Speech by the Tánaiste and Labour Party Leader
Joan Burton T.D.
at EMI’s National Conversation about the UK’s EU Reform Agenda and Referendum
9th November 2015
Good morning everybody.
I’m very pleased to be here today to launch European Movement Ireland’s “National Conversation” on this crucial issue. I’d like to thank your chairperson Maurice Pratt, vice chair Jillian van Turnhout and executive director Noelle O’Connell for organising this timely event. I’d also like to welcome our distinguished guests, including Scottish Cabinet Secretary Fiona Hsylop and British Ambassador Dominick Chilcott.
Yesterday was Remembrance Sunday, when the UK honours the men and women who gave their lives in the two World Wars and subsequent conflicts.
The poet Wilfred Owen, who himself died just a week before the armistice in World War I, wrote:
“What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
“Only the monstrous anger of the guns.”
And I think in any discussion of the European project, its strengths and weaknesses, its merits and follies, the starting point must be this: The European project ensured our continent moved away from war.
And for those who’ve grown complacent because of the decades of peace and prosperity that Union has brought, it’s worth remembering it was only last year when Russia annexed Crimea on the EU’s doorstep.
The significance of the tectonic shift away from war in Europe is sometimes forgotten.
We saw this particularly in the midst of the financial crisis, when, frankly, the EU lost its way for a considerable period of time.
As a result, the underlying value of Union became shrouded in recrimination over policy direction.
The Schumann declaration stated that:
“The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.”
It also said that:
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan… [but only] built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity”.
Europe won’t ever be the finished product, no more than a government will ever get everything right. There will always be a new problem, a fresh challenge – and people understand this instinctively.
But having achieved Schumann’s vision – the creation of a real sense of solidarity – the EU then came perilously close to busting it over the last few years.
Many citizens – including in Ireland - felt that solidarity from Brussels with individual member states was completely absent during the worst of the crisis.
They saw policy being dictated from the centre, and this jarred with everything they thought the EU was supposed to be.
The EU isn’t a collection of dominion countries, after all.
It’s a collection of member states who have agreed to pool their sovereignty to achieve common goals and rise to common challenges through consensus.
So in commenting on the UK referendum, I think it’s first important to say this:
There are legitimate grievances with how the EU has conducted its affairs.
There are legitimate concerns about the future direction of the project.
And it’s perfectly legitimate, when it comes to the referendum, for any UK citizen to ask questions and have doubts.
I had some of my own in recent years, after all.
As a social democrat, as someone who believes that the single best protection against poverty is work, the initial EU response to the financial crisis appalled me.
As a Minister from 2011, I argued repeatedly that the EU needed to shift from austerity towards a policy based on investment, growth and job creation – with full employment the central target.
I pressed the case for that shift at European level at every opportunity, something I continued as Tanaiste and Labour Party leader.
I made the contrast, in particular, between the respective mandates of the ECB and the US Federal Reserve.
Both are central banks, but whereas the ECB’s primary mandate is to maintain price stability, the Fed has a clear dual mandate to purse both price stability and full employment.
I argued that the ECB had to do more to drive recovery.
In tandem with that, the Irish Government worked night and day to renegotiate key elements of the troika bailout we inherited.
We fought for – and ultimately won – concessions that reduced our debt burden by tens of billions of euro.
We also fought to change the overall approach so that we could use any excess cash to invest in job creation rather than merely paying down debt.
And we fought on specifics.
One simple example: one of the first things we did upon taking office was reverse the cut in the National Minimum Wage.
In January, we will increase the Minimum Wage for the second time.
Ultimately, we worked with the troika to renegotiate and to spur recovery.
There were disagreements, difficult choices, and our people had it extremely tough.
But Ireland is now enjoying a strong recovery, our people are beginning to feel the benefits of it, our public finances are healthy again because employment is soaring, and we will grow our way out of the debt burden we inherited.
At wider EU level, meanwhile, there has also been a welcome shift in focus.
The ECB bond-buying programme instigated by Mario Draghi gave breathing space to the European economy as a whole.
The EU belatedly recognised that investment was needed to create employment and bring about recovery.
All of the above was achieved, by Ireland and other member states, through persistent negotiation.
This brings me to my second point: that the best place to be is in the room.
We’re stronger working together than going our separate ways - because there are so many challenges we are better facing together rather than alone.
The migration crisis is the latest, tragic demonstration of that.
Energy security, climate change, and terrorism stand out as other challenges that individual states cannot handle alone.
These are some of the reasons why we continue to believe so strongly in the European vision.
Similarly, as a Government, we believe that UK membership of the Union is hugely important to our interests and those of the EU as a whole.
From the outset, our position has been clear: we want the UK to remain in the EU.
We’ll be as constructive and helpful as possible in the negotiations.
There are a number of areas where we share British concerns and where we too see room for improvement in how the Union operates.
If I take each of those in turn, the exact consequences of Brexit would depend on what arrangements were subsequently put in place between the UK and the EU.
However, almost all research to date suggests the overall implications for Ireland would be negative.
Not alone for our economy, but for Northern Ireland, and our wider positioning within the EU.
On the economic point, the UK is our largest trading partner – our bilateral trade amounts to approximately €1 billion per week, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Brexit would unquestionably place this at risk.
Secondly, in relation to Northern Ireland, the EU has strongly supported the development of peace and reconciliation and progressing North-South cooperation.
This should not be underestimated.
[Indeed, in the context of British Union, one of the fascinating aspects of the UK referendum for neutral observers will be precisely how Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales vote].
ESRI research published last week found that, of all UK regions, Northern Ireland would be most adversely affected by Brexit.
Again, when such hard-won progress has been made, the last thing we want is to see that put at risk.
Finally, in relation to our positioning within the EU, we have many shared national interests with the UK.
Its departure could deprive us of valuable support in key areas such as trade and the internal market, and could tilt the overall balance of debate in a negative direction.
There is also uncertainty about the true consequences arising from any departure.
The departure of any member state, but particularly the UK, from the Union would potentially weaken the EU, including in terms of its global role.
So if they are the risks, how can we help the UK remain within the EU?
It’s likely that detailed texts for negotiation will not be put on the table for some time.
From what the Prime Minister and other members of his Cabinet have said to date, however, it is clear that the four broad categories of issues remain:
· Measures to make the EU more competitive;
· Steps to enhance national sovereignty;
· Making the EU more fair; and
· Addressing migration and welfare.
We’ll be broadly supportive of any pragmatic proposals to improve how the Union operates under these broad categories.
Given that the details of the proposals remain unclear, it is not possible at this stage to be more precise.
In my capacity as Minister for Social Protection, I am of course particularly interested in the proposals relating to social welfare.
As a social democrat, I believe in the vital importance of social welfare as a safety net when people need it at vulnerable times in their lives.
This is why, throughout the worst of the crisis, the Irish Government maintained core welfare rates, and fought off those who would have slashed the welfare budget by many billions.
I also believe the welfare system must act as a trampoline, to help jobseekers back to work.
The Irish Government’s record on that is very clear, with 130,000 new jobs added since the crisis peak, and unemployment reduced by more than a third.
Let me be frank, without wishing to overstep the mark:
I believe that the UK Government has worked diligently on the employment front, to help create more jobs and get people back to work.
But some of the measures already taken to reduce the UK welfare bill, and some of the proposals now on the table, do not rest easily with me.
Those decisions are ultimately a matter for the UK, of course.
But in terms of reform proposals tabled at EU level, fairness must be front and centre.
It’s important to stress, for example, that although they are sometimes conflated, the migration crisis needs to be seen as distinct from the question of the rights and entitlements of existing EU citizens.
Freedom of movement is a core principle underpinning the Union and we would not support any proposals that would fundamentally undermine it.
Equally, however, we acknowledge that freedom of movement is sometimes abused and we believe that we should work together to stop this.
Free movement is designed, after all, to help workers and their families take up opportunities and better their lives.
It wasn’t designed to facilitate what has been labelled welfare tourism, because this would inevitably place strain on welfare systems in several member states.
It would also risk eroding the contributions principle that underpins the welfare systems of several member states – namely that workers pay into the system to ensure it’s there for them when they need it.
Social welfare is a very complex area and we know that many member states will be very concerned to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly under any proposed changes.
We will work closely with the UK government on these and related matters.
Our overriding focus is on helping to keep the UK in the Union.
Because of the challenges ahead of us, yes.
The challenge to vindicate people’s economic rights, increase their incomes, and raise their standards of living.
The challenge to vindicate people’s social and cultural rights and freedoms – and in that respect, I hope Ireland’s marriage equality referendum can spark change in those member states so far resistant to it.
I accept that in the current climate, citizens from the UK to Greece may question the value of Union, and its ability to vindicate those rights.
As ever, recourse to the past is useful in this respect.
On Saturday, it was 25 years since Mary Robinson was elected Ireland’s first woman president.
It was a landmark moment in Irish life, the moment when, as Mary said, instead of rocking the cradle, the women of this country rocked the system.
I was a member of that campaign, and it was one of the proudest moments of my life.
But it’s also true to say that long before that election, the EU was pushing the rights of women high up the agenda.
For example, equal pay for equal work was a principle enshrined in the Treaties of Rome, and helped to narrow the gender pay gap.
By pushing equality up the agenda, the EU benefitted millions of women in this country – and all other member states, the UK included.
The EU was also instrumental in pushing the rights of people with disabilities up the agenda, seeking to ensure that people with disabilities would be treated as full citizens and be included in all aspects of society.
Equality, of course, is a mission that remains uncompleted.
But in asking ourselves what we can achieve together in the future, we should remember what we have already achieved.
Ultimately, it will be for the British electorate to decide upon the future of the UK’s relationship with the EU.
But my sincere conviction is that we can achieve more together than alone.
Next year marks 100 years since the Easter Rising, the seminal event that led to the foundation of the Irish state.
As foreign policy experts such as Prof Ben Tonra have argued, it was only through Ireland’s entry to the EEC that this country was finally able to “emancipate itself” from the complex and historically difficult relationship with the UK.
Yet, in another very real sense, it was also Ireland’s entry to the EEC, in making us a more outward-looking nation, that did so much over time to foster better relations with our neighbor.
Better relations that led to the development of the peace process, brought trade to record levels, and saw a great friendship develop between our peoples.
In the spirit of that friendship, and the best interests of both our peoples, Ireland will work with the UK and be as constructive and helpful as possible in the months ahead.
Thank you.