Joint Committee on European Union Affairs díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2017

Engagement on the Future of Europe (Resumed): His Excellency, Mr. Stéphane Crouzat, Ambassador of France to Ireland

Chairman

We will resume with our engagement on the future of Europe with His Excellency, Mr. Stéphane Crouzat, the ambassador of France to Ireland. I welcome His Excellency to the committee. Ambassador Crouzat presented his credentials only last month so, on behalf of the committee, I am delighted to welcome him to Ireland. I had the privilege of meeting him a number of weeks ago and I enjoyed our engagement that day very much. It was very practical, sensible and informative, and we got to know each other very well. I thank him and his secretariat for their time that day. All EU member states are equal. While we all need an equal voice in this debate, President Macron has made some interesting interventions recently, so we are very interested to hear Mr. Crouzat's presentation. Before we proceed with the ambassador's opening statement, I wish to remind everyone briefly again of the rules on privilege in this Parliament.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I welcome the ambassador again and invite him to make his opening statement.

H.E. Mr. Stéphane Crouzat

I thank the Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. First, I would like to express on behalf of the French Government and the people of France my deepest condolences to the families of the victims of Storm Ophelia.

Our sympathy goes to all those who have suffered because of this storm. France stands ready to help with the recovery efforts.

I thank the Chairman for his invitation to discuss the future of Europe. I congratulate him and his committee for putting this crucial topic on the agenda. I am very honoured to be given the opportunity to present my authorities' contribution to this debate.

I will start with Brexit, which is a very pervasive issue, particularly in Ireland. That is understandable, because Ireland is on the front line. The British people have made their choice. We regret it, but we respect it. The 27 member states are negotiating in a unified manner and with clear principles. The conditions for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU have to be well drawn up before we can agree to discuss the terms of our future relationship. France will stand firm to maintain this unity and solidarity of the 27, in particular regarding the Irish Border.

Brexit however, must not deplete our energy. As my President has said, "The Union with 27 member states must be stronger than an EU with 28 member states minus one". The EU needs to go forward. President Macron has put a new European ambition high on his agenda. He expressed it with vigour, first in Athens, then in his speech at the Sorbonne on 26 September. He affirmed two convictions that have guided his actions since the beginning of his presidency. The first is that in an unstable world, only Europe will allow us to exercise our sovereignty and be fully in control of our destiny. The second is that the European project can only succeed if we bridge the gap that has grown over the years between peoples and European institutions, to the extent that nationalism and populism may threaten our democracy. We cannot afford to keep the same policies, the same habits, the same procedures and the same budget. Neither can we choose to turn inwards within national borders. The only way to ensure our future, is the rebuilding of a sovereign, united and democratic Europe.

The proposals that the French President has made are set out in a specific period of time. First, 2019, when the European elections will take place and, second, 2024, which will be the timeframe given to the next Commission. This is the timeframe for rebuilding Europe. I will try to sum up in a few words some of President Macron's proposals which he set out in an hour and a half. I promise I will be shorter. The first is a sovereign Europe. The French President has set out six keys to European sovereignty. The first is a Europe that guarantees every aspect of security, be it in the area of defence, with the swift implementation of the European Defence Fund and permanent structured co-operation, and a European intervention initiative enabling us to better integrate our armed forces at every stage; be it in the fight against terrorism, where Europe needs a European intelligence academy to ensure closer ties between our intelligence services, and a European public prosecutor's office for organised crime and terrorism; be it in civil protection, where Europe needs a common civil protection force, pooling our resources for rescue and intervention, thus enabling us to respond to disasters.

The second key to European sovereignty is a Europe that addresses the migration challenge. We need to create a common area for border management, asylum and migration, in order to effectively control our borders and receive refugees in decent conditions. We need to create a European asylum office that will speed up and harmonise our procedures. We need to gradually establish a European border police force that ensures rigorous management of borders.

The third key that the French President has set out is a Europe looking to Africa and the Mediterranean. Official development aid needs to be increased. My President has announced that France will commit to increase it to 0.55% of GDP by 2022. What we propose at a European level is to relaunch the project for a new European tax on financial transactions to finance this policy. All of its receipts would go to official development aid.

Fourth is a Europe exemplary in sustainable development. We need to fix a fair price for carbon, one that is high enough to ensure the energy transition, at least €25 to €30 per tonne. We need to develop electric interconnections to make the European energy market function more efficiently. Our bilateral project - the Celtic interconnector - makes complete sense in this respect. We also need a European border carbon tax, to make sure that our manufacturers that are most exposed to globalisation are on an equal footing with competing companies from other regions that do not have the same environmental requirements. Europe needs to establish an industrial programme to support clean vehicles and the required infrastructure such as charging stations in particular. It needs to ensure its food sovereignty by reforming the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, with two important objectives, namely, protecting us from volatile global markets that could threaten Europe's food sovereignty and promoting the major European agricultural transition and giving countries more flexibility in organising their regions and sectors. Our recent debates on glyphosate and endocrine disruptors have proved the need for European scientific assessment that is more transparent and more independent, with better-funded research so that risks can be identified and alternatives proposed. We must also establish a common inspection force to guarantee food safety for Europeans, tackle fraud, and ensure compliance with quality standards throughout Europe.

The fifth key is a Europe of innovation and regulation adapted to the digital world. Europe needs to establish an agency for breakthrough innovation, jointly funding new fields of research, such as artificial intelligence, or those that have yet to be explored. It needs to ensure equity and confidence in the digital transformation, by rethinking its taxation of digital companies, and regulating the major platforms. We propose to tax the value created, where it is produced, which will allow us to overhaul our tax systems and to stringently tax companies which relocate outside of Europe for the specific purpose of avoiding tax.

The sixth key is a Europe standing as an economic and monetary power. We need to make the eurozone the heart of Europe's global economic power. In addition to national reforms, Europe needs the instruments to make it an area of growth and stability, including a budget allowing it to fund common investments and ensure stabilisation in the event of economic shocks. This budget must be placed under the strong political guidance of a common Minister and be subject to strict parliamentary control at European level.

The second issue put forward by my President was a united Europe. First, there would be concrete solidarity through social and tax convergence. We need to encourage convergence across the whole EU, setting criteria that gradually bring our social and tax models closer together. Where tax is concerned, we need to define a "corridor" for corporation tax rates. We cannot have such disparate corporation tax rates in the European Union. This is why we would like to see a binding rate range that member states must commit to ahead of the next European budget in 2020. Compliance with this corridor would determine access to the European Cohesion Fund.

In social affairs, we need to develop true social convergence and gradually bring our social models closer together. We need to guarantee a minimum wage for all, adapted to the economic realities of each country, and regulate social contribution competition.

The second key for a united Europe is culture and knowledge. Creating a sense of belonging will be the strongest cement for Europe.

We need to step up exchanges, so that all young Europeans spend at least six months in another European country, 50% of each age group by 2024, and that all students speak two European languages by 2024. We need to create European universities. Networks of universities that enable students to study abroad and attend classes in at least two languages. In high schools, we need to establish a process of harmonisation or mutual recognition of secondary education diplomas, as in higher education.

The third point my President made related to a democratic Europe. There is a need for debate and this is why we propose democratic conventions. For six months, national and local debates will be organised in 2018 in all EU countries that volunteer, on the basis of common questions, in the run-up to the 2019 European elections. The Irish experience in this regard will be sought, and will be very helpful.

I refer to strengthening the European Parliament with transnational lists. We propose, starting in 2019, to use the quota of seats of departing British MPs to create transnational lists where people vote for the same MEPs throughout Europe. At the following election, as many as half of the European Parliament could thus be elected on such transnational lists.

What does the French President envision for Europe by 2024? He envisions a European Union founded on common democratic values that are non-negotiable, values where there can be no two-speed Europe; and a European Union founded on a simpler and more protective single market, along with an overhauled trade policy. This EU, if it enables ambitious differentiations, could gradually expand to include the western Balkan countries. That will require reform of EU institutions, with a smaller Commission, downsized to around 15 members and in a few years’ time the UK will be able to find its place, if it wishes, in this EU refocused on uncompromising values and an effective market. Within this EU, those who want to go further and faster need to be able to do so unhindered. Co-operation will always be open to all, based on the sole criterion of the level of shared ambition, with no predefined format.

All states which share this ambition can take part in the launch of a group for overhauling Europe. This group will include representatives of each participating member state and will involve European institutions. Until summer 2018, it will work to clarify and propose measures that will implement this ambition, drawing on the debates held in the democratic conventions. Theme by theme, the tools required for the overhaul will be examined. We hope Ireland will join in this reflection process.

I thank the Chairman and the distinguished members of the committee very much for their attention. I look forward to our discussion.

Chairman

Thank you very much. We appreciate that. We have discussed some of the items the ambassador brought up. The committee has the opportunity to give its views on some of the issues the ambassador raised. I call Senator Neale Richmond.

Senator Neale Richmond

I am delighted to welcome the ambassador, not just as a proud member of the committee but also as the convenor of the French-Irish parliamentary friendship group, something I hope will develop even further in the coming weeks and months. The reason I hope that develops further and I hope we have more of these engagements is that closer Franco-Irish relations are absolutely vital in the post-Brexit era. For so long we were that friendly country behind the UK. We are no longer that country. We need to work more closely with all our continental partners, but particularly France, a country which we have such a lengthy history with, culturally and socially. There are many key areas where there are opportunities for co-operation between France and Ireland in the next few years. First among those has to be the Brexit negotiations. It is absolutely vital that the European side, behind former French Minister Michel Barnier, remains united. I absolutely reject suggestions made by certain political leaders over the weekend that the Irish Government should circumvent that process and go directly to Whitehall, or 10 Downing Street. That goes against the good faith of the Brexit negotiations that was agreed by all 27 remaining member states. Ultimately, if the Irish Government were to proceed with that, it would only create more bad faith among the remaining member states. That would be highly detrimental to us going forward, so I hope that we can continue with this united approach.

However, there are other key areas that we can remove from the Brexit debate and I want to move on from that. First and foremost, a key area of co-operation is energy security. The Celtic interconnector between France and Ireland is vital. I am really hopeful that the foreshore licence for the landing in Cork can be granted quite soon. Both EirGrid and Réseau de transport d'électricité, Rte, are working very closely on that. The Irish Government cannot stress enough how important we believe that is and how much the continued support of the French Government, although there is competition with sites in the UK, would mean to us and how much it would allow us to continue to stay committed within Europe, knowing that we have that level of energy security coming from the Continent.

I will go into some of the points His Excellency raised on behalf of President Macron in a second. The reform of the CAP is of vital interest. Ireland and France have a continued close relationship in this area since Ireland joined in the 1970s. It is something the great Irish taoisigh who embraced the European project, both Garret FitzGerald and Charles Haughey, were very keen to push during the 1980s and it stood to Ireland, Europe and France. I hope reform can be continued, making sure that food security, food safety and food quality are maintained as well as ensuring that our producers get the prices they deserve and that we look cautiously toward the Mercosur region when that trade deal is agreed.

I have mentioned the cultural ties, the depth of which do not need to be repeated, especially the historical ones. One aspect tying into what President Macron said in regard to the youth of Europe and developing the linguistic abilities and the educational abilities is promoting programmes that exist like ERASMUS+. I have very few regrets in life but one I have is that I turned down the opportunity to do ERASMUS in Toulouse in 2003. I would like to think that I made up for it by travelling ridiculously extensively during my student years and doing a stage in Brussels but it is something that still gnaws away at me. My friends who did it are the ERASMUS generation. Some of them met their wives or husbands and some of them have a level of fluency in the language of the country they visited. It is that immersion and exposure that will allow that linguistic skill to be developed. France is the country that Irish students go to the most. It is something that needs to be maintained. However, Ireland is underperforming. Our third level institutions need to be a lot more proactive with their French counterparts, looking at the various institutions where project work can be combined. In my previous life on the Committee of the Regions I visited Le Mans and the university there to look at a really in-depth project on energy supply for heating and the use of sound. That was a Horizon 2020 funded project. The Government has welcomed the fact that we have drawn down €475 million but I honestly believe we are still underperforming in that regard. Our third level institutions really need to look beyond the UK going beyond past 2020 when this programme expires and France is the obvious next step. The Irish College in Paris is there for a reason. It is a really obvious example.

I refer to the remarks of President Macron. I do not know if I should say this but I read the section in The Economist over and over. The intervention by President Macron, as a committed europhile, was really welcome. We saw a leader of a government in Europe speak about the European project, the European dream. For me it is very much an emotional thing as well as a fiscal and boring bureaucratic thing. To see someone speak for over an hour and a half was amazing. That was badly needed, it was really heartening and there was much to agree with in terms of the overall sentiment and the boost of enthusiasm. I cannot underline how timely that intervention was when we see the rise of petty nationalism in this country, be it on the left or the right, in the ambassador's own country and across Europe. I instance the Austrian election results at the weekend. To see the electoral mandate given to the French President on an avidly pro-European platform is something that can only be of benefit to the Union as an entity.

However, and there is always an however when it comes to these things, the vision of federalism portrayed by Emmanuel Macron, while worthy, is very much a French vision of federalism. Perhaps by its nature it is, therefore, more beneficial to some of the larger states. There are key areas of this federalist vision that I agree with. As I mentioned, education, linguistics and overseas development aid elements are areas where we need to see greater co-operation.

I was in Uganda a couple of weeks ago visiting Irish Aid projects. The list of EU member states donating to every project dwarfs anything else in the world. The retrograde decision by President Trump to cut US aid will only put the responsibility on the collective European Union projects, but also the projects of the individual countries. We need that overseas development aid for selfish and selfless reasons. The selfless reasons are pretty obvious; it is the right thing to do. The selfish reasons are that these will be our trading partners. This is how we stem the flow of refugee and excess migration by addressing the key economic and military issues, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

However, there are areas which I am going to flag before I hand over to a colleague. I refer to the idea of transnational MEPs. I understand it, appreciate it and I quite like it. I am a proud member of the European People's Party, and when I sat on the Committee of the Regions I did not necessarily sit on it first as a member of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council. I sat as a member of the delegation of the European People's Party. It works to an extent. There is, however, this base level of nationalism that we cannot throw away from our inner being. If we look at the way President Jean-Claude Juncker was elected in the Spitzenkandidat method, it makes sense to those who have the list system in their elections. It went completely under the radar in Ireland. I remember Martin Schultz, the socialist candidate, came to Dublin and he might as well just have been a tourist from Germany. No one knew who he was and what he was doing. Try explaining that process to countries like Ireland and Malta that have very different electoral systems and try to throw transnational MEPs into it. When the people elect our MEPs from the island of Ireland they look at the person. We elect many more independents than any other member state because of our electoral system. People look at the party and where people are from. I remember a slogan used by one of my own party members demanding that Cork had an MEP. We are a long way from transnational MEPs if the good people of Cork think they merit an MEP over anyone else in the 27 member states.

The idea of bringing down the College of Commissioners from 28 to 15 has been tried before. We - I say "we" because I was part of the referendum campaign - lost a referendum campaign in this country and that, more or less, was the key issue. Can one imagine a College of Commissioners without a French or German Commissioner? It cannot happen. However, one can imagine one without an Irish Commissioner, a Luxembourger Commissioner or a Slovenian Commissioner who come from the smaller member states. Even though the portfolios are diluted, the College of Commissioners, like the Cabinet in this country, agrees and acts as one. They abandon their national identities when they become Commissioners and they take their briefs, as has been seen with our current Commissioner, but the key thing is that they bring that individual choice. The opinion of an Austrian Commissioner is just as valid as the opinion of a Danish one and it brings a very different mindset. I know where that is coming from but it will not work.

I refer to the citizens' conventions. I worked on the citizens' dialogues during the EU Presidency we hosted in 2013. They were a good idea, and I said that when the Commission started this debate on the future of Europe, but Europe is brilliant at telling people how they can give out about Europe. Europe paid eurosceptics for 20 or 30 years in order to allow them destabilise the project in the European Parliament, be it the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group or the European Conservatives and Reformists group. One thing Europe is absolutely terrible at doing is selling itself. It is about getting signage on roads, plastering a massive European flag on it and saying something was funded by EU funds. One should not get into the specifics as to whether it was INTERREG funding, structural funds or Horizon 2020 research into biomass and pond life. One should just stick a flag on the signage, claim it and make sure people know that we have something to thank those bureaucrats, who come up with 75% of our indigenous legislation, for.

Senator Craughwell mentioned in our previous session that we have a great tendency as politicians just to blame Brussels for everything. Even today €475 million was announced in Horizon 2020 funding. One would swear that the Minister of State responsible had delivered it himself. There was no acknowledgement that this was a European project. That is far more important than discussing Europe and appealing to the intellectual abilities of a very small sector that will have the time, the ability and possibly the wherewithal to contribute to such conventions. Let us go on a European roadshow and let us get a few decent sales representatives out there. The diplomatic corps is brilliant but sometimes there can be too many draughtspeople and not enough sales people. That is something that Europe needs if it is to really engage people and remind people of my generation, who have no recollection of the Second World War, what it was like to travel pre-Schengen or use pesetas rather than euros in Spain. We must remind people and sell them on EU projects.

I have left the controversial issue on which we are going to disagree to the end. I refer to transnational taxation and say "No thanks". It is not in the interests of the smaller member states. I can see why the ambassador's country would want it, but that competitive edge would be removed from a small island in the Atlantic with 4.6 million people and with an economy that is still in the incubator after the worst economic crash since 1929. To say that a company can come to Europe but that it will pay the same corporate tax, whether in a country with a population and workforce the size of Germany or in Ireland, kneecaps the smaller member states. Although the focus is on Ireland, some of the Baltic states and eastern and central European states have adopted flat tax models and so on. It affects many more people. We have to repeat it time and again that the Franco-German obsession with Ireland's corporation tax is not helping the European project. If France wants Ireland not to follow its near neighbour and ancestral tie out of the European Union, the last thing it should do is attack our corporate tax rate. It gives the eurosceptics an excuse they do not have, namely, to say that maybe Ireland would be better off outside of the European project.

Chairman, I have gone on way too long and I apologise.

Chairman

You have not, actually. What you said was excellent. I call Senator Craughwell.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

Thank you very much, Chairman.

Chairman

How does Senator Craughwell follow that?

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

I agree, Chairman. How does one follow that? As always on European affairs, my colleague, Senator Richmond, is very much on the nail. I fully agree with his point on the need for Europe to find a good public relations company and to stop allowing people to knock Europe constantly. I refer to the eurosceptics or the clowns that brought about Brexit, and I make no apology for calling them clowns. During one of the great announcements they had they said they had succeeded in getting a Brexit vote. As the camera pulled away from the spokesperson, it focused on a little sign on the wall, which said this building had been funded through the European Union or whatever.

We need to understand that decisions made in Europe are made by a collective. They are made by the Councils of Ministers and the European Parliament. We have representation on the ground and we need to support it with a far better public relations machine than we have at the moment. I agree with Senator Richmond on that.

My vision of a Europe of the future is very much is in line with the youth of Ireland. That is a Europe that is more socially aware and a Europe that is more in touch with the citizen on the ground and less concerned with the economics, although I appreciate that if one does not keep an eye on the pounds, shillings and pence, to just keep our British friends in the equation for the moment, the European project will fail.

We are now moving into a very dangerous time because we are losing one of the major contributors to the European project. Everywhere one looks there is demand for more funding. Everybody wants more funding and we are going to be working with a much tighter budget. We have some serious challenges ahead.

I very much appreciate the ambassador's views on Brexit and the support that is indicated in his document. However, there has been some discussion recently, because of deadlock and the inability to get the British to move on, that maybe we should park the Northern Ireland issue and bring it back during trade talks. I would hope that the French Government would say "No" and that the Northern Ireland issue must be solved before we engage in any trade talks. That has been the position of Europe until now and I sincerely hope that is its position going forward.

The European Union has an obligation to protect 1.5 million people who are entitled to Irish citizenship and who will be geographically separated from the European Union following Brexit. That is the 1.5 million people living in Northern Ireland. We have met small business people in Northern Ireland. One particular haulage company comes to mind that has 100 trucks on the Continent and six people working in a tiny village in the north west of Ireland.

He has had one of his main contracts for many years. He was called over to Holland to meet with the contract company and he was told that from March 2019, it will no longer be able to use his company because of Brexit. This is the truth behind Brexit and this is what it will bring to the people in the North of Ireland. This man is going to relocate his business to the Republic of Ireland and there will be a loss of six jobs. Six jobs is not a whole lot but in a tiny village, the loss of six jobs possibly affects 30 people and has a detrimental impact on the local economy. That is something we have got to watch.

I agree that Europe must be stronger going forward with 27 than it currently is with 28. It must be stronger, not as strong as it is currently. That is really important. I am a little concerned that some of the big brothers, Germany and France, are inclined to be a little blasé about the future of Europe. The attitude seems to be, "Everything will be fine, as long as you do it our way". We have to move away from the notion of trying to centralise Europe. My colleague, Senator Richmond, mentioned the word "tax". If one wants to see the Irish scurry from Brussels, keep talking about tax. France does not exactly tell it as it is where corporation tax is concerned. It has various different rates and outs. Let us just leave the tax issue where it is, and let us not scare the horses in this part of the country.

The ambassador mentioned defence and the phrase "integrate our armed forces". Ireland has long claimed to be a country with neutral status and there is no way on God's earth that the Irish people would agree to any form of European army. However, the second part of that paragraph of the ambassador's speech deals with European intelligence and closer ties between intelligence services. I have been calling for some time here in Ireland for the appointment of a director of national security because I believe that throughout the European Union, as is true in the UK and USA, if we are to defeat terrorism, we must do it through intelligence and good policing.

One of the things that baffles me is that there is a great move towards a European army. Having been a soldier myself, we all have a lot in common. We wear green uniforms and we drive big, heavy vehicles; one's right arm will always have a rifle or machine gun at the end of it. Policing is different and I cannot understand why there is not a greater emphasis on policing and the establishment of a proper European intelligence service. That organisation should be integrated with the United States intelligence services. The days of land wars or terrestrial wars are gone. We now fight wars through information technology. Cyberspace is probably the most dangerous place in the world to be right now. Some 40 companies a day are attacked in Ireland. If one wants to build European defence based on what we in Ireland would call security, I think we would get full co-operation in Ireland. If one wants to build a European army, however, with all of us wearing boots and green uniforms, driving tanks and armoured personnel carriers, one simply will not get that past the Irish people. If Europe is going to have some sort of security service, then all 27 must be members. It cannot be opt-in or opt-out, so we have to find a security system that does not involve the appointment of an army.

The ambassador spoke about the migration challenge. I have visited Pozzallo in Italy and I have been involved in the migration issue for some time. We are not going to stop the migration issue by putting up borders. All the migrants will do is find other ways around and keep coming. At the end of the day, people are desperate. They are living in the most horrendous circumstances in North Africa or parts of Bangladesh, India, the Middle East or the Far East. They all have TV sets. They sit down to watch the television and they see what appears to be a very luxurious lifestyle in the West. Who can blame them for wanting to come? The Irish have made an entire history of people travelling to other parts of the world for a better life, so who can blame them? However, Europe must take a stand.

Europe has stood idly by where corporations are concerned. In this country, we had a major t-shirt manufacturer in Donegal and a sportswear manufacturer in County Meath. The firms relocated, in the first instance to Morocco and in the second instance to China. They went there because labour was cheap. They could pay 20% of the cost of labour in Ireland. The products have not become cheaper at the shop-front in the high street, so we must assume that these companies are making super-normal profits. If one wants to talk about tax, that is where we should be going after them. Instead of forcing unfortunate people to take this horrendous trip across the Mediterranean, we should be investing in North Africa. I do not mean through some of the cowboy regimes there. We should have non-governmental organisations, NGOs, on the ground who will build schools and develop infrastructure. We should be encouraging our companies to locate in Africa, but we must distribute the profits they are making. The ambassador made a point about the information technology business, and how firms can locate off-shore and avoid taxation. We need to look at that very carefully.

The ambassador mentioned that every country should have two languages at least. I was quite taken aback some time ago in Helsinki when I was being brought around a school by a 12 year old boy. He stopped, looked at me and, in perfect English, said: "I am terribly sorry, Senator, I forgot to ask you. How is Ireland coping with the crisis?" I looked at him and asked him, "Which crisis is that?", and he replied, "The economic crisis". I said "Well, we are recovering slowly", and he said: "I thought that, I heard that". I told him his English was extremely good and he thanked me. I asked him whether English and Finnish were his only languages but he said, no, that he also spoke Russian and Swedish. He said he had a little German, but his German was poor. If ever I felt an absolute idiot standing beside a 12 year old, I felt it that day.

We have a problem in this country with the teaching of languages. French has been taught for many years in a textbook style, similar to what one will find in the teaching of Irish at second level. I disagree with my colleague, Senator Richmond, on third level. I am very proud of our third level institutions and the efforts they put into delivering language-based programmes. However, I would encourage the ambassador to take a leaf out of the German Embassy's book and start promoting the language directly in schools. It had a roadshow going around the country, encouraging teachers and bringing them into the family, as it were, by organising exchange programmes for them. It is still going on, if I am not mistaken. I have called for teachers in training in Ireland to spend time abroad. If I was training to be a teacher of French, then I would go to France for the second part of my training, while trainee teachers in France, who are hoping to teach English, would come to Ireland. The European Union is about sharing that sort of resource. I would really like to see something like that done.

I know that I am pushing my luck here, Chairman, but there are one or two other things that I wanted to mention. I agree with my colleague with respect to transnational elections. What is the French government at? The ambassador knows well that with the French and German populations, others would be squeezed out of the parliament in no time at all. If something like that were to be done, it would require some sort of weighting system. Being honest about it, as Senator Richmond said, the people of Cork would have a huge problem with not being able to elect their own Munster-based MEP. Let us leave well enough alone, and that also applies to changing the structure of the Commission. We really cannot play with that. It really spooks the horses in this country and feeds the anti-Europe attitude.

The final issue that I want to mention is the Single Market. I have been watching the Single Market since we entered the European Union, and we seem to have been very good at putting pricing structures in place for many things. One of the places we have failed miserably is in the pharmaceutical industry. I mentioned earlier that quite a lot of our older citizens now go to the Canary Islands once a year to fill their prescription for the entire year. I was talking to a man recently who told me he buys his entire year's supply of blood pressure tablets for €11.90 in Spain, in the Canary Islands. The same drugs cost him €120 in Ireland. Where is the Single Market?

The pharmaceutical companies are being offered a population of how many millions of people in Europe but we force Ireland to negotiate on its own. We need to take a position in every single part of the market where we are talking about delivering to an entire community; we do it for beef and milk, so why not do it for drugs? The big pharmaceutical companies have all of us scared.

I apologise for throwing so much at the ambassador but I really appreciate him coming here. It is great to have our friends from France here. I look upon them as big brothers or sisters who are here to help us go forward. My big brother used to make me polish his shoes, so I hope they do not end up with similar ideas. Let us be equals.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the ambassador to Ireland and congratulate him on his appointment. There are already very close ties between France and Ireland in a traditional and historic sense. We will continue that relationship. I also appreciate the sympathy expressed for Ireland because of Storm Ophelia, which caused devastation and three deaths. There was enormous damage and tragedy, and it is certainly very unusual for us to have such weather conditions. It was the worst storm for 50 years and we are grateful that France is prepared to help in any way it can to restore energy and power in the south in particular. We extend our sympathies to France on the atrocities caused by ISIS in France, which have been dreadful. I have been to Paris numerous times and I suppose it has changed life in a sense. Paris is a beautiful city and the atrocities committed there and elsewhere are totally unacceptable.

President Macron's speeches have been radical. He is young, enthusiastic and new to the job. I agree with most of what my colleagues have said in that regard. President Macron has said the Union with 27 member states must be stronger than the Union with 28 member states. That is fine and the European Union, EU, must go forward, even in the difficulties post-Brexit. The United Kingdom has played a very important role in Europe since 1973. I was a Minister of State involved with the Single European Act and the British played a very important role with all the other members. Wherever it raised concerns about the future, it was given complete support. A vote was never taken in the negotiations for the Single European Act and Britain was not isolated or made to feel other than 100% welcome in the European Union. We all realised that but the message was never conveyed to the people in the United Kingdom about what exactly it contributed to the Union and had achieved while in the Union over the past 40 years. There was a breakdown in communication but we are where we are and we must move on.

Neutrality is very special to Ireland. We were neutral in the Second World War. If our people wished to participate, and it was mainly on the allied side, they did and they played a very important role. From the State's perspective, we were neutral and this neutrality was the biggest issue for us with the Lisbon and other treaties. We got the guarantees and the treaties were approved eventually. Any question of a European army will not wear here.

There are more practical matters, such as the Celtic interconnector, which is very important. I know the ambassador will work to ensure it comes about. It will be a guaranteed supply for Ireland on the periphery of Europe, an island off an island. There is a major project from the Caspian sea, a pipeline to Europe that is progressing very well. It is a $45 billion project led by Azerbaijan, with the pipeline coming straight through Greece to Italy and into Europe. It will mean Europe will not be dependent on Russia for natural gas in future, which is very important. One cannot rely on one particular state with certain political considerations, such as those with Ukraine, especially if the pipeline goes through unstable regions. It is a move in the right direction and the Celtic interconnector is very important.

A common finance Minister is definitely not on and we must protect our 12.5% corporation tax. We are the most peripheral of all parts of Europe, an island beyond an island. The state of the island between us and mainland Europe means we must look to get the best possible link to our major markets in the European Union. It is a very serious matter from our perspective. The attractive tax code has brought about great economic development in Ireland. There is the idea of reducing the number of Commissioners from 28, or 27 in a while, to 15 but it is an example of matters that would not really go down very well here at all. It would be rejected. Any proposals would have to be implemented only by agreement and treaty change. Treaty change is taken very seriously. The next time, there will be no second treaty vote when the people speak. I believe the Lisbon treaty allowed states to leave but I am not sure what would have happened if the UK was not allowed to leave.

The ambassador is welcome in Ireland and we wish to keep very close to France. The French President has made radical suggestions and he is very pro-European. Other people have different views and we must respect all of them. We seek French support in the negotiations, particularly with regard to our position, the Good Friday Agreement and the possibility of a customs border between the North and South of Ireland. These are our current concerns. I made it clear at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Liverpool on Monday and Tuesday that we are with the 27 remaining states. We are very anxious for the UK to get a good deal, as a good deal for it will be a good deal for Ireland. I made it clear that we are with the 27 as far as the negotiations go. It is vital that the deal will be good and not damage Ireland, even in a collateral way. The danger is if there is hostility in the negotiations with the United Kingdom, we will suffer the fallout. We want a good deal that will bring freedom of movement North and South and into the United Kingdom. There is goodwill in that regard. We also want good access to markets through better investment from the European Union. We want more support and not less from the European Union after Brexit. If the Union wants to keep countries that will be affected, as we will be, it must provide more support for the development of our ports and airports, as well as access to the mainland European market.

Chairman

Before the ambassador concludes, I point out that his visit today is of such importance that at another date to be agreed it would be very important for him to come before us again after we see a bit of movement in the Brexit negotiations. Some members were missing today. It would be helpful to all of us, as I am sure members would agree. I do not wish to be rude but I ask the ambassador to keep his concluding remarks as condensed as possible because some members are under pressure this evening, as I am sure the ambassador is as well.

H.E. Mr. Stéphane Crouzat

I thank the Senators for those very interesting remarks. There could be much to discuss but I will try to make these comments very short.

I heard the Members' comments on Brexit. They can rest assured that France considers the Northern Ireland issue to be of key importance and will not proceed to the next phase if it is not satisfied that the issue has been addressed fully. We need the views of the Members on this matter and are very keen to hear what they consider to be the right time to move forward. France is very committed to the unity of the 27 member states. It gives its full support to Michel Barnier and understands Ireland does likewise. In this respect, our countries are completely in line.

I hear the views of the Members on defence issues. France is very willing to push ahead with Permanent Structured Co-operation, PESCO, and the European defence fund. It hears the concern that there should be no European army, but that is not the issue at stake. We have to make the most of what is already contained in the treaties in order that the European Union is able to move forward. We know that Ireland has been very active on Common Security and Defence Policy, CSDP, issues. It is represented in Mali, for which France thanks it again. It has been very helpful. We also know that Ireland has much experience in international peacekeeping, with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and on the Golan Heights. Our countries have good reasons to talk bilaterally because France is also very involved in these issues. There is much to discuss and to agree to on the issue of defence.

Dealing with the challenge presented by migration is very important to France. It is why it is so interested in developing European aid for Africa. Senator Neale Richmond was quite forceful about the fact that we should invest in Africa. France completely agrees and supports many development projects. I will mention one, in particular, the African renewable energy initiative, AREI, which is so important for the development of the African energy sector. France is investing €2 billion in the project on a bilateral basis.

On language issues and the exchange, we share a belief in having a multilingual Europe. I am very happy that there are so many French students participating in Erasmus programmes in Ireland. There are 2,000 French students in Ireland at any given moment, which fosters the many links between our two countries.

Senator Terry Leyden

Perhaps Mr. Crouzar might speak about the interconnector.

H.E. Mr. Stéphane Crouzat

The energy issue is also very important for France. It is a huge project, costing €1 billion. It is hoped the European Union will participate financially in it. It has already contributed to the development phase - the European Commission provided €8 million - and there is hope this €1 billion project will be carried out with European Union funding. It is very important strategically for Europe and bilateral relations. It is important for Ireland and France because it will help Brittany which seeks a source of energy. If it can be assured that it can get energy supplies through Europe, from Irish renewable energy supplies, that would be wonderful. It will also incite Ireland to develop its renewable energy sector which is very important for implementation of the Paris climate change agreement. At 700 megawatts and with a 500 km long undersea connection, it is a major project. In my time in Ireland I will work to make sure it is at the top of France's agenda.

Senator Neale Richmond

If the ambassador could speak about the tax issue, I would be grateful.

H.E. Mr. Stéphane Crouzat

I will finish on it. France and Ireland have a difference of opinion on the issue. France believes we should discuss it. Its Government has announced that the current corporation tax rate, 33.3%, will go down within the next five years to 25%. Convergence with Germany's corporation tax rates is the aim. France believes we should reflect on the issue of convergence. It is not talking about a unified tax code. It understands fully that the tax issue is decided on the basis of unanimity and that nothing will be imposed on member states, but it wants to put the issue on the table within the EU framework. It believes that if there is not a level playing field, there should at least be a system under which countries can compete. The issue will be on the table. I can assure the committee that the French authorities are quite keen to push this forward. France understands the specificity of every country. It is not a question of having a flat tax but rather of convergence.

I again thank the Chairman and the distinguished members of the committee. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to make this presentation.

Chairman

We very much appreciate the ambassador's time and that of his officials. This has been a very useful engagement and the viewpoints of the French Government will be fully considered by the committee. The variety and scope of ideas being put forward are very interesting. All ideas should be debated in order that we can work towards a vision that will support us all.

I remind members of the committee and the public that the deadline set by the committee for the receipt of submissions from the public is this Friday, 20 October, but it is an ongoing process. All submissions made to the committee will be carefully considered when received.

I again thank the ambassador for his time.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 9 November 2017.