I will begin where the Deputy began on trade, tariffs and the all-island all-Ireland economy. This morning, I spoke to the Deputy's colleague, my counterpart, the Minister for the Economy in the Northern Ireland Executive, Dr. Caoimhe Archibald. I thank her for ongoing engagement with me and for the way she is going about her business. We have agreed to meet by way of video conference either tomorrow or Monday once we have clarity on what is in the UK-US agreement. I use that word loosely because, quite frankly, we do not know at this stage if it is a full agreement. I have heard speculation that it is the heads of an agreement or a framework. It is important that we see what comes from that later today. In all my engagements with the British Government, including when I met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 11 days ago, and in all my engagements at the European level, I am very clear that the unique position of this island and the north of this island needs to be factored into all discussions at EU level and with the US and in our ongoing discussions with the British Government. Of course, we can all point to the Windsor Framework and different mechanisms but to do so is to miss the point. Tariffs are not a good idea, full stop. The trade that happens across this island, between these islands and between this island and the US matters. I am absolutely committed to working in good faith with the Minister, Dr. Archibald, and with the Northern Ireland Executive. I know the Minister is also committed to doing so. A number of things are going to happen this afternoon. The EU's response or next steps must be seen through the prism of four measures. The first and most important to note is that the European Union, of which Ireland is a proud member, wants to negotiate. We do not want to be in a tit-for-tat tariff war. I agree with the Deputy on that. Tariffs are bad for everybody. There are no winners in a tariff war. I therefore believe the EU is right to have intensified its engagement with the United States in recent days and in the proposals we are making to find a way forward. The Deputy's question is a fair one: do we have interlocutors who are willing to do a deal? We have to keep working on that. We have to support the work of Maroš Šefčovič, the EU's Commissioner for trade, who is doing a very good job in this area. That is step one. We must reach out with proposals, engage in good faith, try to get an agreement and use the 90-day pause. The second measure is countermeasures. I take the point that tariffs are not good for anyone. I get that. That is absolutely true. However, from a negotiating point of view, we do have to negotiate from a position of strength. Irish people get that. We cannot go into talks with our hands swinging and asking nicely for a deal. We have to say that we want a deal and want zero tariffs for zero tariffs but that the European Union is a market of 460 million people and will look at responding in other areas if we have to. It is important to say a couple of things about the list of countermeasures that will be published today. The first is that it is going to be a very long list. The second is that none of this will come in anytime soon. It will go out for public consultation until at least 10 June. Even when that public consultation closes, the Commission will need to do more work before it even reaches a decision-making mechanism within the European Union. We need to apply the "cool heads" the Deputy mentioned to our response to the countermeasures. Ultimately, I want to see the countermeasures list ripped up and never coming into effect because we have reached an agreement. The third measure the European Union should consider and that I expect it will is to take a dispute to the WTO. The United States is not in compliance with World Trade Organization rules. Rules matter and membership of the WTO matters. The fourth measure we have to take at European level is to continue to watch for what is often called "dumping", which is the idea that lots of extra goods may come to our markets from other parts of the world because of actions taken by the US. I expect the EU to also monitor this very closely. Those are the four areas where we are likely to see monitoring. I would like to offer Opposition parties a further briefing with the Government next week. We should continue to work hand in glove on this. I will also attend the meeting of EU trade Ministers in Brussels next Thursday.
Sentiment score: 0.18
If we get to a place where countermeasures have to be introduced by the European Union, this will not be good for the European Union and it will not be good for the US. It will not be good for the economies in Europe or in the US because it is almost impossible to publish a list that does not have an impact in every single member state. The list will be broad, and it will include industrial products and a whole variety of issues. I expect it to run to more than 200 pages. I have not formally seen it and it will have to be assessed. It will take a period of time to assess it but there is the time. Unlike President Trump, we are not saying "Here is the list and it comes in tomorrow or in 30 days". We are saying that here is a list of measures we do not want to take, that we want to have them prepared in case, and that we want to consult and we want to engage. There will be consultation until at least 10 June so nothing will change in the here and now. Yes, I did tell my parliamentary party what I tell the Irish people and what I did say during the general election, and what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, says regularly too, that if we get to a situation where President Trump's agenda of high tariffs and protectionism takes hold and there is no improvement, that will have an effect on our economy. We do have to navigate that challenge. The Deputy asked what this effect looks like. In fairness, it is outlined in the progress report published by the Minister yesterday in terms of what the economic growth looks like, what job creation looks like and the different levels we would be at in that scenario compared to a scenario where there is a free flow of trade. We will keep working at this calmly and, as the Deputy said, with cool heads.
Sentiment score: 0.15
I am not dragging my feet. Regardless of our political persuasion or whichever party we are in, or whether the people watching from home support Government parties, Opposition parties or neither, people in this country are sickened, appalled and disgusted by what we are seeing in what Israel has done in Gaza and what the Israeli Government, as the Deputy rightly said, is very openly and blatantly proposing to do in relation to Gaza. That does require all of us to do more and I include Ireland in that. I do not share the Deputy's view of what Europe has done to date. The European Union, of which Ireland is a part, has provided very significant financial assistance to UNRWA on a multi-annual basis, only agreed a couple of weeks ago at the first EU-Palestinian high level dialogue, to help support the Palestinian Authority. Action is being taken on that but Israel is not listening. Nothing that has happened to date has changed the situation here in terms of Israel actually showing restraint, or issuing statements calling for restraint, when there is a government in Israel that plans doing the exact opposite. What we are doing here at a national level is continuing to work at EU level. That makes sense. I said this to Senator Black yesterday. If this is about having impact and applying maximum pressure to help bring about a ceasefire, a cessation of violence and a two-state solution, the EU living up to its obligations under the human rights clauses of the association agreement is what has to happen. I was interested yesterday to see the Netherlands join Ireland's and Spain's call for this to happen. In the hours ahead I intend to speak to counterparts to see if more countries will come on board and echo Ireland's call. The human rights clauses in trade agreements or association agreements are not there for padding. They are not there to make the agreement longer. They are not discretionary extras and they have to count for something. We are all pretty furious that they do not seem to count for something at the moment. We will continue to work at that. Let me be clear that we are going to take forward legislation on the occupied Palestinian territories. The programme for Government is clear on that. We intend to honour that. I had a very good meeting with Senator Frances Black yesterday. She is a very good person and her motive here is to try to do some good. At that meeting I committed to going to the Government this month to seek a decision to move forward on that. We will have a longer time to discuss the contents of what is in that legislation but I will have to be honest in only being able to put something in the legislation that will stand up to legal scrutiny and that is in compliance with the laws by which we have to operate. There is a benefit of publishing a Government Bill and going to an Oireachtas committee. I will not speak for the Senator but I think she saw the benefit in this too, which is the opportunity to actually tease this out and to bring in people and hear different perspectives, to get the best legislation possible. I hope that in Ireland bringing forward legislation it might encourage and spur other countries to say, "We could do that too". If the EU refuses to act as a collective on this, why do a number of member states not do what we are proposing to do here in Ireland?
Sentiment score: 0.28
It is not a matter of reneging on anything. I do not mind saying in this House, and I would be very happy to engage and share this more fully, but the legal advice available to me is that there is a narrow pathway - and it is a narrow pathway - under the ICJ advisory opinion for member states to seek to move ahead unilaterally, for want of a better phrase. We have not yet been able to identify the narrow pathway on services. That is the truth. It is not a policy position; it is a legal position. However, as I said to Senator Black, who has a different legal position, is that we are happy to engage on this. There is not a policy difference or policy objective differences; there truthfully is not. However, there is a need to make sure any Bill can withstand the inevitable challenge that this will face. I am happy to work through this. Regarding the issue of Irish airspace, I did honestly say that it is hard to have the level of knowledge that I think we all need to have in terms of what happens in our skies. I do not just mean in our skies, but more internationally. I did say that we will have to look and consider whether we need to change domestic legislation and whether we need to work at an international level in terms of the legislation and covenants, many of which date back to the 1940s, that govern this as well. We have clear laws regarding what can and cannot go through Irish sovereign territory and the requirement to seek an exemption from the Minister for Transport, and that, of course, is the point of reference I was making.
Sentiment score: 0.35
That is what it is.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I think this is probably the only Parliament in the world where Members of the Parliament stand up and suggest that the Irish Government's position is anything other than supportive of the people of Palestine. It is usually quite the opposite, in fact. Any of us who attend international meetings and forums will know that Ireland is usually seen as almost an outlier - worryingly, perhaps - in terms of our level of support for international law, for human rights, for the people of Palestine, for a two-state solution and in calling out, as our Taoiseach did, the war crimes being committed by Israel. Coming to this Chamber, I get a completely different representation. Ireland is not standing idly by. Deputy Murphy quoted my words, I think, of this Tuesday. Ireland is not standing idly by. Ireland has already outlined even more steps that this country intends to take, both domestically and internationally, with regard to supporting the people of Palestine, but more profoundly, in terms of supporting international law and human rights. We continue to do that and will continue to do that at every opportunity. Deputy Murphy also said I said something earlier as though I said it for the first time. I also said it on Friday night in the interview to which he referred, that we do need to have a better understanding and knowledge as to what happens above our skies and indeed below our seas. I find it somewhat ironic that the Deputy who raises this issue is the same Deputy who would oppose any increase in defence spending to increase the capabilities of Óglaigh na hÉireann in terms of monitoring what happens in our skies and below our seas, because that is exactly what we need to do. The Deputy can shake his head if he wants-----
Sentiment score: 0.20
I know-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
I thank Deputy Murphy for shouting me down again. I know his party is having difficulty this week as they will not take questions from some journalists if they do not like the questions. When he comes to the House, he asks me a question and will not allow me to answer it. He does not take questions from some and does not accept answers from others. Do not shout me down, please, on an important issue. With regard to this situation, I have made it very clear what Irish law states. As a Government Minister and a leader in Government, we obviously rely on the laws of our land. The laws are very clear with regard to the Air Navigation (Carriage of Munitions of War, Weapons and Dangerous Goods) Orders of 1973 and 1989, that expressly prohibits civil aircraft from carrying munitions of war in Irish sovereign territory without being granted an exemption to do so by the Minister for Transport. I have also made the point that it is one thing about what people wish to inspect when it is on the ground but, when a plane is at 30,000 ft or 35,000 ft in the air, I would be very interested in hearing from the Deputy his practical and implementable solutions in terms of what more we can do. I do not say that, by the way, in any flippant way, because, to be very clear, I think we need to do more on this and that we need to see change internationally regarding this. This being dictated from international covenants and agreements of the 1940s does not reflect the reality today. I also think we need to have better clarity and understanding around munitions and parts, and absolute clarity as to what needs to be declared, because the law of this country is clear and robust in terms of Irish sovereign airspace, but then there are also the practicalities in terms of the implementation. Work is ongoing in the Department of Transport. The Minister, Deputy O'Brien, confirmed that to me again as recently as this morning, in terms of what more measures Ireland needs to take with regard to our own law or what more measures Ireland needs to seek to take internationally.
Sentiment score: 0.14
I will wait until the Deputy is finished. I thank him.
Sentiment score: 0.18
He is coming over to me. I thank the Deputy for that but, obviously, the process through which the Government will go is examining the allegations. The Department of Transport is examining them. I agree that any breaches of Irish law must of course have a consequence. Irish law matters. I am very clear on that, as is the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport. If there have been breaches of Irish sovereign law, decisions will need to be taken on the next steps based on clear and robust evidence. We also need to be clear - and this is the point I was trying to make - that if existing legislation does not provide for the implemention of a system of routine and random inspections but rather requires that there first be an appearance of intention or likelihood for a civil aircraft to depart from a point in the State in a manner that would contravene the legislation, for example, carrying munitions, it is a legitimate question for the Government. I will consider whether we need to amend our domestic legislation and whether more needs to happen internationally. I am very clear that any breach of Irish law cannot be consequence-free. I agree with the Deputy on that. The Department of Transport is carrying out a robust examination of all these matters and it would advise the Government on what next steps are required.
Sentiment score: 0.25
Deputy Gogarty is right in pretty much every word he said. This is an area that requires a lot more action and, as we have said before, and we mean it by our actions at both an EU and a domestic level, the era of self-regulation is over. We were talking about trade and tariffs a few moments ago; let us talk about another thing - values. Our values in this country and our values as Europeans matter too. Regulating social media companies - companies that can do good - is really important. Getting this right is really important, as is not being browbeaten by anybody in any part of the world in terms of having a regulatory structure in place that protects our democracies, protects our people, crucially, and, most importantly, protects our children and our vulnerable citizens. We are not where we need to be in this regard. Being a parent today is even more complex and challenging a job than it has been in the past. It always has been, no doubt, but that idea of your child having nearly a better knowledge of technology than you have and you running to try to keep up with them is a source of huge concern for parents right across the country. The Deputy is right that we need to look at what other countries are doing. My colleague, the Minister, Patrick O'Donovan, beside me has asked his officials to do exactly what the Deputy suggests, to look at what other countries like Australia are doing. Australia deserve great credit for the steps they are considering. I have been looking into this recently. They have given themselves a bit of a lead-in period because they are working on how you practically implement some of the measures they would like to implement around age verification. What is very clear is that we have a digital age of consent in Ireland and it is 16 and, in my view, there are what amount to workarounds that have been found that mean that while we say there is a digital age of consent of 16, there are so many kids now on social media well before that. CyberSafeKids alarmingly reveals that 84% of under-12s have their own social media accounts or instant messaging accounts, despite the minimum age restriction being 13 on the most popular apps, and around 93% of eight-to-12-year-olds have their own smart device. This is a ticking timebomb. We need to get serious in terms of empowering and supporting parents. We need to tackle that FOMO of "I must do it because somebody else of my age also has a smartphone or is on social media". Now, with the existence of Coimisiún na Meán, and with, as the Deputy said, the experiences from other countries, this is an area that we should act on. Very serious consideration should be given to the idea of having to be 16 before you are on social media and aligning that with the digital age of consent in Ireland, which is also 16. We should work constructively across parties, perhaps through the new committee structures and the likes that will exist in this House, to really scrutinise this, to learn from other jurisdictions and to use the resources we now have through the European legislative infrastructure to take steps that will support our children.
Sentiment score: 0.34
Deputy Gogarty is not doing this, but sometimes we can blame the European Union. The European Union has given us pretty decent legislative infrastructure here. It is now up to member states, including Ireland, to decide how we wish to utilise that. The era of self-regulation is over beyond my just saying it in the sense that there are now codes in place and there is now an ability to fine companies that do not comply with the codes. I am genuinely concerned about the age verification piece. Of course, we must empower and entrust parents. Parents raising their children is something we all agree with, but we also know as parents that you can support parents through your laws. In my hometown of Greystones we brought in a voluntary smartphone ban in primary schools. Parents were delighted because you did not have to start having the conversation with the son or daughter about everybody else in the class having a smartphone. It provided cover and support for all parents to say, "No, in this town we do not do smartphones in primary schools." That is now being rolled out to many other things. Getting that same culture in terms of the age at which people use social media is an interesting step. The Deputy proposed some very interesting ideas, I am happy that the Minister with responsibility here has heard them, and let us continue to engage on this.
Sentiment score: 0.24