The history of the European Union is one of defeats in popular votes in Ireland on Nice and Lisbon, in France and the Netherlands on the EU constitution, in Greece last year on the austerity package and now in Britain. Each time, the response of the establishments across Europe was not to question why people rejected the project. Instead, the EU's guiding principle was contained in the words of Mr. Bertolt Brecht, namely, that it would be easier to dissolve the people and elect another. It seems that the Labour Party is an adherent of Brecht in that respect.

The Brexit vote must not be treated in that way. Instead, it should be used to open a discussion about what kind of Europe we have. Do we continue with the elitist, anti-democratic project of this capitalist Europe, a Europe that dictates water charges and austerity, an authoritarian Europe where the European Central Bank intervenes to remove elected governments, a fortress Europe that concludes disgusting deals to imprison migrants in Turkey and a militarised Europe that is today discussing accelerated co-operation with NATO?

Alternatively, do we build a very different Europe - a socialist Europe for the 99% built on democracy, solidarity and co-operation?

The Deputy is on the same side as the Tories.

Will the Government now take action to refuse to be constrained by the EU rules that amount to an undemocratic and neoliberal straitjacket?

I have three specific questions. First, does the Tánaiste accept that the blatant attempt by the European Commission to subvert the outcome of our general election, in other words, to dissolve the people, should be resisted and that this Dáil is free to abolish water charges? If so, will she dissociate herself from the comments of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, and the Minister of State responsible for European Affairs, Deputy Dara Murphy, who have welcomed the Commission's intervention precisely because it backs up their own political position, subverting the ability of this Dáil to get rid of water charges and, incidentally, subverting Fine Gael's own agreement with Fianna Fáil?

Second, given that the Irish State is, incredibly, not allowed, because of the EU fiscal rules, to spend the €5 billion in the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund or use the €2.4 billion in cash that NAMA has to build homes to resolve the crisis, does the Tánaiste agree that those rules have to be broken and should be dismantled? Does she agree that the need of people to have homes comes before the Thatcherite dogma contained in the fiscal treaty that the Government side supported?

Finally, and this is important, does the Tánaiste agree that under no circumstances should the Government vote in favour of or accept the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between the European Union and Canada at the European Council? This includes a mechanism for investor-state dispute settlement, the element that has aroused most opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, because it effectively allows corporations to sue states if they interfere with their right to profit. As well as being completely odious to any vision of democracy and people's rights, its application without a vote in this House would be in contravention of the Constitution. Article 29.5.2° clearly requires the approval of the Dáil to be bound by an international agreement that could result in a charge on the State.

First, I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of the role of the European Union and the part Ireland has played in it over the years or of the benefits that have come to this country as a result of our participation in the European Union. There are many people in this country who fully support our participation and are very conscious of the benefits that have accrued to this country. That is not to say the result in the United Kingdom will not give rise to ongoing discussion about the future of Europe. I referred in my speech yesterday to social Europe and the need for greater emphasis on social Europe and on ensuring everyone benefits. I referred to the need for the benefits of decision-making in Brussels to be felt by everyone.

Let me refer briefly to the summer economic statement, published a number of days ago. Are we not very fortunate that the Irish economy has improved to the degree that it has, thereby putting the country in a better position to deal with the potential consequences of the vote in the United Kingdom? It puts us in a position in which our people can be more protected from any potential fallout.

I have already spoken about the Government's position on the Water Framework Directive and the plans we have in this regard. The plans remain on course and we will not be changing them. I remind the Deputy that those who participate in European decision-making when directives are being agreed have been democratically elected by countries from around Europe. There is democratic decision-making in regard to directives and each country takes its position in this regard and deals with directives at national level.

On the Deputy's point about the future economic outlook and the fiscal rules, that was all very clearly laid out in the document and addressed during the course of the debate here. That remains the Government's position.

The potential implications of Brexit, at least in the short term, were taken into account when the summer economic statement was being drafted and published. The immediate impact of a potential vote to leave was set out in that statement.