David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I support what Deputy Crowe said about the question of imports from settlements in the West Bank. This may not be the best time to raise it because very sensitive negotiations are taking place. I am not expecting the Tánaiste to raise this issue immediately. There is a very important legal aspect to this. I have an opinion from a learned counsel, of which perhaps the Tánaiste is aware, which indicates that the State is under a duty not to give preferential treatment to these goods, that it is under an obligation to take this seriously and that it would be permissible for the State to take a unilateral step. It does not have to wait for the rest of Europe. Various case laws have cited the case of Brita, a fruit juice company, versus the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen, the customs authorities in Hamburg, which went to the European Court of Justice, and the decision on it was a very useful one. I will not go into because it is far too technical. The clear indications are that products originating in the West Bank do not fall within the territorial scope of the EC-Israel agreement, the Euromed agreement, and therefore they can be subject to this measure, in addition to which, the Israeli settlements in Palestine have been held by the International Court of Justice to be illegal. There is a mass of law in this respect. On the question of the European Court of Justice holding that public policy exception could be construed narrowly in respect of the free movement of goods within the Union, it emerges that such a restrictive interpretation would not apply to goods which were banned from Ireland. I have further legal opinion on this.

The Tánaiste might give a general response on this matter and I could pass on to him the various legal opinions. It would be very helpful if we knew, as Deputy Crowe said, the basis in case law on which this decision was made. The very moment might not be the best time but we have to be involved in the process. I join those who have condemned the bombing in Tel Aviv and also the brutal execution of seven people in Palestine, in Gaza, suspected of being informants. One principle to which I hold is the right to a trial and the right to due process. We do not have that even with our American friends when they use their drones. What has happened to the right to represent oneself and the right to be tried?
The Tánaiste, interestingly, spoke about the application for a limited form of UN representation and apparently there is not a unified position on this by the Council of Foreign Ministers. What will happen in that case? The Tánaiste has not specified it. Will there be a free vote? In that case will Ireland vote for this limited form of recognition? I certainly hope it would. The Tánaiste said it would be damaging for the reputation of Europe and for the whole situation if we had a Common Position of abstention. I would hope that in the absence of that, there would be a free vote.
I support what was said about the Democratic Republic of Congo. What can be done? Can the International Criminal Court be involved, particularly with regard to the involvement of states and named members of their governments in Rwanda and Uganda?
On Syria, the Tánaiste, interestingly, said that it is a welcome development that a loose coalition was developing among opponents of the Assad regime but indicated that since it was only just established, we did not know enough about its complexion to give it formal recognition. What can we do short of that? I note the Tánaiste's principled objection to intruding further into the situation. Can we give support and encouragement that falls short of formal engagement and, if so, what kind of support and encouragement would that be?
I look forward to some correspondence with the Tánaiste on the detailed legal matter I raised and I will not bother the committee with it.