Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 6 March 2018
1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the February 2018 informal EU leaders' meeting; the issues that were discussed; the contributions that he made on the multi-annual budget for the post-2020 period; his contributions on the European Parliament; and if he held bilateral meetings at same. [9654/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions at the EU leaders' informal meeting regarding the budget after 2020; the contributions he made; and the consensus. [10147/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra3. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the outcome of the meeting of EU leaders in Brussels on 23 February 2018 at which the EU budget was discussed. [10466/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra4. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the informal summit of EU leaders on 23 February 2018. [10928/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra5. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagements with leaders at the G5 Sahel conference. [10929/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra6. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contribution at the most recent informal EU leaders' meeting regarding the EU budget after 2020. [11543/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
I attended an informal meeting of the 27 EU Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 23 February. This was the third such meeting convened by President Tusk under his "Leaders' Agenda" format, with the focus this time on institutional issues and the post-2020 multi-annual financial framework.
On institutional issues, there was general support for the proposal to redistribute 27 of the 73 European Parliament seats left over following the departure of the United Kingdom. I expressed our support for this move, which will see two additional seats allocated to Ireland.
We noted the European Parliament's rejection of the use of transnational lists for the 2019 elections but agreed to keep the proposal under consideration for future elections. We also agreed that, while European political parties can nominate their candidates for the role of President of the European Commission, the final decision should remain with the European Council. I have already outlined my views on these issues, including in my address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg in January.
Although not formally for consideration, a number of other institutional issues were discussed, including the size of the European Commission, in respect of which we are strongly opposed to any reduction, and the proposal to combine the roles of President of the European Commission and President of the European Council, which we also oppose.
In response to President Macron's proposal for EU-wide public engagement on the future of Europe, I was happy to outline our own citizens' dialogue, which I launched last November and which is being achieved under the leadership of the Minister of State at the Department of European Affairs, Deputy Helen McEntee. The dialogue is scheduled to conclude on 9 May and I offered to share our experience with partners.
In discussions on the next EU budget, the multi-annual financial framework, I noted that a strong and well-funded CAP remains a key priority for Ireland. I acknowledged the contribution of cohesion funding, including the PEACE and INTERREG programmes, which have done so much to support peace and reconciliation on this island. I also acknowledged the contributions of research and innovation initiatives, such as Horizon 2020. I also recognised the importance of newer EU priorities and said that Ireland is open to contributing more, if and where it brings added European value and provided our core priorities are protected.
A range of views were expressed at the meeting including in regard to the size and the priorities of the budget. Further intensive discussions will take place on this following the publication of the European Commission's formal proposal in early May.
We discussed a number of other items, including the importance of finance for Libya and developments regarding Turkey and Cyprus.
In addition to the informal summit on 23 February, I attended a dinner the previous evening at the invitation of Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium. I was joined by a number of other EU leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, President Macron and the prime ministers of Spain, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Bulgaria. This dinner provided an opportunity for an informal and open-ended exchange of views ahead of the meeting of the 27 Heads of State and Government the following day.
On the morning of the informal summit, I also attended a high-level conference on the Sahel, together with my EU counterparts and the leaders of the G5 Sahel countries - Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger – in addition to representatives of international organisations and relevant parties. The aim of the conference was to bring together the three strands of our support for the G5 Sahel region, namely political and diplomatic support, security and development. I noted Ireland's ongoing commitment to the region, including through humanitarian and development funding, as well as the deployment of Irish civilian experts and defence personnel to a number of CSDP missions in the region.
I had no scheduled bilateral meetings during this trip but used the opportunity of the informal summit, the high-level conference on the Sahel and the dinner event on Thursday to engage informally with my counterparts, including the President of Mali, with whom I discussed our EU mission to Mali.
I have said before that it is extraordinary and strange that there were no pre-EU Council statements prior to the EU informal summit held last month because, as the Taoiseach outlined, institutional and transnational issues were discussed, in addition to high-level EU appointments.
With regard to the discussion on the number of seats, the departure of the United Kingdom from the Union because of Brexit will mean a redistribution of about 27 seats, in keeping with the principles of degressive proportionality.
Will the Taoiseach outline what was the nature of the discussion around this? Does he support a wider discussion regarding the number of seats which the European Parliament should have? I believe there was some attempt to reduce the number of MEPs from 751 to 705. What was the Taoiseach's position on that?
Was there a discussion at the informal summit on the Brexit negotiations and draft withdrawal agreement? Will the Taoiseach outline the Government's priorities for the next multi-annual financial framework? What level of consultation took place on this and with whom before the priorities were decided upon? The Taoiseach might recall his speech to the European Parliament where he said they were his personal views and had not been signed off by Government. I am interested in the Taoiseach's approach to this meeting. Was it the Government's views or his own personal views about institutional reform?
On investment in research and innovation, I am glad that the Taoiseach said that CAP will still be a major priority. While she was a Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn did fantastic work on Horizon 2020. We, as a country, should place a very high premium on the importance of such a European research programme and substantial investment being put behind it.
MEPs were recently before the Joint Committee on European Affairs and they are concerned about the post-Brexit European budget, which may be in a deficit from anything from €7 billion to €15 billion. Can the Taoiseach confirm that Ireland has agreed to increase its budget contribution as long as other states do likewise? What increase might this involve? Would it be 10%, 20% or another figure?
I welcome the Taoiseach's comments regarding the protection of the CAP, the Cohesion Fund and the Structural Fund. They are things that the EU does well, and I know it wants to take on new projects. I also welcome the Taoiseach's opposition to a common corporate tax base throughout the EU, which he expressed at the summit.
It was not on the agenda for this meeting, but the media has reported that Ireland is signing up to two of 17 PESCO projects on offer as we speak. There is a meeting in Brussels today. Can the Taoiseach give us any information on the two projects to which we are apparently signing up? Presumably, they are in compliance with Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.
There has been a proposal for some MEPs to be elected by transnational Europe-wide lists. What is the Government's view on this? I have concerns about this proposal as it removes MEPs from the citizens and makes them less accessible.
Finally, will the Taoiseach confirm that support for Ireland's position in relation to the avoidance of a hard border remains firm among the EU 27, and that it has not diminished as the negotiations continue?
When will the question of additional seats be settled? How and when will the distribution of seats within the State be determined so that people can begin to make preparations?
On the next multi-annual financial framework, apparently Ireland is agreeable to making an increased contribution to the next funding round. How much extra is Ireland willing to pay? Has the Government examined the options put forward by the Commission to raise additional European funding? For example, the EU emissions trading systems moved from state level to EU level. Where does Ireland stand on that? Does the Taoiseach have a view?
Was there agreement on the proposal that profits from seigniorage, the profits made from issuing currency, by the European Central Bank could be an EU resource? Does the Taoiseach have a position on that?
On the discussions with leaders at the G5 Shahel meeting, Ireland has its defence force in that region, although we do not currently have diplomatic personnel. Is it part of the deepening and broadening of Ireland's footprint that the Taoiseach signalled when he took office to have an aid office in that region? It is a region that is focused more not only on defence force personnel, but also personnel from An Garda Síochána than in the past. Does the Taoiseach have a view on this?
The United Kingdom is currently a significant net contributor to the EU budget. Brexit, when it happens, will cause a weekly €200 million gap in the European budget. The options currently being examined by the EU Commission include increasing member states contributions from 1% to 1.2% of GNI* which is a very large jump and would particularly affect Ireland at a time when our GNI* is rising; an entirely new income flow, such as the EU introducing some new form of tax with a number of options having been discussed already; and increasing the increasing VAT contributions into the EU budget. At present, Ireland is a small net contributor. Under all options laid out by the EU, it will become a very large net contributor. Where does the Taoiseach stand on the proposals that are now on the table in this matter?
On the additional seats in the European Parliament, is the Taoiseach open to the idea of people from the North of Ireland being afforded a seat and an opportunity for representation in the Parliament given that everyone born on the island is entitled to Irish citizenship and, by extension, European citizenship? I commend that idea to him.
I met Michel Barnier yesterday to discuss the draft withdrawal agreement. I am pleased to see that they are holding firm on the backstop option and the efforts to protect the Good Friday Agreement and avoid a hard border on the island.
The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, came out with a rather outlandish suggestion that the Canadian-US border might be looked to for inspiration, an idea to which the Taoiseach has responded. It does not augur well for the British contribution or its ability to come up with solutions rather than political rhetoric. Can the Taoiseach tell us whether Mrs May and the Conservative Government has indicated when they might come forward with real solutions rather than fantasy?
The Taoiseach has about two minutes to respond.
The way informal summits work is that matters are discussed but no conclusions are reached or decisions made. I am always interested in other parties' views on institutional issues and matters of reform. I encourage parties, if they have not done so yet, to produce a short paper outlining their views on institutional reforms and submit them to the public consultation being led by the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, so we might take them into account in forming Government policy. I have not seen any policy papers from any Opposition parties yet.
We will send ours on.
We have been publishing policy papers on European reform for a long time - for years.
Did the Taoiseach miss it?
I said that I had not seen them. I did not say they had not been produced. I will make a point of reading them.
The strategic communications unit should send them on.
Deputies, please, we have just over a minute left.
I apologise.
The Government has adopted a paper on the multi-annual financial framework. It was brought to Cabinet by the Tánaiste and Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform about two weeks ago. The paper adopted by the Government was very much in line with views expressed in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. We indicated that we would be willing to increase our contribution to the budget but we have not said by how much. We have said that we would prefer to stick with the GNI*-based system of making contributions to the budget; we are not enthusiasts for new European-wide taxes or sources of funding. We need to be very cautious about that as it may lead to a whole series of EU-wide taxes that we or the public might not support.
In the context of the spend, our view is that we should continue to fund well programmes that we believe work well, such as those relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and to Structural Funds. These programmes include INTERREG, PEACE II, ERASMUS, Horizon 2020, research and development, etc. If we are to continue to fund them well in the absence of the UK, we will need new money. I invite parties to publish papers on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF.
With regard to Deputy Burton's comment, I would not like us to get sucked into a very narrow view of net contributors and net beneficiaries. This is the kind of talk we hear from eurosceptics - especially those in Britain and other places - to the effect that a country is paying this much in and getting that much out. That is a very narrow view of European Union membership. It is not just about what a member state pays into the budget and what it gets out in programmes. The real value of EU membership is intangible. It is about the four freedoms, the freedom of movement of people, labour, capital and free trade. These intangible benefits are enormous. It disappoints me when I see that type of thinking entering our debate. As Ireland moves from being a net beneficiary to being a net contributor, we need to ensure that we do not get into that kind of argument as put across by eurosceptics all the time.
That is because the issue is never discussed. We need a debate on the issue.
I would always like to spend more time discussing issues of substance.
There are no pre-Council statements. There is no real or genuine debate on the issue in the House.
