Dáil debates

Wednesday, 2 July 2014

1:45 pm

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to update the House on what was a very significant meeting of the European Council last week. The main outcomes of the summit were the nomination of Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission, agreement on a strategic agenda for the EU for the coming period and the adoption of strong conclusions on Ukraine. Leaders also agreed Council conclusions on justice and home affairs, the European semester, regulatory reform, climate change and energy. In addition, association agreements were signed with Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine and leaders endorsed candidate status for Albania, the EU's maritime security strategy and the annual report on EU official development assistance.

Before going into more detail on these discussions, however, it is also worth recalling that last Saturday marked the 100th anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, an event which quickly led to war on an unprecedented scale. In the words of President Van Rompuy, "a spiral of self-destruction engulfing this continent of civilised nations". I was proud to represent Ireland at the commemorative ceremony in Ypres, which preceded the European Council meeting. It was a solemn occasion and a moment to remember 35,000 Irishmen who perished in that awful war.

However, as we remember the past, we must also look to the future. This is a critical time of institutional change and renewal for our Union. Just a few weeks ago, we voted to elect 751 members to the European Parliament. Some 371 of these are first-time MEPs. The new Parliament convened for the first time yesterday and on 16 July, it will vote on the nomination by the European Council of Jean-Claude Juncker to be the next President of the European Commission.

I have supported Mr. Juncker since his election as EPP lead candidate in Dublin last March and I am delighted that agreement was reached on his nomination. He is a very experienced and capable politician. He understands that the European Union must remain resolutely focused on growth and jobs and on delivering for our citizens, and I am looking forward to working with him.

I am also acutely conscious of British reservations and I respect their position. Prime Minister Cameron made his position very clear and he, along with Hungarian Prime Minister Orban, voted against the nomination. However, I am also aware that Prime Minister Cameron and Mr. Juncker have since been in touch to clear the air and that they are both committed to working constructively with one another.

Prime Minister Cameron has also made it very clear that he wants the UK to remain within the EU and that his position on this has not changed. The general debate on the EU within the UK is an issue of significant importance for Ireland. As I have said on many occasions, EU membership is good for the UK and good for Ireland. Ireland and Britain have a shared agenda in the EU. We have similar core interests in the Single Market, free trade, financial regulation and justice and home affairs issues. We do not want to lose a key ally in the EU. We want to keep working together on all of these issues.

Common membership of the EU has also been a force for reconciliation and a framework for co-operation on this island. Working together as partners in the EU has had a very positive effect on Northern Ireland and on Ireland's relations with the UK, which are now in better shape than at any time in our history. This was evident during President Higgins's recent state visit to the UK. Even in the context of the positive state of North-South and east-west relations and irrespective of mitigation strategies, a British exit from the EU could have extremely serious consequences.

Our trading relationship today rests on the Single Market. Removing or even shaking this foundation could be very damaging to our economic co-operation. Let us consider some of the statistics. Our bilateral trading relationship with the UK is worth approximately €60 billion a year. We trade more than €1 billion in goods and services every single week. Ireland is the UK's fifth largest trading partner and the UK is the third largest investor in Ireland. The UK accounts for 17% of all Irish exports and approximately 19% of all imports. Almost 40% of all exports from the agrifood sector in 2013 were destined for the UK.

The Government is acutely aware of the importance of this issue. While ultimately the decision is one for the British people, we will continue to press home the benefits of EU membership in Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. It is fair to say that all of my colleagues are aware of British concerns and sensitivities and this is recognised in the Council conclusions from last week. This is an area where we will remain highly engaged. It is worth noting that the European Council also agreed that it consider again the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission in the future.

As I mentioned at the outset, Mr. Juncker's appointment is now scheduled to be confirmed by a vote in the European Parliament on 16 July. He and I have already agreed that, once his election has been confirmed, we will discuss the membership of his new Commission and the portfolio to which Ireland's Commissioner may be assigned.

As the Members of this House are aware, a number of other key appointments remain to be made this year, including the President of the European Council and the High Representative. President Van Rompuy has invited the European Council to meet again on 16 July to consider these appointments.

It would send the wrong message to citizens if the European Council had focused solely on personnel questions. For me the priority last week was not who will get the job but what needs to be done and what needs to be delivered for European citizens. With this in mind, Heads of State and Government agreed on five overarching priorities for the period ahead. These cover growth, jobs and competitiveness, empowering and protecting citizens, energy, justice and home affairs and the Union as a strong global actor. These five priorities will guide the work of the European Union over the next five years.

First and foremost, our strategic agenda reflects an unambiguous commitment to strengthening the economic recovery. There is clearly more that can and must be done to respond to unacceptably high levels of unemployment. This will mean restoring normal lending conditions through a fit-for-purpose financial sector, maintaining strong momentum on the Single Market and external trade agendas, creating a climate of entrepreneurship and addressing investment bottlenecks more generally, including in the crucial areas of transport, energy and telecom infrastructure. We have to prepare our economies for the future.

I welcome, in particular, the explicit acknowledgement of the important role of the European Investment Bank in the strategic agenda. There has already been a significant increase in EIB support to Ireland over the past couple of years, and we see potential for further development of the project pipeline over the period ahead, including in the crucial area of financing the SMEs that will create most new jobs. I am particularly pleased that, at Ireland's request, the strategic agenda also highlights the importance of thriving agriculture as a core part of Europe's future. Our Food Harvest 2020 plan is central to indigenous jobs growth.

Ultimately, our Union is about its people. It is important that the strategic agenda recognises the need to ensure opportunities for all and to challenge poverty and social exclusion.

We need to pay particular attention to supporting the development of the skills and capabilities needed to respond to the accelerated pace of change in today's labour markets. With a quarter of employers across Europe saying they find it difficult to fill vacancies, there is a shared challenge in adapting our education and training systems to 21st century reality. I expect this work will continue to be informed by the key principles of youth guarantee schemes agreed under the Irish Presidency early last year, including through new partnerships with the workplace. It will also build from our commitment to a stronger investment outlook.

The need for an energy union, for secure, affordable and green energy is also recognised as a priority, as is work on justice and home affairs issues. It is also important that the new agenda is not inward looking as that would send the wrong message. The EU is an important global player. We must promote stability, prosperity and democracy in our neighbourhood and work with our global partners. The Union has an important role in human rights and conflict prevention as well as development and that was a point which we emphasised in the preparation of the conclusion document.

On Friday morning in Brussels, Heads of State and Government heard from Ukrainian President Poroshenko who provided his assessment of the current situation in the east of the country. The European Council expressed its strong support for the 15-point peace plan which the President had announced the previous week. Leaders regretted that the ceasefire, while it had been respected by the Ukrainian authorities, had not yet led to an end of military hostilities in eastern Ukraine, and called upon all parties to genuinely commit to the implementation of the peace plan. The Heads of State and of Government also urged the Russian Federation to actively use its influence over the illegally armed groups and to stop the flow of weapons and militants across the border, in order to achieve rapid and tangible results in de-escalation. The European Council called for a number of concrete steps to be taken, including agreement on a verification mechanism for the ceasefire, a return to the Ukrainian authorities of three border checkpoints, the release of hostages and the launch of substantial negotiations on the implementation of the peace plan.

There has been further contact with the Presidents of Ukraine and Russia over the weekend and we are now engaged with our EU partners in assessing the extent to which there has been progress on these steps. The EU Heads of State and Government are scheduled to meet again on 16 July. The situation in Ukraine will feature on the agenda of the meeting and we will discuss what further decisions might be necessary. The stabilisation of Ukraine's economy is of crucial importance. In its conclusions, the European Council welcomed the two recent significant Commission disbursements totalling €750 million in the framework of the state building contract and the macro financial assistance. The EU will continue to support President Poroshenko's determined actions towards peace and stability in Ukraine that we have seen since his inauguration.

The European Council finalised and adopted the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational co-operation in justice and home affairs in the coming years. The guidelines, developed over the past year, are far less prescriptive than the previous programmes and that should provide the flexibility to rapidly react to emerging trends. The overall priority of the new guidelines is to consolidate and implement the legal instruments and policy measures already in place. We must support this emphasis. It is important that there are periods when one reflects on what has been done already and on what tools are available to one. That allows one to consider if one is using them correctly and to maximum effect.

Along with other countries, we also stressed that the guidelines should be flexible enough to allow for further legislative measures when necessary and when additional costs are justifiable. Overall, the guidelines represent a balanced approach for the years ahead, which cover all the necessary elements for a Union of freedom, security and justice. This includes the policy areas of asylum, migration, border control, police and judicial co-operation and criminal and civil law. The guidelines also address important horizontal issues such as data protection and free movement.

I draw attention to the fact that this European Council concluded the European semester process for 2014. Heads of State and Government endorsed country specific recommendations, CSRs, to the member states. These will now be taken forward through the budget and policy cycles across the Union in the coming months. As I indicated to the House last week, we see the CSRs for Ireland as broadly sensible and consistent with established policy considerations and orientations.

Last year marked our return to net employment growth for the first time since 2007. This year will see a return to net employment growth for the European Union as a whole. The CSR package agreed last week, underpinned by the strong focus on investment in our strategic agenda, will reinforce the momentum for this recovery into 2015 and beyond. We have also set in this context a high level of ambition for the Commission's REFIT or regulatory fitness programme: Withdrawing unnecessary proposals, improving what is already in place, and repealing what is out of date. That is an important political emphasis that has my full support. I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Donohoe, to update the House on the climate and energy discussion and other aspects of the meeting, which he will do during his contribution.

1:55 pm

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sometimes in these contributions we would appreciate plain speaking on some of the core issues. Much clearer language could have been used, in particular on the country specific recommendations, to elucidate matters for the public as there is much devil in the detail of them that has not been articulated at all.

The Taoiseach's remarks to Deputy Creighton were instructive and enlightening. Clearly, if someone gives a personal rant - by the Taoiseach's definition - he or she will not be allowed to speak again.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They will.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It reflects an authoritarian streak in the Taoiseach's demeanour that is alive and well.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Freedom of speech is always allowed.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a very insightful comment by the Taoiseach. Last week he was full of generosity and he said I could have a minute or two of his time but because someone made what the Taoiseach considers to be a personal rant, no time is being provided this week.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very amenable to all Deputies having their say.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a very petty, authoritarian streak.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All Deputies can have freedom of speech.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the case from what the Taoiseach said.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Martin's crowd blocked such an approach in the 1930s.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the House-----

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If someone indulges in a personal rant-----

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Deputy that we are speaking on the European Council meeting rather than anything else.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was waiting for Deputy Buttimer to intervene.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy Martin remember the fight we had for freedom of speech in the 1930s?

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are back on track.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Taoiseach talking about the 1930s?

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Martin has possession. Go raibh maith agat.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Fianna Fáil Party used to break up public meetings.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Taoiseach bringing back the ghost of General Eoin O'Duffy?

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I certainly am not.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Members that we are discussing the European Council meeting in Brussels.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. That is the context of my remarks. By any objective measure last week’s summit was a mess. At a time when the citizens of Europe are demanding a plan to reform and renew the European Union the Heads of State and Government did little more than argue about jobs for themselves. The debate was about personalities with vague platitudes being offered on substance.

With much of Europe threatened with deflation and already experiencing a weak or non-existent recovery, leaders discussed nothing which would change the direction of policy. Incredibly, a new President of the Commission has been nominated without any discussion of what he proposes to do in the job. Jean-Claude Junker has a well-earned reputation for being able to get deals done. In his years in the Council he repeatedly helped to offer ways of nudging disputes towards a resolution. That is important for one aspect of the Commission President’s role; what it is not, is a qualification for the job. The Commission President is supposed to be a leader with a clear vision of the future, and with a deep commitment to making the Union work for its citizens, not just for the political elite. As I said last week, Mr Junker was an active enforcer of failed policies which did Ireland real harm when he was chairperson of the Eurogroup. The orthodox policies which he supported are directly linked to the scale of the bank debts being carried by Ireland - large parts of which were converted into sovereign bonds last year by the Government.

It is amazing that the Taoiseach and Tánaiste supported Mr Junker’s nomination without asking him to at least acknowledge how the policies he supported had impacted on Ireland. Indeed, a clear statement of support for Ireland’s case for significant relief on bank-related debt is something which could and should have been sought. Mr Junker may well turn out to be a good Commission President. He may be a visionary. He may show leadership and a real connection with citizens. He may even be a forceful advocate for Ireland’s case. If he is any of those things it will have had nothing to do with anything he said before the Taoiseach signed up to supporting him. Neither is he the choice of the people of Europe. We should put an end to that nonsense. To claim that he is would turn the basic concepts of democracy on their head. I do not know the reason the Taoiseach did not raise debt relief in the context of the appointment of such a significant figure across Europe.

This was a major omission on the part of the Taoiseach. Mr. Junker was a legitimate candidate for the job and his record makes him a credible choice. However, to present him as inevitable and to refuse to discuss the substance of his programme as Commission President should not have been acceptable. The lead candidate system has no legitimacy and it did not lead to a pan-European debate and campaign.

It is a sad fact that in the sixth year of a pan-European crisis, with many of the foundations of the European Union badly damaged, there has been no substantive discussion about reforming the Union. The only matter which any member of our Government has talked about publicly is what job they might get for our next Commissioner.  The Tánaiste and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, are now in an open fight through the media for who will get the job. Each is pretending that he can deliver more for Ireland and each is targeting elements of the media to push his case. Of course not one word has been uttered about wanting to reform the European Commission, change its policy direction or do anything else of substance.

The media briefings of the Minister, Deputy Hogan, have said that he is has a promise of the agriculture portfolio and that this will mean big things for Ireland.  That portfolio is indeed worth having, but only if the holder of it has a commitment to fighting the non-stop effort to move Europe away from supporting farm families and rural communities. The Minister is the chief political enforcer of a Government that has targeted cut after cut at rural Ireland.  The basic educational, security and commercial services on which our rural communities depend have been singled out for cuts. Three years ago the Minister grabbed control of community development programmes and has since then used them as areas for easy cutbacks. This has gone so far that, as my colleague Deputy Ó Cuív has exposed, even a committee appointed by this Government has called for a reintroduction of many of the programmes that have been shut down. We can only hope that the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has a different set of priorities to bring to the Commission because the communities of rural Ireland cannot take any more of this. These communities scored very highly on European benchmarks in some programmes but the Minister proceeded to emasculate them.

The only argument pushed in favour of the Tánaiste being appointed to the European Commission is that it gives him a decent exit from the Government and it is claimed that he is so prominent among socialist parties that he will get a big job. Once again no one, either on the record or off the record, has said a word about how his appointment would be good for Ireland or for Europe. This is the logical extension of a situation where the Government has consistently refused to lay out any European policy. When something is agreed the Taoiseach tells us why it was a great decision but he has never set out what we want from Europe or what reforms we are looking for. This has now become critical because of the scheduled British referendum.

It has always been the case that British Euros-cepticism has been based on slogans and prejudice rather than a fair response to the European Union's activities. It is a simple fact that the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, launched a campaign for renegotiating membership without deciding what he wanted to renegotiate.  Some 18 months ago he launched a review of competencies to study the facts of membership of the European Union and to set out areas where competencies should be repatriated to member states.  So far this review is behind time because in area after area the facts are proving to be stubborn barriers to the grand renegotiation the Tory Party has announced. Following public consultations and detailed studies, the bulk of the review has said that the British economy and society are benefitting from membership and would suffer if every country were to do their own thing. I understand the difficulties that were faced last week in finding a face-saving formula after the Prime Minister's grandstanding on the presidency of the Commission failed but it would be completely unacceptable if the European Council were to actually agree to the Tory Party agenda. Its vision of a simple free-trade zone is absolutely against our interests.  It would destroy the basis for large numbers of basic social protections and threaten real market access for our companies. Everyone is in favour of reducing bureaucracy and removing unnecessary regulations.  However, if the intention is now to begin the full-scale rollback of core protections, and this is unequivocally the Tory Party agenda, there will be massive public resistance.

It is one of the great failures of the European Union that it has allowed a false choice to develop that claims that a person can either be a sceptic or a federalist.  This is a superficial and damaging choice that misses the fact that the significant majority of people, even during this crisis, want the European Union to work better.  Over two thirds of citizens voted for broadly pro-European Union parties in the recent elections, here and throughout Europe. At a time of unprecedented crisis, of a challenge to the European Union's basic principles and the resurgence of extreme ideologies Ireland has to stop standing on the sidelines waiting for everyone else to sort things out. Where does Ireland stand in the debate on the future of Europe? What are our plans if Britain votes to leave the Union in three years' time? What are we going to do about the glaring holes in the response to the euro crisis? At a very minimum it is long past time for a formal statement of Ireland's European policy.  The last time this was done was before the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and events have changed radically since then.

The summit also discussed the situation in Ukraine and the continued efforts of elements supporting Russia to further partition the country. The decision that the leaders made on a new round of sanctions is fully justified by the facts. The signing of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova was an important and welcome conclusion to a process where their former imperial power did everything it could to undermine their sovereign choices to enter these agreements. The argument pushed by some, including Members of this House, that Europe is partly to blame for the situation in Ukraine because of these agreements is ridiculous.  The effort to imply a moral equivalence between the behaviour of Europe and Russia is offensive. These association agreements are freely entered into by the democratically elected governments of sovereign states.  They are about neighbours agreeing ways of helping each other and achieving sustained development.  In contrast, Russia's behaviour has been purely about an imperial power demanding its right to control the destiny of neighbouring states. Each of the three states has territory under the control of Russian troops and has been effectively threatened with permanent partition and part-occupation because of a refusal to follow Moscow's orders.  In each of the occupied territories there has been a clampdown on many civil rights.

As a small nation that has suffered the long-term impact of partition, we should reject the false relativism of those who try to avoid pointing out Russia's aggressive and unacceptable behaviour.  In an irony that must be commented on, Russia is currently demanding regional autonomy within Ukraine even though similar autonomy was abolished within Russia itself. The member states of the European Union are entitled to form close and peaceful relations with neighbouring states.  We must remain committed to this and follow up the many promises that have been made to these democratically elected governments. They have been attacked by an increasingly irredentist neighbour that appears to be operating an ideology which combines Cold War and Tsarist themes.

The conclusions of the summit on energy security are welcome because it is the first time in a number of years that a sense of urgency has been seen on this agenda.  It was mostly about taking stock, and the bigger decisions remain to be taken.  A good move by our Government would be to show its commitment by reversing its downgrading actions on climate change and sustainable energy.

It is very likely that Mr. Juncker will be confirmed by the European Parliament.  Once this is done leaders will meet again to sign off on other appointments.  The role of President of the European Council requires someone who has shown both leadership capacity and a willingness to respect all member states equally. The drift towards exclusive clubs of larger countries and the marginalising of the full Council has to end as it is eroding the legitimacy of the Union and is leading to bad decisions.  The failure to properly respond to Ireland's situation in 2009 was directly linked to a European Council that was too dominated by a small number of voices.

The Taoiseach has cited the European semester agreements as an important contribution to growth and jobs.  This does not pass even basic scrutiny as the recommendations agreed by the Council involve a further doubling down on the principle of austerity for all and growth through competition.  This is the same strategy that we have had for five years and it does not work.  Countries that could be helping stimulate growth are instead being pushed into being more restrictive. As was confirmed yet again at the weekend, there is a two-tier recovery under way that is seeing a huge number of people left behind.  The economy in Ireland and in many other countries needs a stimulus and the Taoiseach has signed off on recommendations that actually oppose this.

The Taoiseach has once again given us little more than a reading of the final communique from the summit.

He has continued his policy of not taking a position on any contentious matter and saying absolutely nothing on major issues of concern to Ireland. This strategy has to end. Ireland needs a reformed and renewed European Union to lead real growth. Nothing the Taoiseach has said, and nothing which was discussed last week, brings us any closer to this.

2:15 pm

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for the absence of Deputy Adams. He is involved in a meeting, for the first time, with Prime Minister Cameron. I made the point earlier to the Tánaiste on the difference in the approaches of the Irish and British Governments. The Irish Government has been much more inclusive, meeting parties all the time. Unfortunately the British Government has not adopted the same manner on talks, which is a negative step. I hope it will change from today. I look forward to the important discussions the leaders will have on resolving the Haass talks process.

One of the key conclusions of the European Council meeting was its recommendation to the European Parliament that Jean-Claude Juncker should be the new head of the Commission. It looks like Mr. Juncker's appointment will be ratified by the European Parliament on 16 July in Strasbourg. I do not know whether the Taoiseach agrees the campaign became overly personal rather than focused on the real and important issues of what type of Europe we want to see emerge. The Taoiseach made this point in his speech. The debate should have focused on the continued negative austerity policies enforced by the troika, the democratic deficit in the European Parliament and Commission and the increasing move towards the federalisation of the European Union. Amid the daily discussions on the top jobs and Jean-Claude Juncker there have been no discussions on alternative EU policies or opening the EU institutions to bring them closer to the citizens. Instead it was left to the British Tories to push their conservative Euro-sceptic agenda.

There is an issue about the lead party in the European Parliament nominating a candidate who is then appointed, supposedly with consensus, as President of the Commission. Why should the Council not nominate its own candidate through a campaign and then have a vote? This would be an option and many would see it as being much more democratic. The secrecy and decisions made behind closed doors in these selections continue to tarnish and damage the image and reputation of the EU institutions. The back room and secret deals between the EPP and the S&D, which is the group of socialist and democrats, added a bit of colour to the show. We see that Martin Schulz will be re-elected President of the European Parliament and Jean-Claude Juncker will be the President of the Commission.

Yesterday the four Sinn Féin MEPs voted for the GUE NGL candidate for the President of the Parliament, the Spanish MEP Pablo Iglesias, who offers an alternative voice to those who bear the burden of the European Union's anti-social crisis policy. We argued that by voting for Pablo Iglesias we voted for a different type of Europe. There is a need for a Europe of solidarity which would create growth and jobs and, as the Taoiseach stated, a Europe which would move away from austerity policies and the undemocratic diktats of the troika.

We have a fair idea who will be the President of the Commission and attention is now being drawn to who will be Ireland's new Commissioner. There are many rumours and much media speculation and I am sure the Taoiseach would be able to fill us in today on who will be the new Commissioner. Perhaps he will announce it at the end of this debate.

Photo of Jerry ButtimerJerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind Members this is statements on the European Council meeting and not on the new Commissioner.

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is part of the issue. I apologise for upsetting the Acting Chairman. Perhaps it will be the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, or, if reports are to be believed, the Tánaiste is pushing for the same role. This highlights problems with how we select the Commissioner. It is part of the debate on how we see Europe. We had been discussing the President of the Commission and the debate has now moved on to who will be the Commissioner. This is the context in which I raised it.

Many groups and individuals, including Sinn Féin, would like to see reform of the process through which Ireland's Commissioner is selected It would be a positive debate and perhaps we can have it at some stage. It is part of how we think Europe should develop. We would like to see open and democratic debate on who should represent Ireland on the Commission, rather than a handful of people around the Cabinet table taking the decision. I would like to see it opened up, and a debate on this would be positive. Most people would look forward to it and we could talk about the merits or demerits of the candidates. Does the Government agree that a more transparent process would help reduce the democratic deficit of Commissioners being appointed by the national parliaments of member states? It is a viable question and perhaps the Minister of State will reply. They should be compelled to regularly report back to their national parliaments. This would be a positive step. I know they are not elected by a specific parliament, but it is important to have such interaction between national parliaments and the Commission. This would probably require a treaty change but in the interest of improving public confidence in the EU institutions, and we know there is a big gap in this regard, it is an issue worth considering and may lead to a greater and more inclusive debate on Europe.

The consensus on austerity and the European semester continued at this European Council meeting. I did not get a sense of what happened from the Taoiseach's speech. I agree with Deputy Martin that we do not get feedback. Certainly I do not understand many of the ins and outs. We do not understand what position Ireland takes on many matters. The Taoiseach mentioned Ukraine and we do not know what position Ireland has adopted or what proposals we are putting forward. Perhaps this debate is useful for us, as we get coverage, but people listening at home do not get a sense of what actually happened. This is a problem and is part of the disconnect. I looked at some of the media coverage of the European Parliament. Perhaps more time is given to issues and there are questions and answers, but one gets more of a sense of an issue, which we do not get from this debate.

It is clear that momentum is gathering to re-examine the austerity rules which have proved so ineffective and damaging to many countries and to the idea of a social Europe. We welcome the announcement that the Italian and French Prime Ministers have called for a relaxation of the budget rules. It is positive that this debate is taking place in Europe. We are approaching our budget in October, and the EU Commission continues to insist on a €2 billion cut to keep on-side with the rules. We all feel we need to move away from this. It is in Ireland’s interests that these rules are relaxed. Ireland and Europe cannot afford more years of sticking to rigid and severe austerity demands. This is not just coming from Ireland but from throughout Europe, including from groups in Germany and other countries perceived to be doing well. People are asking for the approach to this to be re-examined. Did the Taoiseach take a stance with those in favour of fairer and less harsh rules and against those who are wedded to strict implementation of austerity rules or did he continue to support the direction in which Europe has been going which has been so disastrous for many people? This is a very important debate and I believe the Government must side with the movement against the harsh and binding austerity rules. If the Taoiseach is not willing to lead can he at least follow the lead taken by other countries?

I mentioned Ukraine and on Friday the EU signed an association agreement with Ukraine. I welcome that democratic elections took place and that a new Government has been formed.

It was also heartening to see a ceasefire negotiated between the government and different groups involved in the conflict. Sadly that ceasefire expired yesterday and attacks continued on both sides. It is important all sides and international actors, particularly from the European Union, renew their efforts to work towards finding an inclusive and lasting peace process. We would all collectively agree in the South that that is the way forward. Getting those parties to sit down at the table is critical and is the only way we will solve that problem.

The UN reports more than 400 people have been killed in Donetsk and some 110,000 people have fled to Russia while a further 54,000 have been displaced within Ukraine. The Ukrainian people have suffered under corrupt and ineffective governments for too long. It is accepted that there have been difficulties in the past. The result has been a deterioration in socioeconomic conditions and the effective bankruptcy of the state. I probably disagree with Deputy Martin; in my opinion some of the recent problems in Ukraine stem from the EU, US and Russia playing a zero-sum geopolitical game with Ukraine. Much of this negotiation took place in the middle of winter which is a bad time to be negotiating, particularly in that region.

I am under no illusion of Russia’s self-interest in this region and its reasons for its recent behaviour, but I feel the EU has to do more to find an inclusive solution to this spiralling crisis.

2:25 pm

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin supports the Russian imperial drive.

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am not saying that at all. The Deputy should listen to what I am saying. I have not said that.

I read in the conclusions that the meeting also dealt with immigration issues. First, I welcome the Government’s decision, made last week, to resettle 220 Syrian refugees here in 2015 and 2016, as well as the continued financial commitment to the humanitarian crisis there, which now amounts to over €28 million, which is a huge amount of money. However, I still feel we could be doing more to open our doors to refugees fleeing violence and destruction in that war-torn country. New figures released by EUROSTAT last week revealed that Ireland comes last when it comes to granting refugee status to asylum seekers, in contrast with our support for development aid and so on; there is something wrong there. While Ireland accepted just 40 Syrian refugees last year and a total of 205 refugees in general, Denmark, with a population similar to that of Ireland, accepted 3,360 refugees. Malta, which has a population of just 500,000 people, accepted 1,610 refugees. While we talk about overseas aid we are one in the worst in Europe when it comes to opening up our borders for some of the most disadvantaged. Those who are fleeing violence and conflict were down at the bottom.

Additionally we now have direct provision in place for over 14 years, which is rife with human rights violations and is morally wrong. I hope the Government will end the direct provision system and also accept more Syrian refugees in the immediate future.

Furthermore the discovery of 30 dead bodies in a boat carrying 600 people across the Mediterranean has again highlighted Europe’s failure to act in the face of an ongoing human tragedy facing those trying to enter the EU. We need to have pathways - economic pathways and so on - to open up Europe. Some 5,500 migrants arrived in Italy at the weekend alone, which is a huge figure. This is not a time to bow to right-wing lobbies or anything else. It is a time for solidarity to help migrants. Northern European countries need to help southern European countries in dealing with this issue humanely. What was the Government's position during the negotiations and discussions on this issue? Perhaps we can take that as part of the question and answer session at the end.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Clare Daly who is sharing with Deputy Boyd Barrett.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to deal with two issues that highlight very well the bankruptcy of the EU as an institution at the moment. They expose the nature of this organisation which was established and operates in the interests of European big business and in that sense has little to offer ordinary European citizens regardless of where they reside. I refer to the developing disaster in Ukraine and the issue of GM crops which, sadly, is alive and flourishing on the EU agenda at the moment. Both of these areas will have lasting consequences on the lives, health and wellbeing of European citizens.

I believe the tragedy in Ukraine is a consequence not just of the failure of the EU in terms of offering a solution there, but also as a direct result of some of the antics of the EU in that region, along with its colleagues and friends in the United States, intervening for their own economic and military gain - and to hell with the consequences.

As a result of that obviously yesterday saw the end of the ten-day ceasefire by Ukrainian President Poroshenko and his ordering of troops and forces to attack pro-Russian separatists. This has led to a sharp intensification of fighting in eastern Ukraine, which is highly regrettable. However, there was not much of a ceasefire in existence anyway with both sides accusing the other of ignoring the situation on the ground and many fatalities and atrocities being carried out in the course of that alleged ceasefire such as the killing of the Russian journalist on Sunday evening travelling on a bus along with Ukrainian mothers going to visit their sons who were conscripts in the army in that area. It gives a good insight into the difficulties there.

We see a sharp increase in the number of civilians allegedly being wounded and an escalation of shelling by government forces. It is a bit ironic that the Russian delegation argued for the ceasefire to continue but the EU responded by announcing it would implement sanctions against Russia while standing by and not making the same call in terms of President Poroshenko. Of course the EU is saying that, but there are very different interests at the helm of the EU. The US obviously wants harsher sanctions against Russia while Germany needs Russia onside particularly because of its energy needs in that area.

It is clear that the situation is a right mess and the only thing we can say with certainty is that ordinary citizens whether they reside in the east or the west are losing out. It is an absolute disaster. While nobody here would have any truck with the former president, Mr. Yanucovych, or his ousted regime, nonetheless it was an elected government which the West facilitated to undermine and replace with another ultra-right wing - similar in some ways - oligarch who is in control at the moment.

I do not welcome the signing of the EU association agreement because I do not believe it will deliver anything for the people of Ukraine. On the contrary it will contribute to a massive deterioration in living standards in that regime. It is accompanied by IMF austerity against the backdrop of a very difficult economic situation, including a 50% drop in the currency value, huge unemployment and huge economic difficulties in that area. Relaxing and slashing import tariffs from the EU will not assist that situation.

Already we have seen certain retaliatory gestures from Russia, which is Ukraine's biggest export market. In the middle of all of this, while the oligarchs at the top battle for control, the people on the bottom suffer in terms of their wages and living standards. Meanwhile, obviously, the threat of war is escalating. It is a bit ironic that while on the one hand the EU talks about the Russian threat, the Russian moves are very understandable given how NATO has basically encircled it up to the border, and, in effect taken over the Caucuses and very much moved in.

In reality Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine feel very vulnerable. They represent a sizeable part of the population and have long sought a democratic federation that reflects the ethnic diversity in the region.

However, what is happening now is serving to unravel that and make it worse. As John Pilger has described it, these people are neither separatists nor rebels but are citizens who want to live securely in their homeland. That is the position facing most Ukrainians, no matter what side they are on.

In that sense, as a neutral country, this is what we should be reflecting when intervening in the situation, rather than taking sides as we continue to do. I wish to quote from a sociologist in Kiev, who I believe describes the situation very well. He wrote:

Rather than constructing ... hypocritical justifications as to why military suppression of some armed protesters is better than military suppression of other armed protesters, why the pro-Ukrainian far right is better than the pro-Russian far right, why the Ukrainian neoliberal government is better than the Russian neoliberal government, or why we are ready to fight Russian imperialism but ready to accept western imperialist interests in Ukraine, it would be better to support [the] progressive wings [on both sides] ... unite them against the ... ruling class and against ... nationalisms and imperialisms [with] shared demands for social justice.
To me, that is the way forward and is a voice which Ireland, as a neutral country, should be championing around the European Union table. Sadly, however, we prefer to coat-tail the European establishment and, behind the scenes, the establishment of the United States.

The other issue that will have a lasting impact is that of genetically modified, GM, crops. While I am aware that Ireland voted against the introduction of GM corn last February, I believe the Minister, Deputy Hogan, later took a more ambivalent position by welcoming the fact that under the new arrangements, countries could opt out and therefore implied in a way that it basically was okay. I do not accept that viewpoint and believe Ireland has been highly ambivalent and non-committal in its approach to this important issue, as reflected by the fact that Ireland has allowed the GM potato trial in County Carlow. This is not good enough because opting out is not really an option in a Europe in which countries are side by side with one another. Cross-border contamination is a real issue and the impact in that sense cannot be confined within national borders. Ministers are aware that many anti-GM groups have described the latest deal as being seriously flawed and that even the legalities of the national opt-outs are highly questionable. Consequently, the Minister should do more in this regard. Ireland should oppose it when it goes before the Parliament because it will have an enormously damaging impact on our agriculture unless we speak out on it.

2:35 pm

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The whole issue of the selection of the President of the new European Commission, the question of who will be Ireland's Commissioner and so on bring into focus the problems that are facing the European Union, or rather the crisis it is facing and on which the Taoiseach touched when he spoke of the danger of Britain pulling out. Perhaps this more generally reflects the dramatic rise of various forms of what is called euroscepticism, whether it is the defection from Fianna Fáil of Brian Crowley, the alarming and frightening growth of the far right in parts of Europe or, on a slightly more progressive plane as far as I am concerned, the growth of left-wing forces in recent elections across Europe. Such forces, coming from a different perspective, are extremely critical of Europe and of the direction in which Europe is going. Meanwhile, we have a beauty contest over personalities. It is not focusing on the policies but rather on which personalities will get the spoils.

The Taoiseach should note these two things are connected. The growing legitimacy crisis for the European Union results from ordinary citizens' perception of the Union as being undemocratic, corporate dominated and a honey pot for the political class to get exceedingly well-paid jobs to further their own careers, while ordinary people across Europe are getting hammered with costs and austerity and while democracy is being slowly eroded and undermined for ordinary citizens. That is the reality and is why what is called euroscepticism is growing. I am interested not in the personalities but in the policies. The only point I would make in passing about Jean-Claude Juncker is that his surname of Juncker is appropriate because Europe is dominated by austerity junkies and I suppose it is appropriate that a man called Juncker is taking over as President of the European Commission. However, the issue is the policies. That is what people want to know about and they seek changes in the policies in order that Europe becomes more social and more democratic.

However, all the indications are that it is moving in the opposite direction and the more it moves in that corporate, undemocratic direction, the more one will see the rise of euroscepticism and growing resistance to the European agenda. Some of that scepticism can take worrying and alarming forms in the rise of the far right. While the Taoiseach began his speech by referring to what happened in the First World War, he should think seriously about how both that war and the Second World War broke out. It was blocs vying for influence and worried solely about the pursuit of profit, territorial control, expanding territories and so on that actually led to those conflicts and, of course, ordinary people paid a terrible price for that. There are worrying signs in this regard and I will provide a few examples. As some of us stated while opposing the various treaties, it is becoming increasingly apparent that European Union state aid rules mean Ireland cannot solve the social housing crisis because the State is not allowed to borrow money to build social housing. Effectively, the State must privatise or introduce water charges at least, because European Union state aid rules preclude the State itself from borrowing money to invest in the infrastructure but instead, the State must make it profit-orientated. At every turn, EU rules are acting in an adverse way to undermine the ability of the State to protect its own strategic interests, to protect its strategic industries, to solve the social problems facing its people and at every turn are encouraging a race to the bottom for ordinary people.

The transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, is a classic example of this, whereby the Americans are insisting that as part of this deal, we must have an investor-state trade dispute mechanism that essentially would allow multinationals to sue governments that try to protect the interests of their citizens and to get around domestic law. America is demanding that this be included in the agreement. Germany and France have indicated concerns about it because it would undermine precisely the capacity of the state, in so far as it represents the citizens, to represent the interests of those citizens by protecting industries, jobs and conditions. This is what is happening and Members should consider the examples of Bausch and Lomb, Greyhound and the Cement Roadstone dispute that is under way at present. All of them are demanding 20% pay cuts and all are multinational entities. In the case of Greyhound, its owners are not even tax resident in Ireland. As Members are aware, CRH was at the centre of the Ansbacher scandal and now is up to its neck in deals with Israel and so on. The interests of multinationals are being pursued at the expense of ordinary citizens and the workers who work for those multinationals. That is what is going on.

In the final minute remaining to me, this point brings me to an important issue that is not merely about economics but about the politics of all this. One aspect of where Europe is going wrong is corporate domination in respect of the economic impact on ordinary citizens in Ireland and elsewhere. Another aspect is the complete lack of morality when it comes to foreign policy, best typified by our relationship with Israel. It is absolutely extraordinary, as Members again witness another entire series of tragedies exploding because of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and its resolute refusal to give the most basic civil rights to Palestinians. Members see the tragedies unfold again but Europe will allow Israel into the Horizon 2020 agreement, whereby we will give some of its major firms, which have been involved with building the apartheid wall and in doing all sorts of stuff for the Israeli military as it pursues its agenda of oppression in the West Bank, grant aid for research and development. It is absolutely unbelievable that we would do that. Consider the double standards when it comes to Russia. Europe jumps up and down stating it must have sanctions against Russia because of what it is doing in Ukraine. However, where are the sanctions against Israel for what it has been doing brazenly to the Palestinians for the past 20 or 25 years?

Despite its brazen behaviour, the European Union gives Israel favoured trade status and grant aid to develop the industries it is using to persecute the Palestinians. Europe does not have a future if it does not change direction and policy.

2:45 pm

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now have questions and answers for 20 minutes. I ask Deputies to do their colleagues the courtesy of asking brief and succinct questions.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the fundamental point of the Government's support for Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker's bid to become President of the European Commission, will the Minister of State indicate whether the Taoiseach held discussions with Mr. Juncker prior to his appointment? If so, did he seek to secure his support for Ireland's case for significant relief on bank-related debt? Did the Taoiseach and Mr. Juncker discuss that specific point prior to the appointment of Mr. Juncker? Did they discuss Ireland's urgent need for relief and if such engagement took place, what was Mr. Juncker's response? Mr. Juncker has not given any indication of his views or perspective on implementing the agreement that, according to the Government, marked a seismic shift in the European Union's position on debt relief and the separation of sovereign and bank debt. We were told Ireland would obtain debt relief.

Will the Minister of State outline in more detail the Government's position on the climate change agenda at European level? The Taoiseach made somewhat ambiguous remarks last night on Ireland's climate change targets. Are we pulling back from previous targets? The final communiqué is also somewhat ambiguous on climate change. In what direction is Europe heading on this issue?

What are the Minister of State's views on Ukraine, on which we heard different perspectives this morning? Does he agree that it is offensive to suggest there is some degree of moral equivalence between the behaviour of Europe and Russia? The European Union did not annex any part of Ukraine and its decision to enter into association agreements with countries such as Moldova and Ukraine is not an offensive or a mischievous strategy but a sensible one in terms of the EU and its neighbourhood. I am struck by the Sinn Féin position on this issue, which is essentially one of support for an imperial power partitioning another country. Likewise, I was struck by some of the comments of Deputies Clare Daly and Richard Boyd Barrett who become animated - correctly - about many injustices in other parts of the world but are silent on Russia's behaviour in areas such as freedom of speech and protection of basic rights, even for its Russia, not to speak of Ukrainian citizens.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it is. We must be very clear on this matter. Will the Minister of State confirm that Ireland's support for the association agreements is not based on geopolitical manoeuvring on the part of this country or the European Union and that the agreement with Ukraine is a relatively minor step towards addressing its severe structural and economic problems?

The communiqué is clear that youth unemployment is a serious issue across the European Union and an area that is not showing improvement. Does the Minister of State accept that much of the language used in the text is hopelessly ambiguous on issues such as youth unemployment and economic growth?

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind that a number of Deputies wish to ask questions.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond first to Deputy Martin's questions on an area of agreement between us, namely, developments in Ukraine. I make the same point every time the House discusses Ukraine and developments in central and eastern Europe. There is no equivalence between the actions that were taken by the Russian Federation and European Union in the run-up to the crisis in Ukraine and since. The key point is that a democratically elected Government in Ukraine exercised its sovereign right to begin negotiations and discussions with the European Union. Ukraine began the process and the European Union participated in it. There was no coercion or force involved in Ukraine's decision to instigate the negotiations. In the run-up to the partnership summit in Vilnius, the Government of Ukraine took a different course of action and its decision was afforded the same respect as its decision to begin the negotiations. At each point in the process, the European Union has stressed the rule of law and the right and ability of countries to make sovereign decisions.

Last week, three countries, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, exercised their democratic right to sign agreements to deepen their respective relationships with the European Union. The President of Ukraine, who was democratically elected in a vote that was overseen by international monitors, last week expressed his wish to deepen his country's relationship with the European Union, as is its right. There is no equivalence between the role of the European Union and Russia in this crisis.

I disagree with Deputy Martin's contention regarding the language used in the communiqué on youth unemployment. The conclusions of recent meetings of the European Council have all contained a recognition of the crisis of unemployment and an acknowledgment of the role of bodies such as the European Investment Bank and the Youth Guarantee, which is designed specifically to address youth unemployment. While I acknowledge that youth unemployment is a scar on society and unemployment is a crisis, I also welcome the ongoing decline in the number of people on the live register. Unemployment has fallen for the past 22 months in a row. The 66,000 jobs created last year also benefited young people.

On the climate change agenda, Ireland is committed to delivering the objectives that have been set for addressing climate change and reducing carbon emissions. We note, however, that these are challenging objectives which must recognise two factors. First, the unique characteristics of different economies must be recognised. Ireland, for example, has a very large agricultural sector, which plays an important role in the economy and society. We have ambitious plans for agriculture, which can play an important role in addressing issues such as food security. Second, it is essential to measure accurately the current position of the economy and understand what climate change targets will mean for us. The Government is engaged in discussions with the Commission on these matters.

Deputy Martin asked a series of questions on Mr. Jean-Claude Juncker. The Government's remains committed to dealing with bank debt and the portion of the national debt that can be ascribed to the need to support the banking sector. Mr. Juncker, as a member of the Eurogroup and the head of state of Luxembourg, was present during many of the discussions that took place in the run-up to the decision to recognise the need to break the link between sovereign and banking debt. The Government will continue to work with him on this issue.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not an answer to my question.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Martin made comments about the leadership of the Fine Gael Party and the manner in which we conduct ourselves in Europe. He leads a party that does not have any Members of the European Parliament left, having recently managed to lose its only MEP.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was the issue of debt relief discussed? That was my question.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy must also answer the questions he posed on leadership in the European Union.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be fair to other Deputies, we must move on.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will respond to other Deputies in a moment but this issue is directly relevant to the charges made about leadership and our conduct in Europe.

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State should have the decency to answer the question. He should not abuse the process.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated, the Deputy leads a party that no longer has any Members of the European Parliament. His position reminds me of a comment made by Oscar Wilde when discussing a very difficult matter. To paraphrase Wilde, to lose two MEPs is a tragedy but to lose the last one is downright carelessness.

Deputy Martin is leading a party that has no representation left in the European Parliament due to his actions and it is at least indicative of hypocrisy for him to stand up here and make charges on how we conduct ourselves in Europe.

2:55 pm

Photo of Micheál MartinMicheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister of State answer the question?

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Returning to what I was saying, we can talk about Ukraine and how that situation came about. On the peace process and necessary negotiations in that regard, can the Minister of State outline Ireland's view of how the European Council sees that process developing? What role will Ireland play?

I note in the conclusions that the European Union will now ban all goods that it can prove came from Crimea. This is a point Deputy Boyd Barrett was making in response to Russia's takeover of the region. It is amazing that the European Union can do this in the case of Crimea, and yet it cannot do it in the case of the Palestinian-Israeli situation where, for instance, there are illegal settlements and the occupation of land. Is it a little strange that we can do it in the case of one region and we cannot do it in the case of another? That raises a number of questions. It comes across as hypocritical.

On climate change, on the last occasion I suggested the creation of a register of European multinational companies, some of which are involved in land-grabbing around the world. Did that arise on the agenda? Was there any discussion in that regard?

The Taoiseach, in his speech, spoke of new strategic guidelines in justice and home affairs. It is about the process we are going through. He stated, "The overall priority of the new guidelines is to consolidate and implement the legal [aspect]". I ask the Minister of State to read that paragraph. It states:

We must support this emphasis. It is important that there are periods when one reflects on what has been done already and on what tools are available to one. That allows one to consider if one is using them correctly and to maximum effect.
What does that mean? This is a speech that is supposed to explain what was going on at a meeting, and it is gobbledygook. Perhaps I am reading it out of context.

The process is supposed to inform us of what went on and what the Government said. I presume that is the purpose of this process. If the Minister of State cannot reply today, perhaps he could respond at some stage. Would he agree we need to review this process of statements from the group leaders and the question and answer session? One does not get a sense of what happened. It is important, not for our benefit but for the listeners at home, that we gain a sense of what goes on at these meetings, what they are discussing, who agrees with what, what are the flaws, what are the agreements and in what direction we are taking.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the sake of efficiency and to give everyone fair play, I propose we take Deputy Boyd Barrett's questions now as well.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I make one quick point? I am happy to do whatever the Acting Chairman wishes, but Deputy Crowe asked me about a particular number of lines which he quoted.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Then the Minister of State should take Deputy Crowe's questions.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If Deputy Crowe would identify where they are, I will answer his specific point, perhaps, when Deputy Boyd Barrett has put his questions.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Boyd Barrett has been waiting for some time.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Ukraine, if I can put the question clearly and in context for the Minister of State because Deputy Martin's mischaracterisation of our position is not helpful in clarifying the views on this. It is extraordinary that when Deputy Clare Daly clearly indicated her outright opposition to Russian activities in Crimea and Ukraine, as I have done, Deputy Martin mischaracterises our position as being somehow supportive of Russia. So that we are absolutely clear, what Russia has done is wrong. It is imperial manipulation for Russia's own strategic self-interest. The question arises, is Europe engaged in the same activity? The Minister of State says it is not. Does he accept, for example, that the expansion of NATO, the military alliance closely linked to the European Union, will represent a threat to Russia and produce a reaction? One would have to be a fool not to recognise that the Russians would perceive that, or the expansion of the European Union at the expense of Russian spheres of influence, as a threat. The Minister of State should not get me wrong. Russia does not deserve those spheres of influence, but neither have I any great sympathy for European spheres of influence. My point is that this big-power bloc politics is dangerous because it sets populations against one another.

The second point is related to the points I made earlier. If we had a social agenda rather than a NATO agenda and a corporate agenda, we might precisely be able to undermine the conditions where populations get set against one another, because underlying conflicts between peoples are nearly always issues, such as economic deprivation and unemployment, being channelled in dangerous directions. What we or anybody who has a progressive agenda must do is put the social agenda first in a way that undermines the conditions for war. Is it not the case that Europe is going in the opposite direction because of its focus on multinationals at the expense of morality, fairness, equality and the social agenda?

Lastly, is our relationship to Israel proof positive of this? I cannot understand, and ask the Minister of State to justify, how Europe imposed sanctions on Russia - not on those in Crimea or doing business in Crimea - for what it was doing in Crimea, but when it comes to Israel we do not impose sanctions on Israel for what it is doing in the occupied territories. We make a distinction, stating that while Israel cannot behave as it does in the occupied territories we will do nothing about it, but we will do business with Israel as if nothing is going on and, in fact, we will give favoured trade status to Israel. How can the Minister of State explain that contradiction?

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for all of their questions.

I thank Deputy Crowe for sharing the text with me. On the paragraph to which the Deputy refers in regard to the language about "new guidelines", support of emphasis, etc., I agree with the substantive point he makes. The language we use to talk about what is going on in the European Union, and sometimes about politics in general, could be a lot more clear and unambiguous. That is why, for example, I welcome initiatives that we have seen happen this week in practical and tangible matters that will make a difference to consumers within the European Union and in a way that they can readily appreciate.

On Deputy Crowe's direct point here about what that language means, it is used in the context of a paragraph about justice and home affairs on how our police and laws will co-operate with each other to deal with matters of joint concern. The paragraph is trying to say that it is important, before we look at new measures and look at how we might develop that in the future, to reflect on what we have at present and to ensure it is working as well as possible. That is the intent of this.

On Deputy Crowe's question about the role of the European Union in the Middle East, Ireland has continually stressed at the Foreign Affairs Council the need for more prioritisation and continued focus from the EU on what is happening in the Middle East and all that can be done to ensure that the peace negotiations recommence. I am aware of what is happening at present with the initiative by the US Secretary of State, Mr. Kerry. The US has said it is paused and it will look to recommence it in the future. We welcome the fact that in Palestine a government has been formed that seeks to represent all of the different groups and factions in that area because we believe, based on our own experience, that an inclusive administrative will find a way of conducting negotiations with everybody in the region to lead to peace.

On the discussion on Ukraine, while I ended on a point of disagreement with Deputy Martin earlier, I agree with much of what he stated on the analysis and discussion on Ukraine. I genuinely disagree with Deputy Boyd Barrett when he asks what is the difference between the actions of the European Union and Russia in this situation. Deputy Boyd Barrett asked what is the key point of difference on the discussions and activities that have taken place. For me, it goes back to the point of consent.

We have never forced anybody to join the EU and have never used any policy tools or instruments that might be in any way coercive. It is all about other countries either wanting to join the EU or associate themselves with it. It is an entirely peaceful and voluntary process. That is the core point of difference between what we see in the EU-----

3:05 pm

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister of State has five minutes left. He can either use that time to make a formal statement or continue replying to those questions, or a combination thereof.

Photo of Paschal DonohoePaschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will continue and will then make some concluding comments on the areas the Taoiseach has asked me to mention.

That is the main point of difference. The Deputy referred to the role of corporations and big business within the EU, and the difficulties and problems they can pose for the ordinary people whom he and I represent. I ask him, however, to look at the EU's role in regulating and dealing with them. I would point to the banking union. What better way do we have of dealing with large banks and global banking corporations if not through the member states' ability to pool their sovereignty - in other words, to work together to come up with better regulation methods than they could on their own?

For example, if a bank of systemic risk fails, arrangements are now in place for burden sharing among bondholders. In addition, owners and shareholders will have to take a hit and the consequences of that failure first. That role was directly negotiated through the EU. It is about dealing with the very point the Deputy raised on how we can deal with large business that have an awful lot of power.

The other side of the coin is that the very multinationals the Deputy regularly castigates and criticises are the same ones that employ many people in Ireland and elsewhere in the EU. They play a vital part in growing national economies and the European economy generally. I am very much aware of the other side of the coin. While large companies need to live up to their responsibilities, they do provide employment and tax revenue on which national governments depend. Many of them provide employment and services on which small and medium-sized companies are very much dependent. Apart from what the Deputy said, therefore, there is a wider picture. One of the EU's roles is to help national governments, particularly those in smaller countries, to deal with large organisations that could pose a systemic risk to a government or national economy.

I will now conclude by referring to some areas that were touched on in the debate. We have already discussed the association agreements. I repeat that these are voluntary arrangements that were entered into by the governments of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. I attended the ceremony where the association agreements were signed. On that occasion, President Van Rompuy said they represented a historic milestone within the history of the EU with partner countries. They also represent an important development in the EU's eastern partnership, whose aim is to create a zone of prosperity in that part of Europe. That objective has never been more important.

We welcome the decision of the European Council to grant Albania candidate status. I have visited that country, as did members of the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs last week. These are the early stages of what is a very important process for the Albanians. It will provide more incentives and encouragement for the Albanian Government to continue with the kind of changes needed to benefit the Albanian people in regard to legal, economic and public administration matters.

Some Deputies asked me where we currently stand on the climate and energy framework discussions for 2020. At the European Council, leaders took stock of where we stand at the moment. The main Council meeting on that, however, will take place in October. At the most recent Council, Heads of State and Government welcomed the publication by the Commission of the energy security strategy. That is all about making more efforts to reduce Europe's high energy dependency.

The Council meeting also touched on the European maritime security strategy which was developed under the Greek Presidency. It provided a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of building a Europe-wide consensus on maritime security. As an island nation with an extensive coastline, we are obviously very much aware of that issue.

A large number of important topics were discussed at the European Council. Through this discussion, I have done my best to respond to the comments and questions put to me by Members. I look forward to participating at the Committee on European Union Affairs on the next briefing that will take place in the run-up to the next General Affairs Council.

Photo of Joe O'ReillyJoe O'Reilly (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State and other Members for their participation in the discussion. That concludes statements on last week's European Council meeting in Brussels, pursuant to Standing Order 102A(2)(b).

Sitting suspended at 2.16 p.m. and resumed at 3.16 p.m.