Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Nov 2016

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

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Dara Murphy, who is always willing to come to this committee. He will update us on the proceedings of the General Affairs Council.

It is always a great pleasure to be here. I welcome Deputy Haughey to the role of Acting Chairman. I also acknowledge the support of the Chairman, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, last week. I appeared before two committees of the Bundestag and he facilitated me with a pair, which is in the spirit of this committee, which accepts that there is a high degree of consensus on issues pertaining to the European Union. I thank the committee Chairman and, indeed, the committee, because I know that it was in the spirit of this committee that he facilitated it.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the most recent and upcoming meetings of the General Affairs Council and while I am here to give the committee some follow-up on the issue of the United Kingdom referendum. With the committee's permission, I will concentrate on the more significant issues on the agenda, but I am happy to answer any questions pertaining to it that I do not address in my opening remarks.

Are the MEPs still with us through the use of video-conferencing? It is excellent that we have the facility for Members of the European Parliament to be present. I know they were involved in a committee earlier today. It would be welcome at some point in the near future to engage them with this committee. I believe that is the intention.

Although the UK-EU issue is not on the December General Affairs Committee's formal agenda, I would welcome the opportunity to brief the committee on it. Since I last spoke to the committee, it is fair to say that preparations have stepped up here and at EU level. From our perspective, work is intensifying across the system to map out our response in key areas, in so far as this is possible without full information from the UK. Our work in this regard began two years ago. I would not like to minimise the challenges that face us but it is fair to say we have been more prepared than any of the other 27 states. At the heart of our response is clarity on Ireland's priorities in the negotiations. These are the shared areas of the economy, the future of the EU and areas unique to Ireland, namely, the common travel area and Northern Ireland.

The structural changes announced by the Taoiseach after the referendum are bedding down. The Cabinet committee on Brexit, which is chaired by the Taoiseach, has met on four occasions, the most recent being last Thursday. In the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the re-established EU division, which contains a dedicated Brexit team, is up and running under the overall strategic framework set by the Cabinet committee and overseen by the Department of the Taoiseach. I understand the two most senior officials involved briefed the committee last week.

Work is progressing in all Government Departments to refine our existing analysis and develop positions for the future negotiations. The Government is also committed to pursuing any opportunities for Ireland that might arise from Brexit. We have always said there may be opportunities for the country. We are preparing bids for the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority, both of which are currently based in London.

A critical pillar of the Government's approach to the negotiations remains outreach to stakeholders in the EU, including partner member states and the institutions. As ever, the Taoiseach is leading from the front and last night he hosted his Maltese counterpart for consultations during a visit to Dublin. I and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade also attended, as did three Maltese Ministers. The Maltese will hold the Presidency of the EU during the first half of 2017.

The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, and I have been engaging with our colleagues. I was in Berlin for three days last week and I met Mr. Schröder from the Ministry of the Interior and Mr. Michael Roth, the Minister of State for Europe. We also had very interesting engagement with two Bundestag committees, one on data, for which I have some responsibility, and the other on European affairs, which is the German Parliament's equivalent of this committee. I was struck by the very high degree of thought the European affairs committee had put into issues specifically pertaining to Ireland and Northern Ireland. The members had very good knowledge of Northern Ireland, the common travel area, the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process generally. I suggested to the chairman the members may find it beneficial to meet this committee. Given the number of members in Germany's Parliament, there are specific rapporteurs for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. There is also an Irish friendship committee of the German Bundestag and we do not have an equivalent. This may be something worth considering. We have friendship committees with many other countries. Late last week, I also met with the Slovenian State Secretary for EU Affairs and I know she also had a good meeting with the Vice Chairman of the committee, Senator Terry Leyden. Our embassies throughout the EU, particularly the Permanent Representation in Brussels, are in constant touch with our partners.

I cannot overemphasise the importance of all of the meetings that are taking place. The one-to-one exchanges are invaluable in providing an opportunity to explain Ireland's particular position to influential stakeholders who will work as part of the EU team during the negotiating process. Equally, we gain invaluable insight into the issues that are of concern to other member states. In our exchanges at EU level, we consistently emphasise the fundamental point, which may be obvious to us but cannot be overstated in a global environment, which is that we are absolutely committed to EU membership and it is our intention to play a strong and full part in the EU as it moves through the coming years and decades.

It is important to state that I, the Minister and the Taoiseach have found considerable sympathy and understanding from other member states to date. However, it remains essential to reinforce our perspective over the coming months in order to ensure that the support we receive is practical and well-founded throughout the negotiating process. As we discussed during my previous appearance before the committee, there will be a role for the committee in this regard, as there will be for our MEPs. In harnessing the full potential of team Ireland and to promote and advance our national interests at this time, the relationships the various political groupings have throughout the EU and the relationships Members of all parties in both Houses have established over years will be vital. It will not be enough that we have consensus here with respect to our key strategic interests. It is vital that we collectively advance these when we travel to meet our partners and invite people from partner member states to visit us. This will be a long and complex process and the more effort we invest now in this preparatory phase the better, and the dividend will be substantial. I have visited seven or eight member states since August. We will continue to engage very actively with member states.

In terms of next steps, there will be a further meeting of the 27 EU Heads of State and Government on the margins of the December European Council, which the Taoiseach will attend. This will be the first collective discussion since June, when there was agreement among the 27 that there would be no negotiation without notification from the UK and that access to the Single Market would not and could not be decoupled from freedom of movement. Since June, I am very glad to have seen consistency throughout all 27 member states that this remains the common approach and the only approach.

We await to hear much more from the British side on key issues, such as the type of relationship it wishes to have with the EU post-departure. The committee is aware of the legal challenges to the Article 50 process. I do not intend to get into these today as it a matter for the UK legal system, but I note that Prime Minister May has been clear that the deadline of the end of March remains the date for notification.

In the meantime, we in Ireland must continue with our partners to focus on progressing our preparations in a practical and sensible manner.

I now turn to the most recent General Affairs Council, which took place in November. The agenda covered follow-up from the European Council and heads of state and government, preparations for the forthcoming December European Council and a discussion of the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework, MFF. The Commission gave a presentation on the work programme for 2017 and on the proposed joint declaration on inter-institutional programming. There was also discussion on the rule of law, as part of which the Council Presidency presented a summary of collated responses from member states to a questionnaire on the functioning of the annual dialogue that occurs between member states. There was discussion also of the European semester, as part of which the current Presidency and incoming Maltese Presidency gave a presentation on the roadmap for the European semester for next year. The multiannual financial framework, as the committee will be aware, spans seven years and is subject to a review at the halfway point. I attended discussions on the framework, and there was almost universal support for it after a compromise was elaborated by the Slovak Presidency. I stressed in my intervention that compromise is vital. Every member state had to and did make concessions to reach what was quite a delicate balance, as is often the case in these discussions. The Presidency said it would use the compromise proposal as a basis for negotiation with the European Parliament. However, it is very important to stress that much of the work on the mid-term review was of a technical nature and quite limited. It did not address the major head-on choices which will have to be made in the negotiations for the new MFF which will start in 2021. What we can say without qualification is that these negotiations will be significantly affected by the departure of the UK from the European Union and the budgetary hole that may be left by Brexit.

The Commission also outlined the highlights of its work programme for 2017. Its 21 key initiatives are fully in line with the priorities identified by the leaders at the Bratislava summit in September. These are in areas of huge interest to us in Ireland: jobs, economic growth and inequality are all top priorities. The year 2017 will also see a particular and welcome focus on implementation and enforcement work. The Commission also proposes to withdraw 19 proposals and repeal 16 pieces of legislation in 2017. This reduction of unwarranted legislation is also to be welcomed. I welcome the work programme and the fact that the Council's position had been well reflected. I particularly welcome the focus on the Digital Single Market. The European Union, as I am sure the committee is aware, is falling behind globally in the digital economy, and the Digital Single Market is an important way to address this. It is a wonderful roadmap established by the Commission with 16 measures and has the potential, when implemented, to allow the European Union to regain some of the ground in this digital world that we have lost to other parts of the globe. Given the significant presence in our country of such a large number of digital companies, and even more importantly, a wonderful new ecosystem of startup companies in the tech sector, this is particularly important to Ireland, but also to other small open economies.

The December General Affairs Council is in two weeks' time, and this is the time of the year when member states traditionally examine the progress on the enlargement agenda of the European Union. Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia are candidate countries, while Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina are potential candidate countries. Turkey is also a candidate country. Before discussing Turkey, which is a special case in the current context, I wish to say that Ireland really welcomes the current enlargement package. The Commission published detailed reports on all seven candidate and potential candidate countries on 9 November and we have been examining them in detail at working group level since. The package gives a kind of "state of play" assessment of the preparations for Union membership across the acquis communautaire. Each country is examined and there is an indication of areas where we would like to see further progress over the next 18 months. As I said, we are strong supporters of the accession process because it is the way to transformatively deliver peace, prosperity and stability. There is a point to the process. The importance of stability, not just for the countries themselves, but also on the border of the Union, is also a key factor, as is the strong need to send a positive message that our Union is not diminished by Brexit and that we will continue to support the aspirations of countries that wish to join and be involved in the accession process.

I participated in the Foreign Affairs Council two weeks ago in the Minister's absence, at which Turkey was the subject of extensive debate. I set out very clearly and strongly Ireland's deep concerns about the possible reintroduction of the death penalty; what we see as the overall negative trends in human rights and the rule of law; the restrictions we see on freedom of expression; and the rights of minorities, including the Kurdish minority, which need to be respected. I repeat that the recent actions of the Turkish authorities, specifically the arrests of democratically elected pro-Kurdish Halklarn Demokratik Partisi, HDP, politicians and of journalists, are contrary to democratic norms. At the Foreign Affairs Council, I noted that our concerns in this regard were shared by every other member state.

The General Affairs Council next week provides us with a further opportunity to consider our relationship with Turkey. The Commission report on Turkey was highly critical of its backsliding on core principles for us as Irish people and for Europeans. The EU is keeping the situation of Turkey under very close review, and we are considering how best to maximise our influence on Turkey to encourage it to return to democratic norms and respect for basic freedoms. In fairness, we should not forget that the attempted coup in July was an outrageous attack on democracy and did necessitate a very rigorous response by Turkish authorities. However, our concern arises from a very strong view that the nature of the response is too wide-ranging and is out of proportion, and we must continue to communicate this message. That said, it is critically important in this context that we keep channels of communication open at this sensitive time and continue our dialogue with Turkey. Turkey is a major geopolitical and economic partner. It plays a crucial role in managing the migration crisis. It continues to accommodate close to 3 million refugees and has delivered on some commitments made to the European Union earlier this year. The accession process provides the European Union with some element of leverage, which is very important, and I believe we must try to hold open the long-term European perspective for all the people of Turkey.

I understand and I have sympathy with why the European Parliament voted in favour of suspending accession negotiations but I do not believe that is the right course of action at this time because we must use our influence, through negotiations, to try to bring Turkey into a better space with respect to the issues I have already highlighted. We do not feel that suspension is the optimal way, notwithstanding an understanding of the underlying reason for the vote in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the roadmap for the European semester in 2017, which is jointly prepared by the current Presidency and the incoming Presidency, was presented to this month's General Affairs Council. It sets out the timetable and key dates and milestones leading up to the presentation of the draft country-specific recommendations in May and their finalisation for adoption at the June European Council. The December European Ministers Council will include a presentation from the Commission also on the annual growth survey. That sets out the key priorities for supporting growth in jobs in the period ahead. It is the key input to the European semester discussions in relevant Council formations in the coming months. We support the continued threefold emphasis we have on investment, structural reforms and fiscal responsibility.

The next General Affairs Council will be the final preparatory meeting before the December European Council and there are currently four items on the agenda for the Heads of State and Government in the next two weeks, namely, migration, security, economic and social development and youth and also external relations with specific reference to Russia and Ukraine.

I will briefly mention migration. The December Council is expected to be briefed by the High Representative, Federica Mogherini, on progress on the partnership framework on migration and the results to date concerning the migration compacts with five selected African countries. The Council is expected to set orientations for further work and to decide on the possible extension of the approach to other countries so, in addition, the Council will look at the implementation of the European Union-Turkey statement of March, which has seen a significant drop in the number of people trying to enter the European Union from Turkey.

On security, it is expected that leaders will have a package of related security and defence items before them. The High Representative, Federica Mogherini’s implementation plan for the security and defence strand of the EU global strategy – the European defence action plan will be tabled shortly by the Commission and proposals for a follow-up to the EU-NATO-Warsaw joint declaration. We understand the anxieties and concerns of many other member states whose geographical situations and historical experiences are very different from those of this country. We favour the pragmatic development of the Common Security and Defence Policy, but within the parameters of the treaty. We continue to play an active part in the Common Security and Defence Policy but it is subject to the triple lock. We also insist that the treaty provisions, which are copperfastened by the protocol to the Lisbon treaty for Ireland on not prejudicing the specific character of the policies of certain member states, which must be respected. That obviously pertains to Ireland. In addition, we must respect the autonomy of decision-making procedures in the European Union and NATO as befits what are two totally separate organisations.

In terms of economic and social development and youth, the European Council will take stock of progress as regards investment, for example, the renewal of the European funds for strategic investments, but also Single Market strategies and youth-related initiatives.

I will refer very briefly to external relations. Following a comprehensive debate in October, Russia will again feature on the agenda of December’s European Council. That said, this time the focus will be on the extension of EU economic sanctions, as they are due to run out at the end of January 2017. The duration of sanctions, as members are aware, is linked to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements. The European Union has already rolled out the restrictive measures on three occasions, the reason for that being developments on the ground. Continued European unity with respect to our approach to Ukraine and Russia remains crucial for our credibility and influence. To that end, it is vitally important that we continue to maintain consensus on further roll-over. Ireland believes that any relaxation of the measures can only be considered where there is clear evidence that there has been progress on the ground in eastern Ukraine. So far, there are very few, if any, signs of encouragement, with the OSCE reporting the contrary – a dramatic upsurge in attacks along the contact line during November.

There will also be some discussion about how to resolve the current situation in the Netherlands, following the outcome of the referendum on Ukraine which was held in April, whereby it is unable to ratify the EU-Ukraine association agreement. The Dutch Government appears to envisage that it will clarify the position at the EU Heads of State and Government meeting. It is fair to say the agreement will still need some intense discussion over the coming weeks.

As always, there are many topics for discussion at European Union level. I apologise for the length of my speech. I thank the committee for its attention. There are many other broad topics and I am happy to respond to questions.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, for his comprehensive report. I think he has dealt with all the major issues of the day. I will open up the meeting to questions. I call Deputy Bernard Durkan.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, and his colleagues. I agree entirely that we have come to the stage in the European context, vis-à-vis Brexit, that it is time to set out the Irish priorities from a national point of view. The Minister of State quite correctly listed the Good Friday Agreement, the common travel area and the future of the EU itself. There are other issues that might drift in also. The three issues that have been identified might be in conflict with each other in some way, in particular the common travel area. It goes without saying that we must retain the Good Friday Agreement and all its trappings in their entirety. That cannot be negotiable. We have put too much time, energy, effort and blood into it, in arriving at the decisions in that context. Too many people made a positive contribution to it, including Prime Ministers and Presidents and it would be very wrong to lose sight of it.

Many speakers mentioned that the common travel area existed before we joined the European Union. Yes it did. It is correct to say it predates the European Union, but unfortunately we never had a situation whereby a country within the European Union and a country outside it had a common travel area. I do not see how that will work out. It may well be at some stage in negotiations that we may find ourselves pushed into a situation whereby in order to retain the common travel area we are pushed to the outer rim of the European Union, and that would be a very serious error to make. I have heard some discussion in this country with people talking loosely about rejoining the Commonwealth and matters of that nature. That could be taken by our European colleagues as an indication of our intention to move in that particular direction and it would neither be helpful to negotiations nor to achieving a good and positive outcome.

In relation to the semester and the MFF, could I ask how the programme is working? It follows on a system that did not work because we waited until the end of the ten-year plan – the Lisbon agenda – to find out that it was not working and that we had to review it.

Is the programme for the mid-term review meeting its targets? Enlargement is a delicate situation with too many other competing factors drawing attention away from it. However, there is still a necessity, particularly with the western Balkans, to ensure there is a focus kept on it at all times. If there is a tendency for a break-up, that is the location from which it is most likely to come.

What was the Turkish response to the Minister of State's intimations at the meeting? There was a reasonably good relationship. I agree an intervention of an undemocratic nature, such as the attempted coup there recently, was probably not the best starting point.

Regarding priorities, it is important we make a significant effort to ensure we retain all our positions regarding access to the European Union. The European Union is great for compromise situations. To reach a compromise which might be acceptable to more people, we might find ourselves squeezed out of the European loop and ready access to the market. Several countries across Europe are now talking about a new Europe with a series of trade agreements. There are people in this country talking about it too. The UK Tory party has had a policy for some considerable time to replace the European Union with a series of trade agreements. As we all know, the smaller countries come out the worst from those types of situations. We need to keep that foremost in our minds and to recognise we are in the European Union. We need to stay there and avoid any movement in any direction to water down our commitment to the European Union or to be encouraged to leave it. As we know, from time to time, issues have come up where petulant references have been made to our presence in the Union.

The situation with migration has improved slightly. However, the European Union did not cover itself with glory in recent years in the way it dealt with the refugee crisis. It is not true to claim that was the ambition of the Union. It was not. It was the ambition of individual member states which influenced the Union to such an extent. The issue of razor wire and the bodies of children floating up on beaches is a sad reflection on the 21st century. We had progressed so far, yet progressed so little for all those years.

I agree with many of the Minister of State’s remarks. I fully support the work being done by the Taoiseach, the Minister of State, other Ministers and many inside and outside of the Oireachtas on the Brexit negotiations as they are.

One position with which I have a disagreement is the engagement with Turkey. While I appreciate the position the Minister of State is coming from and advocating, I would have much more sympathy and agreement with the position adopted by the European Parliament. Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia are candidate countries for EU membership. If any of those countries had engaged in the behaviour the Turkish Government has shown in response to the attempted coup, negotiations would have long since ceased. I accept it is a democratically elected government and suffered a horrendous attack which was not permissible in any civilised country. The response of that government to the coup, however, borders on totalitarian behaviour which has to be completely unacceptable to the European Union and everything it stands for. It is a classic case of the European Union - I suppose it is realpolitik - having a behavioural pattern of one rule for larger countries and another for smaller countries. I accept there is a sword of Damocles hanging over the European Union in trying to deal with Turkey and the refugee situation. However, there comes a point when one has to say to a candidate country for European Union membership that, not only does it have the right to defend itself, its institutions and its democracy, it also has an obligation to do it in a way that befits a country that wants to have membership of the European Union. If the country is not prepared to behave in that way, then it should not be negotiating with the EU for membership. That is where I draw the line. On everything else, I was very much in agreement.

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. As he has attended many meetings in recent months, will he give an idea of how other member states view Brexit? While notwithstanding the importance of Ireland staying in the EU and all the benefits that come with that, is there an acknowledgement in the EU that it did not do itself any favours in recent years? Is there an acknowledgment that it probably led to some of the difficulties and disconnect which gave oxygen to the anti-European lobby and the Brexit campaign? Is there any attempt to learn from the mistakes from those years to ensure it does not give fuel to further situations like Brexit evolving in the future?

I take it there is a great understanding of Ireland’s position, its close export links with the UK and the impact Brexit will have on these. Is there a sympathetic and practical approach among EU member states to assist Ireland positively in this regard? Are there any indications of Ireland taking advantage of Brexit and attracting further foreign direct investment? I have had contact with an American company which is looking at investing in Kildare. Deputy Durkan and I are looking forward to positive news in this regard. Are there opportunities for foreign direct investment which we can capitalise on and use to our advantage for a win-win for the country?

I have a few questions as well. To follow up on Deputy O'Rourke's point regarding your engagement with fellow Europeans on the Brexit process, there is huge interest among Europeans in the future of the Northern Ireland peace process. People become quite interested when one mentions it. Is that your experience? People really want to see prosperity, peace and progress in the island of Ireland and they remember the awful times we have lived through. That is something we must push with our fellow Europeans.

I agree with everything you said about Turkey and the need to respect human rights, the rule of law and democratic norms and freedoms. You were very diplomatic about it. We have serious concerns about what is happening there. I often wonder if Turkey is a genuine, traditional European country at all. However, perhaps you will comment on the recent comments by President Erdogan that the EU-Turkey deal is now under threat and on his threat to open up the borders for migration and so forth. I believe we must take a strong line, although I appreciate that as a Government Minister you must be diplomatic on these issues.

Finally, with regard to accession countries, there is no mention of Georgia. What is its position in the scheme of things? Is it somewhat down the road? It is making great efforts to comply with EU norms, so perhaps you would comment on that.

You mentioned two main areas - Turkey and Brexit. This is extremely delicate and difficult. I absolutely share the deep concerns of Parliament and of the committee, as expressed particularly by Deputy Brophy, about the rule of law, the democratic process and freedom of expression. We believe the response to the coup is disproportionate. The difficulty we have is to achieve the balance of trying to arrive at a point that achieves the purpose of candidacy status, which is that countries must change, reform and conform to the values we all hold dear. I believe it is something that will have to be reviewed repeatedly over the next number of months to ensure that the continuation of the accession process can improve the principles we wish to see in Turkey. It is by no means certain that they will.

The European Council will have a very fine line and very difficult balance in trying to achieve forward progress in Turkey. It has been lacking in recent times. We must also be aware that the ambition of many Turkish people and a large part of that country ultimately to be a European Union state is something we should be careful not to turn our backs on, and allow individual acts of a group or group of politicians to achieve an ambition that might not be in the best long-term interests or desire of the large number of Turkish people who support accession. However, it would be wrong of me not to clearly explain that the concerns you expressed are shared. It is a very delicate balance, as the negotiations to achieve democracy and peace frequently can be. We have seen that in this island. It would be a significant move, and the Parliament believes it is a warranted move, to suspend accession talks at this time.

On balance, in trying to achieve an improvement at this time, it is considered to be appropriate. However, I emphasise that there must be improvements in Turkey as a matter of urgency. My view is that if we do not see improvements in Turkey, accession to the European Union will not be achieved in any event and the talks will continue to become increasingly irrelevant.

All of the members asked questions on Brexit. In response to Deputy Durkan, one of the more interesting meetings I attended last week was the General Affairs Council cohesion meeting at which there was a discussion on future cohesion funding across the European Union. Ireland is no longer a substantial beneficiary of EU Structural Funds. However, the meeting presented me with an opportunity to make the point that the funds that have come through the European Union, through PEACE and INTERREG projects, have been hugely beneficial to the island of Ireland and to delivering peace. Both Deputy O'Rourke and the Acting Chairman, asked if the Irish position was understood. In fact, the Acting Chairman stated his belief that it is understood, and he has travelled extensively. It is. My sense is that there is an awareness that we have a unique difficulty that must be dealt with in respect of the Good Friday Agreement and maintaining free movement on the island. When we have the opportunity to talk about these issues, our partners are interested. Following on from discussions we have had with Michel Barnier, statements from the committee in Berlin and statements from the Chancellor and other politicians, there is an acceptance that there is a unique element within the Brexit deliberations that affects the people of Ireland.

In other areas there is common difficulty. We talk about the economic difficulties Irish business people will have exporting into the UK market. I was in Copenhagen recently and the Danes also have people exporting into that market. The trade issues will affect all of us. Deputy Durkan mentioned the free movement of people, both EU and non-EU citizens. Norway is in the Schengen area and is not in the European Union or the customs union. I hope we will see a very high degree of creativity when it comes to the free movement of people around the island of Ireland. We welcome the ambition of partners among the other 26 to ensure that it remains the case. Equally, commentary from the British Prime Minister, Mrs. May, in this area has also been comforting. We must work together.

The Deputy is correct about discussions. Some people want big leaps. This is a time when we should focus on delivering for our people and not make a big leap in either direction. This relates to the question asked by Deputy O'Rourke as to whether there is an acceptance that the European Union has not delivered as much as it could have over the last five years. The answer is "Yes". We have seen the Bratislava process where we start examining how we can deliver more for our citizens. However, all of us, whether we are in the Government or the Opposition, should remind ourselves and our people that the European institutions are the European Parliament, to which we elect Irish Members to make decisions for us, the European Council, which has Irish Ministers, and the Commission, which is appointed. The decisions that are taken by European institutions are taken by democratically elected European politicians.

We cannot really continue to talk, as we saw with the referendum, about the European Union in the third person. We need to use more collective language in referring to the Union because we have created it. Although it needs change and it can always be reformed and improved, to suggest we would be somehow better off without it would be completely wrong and would not be beneficial. At the Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 14 November, I stated Ireland's support for the eastern partnership process and deepening our engagement with Georgia and other eastern partnership countries. It is very much to the fore in our deliberations.

There was mention of some petulant commentary around Ireland. I have been absolutely struck by how other member states value my restating that the Irish, irrespective of whatever our cousins across the water have chosen, are fundamentally clear that we are staying as strong members of the European Union. All member states will continue to have disagreements over certain aspects and policies from time to time, but the core principle we must restate is our membership. It is always exceptionally well received. I know that in polls there is strong support from our own people, but with the question of how we are regarded, it is fair to say the Irish people are extremely valued as members of the EU. I will go further and say we are valued even more given that one of the islands off the north-west coast of Europe has chosen to diverge at this time from membership. We must continue to work in that regard.

I have a final note on opportunities. There will be opportunities for our country and we did not want the United Kingdom to leave the EU. We are still acutely aware of the significant difficulties that will come about, particularly for some of our food producers and those especially affected by currency fluctuations. Having said that, we and IDA Ireland in particular have sold our country on the basis of a very hard-working and engaged population of people who are well educated and great team players when companies come to invest in Ireland. We also sell our country on the basis that we are stable and continued members of the European Union and the eurozone. We speak English and we have other cultural attractions for people, particularly those coming from places like the United States of America because of strong links. Our attractiveness as an investment point has perhaps been strengthened by virtue of other areas becoming less attractive. It is incumbent on all of us, especially our State agencies and Departments, to seek to optimise the inward investment that in some way might mitigate the difficulties. Time will tell where the balance sheet will fall with respect to that and if it will fall in the black, the red, credit or debit, or whatever accounting terminology we want to use.

There is significant work under way. For example, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is increasing the number of personnel in Brussels and embassies in London, Berlin, France and other locations to ensure people who want to speak to us in Ireland can do so. As people are aware, we cannot speak in specifics because this is a competitive environment. Having been on a number of visits with Enterprise Ireland, particularly in the north west of Europe, looking at new market opportunities in Scandinavia and so forth, as well as dealing with people from Tourism Ireland and Bord Bia, I am always struck by the extremely high calibre of the officials in our agencies out working on our behalf. I have no doubt they will continue to work very hard. They are aware their roles are ever more important for the country but they are a remarkable group of people going about their business promoting our country as an inward investment and tourist destination, a food source or as a place to purchase generally or to visit.

Only history will tell if the benefits will outweigh the negatives. We must remember we are only in control of one side of this equation because the British decision to leave was theirs alone. What we do to maximise potential is a job for the people of the Republic of Ireland.

We appreciate the Minister of State taking the time to brief us on all these matters and we wish him well in his continuing endeavours. We have some items of private business to deal with.

I have some issues that I am more than happy to deal with in private.

No, we can stay in public session.

I restate that it is important for us to engage with the institutions in the new year. I know the committee secretariat and the secretariat of our Department are discussing whether to send a group from this committee to meet MEPs and some other interested partners, either in Brussels or Strasbourg, whichever is more appropriate. Ideally, that should happen in advance of the triggering of Article 50. It could be quite a small group but ideally it would be cross-party. We could meet people from other parties, go into their working environment and make the points we are all making here. I hope we can agree a date in due course.

Does the Minister of State have any particular date in mind? Will it be worked out on the basis of sittings and so forth?

Yes. Their sittings are the more important factor. There is some suggestion around the plenary in Strasbourg in February. It is more a matter for the European Parliament and getting times to suit, so we should work with the secretariat. Talks are progressing.

We should proceed with organising that as soon as possible.

The joint committee went into private session at 6.10 p.m. and adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 7 December 2016.
Barr
Roinn