Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his comments. With regard to the Middle East, obviously, this is of paramount concern and is the number one issue facing the European Council, given the horrific context that we can see on our screens every week, the atrocities carried out in Gaza and the reprehensible response by Israel against very vulnerable people. It is also in the context of the destruction of critical infrastructure that underwrites that population, such as schools, hospitals and so many items of infrastructure that citizens rely on, and also because the risk of starvation is huge in that area.

First, we are trying to expand the coalition calling for a ceasefire. The Deputy is correct to point out that we came together with four countries to try to shift the dial at the European Council level by putting forward a submission together. We are currently trying to increase the number of co-authors that can put a submission to the European Council that would bring significant pressure to bear to bring about a united call for a ceasefire in the conclusions of the Council. It is very challenging and we should not understate that. We can see today that the High Commissioner is under pressure in terms of the original call by the Council in December to have a list of aggressive settlers drawn up for sanction by the EU. This morning, I note that some countries are raising issues with regard to that which were not raised at the December European Council. It is a huge concern for Europe. We saw the dial move at UN level in the two votes but, significantly, some countries, in particular, Denmark, voted one way at the UN and then changed that view at European Council.

We have a lot of work to do. We are doing our best and using all of our diplomatic muscle. I raise this regularly at the General Affairs Council meeting and also on the margins with my fellow Ministers. We are all well aware that some countries have a particular history and really need a push to get over the line to what seems to us a very straightforward human rights issue, namely, that we would have a ceasefire and humanitarian corridors would be opened. I know a lot of work is going on at present to get a second ceasefire but it needs to be permanent. The Tánaiste is in the US this week and he will be carrying that voice as strongly as he can. We continue to meet with interlocutors in the region and the Tánaiste has been there on a number of occasions to try to shift the dial. It is challenging but we are doing our best.

I remind people that Ireland was at the forefront in calling for a ceasefire. We have a very strong track record on this. I would also be very clear that we are doing a huge amount of work. I feel that we are doing our very best, using multilateralism, not disengagement, which is important.

One has to talk to people to challenge them on their views. That is what we are doing as a country. We have always had a strong record, like getting the two-state solution through as European policy. We also have a strong record where we are best-suited in diplomacy. We will continue with that. I am concerned that we do not make it a wedge issue in Ireland because the Irish people are on one side. They know what is happening in Palestine is atrocious and reprehensible. We see the suffering. We are all from families with parents and children. We know exactly what will happen, which is that much fertile ground to grow Hamas will be provided by what Israel is doing, with its disproportionate collective punishment on those people. I assure members we will continue to do our very best in that regard.

It was great to get agreement about Ukraine. It was interesting to see that the ask was not as significant as some would have thought. There is a provision for the Commission to be invited to make a review after two years. That is interesting language from the conclusion of the European Council meeting. I have raised it with my Hungarian colleague. It is unacceptable to hold European leaders to ransom at every single meeting. That is why we could not have a situation whereby a review mechanism would be built in every single year, because that is really just offering a political stage for Hungary to meet the President of the European Council and some of the larger states in the Union, which I think comes off poorly for people looking in, because it looks like it is not equality of opportunity for everybody around the table. We have much work to do on that. They are still, at informal meetings, raising the issue of Hungarian minorities on Ukraine. That is ongoing and we have heard clear arguments back to Hungary on that. We hear a series of excuses from them. We continue to raise these issues firmly. At the General Affairs Council, we got a bit of confidence from the Hungarians and their minister for European affairs that they were signalling that an agreement was in sight. There was some comfort in that regard. There is much more work to do. We have to have our eyes open to the enlargement process so that when countries come in, they espouse European values and are up to the mark that would be required to be in Europe.

On the French-German issue, that was a think-tank paper, not a European paper. It was just a think-tank from the two ministers, which they presented. There was significant opposition to the paper at the General Affairs Council when the think-tank presented it. I see it as a valuable tool in one respect, in articulating various sides of the debate, which is coming from two larger countries. Lithuania has stepped forward since that, having put its paper together for the General Affairs Council. It was informal and not an official paper. I will circulate the Slovenian-German paper to the committee. It is quite a short paper.