Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

European Council Meetings

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 28 March 2018

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Ceisteanna (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

Joan Burton

Ceist:

17. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the meeting of the EU Council on 22 and 23 March 2018. [12789/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joan Burton

Ceist:

18. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent meeting of the EU Council. [13574/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

19. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the EU Council meeting on 22 and 23 March 2018. [13846/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

20. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if he held bilateral meetings while attending the March 2018 EU Council meeting; and the issues that were discussed. [14160/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

21. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if corporation tax was discussed at the March 2018 EU Council meeting. [14161/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Eamon Ryan

Ceist:

22. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meetings at the European Council. [14207/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

23. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the discussions and the contributions on digital tax made by him and other EU leaders at the March 2018 EU Council meeting. [14155/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

24. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he had bilateral meetings at the March 2018 EU Council meeting. [14159/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Michael Moynihan

Ceist:

25. Deputy Michael Moynihan asked the Taoiseach if the regulation of social media sites and the political ramifications that loose regulation is having on elections across the EU and globally were discussed at the March 2018 EU Council meeting, following the revelations regarding companies (details supplied). [14162/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

26. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if the expulsion of Russian diplomats from the UK following the use of a nerve agent against persons (details supplied) in Salisbury was discussed at the March 2018 EU Council meeting. [14154/18]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (19 píosaí cainte)

We now move to Questions Nos. 17 to 26.

Thank you, Ceann Comhairle.

We have not heard the reply. Deputy Burton is very eager.

I would hate to suggest Deputy Burton does not need to hear the reply before she asks her supplementary question.

Deputy Burton has good anticipation powers.

She and the Taoiseach know each other very well.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 26, inclusive, together.

I attended the European Council in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, 22 and 23 March.

On Thursday, we discussed jobs, growth and competitiveness, touching on the Single Market, digital Single Market, capital markets union, the European semester, economic and monetary union and social issues. Given recent events, the need to ensure protection of personal data in the context of social networks was also discussed.

In a leaders' agenda discussion on taxation and digital taxation, a wide range of different views were expressed, including views on the desirability of interim measures in advance of completion of its work by the OECD. I did not support any interim measure. I emphasised that all companies should pay their fair share of tax and should pay it when it is due and where it is owed, and that our approach should be evidence-based, sustainable and focused on aligning taxing rights with the location of real, substantive value-creating activity. The Council will return to this matter in June and ECOFIN will consider it in the interim.

Partners strongly condemned the attack in Salisbury and offered full solidarity and support to the UK. All 28 member states agreed with the assessment of the UK that the Russian Federation was highly likely to have been involved in the attack and we agreed to recall the EU ambassador from Moscow.

On Friday, we discussed trade, including President Trump's decision to exempt the EU from tariffs on steel and aluminium, at least for now. I briefed colleagues on my meeting with President Trump on 12 March and his particular approach to trade.

On Brexit and Article 50, the European Council considered progress in the negotiations with the UK on the draft withdrawal agreement. Good progress has been achieved in some parts, including on citizens' rights, the financial settlement and transition period. Importantly, the UK explicitly confirmed that the backstop option, as agreed in the joint report in December, will form part of the legal text and it is now engaging on the detail of that text.

The European Council agreed guidelines for negotiating the framework for the future relationship between the UK and the EU. These reflect our ambition for a close partnership, while ensuring a level playing field, fair competition and the integrity of the Single Market. They also leave open the possibility of the European Union revisiting its position and guidelines should the United Kingdom evolve its approach beyond the currently expressed red lines. The European Council will review all the withdrawal issues at our meeting in June, with a view to finalising work on the withdrawal agreement in October. It is important to emphasise that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

In euro summit format, we also discussed economic and monetary union. I stressed the need, in particular, to focus on areas of practical value, including completion of the banking union and having a deposit guarantee system for Europe.

In the margins of the meeting, I met the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, who again expressed support for our position on Brexit and we discussed our common positions on tax and trade.

I also had a short meeting with the British Prime Minister, Mrs. May, during which I conveyed my solidarity with her on the attack that occurred in Salisbury. On Brexit, I welcomed her Government's commitment to ensuring a backstop forms part of the withdrawal agreement and looked forward to progress on this and on the other options before the European Council in June. I will be making a full statement to the House on this later in the afternoon.

Will the Taoiseach level with the Dáil as to what work is under way at present on the possibility of a hard border? I know it is something nobody wants, including the Taoiseach, but on the other hand we now have fairly continuous statements, ranging from the somewhat authoritative to the very authoritative, from figures such as the Secretary of State, Mr. Davis, on a technological type of border in particular. I imagine the Taoiseach must have officials examining what form these particular possibilities might take. I also noticed that yesterday, he made a hopeful reference that perhaps subsequent to the UK leaving there could be an agreement which would mirror the exact arrangements of now. That is what I understood the Taoiseach to say yesterday. This has been frequently described as magical thinking, namely, that everything can change but at the same time everything can stay the same. It would be interesting if the Taoiseach could advise us as to why he expects this because short of a British general election or a second Brexit referendum, there does not really seem to be a capacity to deliver, post the UK leaving, a mirror arrangement to what exists now.

In respect of the appalling attack in Salisbury in the UK, we are aware of the common statement made by the European Council and the decision to recall to Brussels the EU ambassador, a decision I welcomed and supported last Friday.

Was other co-ordinated action by EU member states discussed or agreed at the Council and what was the Taoiseach's input to those discussions?

In regard to other matters discussed, for example, the legal form of the backstop agreement - the so-called option C of last December - what is the attitude of other member states to the Commission's legal version which has been rejected out of hand by the United Kingdom? Where does this formal legal version now stand or has it been set aside to be renegotiated with the UK? On Turkey, I know that leaders condemned Turkey's action in areas close to Cyprus but of greater concern is the actions Turkey has taken against Kurds in the Afrin region. Was this matter discussed at the European Council?

The Taoiseach and I previously discussed this matter briefly and we will have statements on it later today, at which time we get into the specifics.

Yesterday, I asked the Taoiseach if he agreed with the following statement that was made by the Tánaiste, "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." As the Taoiseach neglected to respond yesterday, I would like to give him another opportunity to do so. Is our objective an agreed backstop by text by June or is the Taoiseach unconcerned if it slips to October? His commentary on Thursday last directly implied that October is no problem in spite of lots of evidence to the contrary.

On co-ordinated action against Russia, did every country accept the irrefutable evidence that there is a pattern of Russian aggression in Europe? Does the Taoiseach accept that we should all be concerned about Russia's direct and ongoing support of extremism and anti-European Union sentiment in a range of countries? It is striking how the far right and far left have been united in defending Russia on this occasion and in every other example of Putin's aggression, such as the evasion and partition of Ukraine. Given that our security organisations have expressed concern about Russia's need for an outsized embassy here and the evidence of online interference in most recent elections in Europe, I seek the Taoiseach's support in urgently progressing Deputy Lawless's Bill on related matters.

Honesty is an important prerequisite to serious debate. Deputy Martin said that those who are critical of the decision to expel are defending Russia, in response to which I noted the Taoiseach was nodding.

I did not say that.

The Deputy did say it. As recently as last week, Deputy Gino Kenny and I condemned the behaviour of Russia on the floor of the Dáil. We asked the Government to bring in the Russian ambassador to answer questions about what Russia is doing in Syria. Lest anybody is in any doubt, Putin is an authoritarian war monger but this does not, however, mean that Russia is guilty, without evidence, of what happened in Salisbury, nor does it mean that, therefore, President Trump and the European Union are without sin in an escalating cold war. Do we think President Trump, in his expulsion of Russian diplomats, is any less of a dodgy authoritarian or at least in the same league as Putin in his attitude to geopolitical affairs?

Are the Russians trying to hack? Definitely. We are all aware of the scandal that unfolded recently in regard to Facebook, an American company which gave information to Cambridge Analytica, which is being used to subvert democratic elections. The Russians and the Americans are dodgy and there are spies in the Russian embassy, the American embassy and the Israeli embassy. Let us be even handed in all of this. What is required is a bit of consistency. I ask the Taoiseach for consistency in dealing with these matters.

The net point is that whatever views are taken of Russia, America or any other administration or regime, at the core of this matter is this country and its policy and tradition of military neutrality and an independent foreign policy.

Was the issue of Catalonia discussed? The Taoiseach will be aware that Charles Puigdemont was detained in Germany on Sunday. All of this is playing out before the international community and European Union. This is extraordinary. The lengths to which not only the Spanish state but the European system has been deployed to subvert, quell and crush the desire in Catalonia for independence, democratically expressed at polling stations, is astonishing. One can argue constitutionally the legality or the status of that particular process, which may be fine, but what is beyond doubt is that real, legitimate political aspirations are now meeting the heavy hand of the law. Was this issued and what did the Taoiseach say on the matter?

On a hard border, it is fair to say that all of us in this House want to avoid it and I think we can and will avoid it. The terms of the transition are now agreed. Even though nothing is finally agreed until everything is agreed, at least the terms of it are agreed and are now highlighted in green, which means we have until 2021 to prepare for any permanent changes that may occur. In terms of what is happening now, a series of meetings are taking place in Brussels, with the UK on one side and Ireland and the task force on the other side. We are engaging on the text of option C and any alternatives that the UK may put forward. Other member states are 100% supportive of the text produced by the protocol. We are open to amendments as long as the outcome remains the same. This is the approach we are taking. We are not making any specific preparations for a hard border. We are doing everything we can to avoid it, first, by having a backstop in place and, second, by trying to negotiate a new close partnership between the EU and the UK that would allow us to not ever have to activate the backstop. They are the objectives we are working to.

On Salisbury, the Council agreed two things. It agreed the text that we agreed with the UK's assessment that it was highly likely that the Russian federation was involved in this response and also that the EU ambassador would be recalled from Moscow. There were many other suggested actions but that is what was agreed. It was also agreed that member states that were willing and able would expel diplomats in a co-ordinated way on Monday afternoon and 14 EU states did so. We decided to wait until after the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday and so we were the 15th or 16th state to do so.

On Turkey, there was no discussion on the Kurdish region. There was a discussion on Cyprus and its territorial waters and the two Greek soldiers who were not being detained in Turkey.

On the Tánaiste's comments, I would first need to see the question he was asked. I am always loath to comment on the comments of others without first seeing the question asked and the full answer given. I am pretty sure I agree with what he said, which is that we expect and want to have the terms of the backstop agreed by June and we are pushing very hard to have that done.

I gave the Taoiseach an exact quote of what the Tánaiste said.

It is still the case that nothing is agree until everything is agreed.

Barr
Roinn