Joan Burton

Question:

1. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU Heads of Government meeting in Austria on 19 and 20 September 2018. [38377/18]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he had bilateral meetings at the informal Heads of Government meeting in Salzburg; and if so, the issues that were discussed and the responses received. [38524/18]

View answer

Brendan Howlin

Question:

3. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the informal summit of EU leaders in Salzburg; the leaders he met with; and the issues discussed. [38627/18]

View answer

Micheál Martin

Question:

4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he had a meeting with the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Morawiecki, when he was in Salzburg; and if so, the issues that were discussed. [38842/18]

View answer

Oral answers (8 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

I attended the Informal meeting of EU Heads of State and Government in Salzburg on 19 and 20 September. The summit, which was chaired by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, was one of a series of such meetings relating to the future of Europe. On this occasion, our focus was on migration and internal security. We also took the opportunity to discuss progress in the negotiations on Brexit.

On migration, we had a useful exchange on how best to progress the comprehensive approach we agreed at the June European Council. This involves working to secure our external borders, to strengthen co-operation with countries of origin and transit and to deal with the management of migrants in the EU.

On internal security, we discussed the increasing cyberthreats we face, including to the integrity of our electoral systems. No formal conclusions were adopted but the outcome of our discussions fed into the October meeting of the European Council, which took place in Brussels last week.

Our discussions on Brexit, which took place in Article 50 format, provided an opportunity to review progress in the negotiations. We discussed this again at the European Council last week and agreed that, despite the intensified negotiations since Salzburg, the decisive progress we so urgently need has not been achieved.

We reaffirmed our full confidence in Mr. Barnier and urged him to continue his efforts to reach an agreement. On both occasions, I reiterated the need for a legally operable version of the backstop in the withdrawal agreement, and thanked EU partners for their ongoing solidarity on this issue. I had a bilateral meeting with the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, in the margins of the Salzburg summit on Thursday, 20 September, in which we discussed the state of play in the Brexit negotiations, as well as developments in Northern Ireland. I had a further meeting with the Prime Minister in the margins of the European Council last week.

On both occasions, I emphasised my aspiration that the future relationship between the EU and the UK will be as close and comprehensive as possible. I reiterated that the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, with a robust and legally watertight backstop, must be agreed first.

I did not have a formal bilateral meeting with the Polish Prime Minister, Mr. Morawiecki, in Salzburg, although I did of course meet and engage informally with him and with my other EU counterparts in the margins of the summit and again last week in Brussels.

The Taoiseach put it diplomatically but Salzburg was a diplomatic disaster. The expected breakthrough in the Brexit negotiations simply did not happen. There was a heightened expectation in the days running up to the summit that progress would be made.

Since then no further progress has been made on the legal framework being put into place at the October summit. In effect, two critically important moments have come and gone and the available moments to find a settlement agreeable to everybody on what was the watertight agreement of last December are diminishing. I am fearful, and I have been fearful for months, about the narrowing agenda at the end of this. Ultimately, it seems that Britain is trying to shift the balance of risk to Ireland. The risk that there might need to be a backstop invoked is not acceptable to the British and they want us instead to accept the risk that no close relationship will ultimately be negotiated between the EU and the UK that would obviate the need for any hard border. My fear is there will be a point at the end of these negotiations, which at a matter of weeks is not that far away, when the option open to the Taoiseach will be very stark indeed. It will be either to stop the negotiations without a withdrawal agreement or accept there will be no backstop. It is very important that we are crystal clear now on where the Taoiseach stands if that option is reached around the Council table.

Another question has been tabled on Brexit so I want to ask a few questions on other matters that came up at the summit. My party leader has said to the Taoiseach that we strongly object to the attempt to claim that immigration should be placed at the top of the EU agenda as Chancellor Kurz has done. Many countries have sincere issues that must be discussed but we cannot allow Europe's agenda to be set by Governments that are appeasing the far right. In the case of Austria, the Taoiseach will, no doubt, have been informed that Chancellor Kurz has left in place his interior Minister, even after he was caught instructing regional police forces to find and publicise incidents involving immigrants, with a special effort to be made to publicise anything that might involve sexual assaults. This is grotesque and sinister and is straight out of the playbook of a former time. Has the Taoiseach spoken up on the effort to keep immigration at the top of the agenda even though the numbers involved have fallen dramatically in the past three years?

Will the Taoiseach assure us that he stood by Ireland's support for the action being taken against Poland on the rule of law? Will he also tell us whether he formally objected to attacks on a judge of our High Court made by members of the Polish Prime Minister's party?

On Monday, the British Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, made what can only be described as a bizarre statement to the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in London. In defending the British Government's stance in the Brexit negotiations she stated that, supposedly, 60% of unionists in the North had voted to leave the European Union. She went on to state that what the EU has put forward in negotiations is not acceptable to some unionists. In doing so, she has admitted what many of us already suspected and knew, which is that her Government is prioritising the views of a section of unionism over the wishes of a majority of citizens in the North. By saying what she said, she has done a disservice to everyone by attempting to make Brexit an orange and green issue, which it is not. The majority of citizens in the North voted against Brexit and the majority of parties and political representatives in the North are opposed to Brexit. Karen Bradley, by virtue of her office, is to be coequal guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process, legally and duty-bound to act with strict impartiality, but here she is publicly stating that it is only the views of a section of the population in the North that really count. That is a disgraceful position to articulate. Her comments are unacceptable and they must be challenged. Will the Taoiseach raise this with the British Prime Minister?

I want to know a bit more about the conversation on migration. The issue of Brexit and our concerns are extremely important to us but there is a bigger picture going on in Europe and around the world at present, as Deputy Haughey alluded to. This is the very dangerous rise of the far right, xenophobia and racism that finds its scapegoat in desperate migrants seeking to flee awful situations in the Middle East, north Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. I want to know that the Taoiseach is out there batting against this filthy xenophobic racism and arguing against the Kurzs and Orbáns of this world in trying to scapegoat immigrants, thousands of whom are dying in the Mediterranean. Recently the Moroccan authorities were shooting at them, there are horrendous stories of human rights abuses in Libya and thousands of men, women and children are dying in the Mediterranean because of this filthy xenophobic racism. We need absolutely to take up the cudgels against it and state that immigrants are good. They are not a burden and they enhance the societies to which they come, as did Irish migrants from this country everywhere they went. It is important that the Taoiseach is publicly seen to articulate this message. Is that what the Taoiseach is doing? How are we engaging in this debate on migration given the very dangerous subtext? In fact, it is not even a subtext, it is an explicit fanning of the flames of racism in a worrying echo of the 1930s.

On Salzburg, and picking up on what Deputy Howlin asked, to this day I do not understand why there was an expectation that there was going to be some sort of breakthrough at that summit. I never expected it. It was an informal summit that was not about Brexit. I think what happened is that somebody hyped the British press into believing there would be a major breakthrough and when it did not happen it became a diplomatic disaster. I assure the House that the Irish Government had no role in those events unfolding in the way they did. It is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions about the negotiations. It is a very valid question but there are so many things that could happen between now and then and I would prefer not to wax lyrical on hypothetical scenarios-----

People should know where we stand.

-----particularly because the only way we can make those decisions is at that time, when we have all of the information and the alternatives available. What I can say is that our objectives are as they always have been, which are to ensure that Brexit is orderly, that there is a withdrawal agreement, that there is a transition period during which business and citizens can adapt, that there is agreement on citizens' rights being protected, that the UK pays what it owes to the European Union, that there is a joint political declaration on a future partnership, which is the one we will negotiate during the transition period, and that there is a legally binding backstop as a protocol to the withdrawal agreement that gives us the assurance we need that should something go wrong during the transition period and should we be unable to negotiate or ratify a new relationship between the EU and UK that negates the need for a hard border, we will have a legally operable backstop relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland that will then click in. These have been objectives from day one. No one in any European capital doubts the solidity of our position in this regard.

With regard to immigration, it is important to make a distinction. It is not a black and white distinction but there is a distinction between illegal immigration on the one hand and legal immigration on the other hand. Nobody around the EU Council table objects to freedom of movement other than Britain. Everyone else from every other country has no difficulty with freedom of movement within the European Union by EU citizens. With a few exceptions the vast majority of prime ministers and presidents sitting around the table support legal immigration from outside the European Union, that is people with working visas and work permits arriving as refugees.

Deputy Boyd Barrett asked whether I ever make the case that immigration is a good thing. I make it all the time, in Brussels and in this Chamber, and sometimes I get into trouble for it. I always make the point that I believe immigration enriches our society and strengthens our economy. We only need to see the extent to which our health service relies on migrant people making sure that our public services function. We only need to visit some of the multinational companies that employ so many people in Ireland and bring in so much investment and increasingly pay us a lot of taxes.

Companies such as Google, Facebook, Intel and IBM greatly rely on a diverse international workforce. I am convinced that immigration is a good thing culturally, economically and socially and I make that point here and in Brussels. However, that is not the same as saying there should be uncontrolled immigration. Immigration must be controlled. It cannot be the case that everyone who wishes to live in Ireland or Europe can do so. We must, therefore, have controls. We must have the freedom of movement within the European Union which we desire, as well as mechanisms to facilitate immigration from outside the EU. However, I do not agree with the position held by Deputy Boyd Barrett and his party, namely, that we should have uncontrolled immigration and no borders and that anyone who wishes to come and live here should be allowed to do so. That is not a good policy for our country or more generally.

On our approach, we recognise that this is a matter of major concern to other European countries. It is not top of the political agenda here for the people or the Government but it is in countries such as Italy, Germany, Austria and some other countries in central Europe and we must be aware of that. When we want our issues put at the top of the agenda, that is respected, so we must respect the issues which other countries want to put on the agenda. Our approach generally has been to support a three-pronged approach to strengthen our borders. The Irish Naval Service is participating in that through Operation Sophia, rescuing migrants from the Mediterranean, training the Libyan coastguard and disrupting the activities of human traffickers and smugglers. We are part of the principle of strengthening the frontiers of the EU. The second principle is greater co-operation with countries of origin and countries of transit, ensuring that countries offer more economic opportunities, democracy and political freedoms to the people who live in those countries in order that fewer of them choose to risk their lives by travelling to Europe in the way that many have. We demonstrated that commitment in budget 2019 with the very considerable increase in our commitment to international development assistance, far more than was called for by other parties who spend a significant amount of time speaking about these issues. The third prong is solidarity. Our efforts in that regard are evidenced by the fact that we respond favourably to requests from Malta, Italy and other countries for Ireland to take people from the boats, which we do.

Top
Share