Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 March 2018

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

Ceisteanna (8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)

Seán Haughey

Ceist:

8. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, on 8 March 2018. [12784/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, on 8 March 2018. [12795/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

10. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Tusk on 8 March 2018 and the issues that were discussed. [12801/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Richard Boyd Barrett

Ceist:

11. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with Mr. Donald Tusk. [12829/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Mary Lou McDonald

Ceist:

12. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagement with the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, on 8 March 2018. [13850/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

13. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting with Mr. Donald Tusk on 8 March 2018. [13948/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (28 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 to 13, inclusive, together.

I was very pleased to welcome the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, to Dublin on 8 March. Our discussions, which took place ahead of the March European Council, covered the Brexit negotiations, EU trade policy, economic and monetary union, taxation challenges posed in the digital era and a number of foreign policy matters.

On Brexit, we discussed progress in relation to the draft withdrawal agreement, including on Irish-specific issues. I stressed the importance of translating into the legal text the commitments and principles agreed in the joint report in December, including the backstop. President Tusk reiterated his strong solidarity with Ireland and said that our concerns were shared EU concerns and that Irish issues were European issues. We also discussed the EU guidelines on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, which were then in draft form and which took into account the parameters outlined by Prime Minister May in her Mansion House speech. I said that the draft guidelines reflected our ambition for a close partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom while ensuring a level playing field in terms of fair competition and the integrity of the Single Market. I welcomed, in particular, the commitment to revisit our position should the United Kingdom approach evolve further.

On digital taxation, I said that all companies, including digital platforms, should pay their fair share of tax in full where and when it is owed. We are committed to global tax reform and we need an approach which is evidence based, sustainable in the long term and focused on aligning taxing rights with the location of real, substantive, value-creating activity. That is why we have been working through the OECD to achieve the widest possible international consensus. This is a complicated area and it is important that we get it right. In our view, short-term and uncoordinated measures could lead to unintended and negative consequences.

On the future of economic and monetary union, President Tusk noted the joint paper which had recently been published by the Nordic, Baltic, Dutch and Irish Finance Ministers and looked forward to further discussions at the euro summit on 23 March. We exchanged views on EU trade policy and agreed that Europe and the USA should make every effort to work together as we would prefer trade deals to trade wars. We also discussed EU relations with Turkey and agreed about the importance of continued engagement notwithstanding our concerns in relation to human rights.

I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. The strong support for Ireland of the President of the European Council in the Brexit negotiations is welcome. The president stated there could be no backsliding by the United Kingdom on the commitments it gave to Ireland last December, including the backstop option of aligning Northern Ireland with the customs union and the Single Market to avoid a hard border. However, agreement on this in the formulation of a legal text for a protocol to the withdrawal agreement has been pushed back to October. Originally, we were expecting this to be agreed for the June meeting. A transition period has now been agreed and free trade talks are about to commence. As such, is there not a real danger that the Irish question will be sidelined as the deadline for a final agreement looms and after the inevitable late-night political wheeling and dealing takes over, as it always does at European Council meetings? Can the Taoiseach give the House any reassurance in that regard?

Turning to the issue of tax, as the Taoiseach knows, there is a Commission proposal for a 3% turnover tax to be allocated to member states based on how many users of a company's digital service there are in each country. Fianna Fáil's position is that no basic groundwork has been done on this proposal and that a general impact assessment has yet to even commence. While reform is certainly necessary, this must be done on an international basis through the OECD so that EU competitiveness is not weakened. This matter has implications for Ireland, its corporate tax base and its capacity to attract foreign direct investment. However, change is inevitable in this area. Given these developments, are we reviewing our industrial policy, which has been in place since the 1960s? The position in relation to tax rules in the United States of America is a new development also. Many things are happening in this area and I would like to know from the Taoiseach whether we are reviewing our industrial policy, notwithstanding the fact that it has served us well since the 1960s, taking into account these new developments which will be discussed in the coming months?

The attack on the two Russians in the UK took place two days before the Taoiseach's meeting with President Tusk and was the subject of widespread comment in national and international media, in particular UK media. Did the Taoiseach discuss with President Tusk the implications of that attack? Was there any suggestion at that stage of a move to a common European position on the attack in the context of the relationship with Britain pre and post Brexit? It would be interesting to know if there was a discussion in that respect at that stage.

As has been pointed out, we would have expected the Brexit backstop situation to have been dealt with as required in the next couple of months. Instead, it has been deferred to October. In the minds of most people, that constitutes a significant potential weakening of the Irish position. Did the Taoiseach get any guarantees from President Tusk in relation to what the backstop will actually involve? We now have widespread declamations from people like Minister David Davis that there will be fantastic technical innovations which will allow us to have a technological border not located anywhere other than in the cloud while having a whole range of provisions he will list. I do not know if the Taoiseach heard commentary at the weekend from agricultural interests and business interests on the Border to the effect that this will not work for them even if they get preferred-trader status.

Last week, the Taoiseach once again showed a tendency to aggressively attack anyone who had the cheek to question him on Brexit and while he has been able to influence how parts of the media cover him, he seems to think that it is beneath him to answer legitimate questions being raised throughout Europe. It was rather pathetic that the Taoiseach resorted to using a silly Sinn Féin argument to attack Fianna Fáil on this issue, something which appears to reflect a growing level of comfort between those parties which they will deny but which has been on display here now for anyone to see in recent months.

The simple fact is that for a year the Government briefed that the negotiating strategy was to make sure that Ireland was not still being discussed when the last elements of the withdrawal treaty were being negotiated. This was, we were told, to ensure that we did not face pressures to accept a deal in the face of a cliff edge, as Deputy Haughey pointed out. It is equally undeniable that the Taoiseach's statement that he was fine with waiting until October for a deal represents a significant change in strategy. The Taoiseach can claim that it is the right approach but he cannot deny that it is a significant change and that Deputy Donnelly and others have every right to ask him and the Government to explain why this change has come about. If our interpretation is wrong, can the Taoiseach tell us why the British Prime Minister, Mrs. May, stated yesterday in the House of Commons that the pressure is on the European Union to make the United Kingdom a better overall deal in order to avoid a hard border, and, if it is wrong, why did the British Prime Minister reaffirm that she will not accept the draft backstop text?

In light of the Taoiseach's claim that there is no problem going on to October and that only partisan opponents doubt this, perhaps he will comment on the following quote from the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, yesterday, as reported by the BBC, "If we don't have it done by June, then I think obviously, we have to raise some serious questions as to whether it is possible to finalise a withdrawal treaty at all." This is close to what Deputy Donnelly said last week. Is the Tánaiste wrong to say that letting it drift to October causes us problems?

I would like to know also what, if anything, the Taoiseach said to the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, about matters Russian in the aftermath of the Salisbury attack but also significantly after widespread reports of known and confirmed Russian atrocities in eastern Ghouta, including the use of chemical weapons. There was no call, as I understand it, from the Taoiseach, the European Union, Mr. Tusk or anybody else for expulsions of Russian diplomats as a result of known Russian and Syrian use of chemical weapons against the people of eastern Ghouta, yet in his statement today, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, voiced his shock at the possible use of these weapons in the UK. I do not understand. If suspected but unconfirmed use of these weapons in Salisbury where no evidence is provided prompts expulsions of a Russian diplomat but confirmed and known use of those weapons in Syria does not, that, to my mind, means the expulsions just announced from the Government have nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons and have everything to do with a Government political decision to line up with Cold War posturing by the European Union, the UK and the United States in what is an escalating and, frankly, alarming confrontation that is developing with Russia. This Cold War-style confrontation smacks of John le Carré. The Taoiseach often accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist-----

I feel one coming.

-----but the Taoiseach is the one who has made a decision that has profound implications for Ireland's neutrality based on a conspiracy. The Taoiseach has presented to us a conspiracy that there is no other plausible explanation. That is not evidence; that is a conspiracy.

The Deputy's time is up.

Yet when it comes to the appalling use of these weapons by Russia in eastern Ghouta, not a dickie bird is heard. In fact, last week in the Dáil, myself and Deputy Gino Kenny asked that the Taoiseach summon the Russian ambassador to the Dáil over what Russia was doing in eastern Ghouta. He ignored us and refused to do it. This week, the Taoiseach is expelling an official from the embassy over something of which the Taoiseach has not presented any evidence. It is riddled with hypocrisy.

I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's answer to the previous questions.

I wish to raise with the Taoiseach in as friendly a manner as I can, given apparently that is the ordre du jour, his remarks in respect of the withdrawal agreement at the European Council meeting last week. The Taoiseach stated - he may correct me if I am wrong - that he would rather have the right deal in October than any deal in June. I merely want to place on the record again that, certainly, for Sinn Féin's part, we believe it is essential and a matter of long-term national interest that we get the right deal. I have not made or will never make an argument for rushing the fences, cutting corners or acting imprudently if that would in any way jeopardise that necessary outcome. That is where my party is coming from on this issue.

I lay the responsibility, in the first instance, for coming up with the British proposal as to how it meets its stated aims to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts and to avoid the hardening of a border on our island and all of the disruption that would flow from that with the British Government. That is the position. It has prevaricated and delayed. It is at this stage, frankly, chancing its arm-----

-----in its failure to produce anything credible, workable and in legal text. The Disneyworld stuff around technological solutions has been dismissed at a European level, has been dismissed within the Dáil and is worthy of dismissal again, but it is a grave mistake to create an impression that we are fine about further delays until October. I actually agree with the Tánaiste.

Deputy McDonald is eating into other Members' time.

Deputy McDonald is over the time and eating into other questions.

The Acting Chairman has only come in. Everybody has run over time on this.

I am abiding by the rules. I call the Taoiseach.

First, to answer the questions on the withdrawal agreement, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Everybody ran over time.

That includes the transition period. What was agreed last week was the term of the transition period which, I believe, is a good development. Most people in Ireland want there to be a transition period. It is good for business. It is good for farmers, exporters and those whose jobs need to be secured. We now know that there will be a transition period. It will run until the end of 2020 and despite the fact that it said this would not be the case, the United Kingdom now accepts that during the entirety of that transition period the United Kingdom will remain in the Single Market and in the customs union, bound by the ECJ, will continue to pay into the European Union budget and yet will have no say on any of these matters. That is the basis on which the transition period was offered to the UK and it is what it accepted. It at least means Irish people, business, farmers and those whose jobs are dependent on exports and trade with Britain know that nothing will change until 2021. However, those are the terms. It is not agreed until everything is agreed.

It is our intention to agree the terms of the backstop by June. It is our objective to have it done by June but as I stated in Brussels, I am not willing to settle for anything just because it is June. It has to be a good deal and it has to be the right deal. It has to be a good outcome.

Even if we agree the terms of the backstop in June in the way we have agreed the terms of the transition period just last week, it is still the case that the withdrawal agreement will not be finalised until October. Nobody believes that the withdrawal agreement will be fully finalised until October even though it may be possible to agree the terms of the backstop in June in the way we agreed the terms of the transition period just last week - it is turning the yellow and white into green, if people are following how that is being worked. Nonetheless, the withdrawal agreement will not be finalised until October. Even at that point, it has to be ratified by the European Parliament and the UK Parliament and this will be an ongoing negotiation.

In terms of the text of the backstop, the UK is now engaging on the European text for the backstop.

We are also open to any alternative it might wish to put forward. There will be meetings at an official level almost every day this week on that. Our view is that the best way to resolve and avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland is through a deep, new free trade agreement and customs partnership with the UK which would negate the need for any new barriers between Northern Ireland and Ireland or between Britain and Ireland. That is the ideal outcome for us, so of course we will engage on that.

It is not intended that the free trade agreement and the new partnership agreement with the UK will be concluded in October. That is not the case at all. What we hope to have in October is a political declaration or agreement on what should be in that new EU-UK free trade agreement.

We will then spend probably the entirety of the transition period negotiating the legal text of that.

The day after the referendum, Deputy Michael Noonan told me that some people view Brexit as a storm, as something that will be rough for a while and will then blow over, but it will not be like that. He said that Brexit would go on for years and years, and he is absolutely right.

We will move on to Questions Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive.

There was no answer regarding Russia.

There was not time.

The Taoiseach does not want to answer.

Barr
Roinn