Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is good to hear the Irish Presidency will focus on youth unemployment. Like everyone, across all parties and none, we want to see this acted on and delivered during the six months of Ireland's Presidency. We know some countries in the European Union have introduced measures that have kept youth unemployment at a low level. Countries like Ireland, with and unacceptably high level of youth unemployment, need to look seriously at many of the credible and viable initiatives and adapt them to our local needs and conditions.

Earlier this month, the EU Commission launched its action plan on youth jobs. Young people across Europe were waiting and hoping that something concrete would emerge or that new thinking would gain traction. The plan is welcome but it is weak and, crucially, it does not commit to any new funding to tackle youth unemployment as a problem that needs its own focus. Youth unemployment is running at 30% in this State and is as high as 49% in Donegal. In Dublin South-West, my constituency, it is 40% but some estates in Tallaght have rates far above that. If we could factor in the young people who have left because of the lack of work, the figure would increase dramatically. In the recent budget, one element created a push factor by reducing the time people are eligible for jobseeker's benefit. We hope progress can be made on youth unemployment during the next six months but people are not holding their breath with the Commission’s weak and vague plan.

My suggestion is that there is nothing stopping the launch of a young entrepreneurs fund during the Irish Presidency. Is there any difficulty in doing so? It could be funded by the European Investment Bank and, in view of the crisis in youth unemployment, if the fund is too low nothing stops member states increasing their subscription to the EIB for such a fund. That is a positive suggestion. We should do something concrete during the Presidency. The Taoiseach referred to the employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs, EPSCO, meeting taking place during February, with youth unemployment the main focus. We need to move beyond that and put something concrete in place. From listening to the Tánaiste, there is common agreement that this is the crisis facing us. I suggest putting something in place. There is a view that this is falling on the shoulders of the Irish Presidency but I would like to think we are genuine in moving it forward.

The adaption of the funding arrangement could also be looked at in view of the crisis with the 50:50 requirement being altered to a more realistic 75:25 for youth jobs in disadvantaged communities and regions. The bank recapitalisation could call on something like €700 billion from the European Stability Mechanism. Surely we can come up with some realistic proposal emerging during the Presidency for such a project considering there is so much common agreement across Europe.

The Taoiseach also mentioned the Common Security and Defence Policy. The conclusions of the European Council summit make large references to the European Common Security and Defence Policy. It states that in today’s changing world the EU "is called upon to assume increased responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security...and the promotion of its interests". Who is calling on the EU in this regard? Should it not read that the EU wants to assume greater international powers to promote its own interests? I refer to free trade agreements with countries that have abysmal human rights records.

Colombia, for example, is the most dangerous place in the world for trade unions.

The conclusions also outline how the further development of Europe's military capabilities will increase employment and growth. Future employment and growth will not come from the militarisation of the EU. Member states should be reducing the amount they spend on militarisation and wars and invest in disadvantaged communities alongside viable stimulus packages to create sustainable growth and employment. Where will the products of further militarisation go? Will they go to Israel, Syria or Libya? We should focus on growth and employment plans and not on an industry that profits from death and destruction, particularly in areas around the world that are underdeveloped and disadvantaged.

It is mentioned in paragraph 34 of the conclusions of the summit that the European Council agrees to increase, enhance and strengthen Europe's common security and defence policy. It speaks of conflict prevention and crisis but also of increasing Europe's military technology and research. Is it not reasonable to ask how increased militarisation of the EU ensures conflict prevention? Only six member states are not members of NATO, so how can the EU speak of its high regard for conflict prevention? The EU seems not to be aware that many countries, like Ireland, are neutral.

We need only look at the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at what might happen as more EU NATO countries back the opposition in Syria, to see how committed to conflict prevention these states are. In fact, the whole European Council conclusions on common security and defence policy is so full double-speak that even George Orwell would be surprised.

There is also reference in the council conclusions to the situation in Syria. It states that the European Council tasks the Foreign Affairs Council to work on all options to support and help the opposition in Syria. I am concerned about these matters and I will ask questions about them later in the debate.

See this speech in context