Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 2016

Vol. 916 No. 2

European Council Meeting: Statements

The Taoiseach

I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House on last week's meeting of the European Council and the subsequent informal meeting of 27 Heads of State or Government. The outcome of the UK referendum, of course, was the dominant focus of the discussions. The current migration situation was also discussed, as were a number of economic, foreign and security policy issues. I have asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, to address the external relations issues in his closing remarks.

There was an extensive discussion of the outcome of the UK referendum and its implications.

There were two separate exchanges on the issue. The first was on Tuesday evening at the European Council proper, where the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave an interesting and frank account of the referendum and more recent developments within the UK, and the second was on Wednesday morning, when the 27 other member states had their first discussion on the withdrawal process, as well as the future direction of the EU. The atmosphere throughout the discussions at the meeting with David Cameron was subdued, but both calm and constructive. Most leaders spoke, all in a spirit of regret. Many emphasised the importance of their relationships with the UK and hoped for strong ties to continue, but also made clear the need for the European Union to plan for a future without Britain. I should emphasise that David Cameron offered his analysis of why the Leave side won the referendum, including the immigration factor, but he did not seek to anticipate the approach to be taken by his successor.

I used the opportunity to outline our long and complex history with the UK, emphasising how relations had developed remarkably in recent years. A symbol of this was the participation of President Higgins in the ceremonies at the end of last week to mark the centenary of the start of the Battle of the Somme, in which very many Irish soldiers, from both North and South, lost their lives. I also stressed the importance of the Northern Ireland peace process and our joint responsibility for the Good Friday Agreement. I noted that we had joined the EU together in 1973 and that the current strength of our bilateral relationship was in no small part due to our common membership. I highlighted our specific interests and concerns, including in relation to Northern Ireland, North-South relations, the common travel area and the interconnectedness of our bilateral trade.

At the meeting of the 27 countries the following morning, all partners shared the view that, while they regretted the outcome of the referendum, the democratic decision of the UK electorate must be respected. While, of course, there was concern about the effects of the British vote on the politics of some other countries, there was little evidence of any punitive approach. We all have a strong collective interest in a strong, stable and prosperous UK. Further, we all agreed that Article 50 provides the only legal framework for the UK to withdraw from the EU. It is up to the British Government to notify the European Council explicitly of its intention to withdraw. However, it was agreed that the notification should be made as quickly as possible. Around the table, as in wider debate, there were different perspectives on what “as quickly as possible" should or could mean, but it was generally accepted that notification could not be expected until the political situation in the UK had settled down and a new Prime Minister has been appointed.

As Deputies will be aware, different candidates for the Conservative Party leadership have said different things about the timeframe they envisage for the triggering of Article 50. On the one hand, I think it is reasonable for the British Government, under its new leader, to take the time necessary to formulate its approach and to engage in the consultations required with Parliament and with the three devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland. On the other hand, too lengthy a gap will simply prolong uncertainty in the rest of the EU but also, above all, in the UK itself, with the negative consequences for business and consumer confidence that we are already seeing.

Any sense that the British Government was engaging in game-playing or deliberate procrastination would be received negatively by partners and would damage the confidence and goodwill needed for a successful future negotiation. It was mainly for this reason that it was emphasised that there can be no negotiations of any kind before this notification has taken place, contrary to what has been suggested by some in Britain. As a point of clarification, however, this refers to negotiations as such on behalf of the 27 as a whole. It can, of course, be assumed that informal contacts will take place between different member states and the UK. Certainly, I think it important that the Government start exploratory work with the UK in regard to our very specific concerns to analyse what might be possible on a bilateral basis, without, of course, prejudicing EU negotiations.

Once formal negotiations begin, those under Article 50 relate to the exit of the UK only and not to its future relationship with the EU. These negotiations are expected to cover such issues as the status of UK citizens currently in Europe and EU citizens in Britain, what happens to existing contracts under EU programmes, the position of British officials in the EU institutions, and so forth. They cannot last more than two years, unless there is unanimous agreement to prolong them, and a withdrawal agreement needs the agreement of a qualified majority in the European Council, and not of all member states. In the meantime, the UK remains a full member of the Union, with all the rights and obligations that membership confers. These obligations include the full application of European law. This means there will be no change in current arrangements regarding trade, free movement, or any other issue.

Separately, there is the possibility of a negotiation between the UK and the EU over its future relations with the Union. I say "possibility" because it would be for the UK to seek such a negotiation. It is the possible options here - such as UK membership of the European Economic Area, like Norway, or a more distant relationship with fewer obligations but also fewer rights - that are the main focus of current debate. I would stress, however, that there are many issues beyond trade which would need to be discussed and agreed. Legally, there can be no agreement on the relationship between the EU and the UK until it leaves the Union and becomes a third country. It is also the case that negotiations on these issues may very well take longer than the two years envisaged for the withdrawal negotiations. However, it would be very much the hope that the two sets of negotiations could proceed in parallel, that at least the broad outline of what the relationship would look like would have emerged before withdrawal, and that sensible transitional or bridging arrangements could be put in place. If this is to be achieved, however, the UK would have to be seen to be negotiating constructively and in good faith. The EU, for its part, would need to take a positive approach also.

Last Wednesday's statement by the 27 stated that the hope was that the UK would be a close partner of the EU in the future. It stated that any agreement would have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. It was also underlined that access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms, which include the free movement of EU citizens within the Union, above all for the purpose of working. Some commentators have seen this as some sort of hardening towards the UK. It is simply a statement of what the treaties require. The essential purpose was to disabuse people in the UK of the idea that they could have full access to the Single Market but major restrictions on free movement. How exactly the balance of rights and obligations referred to in the statement would be achieved would, of course, be for negotiation. The most important element will be what the UK sets as its objectives.

As negotiations are unlikely to start for some months, there is also time for the EU and its member states, including Ireland, to identify key issues and begin to prioritise and prepare. What is absolutely clear is that the European Council will play the decisive role in the negotiations. Heads of State or Government are adamant that it will be for them to make the key decisions, and that national officials will be closely involved. Clearly the European Commission, with its technical expertise, will also have an important role to play, and the final package will require the approval of the European Parliament, but the overall political direction of the process will be provided by the European Council. I stress this for two reasons. First, there has been a great deal of comment by a wide range of European personalities, much of it rather premature and ill-considered. I advise Deputies to focus instead on what the European Council says. Second, in the setting of the negotiating mandate, all leaders, including myself, will be closely involved.

From Ireland's perspective, we have advanced, and will continue to progress, comprehensive contingency work across Government in order to define our national interests and work out how best they can be protected during the negotiation process. This process will continue before and during the negotiations and I look forward to an intensification of work at both official and political level, including in this House. The Government is also very conscious of the need to consult widely with all stakeholders and will build on the arrangements already in place. At our North-South Ministerial Council meeting yesterday, 4 July, we had a detailed discussion about the potential impact of the UK referendum result. We agreed to work together to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are protected and advanced, and that the benefits of North-South co-operation are fully recognised in any new arrangements which emerge as regards the United Kingdom's future relationship with the EU.

Yes, Ireland will be part of the overall EU team of 27. However, from my exchanges with other EU leaders I can say that our partners fully understand and acknowledge the unique nature of our relations with the UK, especially with regard to Northern Ireland, North-South relations and the common travel area. I have no doubt that they will be sympathetic to our concerns in framing the negotiating mandate.

As I said earlier, we will do the maximum possible to reach agreements on a bilateral basis on all issues which can be handled that way. It is evident that Ireland has a particular interest in a stable, prosperous and outward looking UK. The closer the future relationship is between the EU and the UK, the better it will be from our perspective. We will work for that in negotiations, but let me be clear – the approach the UK itself takes will be fundamentally important to our chances of achieving that goal.

Much has been said already about the wider implications of the outcome of the UK referendum. It has certainly highlighted the crisis of confidence not only in the European Union, but in politics and political institutions throughout much of the Western world. Further reflection on the best way forward will be necessary and our discussion last Wednesday was rightly preliminary in nature. At this stage, most leaders are strongly of the view that this is not the time to take a big leap forward towards integration or a backward step towards weakening the Union. There was little talk of treaty change, or new powers for the EU. The real need is to focus on implementing, more effectively and dynamically, concrete measures that improve the lives of all our citizens, such as measures on jobs, growth, investment and counterterrorism. These are the essential building blocks of long-term prosperity and stability for us all. We agreed to return to the matter in the autumn and, to this end, an informal meeting of EU leaders has been scheduled for 18 September, to be hosted by the Slovakian Presidency in Bratislava.

The migration and refugee situation rightly remains an issue of the highest priority for the Union, although the time for discussion at last week's meeting was more limited than usual. The EU has developed a comprehensive approach to the migration challenges as set out in a range of specific measures. There has been good progress on many of these measures, including the establishment of a European coast and border guard, which Ireland will not opt into, and a package of measures agreed with Turkey and, for a variety of reasons, slower progress on others. Overall, however, the measures are having a positive impact. The Commission report of 15 June indicates - this is also confirmed in other reports - that the numbers crossing the Aegean Sea, for example, have reduced very substantially since the EU-Turkey deal was signed in March. This is to be welcomed sincerely. However, the challenge remains both in the Aegean and on the route from Libya to Italy, which remains perilous.

At last week's meeting, the main focus was on the external dimension of the crisis where the proposed migration partnership framework, which aims at ensuring coherence between EU migration policy and its external policies, was examined. In general terms, we welcome the framework's focus on working even more closely with countries of origin and transit. We also welcome the intention to work closely with countries hosting large numbers of displaced people, and would support the approach that partnership frameworks build on existing policies in this area.

The European Council dealt with a number of important economic issues under the broad heading of jobs, growth and investment. The European Council generally endorsed the country-specific recommendations and thereby completed the 2016 European semester process. The European Council also adopted conclusions on the Single Market and we support the affirmation that swift and determined progress must be made. We also support the call for the various strategies and action plans proposed by the Commission to be implemented by 2018 and the fixing of an annual review of progress. It is especially welcome that leaders placed such emphasis on the need to bring the full benefits of the digital single market to all stakeholders. This is a priority for the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Dara Murphy.

I intervened during a brief exchange on trade, where I stressed that the Commission should follow through and seek to agree a TTIP deal with the United States. This is a major opportunity to set the standards for global trade for the next 50 years. As the conclusions confirm, the European Council will return to the trade agenda in October. Separately, the European Council noted the progress which has been made through the European Fund for Strategic Investments, EFSI, in mobilising private investment, and called for the Council and European Parliament to urgently examine new proposals on the future of the fund. The Commission will bring these proposals forward soon. Ireland has welcomed EFSI as an additional instrument in support of growth and investment and we look forward to the Commission's detailed evaluation of the first results of the fund. It is essential that any obstacles to investment be removed.

Note was also taken of recent steps on the development of economic and monetary union. At European Council level, there appears to be a limited ambition for a major push towards deeper integration at the current time. While the issue was not discussed, the Heads of State or Government affirmed the importance of the continuing fight against tax fraud, evasion and avoidance, noting, in particular, the anti-tax avoidance directive. Finally, the European Council took note of the difficult situation in the agricultural sector, principally in dairy and pigmeat. We welcome the call on the Commission to provide all necessary supports to assist farmers, including financial assistance, where appropriate.

As is evident, last week's meeting of the European Council addressed a number of issues of great importance and we will return to them in future meetings, above all the UK question. I look forward now to hearing statements by Deputies.

Deputy Micheál Martin

Eleven days after the result of the UK referendum the future direction of the European Union is no clearer. In fact, the incoherence in London has actually become worse. Anything which increases uncertainty and drags out the process before hard decisions are reached is damaging for Europe and for Ireland. Last week's summit involved no significant progress. It is welcome that leaders expressed their solidarity, but this is something they express on every issue at every summit, even when they are fighting relentless battles on issues. Warm words and anodyne clichés about shared visions are irrelevant when set beside the urgency of the issue at hand.

The Dáil’s debate on this topic last week demonstrated that Deputies representing the overwhelming majority of the Irish people agree on the core principles of Ireland's response.  We are absolutely committed to remaining a full, active and constructive member state of the European Union.  We recognise the scale of the economic and social threat posed to all parts of this island from the decision of the UK.  We believe that this issue must now be an absolute priority for us.

This is a consensus which has a strong democratic legitimacy and an even stronger basis in the facts of progress directly linked to Ireland's place in the European Union. We are not uncritical and we see the need for reform, but we also refuse to accept the anti-EU rhetoric which pushes aside as irrelevant the peace and prosperity enabled by the Union. This view was not, of course, unanimous. A minority of Deputies continued in the anti-EU tradition of accusing it of being some vast neo-liberal conspiracy beating down the people of Europe and inflicting aggression on others. To them, there is a socialist utopia available outside of the Union. Sinn Féin, of course, continued its new policy of attacking everything the EU does and its core principles and then claiming that it wants to stay in the EU. Incredibly, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, our far-left anti-EU Deputies again claimed the result as vindicating their critique.  According to them the xenophobic, neo-liberal and anti-social campaign to leave had nothing to do with the decision to leave. This ridiculous position, a political manoeuvre more cynical than anything of which they have accused other parties in the past, is even less tenable a week later.  As we have all seen, the first response in London has been to plan lower corporation tax and argue over how to have the maximum amount of free trade with the minimum amount of free movement, workers' rights and consumer protections. The sinister attacks on EU nationals, particularly those from more recent member states, are a new development directly linked to the Leave rhetoric.

The speeches we heard denouncing the sinister anti-foreigner rhetoric of some English politicians were, as usual, forceful and eloquent, but if one does not acknowledge the centrality of these views in driving anti-EU sentiment in the referendum and in other countries, then clearly one cannot help confront it in reality. The far right in France, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy and many other countries is to the fore in pushing an agenda of dismantling the EU.  Nothing should be done which can help to legitimise their arguments.  This was the core mistake which David Cameron and his allies made when they embraced the idea of painting the EU as an enemy to be fought. The fact that the clear majority of the Irish people, of all parts of society, and their representatives reject this gives us a very positive foundation upon which to move forward.

Given that all of the potential holders of the office of British Prime Minister after the start of September have ruled out maintaining full freedom of movement and continued budget payments, the so-called Norway option of the United Kingdom joining the European Economic Area appears to be a non-starter. As such, a very complex trade negotiation is required.

The idea, floated by some in Brussels, that the United Kingdom could only start such a negotiation post-exit is foolish and one we should oppose. It is in everyone’s interests that the UK’s exit causes as little disruption as possible and that the terms be as generous as possible within the major constraint of protecting the core principles of the Union, particularly fair trade based on agreed standards of workers' rights, consumer protection and freedom of movement.

Regarding the timetable, a delay in triggering Article 50 until the new London Government is in place is reasonable. Anything which delays it for a substantial period would be unacceptable. We are not looking at the equivalent of the Canadian trade negotiation, which took six years, because there is already a vast body of shared regulation in place. Two years is an entirely achievable goal. Ongoing uncertainty helps no one.

I welcome the meetings which the Taoiseach is to hold with Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande. It should be noted, however, that these meetings have a poor record of producing substantive results for Ireland.

We have to be clear about exactly what we want. At the top of the list should be Irish involvement in the negotiations as part of a specific team appointed by the Council.  President Junker has not been reassuring in his response so far and it would be unacceptable for him and the Commission to be in charge; I welcome the Taoiseach's comments earlier in terms of the Council being in charge.

One very real issue within the Union has been the failure to find a mechanism for ensuring that more voices are involved in critical discussions. The growing number of initiatives between a limited number of members must be opposed as it is causing real damage. The original meeting of the six, for example, was foolish, counterproductive and sent the wrong message to the rest of the European Union.

The Taoiseach

That was mentioned specifically at the meeting last week.

Deputy Micheál Martin

I welcome that. These negotiations are an opportunity to address this by ensuring that those involved represent distinct interests, including those of countries with a major stake in the final deal with the United Kingdom.

The Taoiseach should also use the period between now and the special summit in September to launch a specific diplomatic initiative to ensure that each member state is briefed at a high level on Ireland’s position.

At the meeting last week of our European party, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I outlined for the five Prime Ministers present and the other Governments represented the importance of this issue for Ireland. I am convinced that there would be a substantial, positive outcome from a comprehensive initiative to tour and brief all our partners and not just the largest two.

The handling of the possibility of establishing an all-island forum on Brexit, unfortunately, has been close to shambolic. It is genuinely extraordinary that Ministers would do interviews about a proposal before making contact with Northern parties. It is the inevitable outcome of five years of stepping back from deep, ongoing involvement in all-island issues. The rejection of the idea by First Minister Foster is regrettable, and her statement that there are more than enough all-island bodies is unacceptable given her duty to examine areas for such bodies as part of the required review under the Belfast Agreement. What was missing from her comments was an acceptance of the deep threat to our economies. She is fully entitled to believe in the Brexit cause. Her dismissal of the potential threat of Brexit is a completely different thing and ignores the will of the people of Northern Ireland and the mounting economic evidence.

It is the right and obligation of our Government to speak up for the social and economic interests of the whole island in Brexit negotiations. We cannot impose our will on the people of Northern Ireland, but we can and must make sure that their importance to us, and vice versa, is not ignored.

As I said in our debate last week, this is too urgent for us to leave it to business as usual. The Government must now publish details of how it intends to use existing structures to ensure deep engagement with institutions in the North and to ensure that economic and social interests on both sides of the Border are heard.

The joint DUP-Sinn Féin exclusion of formal civil society dialogue from the Northern institutions in contravention of the Belfast Agreement must be challenged immediately. The pattern for quite some years has been a refusal to establish that civil society dialogue. It was part of the negotiated deal on the Good Friday Agreement but, regrettably, the main parties in the North did not want to know about it. We should now offer all necessary assistance to employer bodies, trades unions, farmers’ organisations and others to convene dedicated North-South expert groups on their concerns and to present their views as soon as possible.

We had a Brexit seminar over 12 months ago in Cavan hosted by Deputy Brendan Smith. We had the IFA economist present who gave a great presentation on the perils of Brexit for Ulster farmers. It was a pity her views and research was not disseminated more widely in the North in a rational and cool way in the context of the debate, but we got a sense at that seminar of the level of expertise available that can be of assistance now in an all-island approach to our negotiations.

On the issue of a potential unification referendum, the demand for one was made by Sinn Féin without any attempt to reach out to other parties or groups. It was made without the provision of any evidence that it might pass. It was clearly intended to be nothing other than a bit of grandstanding from our most consistently anti-EU party.

I hope that Brexit will mean that a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland change their position and become supporters of unification. If this happens then we should have a reunification referendum. The partisan posturing of a party which only last year issued leaflets calling on Belfast voters to vote on sectarian lines simply puts off the day when a reunification referendum could be held and won.

Until we see the result of the Tory election the nature of negotiations with London will be uncertain. Mr. Gove, as a journalist, was one of the most consistently wrong and ill-informed commentators on Northern Ireland. The other candidates have no significant record to assess. What we do know is that all appear to support the basic economic strategy outlined by Chancellor Osborne yesterday. As predicted, this is moving in the opposite way to the social vision claimed by our anti-European Union Deputies as the basis for the "Leave" vote.

Until 2011, it was a tradition that the Taoiseach would have a meeting with the British Prime Minister within a week or two of either taking office. We should seek to have that tradition restored.

Last week, I set out my party’s policy concerning Scotland and the fact that it must not be treated like a normal candidate country should it vote for independence and seek to retain European Union membership. I welcome the Taoiseach’s presentation of the views of First Minister Sturgeon at the summit.

The objective of reducing corporation tax below 15% is a serious issue for Ireland. A detailed study included in the latest ESRI quarterly review directly addressed the issue of the possible impact on Ireland of reductions in the British rate. By the figures they produced, a reduction of over 5% in the British rate would potentially reduce investment in Ireland by non-EU firms by over one quarter. What this figure might be following Brexit is unknown, but it will not turn from a major negative to a positive. That reinforces the need for us to resist domestic and European voices calling for greater taxation of employers. In this context, a message in forthcoming meetings should be that Brexit cannot be used as an excuse for resurrecting old demands to end national discretion in tax policy.

The ESRI study also demonstrated that the decision taken in 1997 to invest in research and build the knowledge base of the economy is central to Ireland’s long-term prospects. It is one area where we have the ability to create high value, high security employment. The delayed and then rushed science strategy published before the general election contained many things but a financial commitment to a broad research community was not one of them. We should note that the British science community, one of the strongest in the world, is in near panic over the impact of Brexit and we have to revisit this area. We have to use research and innovation to increase our opportunities and limit the threats from Brexit. That particularly applies to Northern Ireland where many companies currently applying for grants under Horizon 2020, for example, are in a very difficult if not hopeless situation in terms of the prospects of getting grants under that programme given the decision to leave the European Union.

In other business, the summit agreed to give more flexibility to Spain and Portugal in regard to meeting fiscal targets. That is welcome. The semester process cannot be allowed to degenerate into a crude and inflexible control mechanism which ignores economic reality.

Some have begun to lobby for the lifting of sanctions concerning the invasion and partition of Ukraine. In all cases this is justified by business interests.

I hope the Taoiseach remains strong in opposing this. There is no surer way towards more aggression against European states than to reward aggression by removing the limited penalties that have been applied.

We need to request a shared initiative against the rising tide of intolerance and scapegoating that we are seeing in many countries. Ireland should take the lead in pushing for greater solidarity and resolution in the face of an immediate threat to fundamental values. Last week's summit set no definitive course. September's summit should bring some greater clarity. In the meantime, Ireland has no time to waste.

Deputy Gerry Adams

A fortnight ago the vast majority of us who spoke here were hoping for a very different outcome in the crucial vote on whether the North would vote to remain in, or leave, the European Union. Sinn Féin campaigned vigorously for a Remain vote, and the North did vote to remain. However, as a result of the vote in England and Wales, the entire island of Ireland now faces huge challenges, as acknowledged by many Members, the most serious challenges we have faced for many years. During the referendum vote in the North, for the first time since the Good Friday Agreement, Unionists, republicans, Nationalists and others expressed a collective and definitive voice and said they wished to remain within the European Union. That collective expression is momentous and should be heeded in light of the unique challenges a post-Brexit environment poses for Ireland.

I am of the firm view that such challenges can only be overcome in the national interest if we think and act nationally. That means on an all-Ireland basis, here at home and abroad. That is why I wrote to the Taoiseach on Thursday, as well as to the First and Deputy First Ministers and to all political party leaders on the island, proposing the establishment of a national forum to discuss how the vote of the clear majority of citizens in the North - who want to remain in the EU - can be respected and defended, and how the unique challenges facing Ireland can be adequately addressed. Speculation arose, directly from media interviews given by two Ministers, that this issue would be raised at the North-South meeting yesterday. It now appears there was no tic-tac between the Government and the Northern Ministers before the meeting. If this is correct it is extremely worrying. The Taoiseach's current lack of clarity over the status of the proposal is also worrying. I listened intently to the Taoiseach's answers to various questions today, but it is uncertain whether the Taoiseach will establish a national forum that will have island-wide participation. He went from Government support for the proposal to a totally unclear position. Surely he should not have been surprised by the DUP's response. They may decide not to attend, but the DUP's rejection should not be allowed to stand in the way of the establishment of such a body.

There will be enormous goodwill for a forum that seeks to defend the North’s vote to remain and to protect the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement, its institutions and the two economies on this island - the very objectives that the Taoiseach quite rightly set out as the Government's objectives. I have no doubt that civic Unionism and civic society in general will attend, along with representatives from our agriculture, agrifood, business, voluntary, community and other sectors.

There is an onus on the entire apparatus of Government to work closely with the Executive to achieve maximum co-operation on all of the outworkings of the Brexit vote across this island. There is also an onus on all of those people who claim to be republicans to do likewise.

The Fianna Fáil leader took the opportunity today to attack Sinn Féin's calls for a referendum on Irish unity. He then went on to say that he hopes that people in the North will move to a pro-united-Ireland position. He will need more than hope. He would actually need to be working with us, and everybody else, whatever disagreement he may have with us, to try to bring about that aim. The challenge is to rise above his own little personal party-political focus to work for the common good and in the national interest.

There is a particular opportunity and imperative now, in light of some of the negative and dismissive voices coming from England, with regard to the Good Friday Agreement and, in particular, the human rights provisions that underpin much of it. Let us be in no doubt whatsoever that the Good Friday Agreement is under threat. Consider, for example, one of the candidates for the Conservative Party leadership, Michael Gove, MP, and his warped fantasies of British military victory over Nationalist and republican Ireland. He argued for war instead of peace. He has derided the Good Friday Agreement, opposed demilitarisation and opposed the reform of policing and justice in the North. This record is from a man who wants to be the next British Prime Minister.

There is a huge responsibility on us all to set differences aside, act together and act nationally in the time ahead. It is also important to look at the current situation. The First Minister lost the vote, yet she wants the North to leave the EU. The Deputy First Minister won the vote - along with others - and he wants the North to have its vote upheld and defended. After a good start for the Fresh Start agreement and the work done there, there is a crack emerging in the time ahead. Let us not underestimate the difficulties that will present. I would argue very strongly for the right of Ministers in the North to deal directly with the EU institutions and for the Taoiseach and the Government to support that proposition.

I request that the Commission be asked to establish a fund to assist small Irish export businesses that may be destroyed by the consequences of Brexit. Many of these businesses, as the Taoiseach is aware, are tied into contracts and may have to shut down if they do not receive assistance. It took years to establish these export businesses, through austerity and all of its difficulties, and they currently employ a great number of people. Perhaps the Taoiseach will raise this important issue with the Commission also.

At the pre-Council statements two weeks ago I raised the issue of refugees. This is the third year of the current crisis and there appears to be no let-up in the numbers of refugees trying to reach Europe. Today the Taoiseach said that discussions at last week's meeting were more limited than usual. He also said that there had been progress on many measures. However, a recent United Nations report says that more than 7,000 children took the central Mediterranean route from North Africa to Italy from January to June this year - more than double the number who did so during the same period in 2015. How is that considered progress? Tragically, in the first six months of the year, more than 2,800 deaths were recorded in the Mediterranean. For the whole of 2015 the number was 3,770. Many of these deaths were of children. As we sit here in the relative comfort of this Chamber, those figures are staggering when we contemplate them. Some 96,000 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum in Europe in 2015. UNICEF has urged the EU to introduce measures to create a stronger process through which minors can find safety, and it also advocates for the reunion of children with family members. We have to look to our Government to champion these refugees. We cannot look to anybody else. We must look to the Taoiseach to represent us and the unfortunate people who are fleeing conflict, prejudice and the danger of being discriminated against or killed. There is no report on whether any of this was discussed at the Council meeting.

I also commend and thank the crew of the LE Róisín, the naval vessel which completed its humanitarian mission in recent days. It saved in excess of 1,250 people in the past 12 weeks. That is the size of a small town. The crew does incredible work and I am sure all of us here are very proud of the crew's efforts. I also wish the crew of the LE James Joyce the very best as it sets out on a similar mission from Cork on Friday. We have to work towards making these missions a thing of the past. That should be our focus at these Council meetings and in our other engagements because while we all focus on Brexit, these issues are not in the media but they are happening.

I wrote to the Taoiseach two weeks ago about the ongoing plight of Ibrahim Halawa, who is still detained in Egypt, and asked him to raise this case with other European leaders. He did not say in the course of his report whether he did. Since then, the trial date has been postponed for a 14th time. The Taoiseach knows Ibrahim should be at home with his family and friends. Will he confirm that he raised Ibrahim’s case at the European Council meeting?

Deputy John Brady

During pre-European Council statements, my colleague, an Teachta Adams, criticised the EU-Turkey deal relating to the plight of refugees and called on the Taoiseach to reconsider his support for it. He has clearly failed to do so and has failed to listen to the non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and aid workers on the front line of the refugee crisis who deal with the consequences of this terrible deal. It is a disgrace that the EU thinks Turkey is a so-called safe country of origin and is deporting asylum seekers back there. Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian government does not respect basic human rights, and refugees have been shot by the Turkish military on the Syrian border.

At the Council meeting, the Taoiseach discussed the European Commission’s communication on a new partnership framework with third countries. Is he aware that 104 European NGOs have signed a joint statement criticising this plan? They are rightly concerned about the direction the EU is taking by making deterrence and return the main objective of the EU's relationship with third countries.

They have stated this approach will not only fail to “break the business model” of smugglers, but will increase human suffering as people are forced into taking more dangerous routes. Moreover, despite the stated commitment to respect the principle of non-refoulement, there are no safeguards envisaged to ensure human rights, legal standards and protection mechanisms are in place. As a result, people risk being deported to countries where their rights are not safeguarded. Did the Taoiseach speak out against this plan? Instead of blindly supporting it, he should have been calling for clear commitments to open up safe and regular channels to Europe for those in need of international protection and for other migrants.

Before this meeting, Sinn Féin wrote to the Taoiseach and called on him to raise Ibrahim Halawa’s case with other European leaders. Did he raise Ibrahim's case with them? On 29 June, Ibrahim's trial was postponed for the 14th time, pushing it back until October at the earliest. It is a disgrace. The Government’s strategy is clearly failing. It is time the Taoiseach applied for a presidential decree on Ibrahim’s behalf. This decree would allow Ibrahim to return home before a final ruling has been made in his case, and is used in cases where a deportation or extradition would serve the so-called higher interest of the Egyptian state.

The presidential decree has always been available, but the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Flanagan, has refused to apply for it until the trial has been completed. For the sake of Ibrahim’s mental and physical well-being, the Taoiseach must act now. News of such decisive action would give him some comfort while he lingers in an Egyptian prison cell. The Taoiseach should also be canvassing other European leaders and enlisting their support for Ibrahim’s release to ensure he is allowed return home to his family and his many loved ones.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

If the European Union is eventually torn apart by the competing pressures to which it is now being subjected, and I sincerely hope that eventuality never comes to pass, it will be as much the fault of its dogmatic supporters as it is of its wilful detractors whose shrill voices we have heard, particularly in the United Kingdom, in recent months. There is pig-headedness in evidence already on both sides of this debate.

In their recent public comments, some of the most senior members of the Commission, Council and Parliament seem to have displayed the capacity of the Bourbons to learn nothing from history. Despite the passage of time since the referendum and the opportunity for considered reflection that has been afforded us all, the thinking of some has become even shallower and more simplistic.

If the members of Europe’s political elite are to deserve the respect of those of us who send them there, who believe in the vision of Europe, they must give up on the sort of jockeying and grandstanding that remind us of schoolyard faction fights. I said last week that the Union should not be a sheep pen into which people are corralled by fear of the consequences of leaving. That is not the idealism that drove visionaries in the aftermath of two world wars to create this unique political entity in our lifetime. The last thing we need now is a bully-boy determination not just to expel the British but to make their expulsion as immediate and draconian as possible – pour encourager les autres.

We still await clarity on several aspects but one thing is clear: Britain’s political leadership is in no position to commence withdrawal negotiations right now. That will not happen until there is at least one new party leader, a new Prime Minister and probably a reshuffled government with its members in command of their portfolios. Until all that has happened, we will not know the settled aim of the British negotiations. We need to know that and we need to afford the British the time to make that determination in a democratic way. It is basic common sense, as well as basic decency, to allow the UK’s internal politics to produce a leader with a mandate to negotiate and a clear strategy to follow. That means waiting, quite possibly until the end of the year, before Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty is formally triggered.

The British government has accepted that it is under a democratic duty to give effect to the people of the United Kingdom’s decision in the referendum. Under Article 50, a member state that decides to withdraw must notify the European Council of that intention. It provides that, in the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement that sets out the arrangements for its withdrawal, “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union”.

The process has several stages. First, the European Council, without the UK member, has to agree guidelines for negotiations.

It also seems clear that a second treaty is needed on the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Whatever settlement is negotiated has to be formally endorsed by the Council, acting by qualified majority vote, and a vote of the European Parliament. It makes sense for everybody, including Ireland, that the withdrawal agreement and the treaty on the future relationship are closely linked, with the shortest transition and the least disruption that can be achieved. We need to have a clear strategy to achieve that objective. This needs the most careful planning and consideration. There is no merit in rushing towards finality.

This is not a case where we need to defer to the founding six or the powerhouse three. I welcome the Taoiseach's comments last week, which he repeated today, namely, that negative views were expressed about the assumption that there is some subset of authority within the Council of Ministers. That is eroding the principle of equality and undermining people's confidence in the EU to act in consort. If there are such negative comments, they need to made more overtly for us all to hear.

Our country is a EU member state with full entitlements. I repeat what I said last week. If European values mean anything, they mean that right now our voice must be heard clearly, loudly and succinctly by all our European colleagues. I reject a Europe where every state is notionally equal, but some quite clearly consider themselves more authoritative or equal than others. We know why they want an early resolution of this issue, and one that is as harsh as it is immediate. They want to hammer home the price of leaving because they think this will contain the risk of eurosceptic contagion. Their thinking was summarised by Guy Verhofstadt writing in the Los Angeles Times last week, who said, "But if we’re soft now with Britain, giving it too much wiggle room to extract favours and deals, we will only feed anti-European parties elsewhere in Europe and strengthen the belief of nationalists and populists that the European Union is a walkover”. He is the president of the ALDE grouping to which Fianna Fáil is affiliated. He probably had long discussions with Deputy Martin last week.

I had those discussions in the past. Mr. Verhofstadt is a passionate European federalist. In a peculiar way, he sees this as an opportunity. It is almost as if there is an inner core belief that has no regard for European democracy. My former working colleague, Minister Wolfgang Schäuble, has changed his view on these matters post Brexit. He understands a democratic mandate is required to advance such eurocentric views.

A Europe that hurriedly and badly mishandles the British exit will not win itself any new supporters among the European electorate. I agree with the Polish Foreign Minister that the referendum result showed disillusionment with European integration and declining trust in the EU. We must have cognisance of and do something about that. We need politely to restrain Guy Verhofstadt and his like, with talk of Brexit not being a crisis but an enormous opportunity to re-examine Europe from its foundations and to build a more integrated Union, with stronger defence forces and a united foreign policy. I take it that Deputy Martin made it clear that those sorts of views are not shared by very many in this House, including his sister party.

There is a very real risk for all of us. If British withdrawal becomes a British expulsion, then the risk, by way of collateral damage, is that we will be flung from the centre of Europe to its frontiers. The unthinking expectation seems to be that, like good Europeans, on behalf of the Union we would police the new frontier between a fortress Europe and a fortress United Kingdom, with the Union Jack flying over the border line. Such a proposition is as dangerous as it is downright daft. It is dafter than anything Donald Trump has in mind for his country’s frontier with Mexico.

In Europe they talk about variable geometry. We will all have to take out our compasses and protractors and go back to maths class to work out the geometry of this new frontier. We are aiming to keep a frontier between the UK and this State that is permeable for Irish and British citizens. Our objective is that there will be no hard border. Meanwhile, our frontiers must be permeable to all EU citizens, while the UK’s frontiers are supposed to be open to us but closed to the rest of Europe. That is the challenge. It will require patience, co-operation and compromise, and not raised voices and petulance, to work our way around this.

Our priorities are to protect the common travel area and the Good Friday Agreement. We need to ensure the transition for both institutions is as smooth and free from turbulence as our shared commitment and goodwill can make it. Given that we are a member state in good standing, these are not just Irish or British-Irish priorities, rather they are European priorities. They need to be highlighted in the European Council’s negotiation guidelines. Nothing less is acceptable for us. I share the view expressed by Deputy Martin that we must be part of the European negotiating team because no country is as adversely affected by Brexit as us.

Meanwhile, if there is a delay in triggering Article 50 and if the European Union will not talk to the UK, formally or informally, until the process is triggered, there is nothing at all to stop this State from talking to both sides to highlight our concerns and to ensure they are fully accommodated in the eventual negotiations. We need to start work now, not just bilaterally but trilaterally, on the new relationships between Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union. We need to ensure we end up with the best institutional relationships to meet the needs of this State and this island.

The European Union does not have the support of the majority in the UK and the same might well be true elsewhere. I agree with Wolfgang Schäuble when he admitted before the referendum that the British are not alone in their scepticism. I also agree with Derek Scally’s comment in The Irish Times today that Germany has a great talent for tin ear European diplomacy, most recently evidenced, as I said, by the exclusive invitation to the EU’s six founding states, to the exclusion of others, to discuss Brexit.

On the one hand, we must welcome the concession that, in the face of rejection at popular level, this is not the time to call for further European integration and yet more pooled sovereignty. More EU is not necessarily better EU. On the other hand, German proposals for a return to a two-speed Europe, something that was tried a decade ago and rejected, are no solution.

Winning the citizens of Europe over to the European project requires two things. First, it means a recommitment to democracy, openness, transparency and accountability. Second, it means EU institutions and leaders addressing the problems pressing heaviest on their citizens, in particular stagnant growth and youth unemployment. A Europe that does not recognise the dangers inherent in policies that sustain economic underachievement throughout the Continent will not win the support of the people.

As I have said before, a balance is required. Mario Draghi and the ECB are doing their best, but monetary stimulus is no longer enough. A corresponding fiscal stimulus is also required.

We cannot maintain a policy that seems grounded on only one principle, that member states must in no circumstances be allowed stimulate demand through additional taxes and expenditure. This is a dangerous ideology posing as prudent housekeeping. We need to debate this and to act. Prolonged EU austerity can only do further damage to the political fabric of our Union. Europe does not need a new project. Right now it does not need further retrenchment or further integration. Europe needs to recover its spirit and its purpose to serve its people, not to dictate their future. The Union will survive and prosper if it shows it can meet the needs of its people right now. This means more growth, more jobs, and genuine partnership in a Union of equals.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Eugene Murphy)

The next slot is Anti-Austerity Alliance-People before Profit. Is Deputy Ruth Coppinger sharing time with Deputy Bríd Smith?

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

Yes, we are sharing 15 minutes, with seven and half minute each.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Eugene Murphy)

The Deputy may commence.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

In an earlier contribution, Deputy Martin asked how long the Anti-Austerity Alliance-People before Profit would deny that Brexit was right-wing and racist. I would also ask how long Deputy Martin and other Fine Gael and Labour Party Deputies will deny that the EU is right-wing and racist. I would also like to put another a more positive scenario arising from the Brexit result. As somebody said in a post on Facebook, David Cameron is gone, Boris Johnson is gone, Nigel Farage is gone - who said this was all bad? This is actually positive. What we have in the Labour Party is essentially a struggle between the right-wing, Blairite wing of the Labour Party, and the left, the more membership led section of the Labour Party. They are doing battle for control of the Labour Party. The Anti-Austerity Alliance and the Socialist Party support the growing movement against austerity and racism and we support moves to defend Jeremy Corbyn from those who are trying to oust him because this is a battle of ideas. It is not a battle of personalities. We convey our solidarity to him. He was democratically selected by the membership, not by MPs, and they should have the final say.

Arising from Brexit, there is a real prospect of a left movement to challenge austerity and of a left Labour Party emerging probably from a split in the party. It would mean two parties, but let them go. Similarly with the Tories, there could be two Tory parties. These are not necessarily negative developments. In fact, from the point of view of people who want real change, who want the economy run in the interests of the majority, it is good if there is a left movement emerging in Britain around Jeremy Corbyn. There is a real prospect of a general election being called, and the Labour Party winning that election with a left leader of the party, and that is a positive thing.

Also arising from Brexit, there has been an attempt to sully working class people and those in Britain who voted to leave the European Union as if they represented just one right-wing and racist bloc. Clearly, if one examines the statistics all across Europe, there is a movement against what the EU has become. The Telegraph, which is not a radical socialist journal, contains an article which mentions that a tsunami of referendums is on the cards, with possibly 33 being called in the coming year, and not all of them from a right-wing perspective.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38% of French people had a favourable attitude to the European Union while 62% had a negative attitude towards the European Union. That is not accidental; it arises from the economic crisis in 2008 and 2009 when it was made to pay in Europe for that crisis. This seems not to be understood by the Government side. An Ipsos MORI poll found that nearly half of voters in eight large European Union states want to be able to vote on whether to remain members of the bloc, with a third saying they would opt to leave, if given the choice. Are all of these people right-wing and racist all of a sudden? In the case of France and Italy, that is far from the case. In the case of France there is talk of a "Frexit". The discourse there is not to do with a right-wing trend, but with the fact that the anti-EU sentiment in France comes from the working class French electorate who feel the EU project is being hijacked by ultra liberal technocrats and they want to see it go the other way. The French working class has shown its dissatisfaction with the EU through nationwide strikes, blockages and scenes of urban unrest. It has made the comment that Brexit teaches a lesson to the whole of Europe that either we change it or we leave it. I do not think the European Union can be changed. We saw that in Greece last year with the humiliation that was heaped on it and the referendum of the people of Greece ignored by the EU leadership. Similarly, in Italy, the Five Star Movement has said it wants Europe to be a community and not a Union of banks and lobbies. It is very important that the Taoiseach and the Government understand that the movement now is away from the EU and what it has become and towards a return to democracy for real workers' rights, which the EU cannot provide.

I note also that NATO representatives were in attendance at the meeting held at the European Council. The fact that NATO representatives sat in and took part in a meeting like that says it all. After the meeting the European Council and NATO issued joint statements that there will be accelerated and practical co-operation between the EU and NATO in selected areas. They called for further enhancement of the relationship in light of our common values and the unprecedented challenges from the south and the east. What are those unprecedented challenges from the south? They mean poor people from Africa and other countries who are trying to escape lives of poverty, but also lives of war that the EU is also involved in, stoking up and supporting and perpetuating. That is what they mean when they talk about the terrible challenge. I note that the Taoiseach was also at the European Council meeting near the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme where 1 million young people were slaughtered. The European Council mentions these unprecedented challenges; so much for helping these people.

Regarding migration, the EU has now become an entity for preventing the poorest people on the planet from entering its borders. That is racist. Not only is it doing that, but it is boasting now instead - this is in the European Council report from Donald Tusk - that the sense of security in Europe has been restored because the numbers entering Europe from the Middle East are down to 50 a day as opposed to 7,000. Where are those people being held? They are being held in Turkey in the most horrific conditions, thanks to an agreement the EU signed with the country's Prime Minister, Mr. Erdoan. That is the EU that we see.

There was an establishment line of argument that the vote by the British people to leave the EU was racist, isolationist and xenophobic but what we are seeing across Europe is an anti-EU sentiment arising from the bailout and austerity programme inflicted since 2008 and 2009, and also an EU that has become anti-immigrant and put up fortresses against the poorest people in the world.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I want to focus my comments on the question of migration and refugees in Europe because history will have a lot to say about the current period and the way we are responding to it. Sometimes when we are in the thick of it we do not recognise the dramatic and profound impact it is having on the world in a particular space and time and on world history.

The UNHCR tells us that we are facing the most serious humanitarian crisis in terms of refugees of our time. That is mainly in regard to the Syrian refugees but it also refers to Afghans, Iraqis and Iranians in the main. People are coming from Africa also. The EU report on migration lauds, to a certain extent, the deal done with Turkey and boasts that crossings from Turkey to the Greek islands have sharply decreased and have almost come to a halt.

What really bothers me about this kind of report is the sort of language they use about people who are fleeing war, famine, persecution, imprisonment, disappearance, rape, you name it - all sorts of torture, and all sorts of humanitarian reasons for tens of thousands - millions - of people to leave their own country. Nobody really wants to get out of Syria, except that they face bombs being dropped from the air loaded with oil and petrol; they face Russian soldiers destroying their towns and cities, and, increasingly, killing their children and women, and destroying families. That is why people leave. If others could, they would also leave, like the Palestinians, who have been starved and isolated in the Yarmouk camp in Damascus. There are lots of pockets of Syria that aid is not being brought to because, as we heard from a whistleblower from the United Nations who recently gave a presentation here, much of it is being diverted by the Assad regime away from where it is absolutely and fundamentally needed.

This report from the European Union lauds the progress that has been made in holding back, corralling and containing some of the most desperate people on the planet. It also refers to an action plan called the Valletta action plan. We should remind ourselves that this is all about the European Union handing over vast chunks of money. In the case of the Valletta action plan, which was agreed in Malta in late 2015, €1.8 billion as a minimum was agreed to be handed over and shared between countries such as Algeria, Burkina Faso and Sudan. The President of Sudan could not even attend the talks in Malta because there is an international arrest warrant out for him because of his human rights violations. These are the types of country that the European Union is pouring funding into. Similarly, Human Rights Watch has expressed grave concerns about new laws in Tunisia that imperil human rights and lack adequate safeguards against abuses.

Many of us have spoken at length about our concerns about the deals done with Turkey and the EU money that is being given to it to corral, contain and imprison more than 3 million refugees. That continues to be a concern, but I am afraid the EU is not concerned at all. In fact, it lauds Turkey and says that there is fast operational return of migrants, that leverages are being used in development on trade and that this is a progressive European Union model. I endorse and echo what has just been said by Deputy Coppinger. Those who think for even a minute that the EU is a progressive entity that does wonderful things on behalf of the human race - and many of them are in Britain, because Britain has not faced a bailout in the same way we did, and the imposition of directives from Europe in the same way as we, the Greeks, the Spanish and the Portuguese did - should, for God's sake, look at its attitude to migration, immigrants and, as declared by Amnesty International, the most serious humanitarian and refugee crisis of our time. The European Union is dealing with it as if refugees were bunches of animals, wild bison or something, to be corralled behind fences. It is not even delivering on the commitment made under the EU-Turkey deal. Instead, refugees in Greece are being sent back to Turkey, despite opposition by the refugees themselves and despite the fact that - as I saw with my own eyes recently on a visit to many of the refugee camps in the airport, stadiums and industrial states around Athens - the people of Greece are lauded by the refugees for their decency and their willingness to open their homes and give kindness to some of the most desperate people in the world. This is despite the fact that these are the people being most hammered by austerity, cutbacks and bailouts.

What we are witnessing is the rest of Europe beyond the boundaries of Greece - the richest part of the planet - turning its back on the poorest and most desperate parts of the world. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, could comment on this if he gets to speak on it: why in the name of God have we not even begun to fulfil even our meagre, miserable commitment to take in the 4,000 refugees we talked about taking in from Syria? We are miles behind in doing it, yet we still have at least 250,000 empty properties in this country that could adequately house the people on the waiting lists, the homeless, the people who are screaming for accommodation and those who need it coming in from elsewhere. Indeed, people in direct provision are probably being treated a little bit better than those in the camps in Turkey.

This report from the European Union only confirms my conviction, and that of most people with a heart instead of a swinging brick, that the European Union is indeed completely racist and aggressive towards migrants seeking refuge, food, shelter and safety, many of whom are children. What does that say about our European rulers, about the great Commission that the people of Britain have supposed to have turned their backs on? It says everything about the inhumanity, the cruelty, the selfishness, the greed and the very good reasons why this Union as it exists should be broken up and a different kind of Europe put together, a Europe that puts people before profit.

Acting Chair (Deputy Eugene Murphy)

The next slot is Independents 4 Change. Deputy Thomas Pringle is sharing 15 minutes with Deputy Clare Daly.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

The one thing that is certain since the Brexit vote, which is clear from the outcome of the informal meeting on 29 June, is that nothing is certain. Nobody really knows what will happen over the coming period while we wait for the British to initiate the Article 50 procedure, or what the outcome of negotiations will be during that period. The only thing we and our Government can do is to ensure we put ourselves in a strong enough position to argue very strongly on an all-island basis that no hard borders be put in place and that trade on an all-island basis be allowed to continue.

It is interesting to see the way the media has tried to stoke up hysteria around this whole situation over the last number of weeks. On the way down here today I listened to the chairpersons of the chambers of commerce in Newry and in Dundalk talk about the impact on the exchange rate, how it is affecting their towns and how business can be done. They did not want to get into any hysteria-raising on the part of Sean O'Rourke, who interviewed them. They said that they had lived through this - and it is a fact that people in Border areas have lived constantly with exchange rate fluctuations and the differences that result. Sometimes it is to the benefit of us in the South, and we get people coming from the North and shopping here. Other times, probably most times, it has been to the benefit of traders in the North, with people going in the opposite direction to avail of the benefits there due to the exchange rate with sterling. We need to be clear and keep a clear head. The Government needs to put Irish interests first. That is key. We can be sure that every other member state in the European Union will put its interests first when it comes to the negotiations with the UK.

It is also important to note that the UK does not have a trade surplus with any European member state. In fact, Germany has a trade surplus with the UK of more than €50 billion a year, so the Germans stand to lose a hell of a lot. The UK is the second-biggest trade surplus it has, so it will not negotiate a deal that hammers Germany. We are in a strong enough position in that every other member state stands to lose out substantially. The Netherlands has a trade surplus of more than €20 billion with the UK and France has a trade surplus of about €9 billion. It will not be in their interests to make sure that a hard border comes to pass. We have to use that as one of our strengths in the negotiations.

It will take a long time to analyse why so many people in the UK voted to leave the European Union, but when we look at it, we see that so many people have been left behind by neoliberal policies and the growth of the financial sector in England. So many people in the north and outside the south-east have been left behind and seen their jobs go. They were told during the campaign that a Brexit would affect the economy, but they looked at it and said, "It won't make any difference to us, because we've been left behind anyway and we're being punished by what's going on."

I personally do not believe that the European Union is reformable. If, however, it is serious about reform, it has to work towards becoming a community of partners and not what it has developed into over the last six or seven years, where might is right and if one's economy is big enough one can dictate to other countries and impose one's will on them. It has been rehashed here on a number of occasions how we were treated through our bailout. If we look at how Greece, Spain and Portugal have been treated, we can see that it is a European Union of might which dictates. If the EU is to be reformed, that has to change.

The Taoiseach gave us a summary of his contributions and participation at the European Council. By his own account, the only intervention he made at the Council meeting was when he stressed that the Commission should follow through and seek to agree a TTIP deal with the United States. He said this was a huge opportunity to set the standards of global trade for the next 50 years. It certainly is. It is a huge opportunity for transnational capital to take control of trade for the next 50 years and ensure that countries such as Ireland are kept under their firm control. If that is the only input the Taoiseach can make into the Council, it is a sad reflection of where we will be at the end of these negotiations about the UK's leaving the EU.

In his summary of what happened, the Taoiseach did not mention that NATO representatives attended the Council and received the EU's global strategy on foreign and security policy. It is interesting that he omitted to mention that fact and its potential impact. We know from the report of the strategy that it calls for ever-closer integration in terms of military spending and policy across the EU member states. I wonder what the Government's attitude is to that. I think I know what the Government's attitude will be because it will say one thing here. We know, however, that the Minister for Defence is attending the EU-NATO congress in Poland in the coming days, where a pact between the EU and NATO will be signed. What will Ireland's role be concerning this ever-growing military union? Will the Government outline what our role will be? It is highly important and will be of great interest to many people across the country.

Deputy Clare Daly

In the concluding notes from the European Council meeting, I noticed that the only reference to Brexit was a one-liner stating that the UK Prime Minister informed the European Council about the outcome of the referendum in the UK. I would say there was a hell of a lot more talking done about it than that, but it gives one a glimpse behind the scenes. There is no doubt that the Brexit referendum - born originally from David Cameron's arrogance, and obviously stirred up a fair bit by the lies of Nigel Farage and racism - has at the same time delivered an almighty kick to the European establishment.

It would be completely wrong to categorise all of the Leave votes as being from the sort of jumped-up Little Englanders who just want to keep immigrants out. The truth and depth of the multi-layered vote in that referendum shows that many of the Leave votes had their roots in a desire to see a change from austerity policies, neoliberalism and the deepening militarisation of the EU, which is a major cause of the crisis to be faced. While there are clearly complexities in the situation for everybody, it would be wrong not to acknowledge that in a certain way the vote gives an opportunity to people who have looked in dismay at the direction in which the EU has gone. It has departed from what many people believed were its original ideals of co-operation and harmony. In fact, it has revealed its true nature, which has always been that of an institution to promote big business rather than the interests of the citizen. Out of that came a common, pan-European concern about how the hierarchy is going on. There are nuggets concerning how we can unite with our fellow Europeans to try to develop a better Europe.

Apart from the points about TTIP and militarism, to which Deputy Pringle referred, and the unspoken Brexit, the issue of migration and refugees was the key topic and the biggest challenge facing the EU. Yet again the response of the Council meeting seems calculated to make the situation worse, rather than better. That is because the focus again is entirely on border controls as the answer, yet we should know by now that that policy has been in place up to now and has not worked. If we want to stop the tide of refugees, we should stop interfering in their countries and stop the drive towards militarisation. In an Irish context, we must stop facilitating the US military through the use of Shannon Airport. Border controls certainly do not work.

I have referred previously to humanitarian visas and I want to hammer home that point. I simply cannot understand why this approach is not being used to deal with the current situation. A system of humanitarian visas would allow refugees to get to Europe safely, legally and cheaply using regular planes and boats. They could apply for visas via consulates in their own countries or in third countries. They would not then have to crowd into dinghies, risk drowning and give over their life savings to people-smugglers. I find it quite incredible, however, that we chose not to allow for a system of humanitarian visas. It is true that Europe already has a humanitarian visa system of sorts, but the visas are issued at the discretion of individual states and there is no EU-wide scheme for issuing them. I would like to know what the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Taoiseach have done to promote that idea.

There is an incredibly sickening irony in the fact that, since the war in Syria broke out, the number of humanitarian visas issued by all the Schengen member states has fallen dramatically rather than rising, which is what one would think would happen in response to a humanitarian crisis. We could have a role to play in this. Given that we are not part of the Schengen area, we would have considerable scope to be more generous in our humanitarian visa system without having to obtain agreement from all the other EU member states.

There is no point in whingeing about smugglers when our inaction is a key reason people traffickers are thriving. People-smuggling is big business. In Turkey alone last year, a crude estimate put the smugglers' revenues at approximately €800 million. To put that in context, the entire EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for seven years is just over €3 billion. So the €800 million that was sweated from the life savings of refugees and their families left behind is enriching an industry. What is the EU's response? We hear that it has declared war on the smugglers, which is just about as successful as the war on drugs. What we are really doing is turning human beings into contraband. First of all we help to bomb their homes and then when they flee we try to treat them like an illegal shipment of drugs or cigarettes seized at Dublin airport. They are grabbed by customs, photographed and slung into a lock-up. It simply is not good enough.

The conclusions of the European Council meeting included a statement on the need to provide continued support to the western Balkan countries in their fight against smugglers and to remain vigilant about potential developments regarding other routes to facilitate rapid and concentrated action. It seems to me that the EU has undoubtedly lost its way and its humanity in dealing with this situation.

We should consider the experience of a surgeon, David Nott, who spent a lot of his time in Syria setting up a network of secret hospitals as a result of the bombing of hospitals there. To conclude, I will read Nott's description of the aftermath of a barrel bomb attack in Syria. As Deputies listen to this, they should remember that the money being given to Frontex, the EU's border security agency, has increased every year since the outbreak of war in Syria.

Research and development funds to the tune of €230 million across 39 programmes have been dedicated to EU research to keep refugees out, with much of this money going to companies like Airbus, BAE and so on who all members of the European Security Research Working Group. These are the manufacturers whose bombs have driven these people out of their homes. It is a win-win on the double for them in terms of their being paid to bomb these countries and then later being paid for providing the security to keep them out. In relation to one incident, Mr. Nott states:

When barrel bombs fall on homes, they often send entire families to the ward. One day, five siblings arrived. Unable to treat any of them, Nott started filming the scene, so that he would have proof, he said, of “how terrible it was.” A baby with no feet let out a stifled cry, then died. An older brother lay silently nearby, his guts coming out. In the next room, a toddler with blood on his face shouted the name of his dying brother. Two medical workers carried in the fourth brother, who was about three years old. His pelvis was missing, and his face and chest were gray with concrete dust. He opened his eyes and looked around the room, blinking, without making a noise. There were wet, white blobs on his face, and Nott gently wiped them away. When the sister was brought into the room, he learned that a concrete block had fallen on her head, and the blobs were pieces of her brain.

The boy was dying. There was no treatment; he had lost too much blood, and his lungs had filled with concrete particles. Nott held his hand for four agonizing minutes. “All you can do is just comfort them,” he told me. I asked him what that entailed, since M1 had exhausted its supply of morphine. He began to cry, and said, “All you can hope is that they die quickly.”

This is what the people are running from in Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iraq and we put the borders up. It is absolutely disgusting.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

The next slot is being shared by Deputies Danny Healy-Rae, Michael Healy-Rae and Mattie McGrath. The Deputies have 15 minutes between them.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The people of Ireland and Kerry are worried like never before about their future and Ireland's position among the European Union nations. Ireland is a small nation that depends a great deal on Europe. Any further break-up of the European Union could seriously impact on Ireland's future.

Ireland is a small nation surrounded by water, with no road access to mainland Europe. I call on the Taoiseach, Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and our MEPs to tackle the European Commission and officials to ensure that Ireland gets vital concessions and to protect Ireland's interests. We need our experts working to their maximum to ensure a seamless transition of Britain from the Europe Union such that our agriculture, manufacturing and tourist industries are protected. The survival of our nation is at a crossroads. Trade between Ireland and the UK could be reduced by 20%. The proposal by the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Osborne, to cut corporation tax there to 15% will affect Ireland in that it may result in industries choosing to set up in the UK rather than Ireland.

The issue of whether payments to farmers will be maintained under the CAP is one of the most commonly asked questions of me at my constituency clinic. Another question is whether Britain not contributing to the finances of Europe will make a difference to CAP payments. Farmers will be hit on the double because the value of sterling will fall and manufacturing and agricultural exports will be worth 10% less. Freedom of movement of our people to and from the UK cannot be made difficult or cumbersome or in any way restrictive. For more than 100 years people from Ireland have travelled to England for work to get money to help rear their families in this country. Currently, many people travel to work in the UK on a weekly basis to get money to provide for their families in Ireland. We cannot allow any travel restrictions or obstacles to be put in their way.

We do not want Border checkpoints or friction with our good neighbours in Northern Ireland. Relations between us have been running smoothly since the checkpoints were removed and we want this to continue. At the same time, we need to ensure that we do not take in more immigrants or refugees than we can afford or house. I have nothing against refugees but we can only house so many of them. As Members will be aware, many of our own people cannot find homes and are sleeping in the streets, with little headway being made in that regard.

What will happen if Holland or any of the Baltic countries decide to leave the European Union? Do we have a plan B? I suggest that an all-party committee be established, comprising Deputies with expertise in marketing, taxation, business, agriculture, fishing, tourism and manufacturing and trade. As I said, free movement of our people in and out of the UK is important. The people of Ireland do not want to leave the European Union at this stage but if more countries were to leave and if the European Union were to make things difficult for Ireland in terms of our being unfairly regulated or restricted in our trading or exports, Ireland would have to consider its position. We need a plan B to deal with these eventualities. Who would have thought when we were a few short months ago that the UK would leave the European Union. Even though we knew the referendum was going to take place, we never believed the UK would leave the European Union but it has done so. As that could trigger other countries to do likewise, we need to have a plan B in place.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

I share my brother's concerns with regard to the worrying time in which we find ourselves. The meeting of the Heads of State last week was one of the most important leaders' meeting in a long time in the context of the perilous situation in which Ireland finds itself following on from the UK referendum decision. To say that we were surprised at the outcome would be an understatement. While we respect people's right to vote in whatever way they wish, the decision has dangerous, knock-on consequences for Ireland in the context of its proximity to the UK and it being our nearest and largest trading partner. Our daily lives are affected by the UK market, sterling and how the UK economy is fairing. I cannot see the UK fairing any better following on from this decision and for that reason I am concerned about the knock-on effects for Ireland, particularly our farming and manufacturing sectors.

Since the referendum result, I have met with the leaders of many of the farm representative organisations on a number of occasions. They are extremely fearful for the beef sector. The Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, will be aware of what is happening in our dairy sector and how dairy farmers are losing money every day of the week. This decision is further destabilising that situation. It is certainly doing nothing to help it. I am concerned about whether our farms will be financially viable into the future because of the way the markets are going.

Anyone involved in manufacturing in this country, particularly small and medium-sized manufacturing, is terribly reliant on their exports to Great Britain every day and the way that trade determines how many people will be at work in Ireland. Thousands of jobs will be on the line if we do not steer this ship very studiously and carefully. It takes the Government working with the Opposition and all of us to ensure that we do everything to protect our nation's interests at this crucial time. As my brother, Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, rightly stated, we are where we are now but where will we be in another year's time or two or three years' time after the triggering of Article 50? What if other countries start to look at themselves? What would the situation in Europe be if France decided to pull out tomorrow morning? The cumulative effect of this could be disastrous in the future so we must be terribly careful about how the situation is handled.

I firmly believe that the reason the vote went the way it did was because people were fearful of the migration issue. That was the way it was sold in Great Britain. This is way I would put it because to me, that was not what it was really about. We must be careful to make sure that we only have people here for whom we can cater because we cannot cater for Irish citizens or people from abroad who are on waiting lists for accommodation. We cannot take care of the people who are here. Why would we want to open up for more when we cannot take care of those we already have? If we have our own house in order, we can do whatever we like afterwards.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am delighted to speak about this very important issue. The meeting of the Heads of State last week was very important. Europe must take some of the blame. The European project was a noble one and I salute its leaders and architects. I remember the canvassing for entry back in the 1970s and the different referenda since then. However, it has become too bureaucratic, powerful and rigid. It has serious impacts, including impacts on democracy. People are shocked by what has happened in Great Britain. While we were all worried, I thought that it would swing back after the merciless slaying of that wonderful MP, Jo Cox, but that did not happen. People who opposed it ran like scalded cats. The main people opposing it have exited the stage.

I attended a Derry-Monaghan wedding in Monaghan at the weekend. People were dismayed and frightened and wonder whether the Border would come back. Will there be a land border - a physical border - because people find it hard to see anything else if Article 50 is triggered by the next British Prime Minister? There is a very dangerous vacuum at the moment. The election is ongoing and different candidates are talking about the different things they are going to do. We do not know what they will do when they are elected. There is a very dangerous vacuum and we want certainty. Like colleagues and previous speakers, I met the IFA, the ICMSA, other groups and individual farmers and they are hugely concerned about CAP payments. Farms are not viable without those payments. I know the Minister and the Taoiseach have built up good contacts over the years so, hopefully, they will stand Ireland, which is a small exporting country, in good stead in order that we will keep our markets and that flagship food companies like Glanbia and the Kerry Group will be able to continue exporting and providing jobs here.

I do not know whether the First Minister in Northern Ireland is trying to imitate the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, with her "out, out, out" stance. People in Northern Ireland are amazed at the DUP. I know the people voted and some people in parts of Northern Ireland voted very strongly to stay in. They are amazed at the First Minister's intransigence and tough talk. I spent the last two days at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. The Minister of State with responsibility for tourism and sport, Deputy O'Donovan, addressed it on Tuesday morning and his words went down very well. There is huge anxiety across the board among all the Members of Parliament from England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Jersey. People are very concerned and we need to tread carefully and build up and draw upon the relationships we have built up over the years. Whatever they do needs to be done pretty soon with a roadmap charted out because the uncertainty is dangerous.

While some people say we might make some capital out of that, we do not want to make capital out of somebody else's misfortune. We may get some direct investment through companies moving here because of tax rates but we do not want that either. We want stability and to continue as we are. We want to have our place and have our Ministers and people listened to when they look for help, breathing space and derogations. I am not saying we should get derogations willy-nilly but we should get derogations for some measures that are having a draconian effect here. In respect of the nitrates directive, slurry spreading in Northern Ireland could be divided by a railing in the one field. One could spread slurry on one side of it on a certain calendar date but not spread it on the other side. These anomalies are silly. They seem to be too rigid to understand the complexities of those issues. The bureaucrats got too big for their boots in some ways. We need to examine pay scales for bureaucrats and all the un-elected people over there. It has become a bit of a gravy train and needs to be examined as well.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

When we spoke on Brexit in the Chamber last week, I stated that the decision by the people of the UK to leave the EU is bad for the UK, Ireland and the EU. We see that the UK economy is already showing signs of some damage. We have also seen warnings from the UK Government that it will look to reduce spending on public services so it is already beginning to see some economic turbulence. Obviously, if it disinvests in public services, it will see social damage as well.

We have already started to see some economic damage in Ireland. Billions were wiped off companies listed on the ISEQ. The figure on the first day after Brexit was approximately €10 billion. A total of 40% of trade between indigenous Irish companies and the world is between Ireland and the UK so €2 in €5 that Irish companies trade globally is traded with the UK.

We also know that UK tourists account for about one quarter of all spend by foreign visitors to Ireland. Last year, UK citizens made 3.5 million trips to Ireland so the fall in sterling and its volatility, both of which are likely to continue, and the general rise in uncertainty relating to the UK globally, within the UK and in Ireland are not just likely to start affecting Irish businesses very quickly, they are likely to hit tourism in Ireland almost straightaway this summer.

While there has been a lot of talk about the damage to the UK and the potential damage to Ireland, there has not been very much talk about the damage to the EU itself. It is as if the EU and the European project are somehow divorced from the UK's decision to leave. The European project is important. I consider myself to be a proud European. The European project has helped secure decades of peace in Europe. We lead the way globally in areas like human rights, international development and climate change.

The European project must succeed but it is losing its way. During the banking crisis the institutions of Europe hung Ireland out to dry. Threats were made to our economy by the ECB and Jean-Claude Trichet talked about a bomb going off in Dublin. At every stage of the troika programme Ireland had either the worst or joint worst deal when it came to borrowing terms, interest rates and so forth. When Ireland needed solidarity, we were treated very badly. There is also a growing democratic deficit in the European Union. In 2004 we saw the fiasco of the so-called European constitution. The people of France and the Netherlands said no to it so they changed its name, said it was no longer a constitution but a treaty and the people's vote did not matter anymore. We were asked to vote on it twice.

During the economic crisis, we saw Germany move further into the centre in terms of calling the shots in the eurozone when it came to Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy and so forth. More recently, we have seen a small number of the large countries, including France and Germany, become more and more central to European policy. The day after Brexit, we saw the six founding members come together, have a press release and photo call and essentially speak with the voice of the European Union about what was happening with the UK.

The European Union is undoubtedly poorer without the people of the United Kingdom in it. If lessons are not learned, the European Union is likely to find itself not just without the UK but potentially without other members as well. We are now seeing calls in France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Greece, Sweden and other EU countries to hold referendums similar to that in the UK. Brexit was partly about immigration but really it was about a disconnect between the European project and the people of the UK, who are European citizens. This disconnect and sense of disempowerment can be seen all over the place. We see it in the rise of ultranationalism - in Golden Dawn in Greece, the Alternative für Deutschland party in Germany, the National Front in France, the True Finns party in Finland and the Freedom Party of Austria. These are all on the rise because the European project is not bringing all its citizens along. It is becoming more and more a project for special interests - a project for the haves rather than the have-nots. That disconnect and democratic deficit is what led people in the UK who feel disempowered to vote to leave the European Union.

The Taoiseach referred to regret. He said when he was at the Council meeting there was a sense of regret among the Heads of State of the European Union members. Regret is irrelevant. What is needed is reflection followed by action. I have here the six-page statement from the European Council which covers immigration, border controls and a lot of different things. The final item on it, No. 9, is "Outcome of the UK referendum". In a six-page document, the only thing the European Council has to say about the outcome of the UK referendum is, "The UK Prime Minister informed the European Council about the outcome of the referendum in the UK." There is nothing in there about lessons that have been learned or that need to be learned. There is nothing about a period of reflection or the rise of ultranationalism in the European Union. What is needed is a clear understanding of how the European Union needs to learn the lessons and follow a model that is inclusive both socially and economically.

The Taoiseach stated that Brexit highlighted a crisis of confidence in the EU and in politics and institutions around the world, and I agree with him. He is absolutely right. I say to the Minister, Taoiseach, Government and Dáil Éireann, let us act accordingly. If we recognise that Brexit is the result of a crisis of confidence in the EU and political institutions globally, let us build confidence in the EU and political institutions globally. Let us commit to no more regressive budgets, no more tax cuts and commit to investing instead in indigenous business and in giving every child the opportunity to achieve their potential. Let us commit to calling out the lack of transparency and special interest that appear to be involved in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. Ireland has limited influence when it comes to the European Union. We are one of 28 members and we are a small member. We can act in a manner that demonstrates how to rebuild confidence. Why do we not change our economic policy? Why do we not change our social policy to demonstrate that the choice is not between economic strength or a decent society, or economic strength and a decent society, but that economic strength and a decent society make each other stronger? Why do we not change our approach and build a republic that demonstrates the advantages of economic strength and a decent society to show how a more globalised world can benefit all citizens and not just the few?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

God bless the citizens of the United Kingdom because at the moment it seems clear they are lions led by donkeys. It is not like "A Midsummer Night's Dream" but a midsummer night's nightmare. Some of the characters involved are like the characters of that Shakespeare play. Thinking of Boris Johnson, who could play Bottom, never have the lines been so apt, "I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of me" and "Lord, what fools these mortals be!"

We all have a problem in the Union as a result of the decision because there is no easy way out of this mess that everyone is in now. There is no easy negotiating position for the UK Government to take which will necessarily lead to an outcome that is good for either the Union, Ireland or the United Kingdom. It seems to me that the negotiation difficulty arises from what has been much debated - the trade-off that some people are looking for between access to trade and free movement of people. I do not believe, as the Taoiseach said earlier today, that the trade-off can be allowed within the treaties. I was shocked and surprised to hear the shadow finance minister of the Labour Party in the UK when he seemed to indicate that it might be a good deal for labour. How could it be a good deal for the left to have a world in which capital is able to move at great speed, has full flexibility and full power of manoeuvre, which gives it real negotiating strength, and at the same time restrict the ability of labour to move, which would weaken its bargaining position? It makes no sense to me for the left to be arguing for such a position. We need to recognise that part of the reason - perhaps the main reason - the vote went the way it did is because people were fearful that new people coming into the country would bring down wages and weaken the power of labour in the host country. The way to tackle that is through better standards and better minimum wage rates, not just to capitulate to capital, which is what that section of the Labour Party seems to be doing at present in trying to advance the interest of capital, with no commensurate power for labour.

I was concerned by the Taoiseach's speech that we would not put ourselves on the other side of the argument. He said in his speech earlier today that one of the interventions he made in the European Council was that we should immediately advance the TTIP negotiations. I do not know how that is possible. Where would the United Kingdom be in such a renegotiation of TTIP or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, with Canada? The British Government seems to have three possible choices. It may decide to place itself in that sphere with Canada, Mexico or Lord knows where and try to trade with the rest of Europe from such a third party position. I do not think that would suit the UK or Europe. That is one of the options it has. The second option is to try to do a deal similar to the Swiss one and arrange a whole range of bilateral arrangements with the European Union. It seems bound to fail because of the lack of freedom of movement which was central to the recent Swiss referendum. It would run into similar problems in the UK.

The third option, if they wanted to go with a Norway-type model which the Taoiseach seemed to indicate might be one of the options that is looked at, brings real difficulties because it requires the UK to accept all the standards of the Union without the power to frame them. There are no easy options and there is no easy way out.

At a later stage, we will be able to ask questions. One question I have is on what is the role of the European Parliament when it comes to the negotiation of a new relationship. I understand the Parliament obviously has a position in terms of having to agree on the exit, but is it only the European Council which agrees the new negotiation arrangements? I presume it must be because, if it is done on the basis of unanimity, I presume the Parliament would not be able to be involved because it would obviously not be able to work in such a way. I would be interested if the Minister's officials could forward the details of that technical aspect of it. What is the role of the European Parliament in the new relationship?

One confusing aspect of this I have heard over the past few days from the Government, which is also contained in the Taoiseach's speech today, is the two slightly different contradictory messages. The Government, on the one hand, rightly states that the ongoing uncertainty will kill investment decision-making which will lead to recession in the UK which, as sure as eggs are eggs, will affect our economy. This will make the political system worse because a divided people will be more angry so there is a case for trying to do whatever they want to do quickly but at the same time, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Taoiseach and others rightly state that we should not rush this and we should give them time. What exactly is the timeline we are thinking of? If the UK will see a new Prime Minister coming from the Conservative Party in the coming month or two, do we believe that the pulling of the trigger on negotiations should wait until 2017 or do we believe that should take place in the autumn? I am sorry to get down to minutiae of technical details but I believe the effect of the lack of certainty on the economy and, indeed, on public confidence, will only get worse because of this disastrous decision, as I see it.

As Deputy Donnelly stated, we should stand up for a Union which has economic values that both respect labour and are enterprising. We should position our country in that way in all the talks. I look forward to working with the Government in whatever way we in the Opposition can to try to rescue us from what is a bad place for all concerned.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

There are 20 minutes for questions. I will begin with Deputy Seán Haughey.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I gather we have 20 minutes now to put some questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

At the outset, I welcome the decision of the Dáil today to set up the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. The Dáil and Seanad have been in place for some weeks now and it was important to get that committee in place. We need to begin our deliberations on that committee as soon as possible, with Brexit being on the top of the agenda.

That committee was beefed up following the rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum on the first occasion. It was given more powers because of the substantial amount of legislation coming from Europe and the lack of scrutiny taking place there. This question and answer session was also in response to the Lisbon treaty rejection, and also the Taoiseach coming in before a European Council meeting to report to the House. All those developments are particularly welcome.

I have a couple of questions. At this stage, what is the position on an all-island forum? There has been much discussion this afternoon during questions to the Taoiseach and, subsequently, in this debate. It is quite incredible that the Taoiseach did not run this idea past the First Minister over the weekend. Then it came as a surprise to everybody when she rejected it. Obviously, it should not have been a surprise. I really would like to know what will happen now. What mechanism will be put in place to ensure that the interests of all parties on this island are protected and what mechanism will be put in place to engage with stakeholders, social partners, civic society, etc.? Can the forum proceed without the DUP, and, if not, what framework will be put in place?

With the UK leaving the European Union, we have lost a vital ally in respect of a range of issues. I assume the Minister, Deputy Flanagan, was at the European Council meeting together with the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy.

Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Charles Flanagan)

I was not.

Deputy Seán Haughey

I wonder if there was an acceptance of the special position of Ireland in all of this. Obviously, we have concerns about the future of the common travel areas, the possible erection of trade barriers, the possible introduction of cross-Border controls and the peace process. Did any bilateral meetings take place at the European Council meeting between the Taoiseach and other European leaders and did the Taoiseach manage to gain support for the Irish position and to convey the view that this is a particular item of concern to Ireland?

What was the prevailing view regarding the need to reform the EU institutions? Several speakers here this afternoon have spoken about the democratic deficit, the disconnect between the citizens of Europe and the European Union institutions, and the fact that the European Union procedures are bureaucratic. There is certainly a need for better delivery on key issues, particularly on youth employment, the refugee crisis and sluggish growth.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

In fairness to everybody else, Deputy Haughey should wrap up his questions. The Deputy has taken four minutes.

Deputy Seán Haughey

The Taoiseach stated there is not any scope for treaty change and I wonder how the European Union will proceed in that regard as well.

In conclusion, what is the Minister's sense of how Britain should be treated at this stage? Should it be punished - should there be a punitive response - or should it be treated fairly, which would be in Ireland's interest as well? Several bureaucrats have put forward the view that it should be treated harshly, and reference was made to that here today. We would not support that. I am merely wondering what the view of the European Council was in general in that regard.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

There were a number of questions.

Obviously, when the 27 EU Heads of State or Government met in Brussels on 29 June they considered by way of initial reflection the result of the referendum. There was a preliminary discussion on its implications for the European Union, in the short and in the longer term. Indeed, it is true that the outcome has highlighted something of a crisis of confidence, not only in the European Union but in politics throughout the western world.

The Council agreed that the Union needs to reflect on current matters in a way to ensure that new ways are found to connect better with its people, acknowledging some failings, addressing these failings and, ultimately, delivering concrete results. Rather than setting new ambitious goals, it is important that the Union reflects on issues that have already been promised in areas such as the Single Market, investment, security and counter-terrorism. These continue to be the building blocks of long-term prosperity and stability for everybody.

On the matter of the approach of the Government towards the negotiations, it is early days yet. The situation in the UK is such that it is most unlikely that the Article 50 mechanism will come into force soon. It is important that we reflect now on the current position within the United Kingdom and the need to ensure that there is a Government and a Prime Minister, and that will become clear over the coming weeks.

In the meantime, we have prepared as best we can. We have our contingency framework. It maps the key issues that will be most important to Ireland in the coming weeks and months. Already, the Government has published a summary of its key actions.

I accept the area is challenging. There will be full discussion among the various parties here in the House. I welcome the comments of Deputy Haughey on the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. I assume that committee will have an important role to play in this issue.

The Government will be responding by way of ensuring that our contingency plan will be ready in time for the negotiations.

It is fair to say there will be no negotiations until after the service of the Article 50 notice. We cannot be certain in speculating on when the notice will be served; some people say it will be the autumn and more say it will be early next year. In the meantime, both the Taoiseach and I are engaged bilaterally with our European partners. I have already been speaking to my colleagues, the foreign Ministers of the Netherlands, Germany, France and Britain, in the first instance. I intend to travel to Germany on Friday to meet the German foreign Minister, Mr. Steinmeier, and the Taoiseach has similarly undertaken a number of visits.

With respect to the all-island forum, I had a very constructive meeting last week on behalf of the Government with the Northern Ireland party leaders, including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is important that every effort be made in conjunction with the party leaders in Northern Ireland to ensure our priorities are at the heart of the process. Our priorities include the common travel area and the current invisible Border. It is important that every effort be made on behalf of everybody in the House - I acknowledge the leadership role on the part of the Government - to reach out to all parties and stakeholders, beyond the specific arena of politics, to ensure our priorities are well ordered and well negotiated in the months and years that lie ahead.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I ask Members to be brief in asking questions and for the Minister to be conscious of the time in answering them.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I will be brief. What are the strategic implications for Ireland of the European foreign and security policy? Why is the Minister of State responsible for defence attending an EU-NATO conference on the signing of the pact in Warsaw this week?

Deputy Charles Flanagan

The Government and I welcome the presentation of the new global strategy setting out a vision for European Union foreign and security policy. It commits the European Union to the promotion of peace, prosperity, democracy and the rule of law. I welcome that the strategy encompasses both foreign and security policy, taking in a global perspective. I assure the House that Irish concerns have been taken on board to a large extent in the document. The strategy has no implications for Ireland's military neutrality, which is confirmed in the legally binding protocol to the Lisbon treaty. It sets out interesting ideas and important proposals, which we must take time to consider carefully before moving forward. This is really important in the context of the decision of the United Kingdom to depart from the European Union. The conclusions make clear that any implementation of this new strategy will be negotiated and agreed with member states.

Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly

I have two questions. The statement by the European Council states: "The European Council today adopted an agenda calling for swift and determined progress: ... to create the right conditions for stimulating new business opportunities by: ... ensuring very high-capacity fixed and wireless broadband connectivity across Europe, which is a precondition for future competitiveness." The Cabinet made a very bad decision today to privatise the future national broadband network. At the Council meeting or in conversations, has any pressure been placed on Ireland to make a decision to privatise the network rather than keeping it in public ownership, as a strategic asset should be?

In the Minister's conversations with other foreign Ministers regarding Brexit, is there an acceptance that Ireland may very well need its own bilateral agreements with the UK, which may supersede general UK-EU negotiations after the serving of the Article 50 notice?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I thank the Deputy for his brevity.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

International engagement on the issue of broadband and our national strategy has not featured in my conversations at EU level. The Cabinet took a decision today, following consideration of a number of options, to proceed by way of a national plan. I am sure the Dáil will have the opportunity to discuss this at an early date. I have no knowledge of any European influence on or engagement in this decision. The Acting Chairman will forgive me if I defer to my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, on the issue. I understand provision is being made for an early debate on the issue and I am sure there will be an opportunity for Deputies to raise this on Question Time as well.

We have not, at the level of the Foreign Affairs Council, had the opportunity to discuss the issue of the referendum vote in the United Kingdom. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday week in Brussels. My assumption, not having seen the agenda, is that the issue will feature. In the meantime, in the context of my bilateral engagement with foreign Ministers, as well as the Taoiseach's engagement with European Heads of State and Government, which he relayed to me, Ireland's priorities are being clearly set out. One of these is the matter of our long-standing relationship and engagement with the United Kingdom through the common travel area. It is important that this form a priority in terms of the ultimate settlement negotiations with the United Kingdom. There is also the issue of the Border, as was mentioned earlier by Deputy Haughey. These are really important strategic national issues for us and we will continue to highlight them at every opportunity prior to the negotiations and, ultimately, in the course of those negotiations. In the meantime, we wish to impress on our colleagues the core nature of the issues and the unique status of the island of Ireland in the context of the European Union, with particular reference to the peace process.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Does the Minister agree with his party colleague Brian Hayes, MEP, that if people seek to change our corporation tax rules, we should follow the UK out the door and leave the EU?

I asked a question earlier about the role of the Parliament or Commission in the new relationship. The Taoiseach made it very clear that we must follow the European Council, but what is the role of the Parliament in terms of new trade or other arrangements? What is the role of the Commission in the process?

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I do not agree with Brian Hayes, MEP, in his setting out of the circumstances under which Ireland may at some future time leave the European Union. I stress, as I have done with my colleagues and as the Taoiseach did at the recent Council meeting, that Ireland firmly remains an active and constructive member of the European Union and the eurozone, irrespective of the result of the UK referendum. It does not by any means alter our membership position within the European Union. I do not envisage any circumstances under which we would give consideration to leaving the Union. The corporation tax rate referred to by Brian Hayes, MEP, is of course a national competency in any event. It is not in any way influenced by our membership of the European Union. The answer to the question is "No."

Deputy Eamon Ryan

What about the role of the Parliament in the new relationship?

Deputy Charles Flanagan

The framework for negotiations is currently under way. At the European Council meeting it was stated that the negotiations will certainly be led by the European Council and at that level among EU Heads of State and Government. There will be a role for the Commission in the matter of the technical issues surrounding the negotiations. Ultimately there will be a role for the European Parliament. It is not particularly clear yet in the framework of negotiations what precisely that may be. All institutions will be involved, with the lead institution being the European Council, comprising Heads of State and Government.

Deputy Darragh O'Brien

Have our EU partners who were at the Council of Ministers meeting accepted Ireland's distinct and unique position post-Brexit and that it is an urgent national priority for us that we are central to those negotiations? I want to get a handle on whether it has been accepted that our position is different from that of other countries within Europe.

What plans, if any, has the Minister put in place to strengthen the engagement in the North-South Ministerial Council in particular post-Brexit? That could be the most important forum to be used. That was the desire, certainly, at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which was held in Malahide over the past three days. Are there any plans to increase the engagement there as well?

Deputy Charles Flanagan

Yes, my view is that there is a deep understanding on the part of the other 26 member states that will potentially form the remaining European Union of the unique status of Ireland with particular reference to the island of Ireland, the peace process, the Border and the common travel area. That acknowledgement has been forthcoming, particularly in my own bilateral engagement. I have not, at this stage, spoken to all my EU colleagues. I understand from the Taoiseach that he has impressed upon Heads of State and Government the priority of Ireland's engagement and preparedness for the forthcoming negotiations, the peace process, and the common travel area. There is a broad level of understanding among our EU partners. Obviously that will intensify as the negotiations proper get under way.

In respect of the North-South ministerial bodies, I acknowledge a very important and constructive meeting yesterday of the North-South Ministerial Council, the first since our election here and since the elections north of the Border. There was an agreed approach in the form of a ten-point plan, where we agreed to intensify our relationship further and work more closely together over a range of Departments and issues of mutual benefit such as health, education, trade and agriculture. It is expected that there will be further sectoral ministerial meetings over the next few weeks and months. I would be happy to keep the House informed.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jim Daly)

I thank the Minister. Unfortunately I have run out of time and cannot take any more questions, so I call on the Minister to conclude. He has five minutes.

Deputy Charles Flanagan

I am pleased to bring today's debate to a conclusion. As the Taoiseach has mentioned, I will focus my remarks on the items covered at the summit under the heading of external relations.

The European Council adopted conclusions on Libya, where the situation remains most fragile. There has been some welcome progress since the signing of a political agreement in December, but the Government of national accord still has to be fully endorsed. The conclusions are quite clear. All groups must work with the Government of national accord as the sole legitimate government in Libya. This is necessary to restore stability and face the many challenges that are present there. The European Union continues to stand ready to support Libya.

The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, made a presentation to the European Council on the new EU global strategy on foreign and security policy. The presentation was welcomed by the European Council. The previous strategy was published in 2003. There have, of course, been profound changes in the international context in which we now operate. Ireland was actively engaged within the European Union in the process of consultation on the new strategy. Irish perspectives and concerns have been taken on board to a large extent in the document. I refer to my comments earlier on this matter in response to Deputy Pringle. The High Representative, the Commission and the Council have been invited to take the work forward and we would be happy to keep the House informed of developments in this regard.

In respect of EU-NATO affairs, the European Council agreed that in light of new security challenges, there should be further practical co-operation between the European Union and NATO in certain areas, including in respect of hybrid threats, which cross the boundary between military, policing, counter-terrorism, cybersecurity and other dimensions. Twenty-two EU member states are members of NATO and strongly wish to see such co-operation develop. However, the conclusions contain clear confirmation that future EU-NATO co-operation will fully respect the decision-making autonomy of both organisations and will not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of member states. We were to the fore, therefore, in insisting that these long-standing guarantees, already enshrined in the treaty, be clearly reiterated. There is a strong acknowledgement that Ireland's policy of neutrality and non-NATO membership will in no way be adversely affected by the enhanced co-operation.

The European Council also heard from the Dutch Prime Minister on the outcome of the ballot in his country in April on the EU association agreement with Ukraine. Dutch voters voted against the agreement in an advisory referendum. The Council has now been invited to seek a solution addressing the concerns raised by voters. This is expected to be done as soon as possible.

On the relationship between the UK and the EU, as the Taoiseach has already said, the majority of the European Council's time was given over to the outcome of the UK's referendum on membership of the European Union. As is well understood in this House, although the outcome was not what we had hoped for, contingency planning has been in progress for some time and a contingency framework is firmly in place. We are now working to define our interests further and to ensure these are well understood by our EU partners in the time ahead. As the Taoiseach set out at the European Council, we have key concerns, including Northern Ireland, the common travel area and our interconnected trade. In this regard, I have maintained intensive contact with my EU counterparts. I will continue to ensure our concerns are well understood at European Union level. I travel on Friday to see my German colleague and I will host the Italian Minister for foreign affairs here in Dublin next week. I have already been speaking to my colleagues from Germany, France, the Netherlands and the UK Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, in the context of the aftermath of the referendum. It is my view that bilateral visits of this sort continue to offer a vital opportunity to build relationships with our EU partners and will be of ever more importance into the future.

I might just take a moment to respond briefly to Deputy Smith's question regarding Ireland's response to the migration crisis. I acknowledge that there are difficulties, but at EU level, we have consistently called for an approach that addresses the root causes as well as the humanitarian challenges involved. I acknowledge that progress on resettlement has been good. We have already taken in more than half the 273 persons we pledged to take. We are on course to meet our target of 520 refugees by the end of this year. I accept that progress on relocation, which I think was the point raised by Deputy Smith, has been slow, but it has been slow not only for Ireland but for of our partners. There are 38 persons in Ireland. This low number is due to a variety of reasons outside our control, including administrative and operational difficulties. However, we are anxious to see progress on that and Ireland will continue to work towards reaching decisions on this issue. In the meantime, I wish to confirm to the House again that Ireland has provided in excess of €46 million in humanitarian assistance to Syria and the region over recent years.