Challenges Facing the European Union: Statements (Resumed)

Deputy Paul Murphy

This perfunctory debate on Europe sums up the approach of the Government and the establishment parties on the question of how we discuss Europe and the future of the EU. The approach of the establishment in this country is to be so-called good Europeans. What it means by that is that it votes for - again and again if necessary - successive neoliberal, militaristic treaties. What it also means is that it does the bidding of the central bankers in Europe and of the establishment within Germany by stabbing the Greek people in the back by saying no write-off is possible for them, while at the same time overseeing write-offs for the rich in this country. What it further means is going along with the process of the increasingly authoritarian anti-democratic, neoliberal nature of the European Union with no real discussion in this country, apart from at moments of referendums when we are hit over the head with massive propaganda about how we have to be good Europeans.

Let us deal with the reality. In 2012, Mario Draghi accurately said that the "European social model has already gone." The head of the ECB was right then. It goes back further than that in the sense that the dream of a social Europe never actually existed. What we always had was a big business project from the top, which as a result of major struggles in particular on the Continent, was forced to give important concessions. But now, in the age of neoliberalism, all of the illusions of a social Europe have been swept away. We have an openly authoritarian neoliberal, aggressive and imperialistic Europe.

The horror of the deaths of thousands of migrants in the Mediterranean is the face of this European project. For all its crocodile tears, the EU cannot wash its hands of that. It bears responsibility on a number of different levels. It bears responsibility for the humanitarian crisis from which people are fleeing in Libya, Syria and elsewhere in North Africa and the Middle East where its interventions for its own interests have played a role in developing these crises. The EU also bears a responsibility for its policy of "fortress Europe" whereby it refuses legal access to those fleeing crises. As a result of the crocodile tears there is talk of allowing 5,000 refugees into Europe, whereas last year more than 200,000 people attempted to make the crossing in desperation. The EU forces people into the hands of the criminal people smugglers who have no interest in their lives and who treat them as commodities. The EU bears responsibility more directly because of the cut in the Mare Nostrum programme, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of migrants. It is a cut to save money but it is also a cut to move away from a vision of saving lives towards the securitisation and militarisation of European borders.

Externally, one has the horrific and murderous approach by the European Union to keep the consequences of its policies around the world away from European shores. Internally, the same reality is increasingly evident. In particular, it is manifest in the treatment of the Greek people and their government. The democratic mandate of the Syriza-led government has been thoroughly trampled upon by the mostly unelected European authorities. Blackmail has been threatened by the European Central Bank. The European Commission has demanded total defeat and retreat by the government and the European Council, composed of governments like that in Ireland, has said there is no possible deal for the Greek people. The EU is determined to prevent any political contagion of the status quo or to allow the idea that one can do things differently or break from the mantra that there is no alternative to austerity.

There are profound lessons for the left in how to challenge the Europe of the millionaires and billionaires. There are no mechanisms to change the existing situation in Europe incrementally in a social or progressive direction. Any Government which breaks with the austerity consensus is then faced with an onslaught of attacks and a denial of their democratic mandate. We therefore need governments willing to say "No, we are not going to pay debt of the bankers and bondholders" and to engage in a strategy, if necessary, of unilateral debt repudiation. We need governments willing to break with the logic of austerity and capitalism, which are written down within the rules governing the euro and the EU. We also need governments to stand up and refuse to be blackmailed by the threat of bringing down the banking system and forcing countries outside of the euro to respond through radical socialist measures, such as capital controls, public ownership of key sources of wealth and planning in the interests of people.

In that way we will lay the basis for a different, humane, democratic and socialist Europe operating in the interests of the millions and no longer for the millionaires.

Deputy Seán Kyne

As Vice Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, I am delighted to speak on challenges facing the European Union. The European Union is a unique organisation which transcends national boundaries and pools sovereignty from the 28 member states. The fact that it is unique and that no other organisations follow the path that the Union has taken means that the EU faces a number of challenges. One of the main challenges is interaction with people of the various member states. At times, the European Union is viewed as something outside of this country which does not directly impact on us. The reality, however, is that the European Union and its institutions and laws have an impact on Irish people on a daily basis. Regulations and directives govern a myriad of issues ranging from social and health to economic and financial matters. The impact is often not felt, primarily because some of the laws, such as safety regulations, are common sense. One cannot imagine a time without them. However, on other occasions, the impact of the EU, particularly specific EU laws, is keenly felt and has an enormous impact on life. In my constituency of Galway West, for example, there is news today of the publication of the preferred route for a Galway bypass. We were at this stage 14 or 15 years ago, but because of European designations and court challenges to the High Court, the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice the process was delayed. That has had a direct and lasting impact on the process to alleviate traffic in Galway. It is one area where the EU has had an impact and where it is often viewed in a less than positive light. It is a case of whether habitat or human beings - the people of Galway - are more important. The debate has been ongoing in Galway for a number of years.

Another challenge facing the EU and related to the interaction of the Union with the citizens of the member states is the role of national parliaments. The Lisbon treaty envisaged a much greater role for national parliaments in the workings of the Union, including in the legislative process. I am not convinced that the national parliaments are playing the role that was envisaged. There is such a plethora of legislation, directives, regulations and rules from Europe that scrutiny by national parliamentarians presents a major challenge. In the aftermath of the referendum on the Seanad, I proposed that the Seanad adopt a European approach. I believe the Seanad could play a valuable role in scrutinising legislation from Europe, not just when the legislation is at an advanced stage in the process but from the start and at each stage. As a small member state, this would be significant to ensure our voice is heard.

Recently, I participated in a European delegation to the UK to discuss the implications of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. I wish all the candidates the best of luck in the UK elections taking place today. It will be a very important decision for the future of this country. Obviously, we share a common land border with the UK via Northern Ireland and we conduct a huge amount of trade with the UK, as it does with us. There would be huge implications if it decided to withdraw from the EU. It would have a huge impact. We met with a variety of groups during our visit, including Irish people, Irish companies involved in trade there, emigrant groups, representatives of State agencies such as Bord Bia, the ambassador, government and opposition Members of Parliament. There were wide and varied discussions, and we were all conscious of the special relationship between Ireland and the UK and the impact of a possible withdrawal by the UK from the EU. We will not know until the new British Government is formed whether it is likely that a referendum will take place. We were careful not to suggest how anybody might vote in such a referendum, but to convey to people that we have a stake in the result of that referendum. I believe we got our point across and they acknowledged the strong relationship with and the strong role this country has in respect of the UK.

The other primary challenge at present is the migrants sailing from the coast of Libya to Italy. At the meeting of the European affairs committee we expressed our appreciation to the Italian ambassador for the role Italy has played in dealing with this challenge. It is beholden on every country to take its fair share of migrants arising from this crisis. No single country can handle it. A number of countries have stepped up to the plate, but many others have not. All countries have a responsibility to do something. This is a crisis. One cannot fault people who wish to come to Europe to improve their lives and to take whatever chances they might think they have. Nobody would blame them for that. Irish people have a strong reputation for emigrating and seeking to improve their lives as well. I do not blame anybody, but we must ensure that every country does its fair share.

Deputy Gerry Adams

Sinn Féin is very critical of the democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union and of the Government's compliant attitude to the EU elites. We have long argued for a social Europe based on equality and the rights of all EU citizens. However, I will concentrate my remarks today on one of a range of challenges facing the EU, which is that if the outgoing British Prime Minister, Mr. David Cameron, wins the British general election he has pledged that he will hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU by 2017. This is a paranoid political reaction to the perceived electoral threat of the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP. It is also further evidence that the political considerations of British political parties are primarily about England and English issues.

The stark reality of an EU referendum is that it could take the North out of the European Union. The referendum will allow the views of English voters to dictate the future relationships of the North, and therefore of this island, with the European Union. It also further underlines the folly of the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, and Ulster Unionist Party, UUP, in supporting the Tories. It is selfish, insular politics in action, with implications for Ireland as a whole. It would reinforce the partition of this island. The partition of this island is illegitimate, immoral, an intrusion in our affairs and economically disruptive. If Mr. Cameron is re-elected and has his way, this disruptive Border would be reinforced by an international frontier with passport checkpoints and customs controls. All of the work in recent years on cross-Border co-operation and the work with everybody across the island to our mutual advantage would be set to naught. This highlights the fact that the real threat to the economy in the North comes from Britain, and that the real threat to the island economy comes from partition.

The exit from the EU of part of this island will hinder free movement and severely disrupt the daily lives of people, particularly of people living in the Border counties on both sides of the Border. Irish workers, farmers and local enterprises already pay, and will continue to pay, the human, social and economic price of partition. There will be no single farm payment, rural development fund, Structural Funds or PEACE funding. Almost 1 million citizens living in Border counties pay the price for all of this daily. They do so through roaming charges, the cost of using two currencies and additional bank charges, and barriers to accessing the nearest public services, particularly health services, social housing and education. These are the people who will face increased challenges which are not of their choice. Of course, partition has resulted in ongoing violence in every decade since it was imposed on our people. Island-wide trade, which currently generates £3 billion, will be severely disrupted.

The Tory proposal for a referendum, without a separate binding vote in the North, denies people in the North the power to make decisions about their lives. It is the people of this island who should decide the economic, social and political future of Ireland. That includes the right to a separate and binding referendum in the North on European Union membership. The Taoiseach has spoken about this issue on a number of occasions in Britain and, most recently, in Belfast. I ask the Government to focus its mind on this.

It may be that some Unionists may support David Cameron's proposition but the fact is the economies of Ireland, North and South, are interlinked and interdependent. Many ordinary Unionists I met particularly from the rural areas of the Six Counties and the farming community are conscious of the interdependency and interlinking of an island economy.

It is time to build and strengthen the economy, not to split it up or divide it. It goes without saying that working together our economic output would be stronger. Splintering merely weakens the economy, undermines public services and undermines the spirit of citizens. While Sinn Féin is critical of the European Union's deficit, the European Union has the potential to provide a bridge towards the greater integration of Ireland, North and South, towards a single economic and political unit. It is the responsibility of the Government to actively promote and pursue this objective and there is a constitutional imperative on the Government to do so. It is past time that the European Parliament deal with Ireland as one, and not two, systems. The potential for the North to positively reshape our relationship with the European Union in the context of a limited and narrow British vote on EU membership should not be overlooked. Parties with no democratic mandate in any part of this island cannot be allowed by the Government the power to dictate the political or economic future of this country.

Political and economic decision making powers must be increasingly transferred from London to Belfast. As I said earlier, all citizens in the North should have the right to express their will through a separate legally binding vote on European Union membership. That is the only position which makes any sense whatsoever. It is a position which the Taoiseach needs to support and if in the future - we will know this within the coming days or weeks - a referendum is to be organised by an incoming British Government, he needs to assertively pursue with his British counterpart the need and the right for a separate and legally binding referendum for citizens in the North of Ireland on this issue. I, therefore, call on the Taoiseach to seek an urgent meeting with the new British Government to pursue this matter.

Deputy Paul J. Connaughton

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the challenges facing the European Union. From the outset it is important to state that I am supportive of what membership of the European Union has achieved for us over many years and its potential into the future. However, that is not to say it works perfectly for everyone all the time. It is important on a rolling basis that member states have a conversation as to where they can seek to make improvements where challenges exist and how it is important to move it on from there.

Having been a county councillor and a backbench Deputy and having spent a good deal of time in the constituency, I have heard many conversations on the European Union. At times the European Union is blamed for things it had nothing to do with whatsoever. It is an easy scapegoat. There are other times when one understands that there are some concerns. One basic example, and something that is parochial to Galway and Roscommon, is turf cutting. The directive was signed by the European Union many years ago. The European Union gets the blame for this but it approached the issue from an environmental perspective. While I would wish for a greater degree of flexibility on how to solve the problem, it was created in Ireland by Department officials who did not do their job correctly 13 or 14 years ago. When this conversation comes up, often it is the European Union that is blamed. While it has a part to play in it, that is simply not the case.

Given that some 75% of our legislation comes from the European Union the question is how we impose, understand and implement directives. Nothing seems to drive people crazy like directives. For some reason, to the very letter of the law as stated, we implement them without proper consultation with the people on the ground whom they will affect most. Let us take CAP reform, from which Ireland has done very well, as an example. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Taoiseach did a great job negotiating it. One of the measures involved in it was a directive from the European Union that all farmers had to have their details, names and addresses and the amounts they receive from the European Union, printed and published. That is completely and utterly bonkers. There is already enough accountability and traceability in the system. Why do we have to publish every farmer's details? This is where the common sense element has been lost. While it might appear good in Brussels, it certainly does not work well on the ground. How much consultation took place before that measure was introduced? This is not an issue or a concern with accountability or transparency. That has nothing to do with it, and nobody is trying to hide anything. The relevant Department knows exactly what is coming in and going out of the country and what is going to farmers and yet we have to take this extra step. From the point of view of a rural security measure, it is completely over the top. This is one of the reasons people may become a bit more eurosceptic because they think there is no relationship whatsoever with the decisions it takes and what is implemented on the ground. If we were to do nothing else in the coming period, I suggest that directives be examined as to how they will work in practice.

Another major issue we are facing is designations of land, such as SPAs, NHAs and SACs, all over the country. All of these designations were introduced for environmental reasons. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. They were introduced at a time when the State had a great deal more money and the farming community bought into them. The European Union brought in the directives stating this is what it wanted. We have now entered a situation where the directives still stand on farmers' land but the money has run out. It is not acceptable for anybody, whether the European Union or the Government, to take over a person's land, promise him or her compensation for X number of years, and then withdraw the compensation, following which the value of the land is worthless to many of these people. This is what leads to much friction.

There is one other area on which I wish to concentrate, as raised by Deputy Seán Kyne, and this is the major humanitarian issue off the coast of Italy where people are trying to escape terrible situations for a better life. Our reaction in the European Union was slow but it has happened. It is incumbent on the entire Union to try to help solve this problem. However, there is a much longer term problem here also. Political stability in these countries is of paramount importance and is the reason people are leaving. We may be able to solve the problem in the short term for a few weeks but the European Union has to show some direction in helping to improve political stability in these areas. That means dealing with our trading partners or the United States and other countries that caused the political instability in the first place. While it might become a European Union problem to help solve it at a humanitarian level, there is a much longer-term issue that has not been concentrated on half enough. Why was the political instability there in the first place? Who got involved at all the wrong levels, whether it was the US or any other country? We have to be very strong and firm on the basis that the reason this is happening is because of their involvement. There is no point in coming back here in five or ten years' time when the crisis blows up again and some other dictator has taken over and is destroying half of Africa. We can ask ourselves what we did to solve the problem in the first place. It is one thing to solve the problem in the next few weeks but if we are serious as a European Union, the one thing we have to do is get involved in the political side of things. I am not talking about going to war. Who are the vested interests who are getting involved in these countries, causing the political instability that is now causing the current situation?

There is a bright future for Ireland in the European Union. The biggest challenge is happening today in Britain with the election and nobody knows what the result will be. If the Conservatives get back in to government, there will certainly be an in-out referendum in Britain, the outcome of this would be very important to us. We will then have to have that conversation on the basis of the facts. It is my firm belief that we are better off within the European Union and I hope Britain will remain in there. Until that time comes, it is important that we set out clearly the pros and cons of what that will mean. The biggest challenge that faces us is happening today, the outcome of which will find out at the weekend.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As there are no other speakers, I call the Minister of State to reply.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Dara Murphy)

I thank Deputies from all sides who contributed to the debate which was a good debate. I note the comments by two Deputies, Deputy Paul Murphy and Deputy Shane Ross, who started by describing the debate as a waste of time and yet contributed.

Everybody else who contributed did so in a very productive fashion. Europe Day is an opportunity to consider in a small way the importance of the EU to the Irish people and our importance to, and the role we play in, the EU. Given the important role the Union plays in all our lives every day should, to an extent, be Europe Day. Many issues were raised and I did not have the opportunity in my opening remarks to touch on all the areas where the EU is important to us.

Many speakers referred to the United Kingdom. There is no question but that a British departure from the EU would have serious and potentially adverse consequences for the country. That is why the Government has been monitoring developments in the EU-UK relationship extremely carefully. The Department of the Taoiseach has been co-ordinating interdepartmental efforts to ensure Ireland is best prepared for any situation that could arise. Given that polling is going on in the UK today, we will not have long to wait to see the likely shape of the new UK Government. It was decided to create a new division within the Department, which is up and running. Several other Departments are conducting detailed research in their areas of competence. The Department of Finance, for example, has commissioned a report on the macroeconomic links between the UK and Ireland in the context of our EU membership. Our ambassador in London and his team are also actively engaged on this issue.

I did not speak about the TTIP negotiations in my opening remarks. It is very important to re-state that TTIP is not, is not intended to be, and will not be, a race to the bottom in regulatory standards. It will not automatically overrule, repeal or amend EU laws and regulations and, consequently, Irish laws and regulations. Such laws as relate to genetically modified organisms, GMOs, for example, protecting the environment, animal welfare and workers’ rights and conditions are not part of the negotiations. Legitimate concerns have, however, been raised by civil society in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe about certain elements of the TTIP talks. It is important that we listen, which we are doing, to these concerns and learn from international best practice. On contentious issues mentioned today, such as investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, TTIP presents a prime opportunity to devise novel and mutually acceptable procedures consistent with our legal system and with relevant safeguards to prevent abusive cases. We have to be balanced in how we consider the TTIP negotiations. We have many companies operating in the rest of the world. As many American people work for Irish companies in the US as Irish people work for US companies here. That is an interesting statistic to remind people of. We have to consider TTIP from both sides of that equation. We are resolute in our belief that it will provide significant benefits to the Irish people and economy and to the EU.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I have not had time to cover all their remarks. It was an excellent debate and as members of the Opposition pointed out, continuous excellent work is being conducted by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs, under the chairmanship of Deputy Hannigan.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 7 May 2015