Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity to engage with the committee. I very much value the advice, commentary, observations and guidance of committee members. I thank them for that. I am sure that in the course of 2015 we will have an opportunity to deepen our engagement. I will endeavour to ensure my schedule facilitates that end. The expertise in the committee is very much underlined by the fact that some of the questions that have been asked earlier have been answered satisfactorily by members of the committee. That is testament to the importance of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade in the Parliament.

I was very pleased that High Representative Mogherini included in her programme an opportunity to engage, however briefly, with the committee. She told me prior to Christmas that, when coming to Dublin, she was most anxious to respect the input of parliamentarians and that her visit would not be complete without an opportunity to engage with committee members. I accept that Monday is often not the most appropriate day for either the Chairman or committee members. On behalf of the committee I will again convey to the High Commissioner the gratitude of members for the opportunity to engage with her.

A number of issues were raised. Deputy Smith and others raised the matter of the timeframe. The timeframe for completion is 1 January 2016 but it is hoped that matters will be completed in advance of that with particular reference to the partnership summit in Riga in May. Already ten states have satisfactorily ratified the agreements. I hope this country will do so at an early opportunity, notwithstanding the opposition of Deputy Crowe and his party. By May, it is expected that states will have ratified the agreements. I would be happy to keep the committee informed of developments in that regard.

The issue of sanctions against Russia was raised by Deputies Smith, Durkan and others. This issue has a priority position on the agenda of each and every meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, the most recent of which was on Monday last. Again, it was an issue that attracted widespread debate involving active oral contributions from most of the 28 member state representatives around the table. It is an issue where the Union has maintained an element of flexibility. Sanctions will be intensified and weakened or reduced in accordance with the de-escalation or otherwise of the position in eastern Ukraine.

Ireland’s position is such that we support the sanctions and we will continue to do so. We are monitoring the situation, not only in respect of the adverse economic impact on Russia, which is having some effect in terms of consequential issues, but also the impact on this country of the retaliatory impositions on the part of Russia. It is clear that the current sanctions imposed by the European Union are having an impact, and they will continue to be a main element of the European Union approach to the current crisis in Ukraine. We have always said that there is an element of flexibility and that the restrictive measures are scalable. They can be eased and strengthened depending on developments.

To date, the impact of the sanctions against Russia, however evident they might be in terms of trade, have been relatively modest. The impact of the retaliatory measures as far as our economy is concerned are being closely monitored and they have not had the effect or consequences that were initially flagged in some quarters. We will continue to keep a very close eye on the situation, not only at Foreign Affairs Council level but perhaps more particularly at European Council level where the issue will again be discussed shortly.

Deputy Durkan and others spoke of a possible EU membership accession and the fact that the current agreements will put the party states firmly along the path of EU membership.

EU membership is dealt with on a strictly case-by-case basis in the context of individual applications. The actual participation of states in these agreements or in the Eastern Partnership does not offer candidate status. However, it is quite clear that the comprehensive agreement leaves the way open for future developments in that regard. The European Union has offered the Eastern Partnership countries closer ties and deeper integration with its structures through these agreements. I must inform Deputy Crowe that any offer of EU membership would require a certain unanimity among EU member states. It is fair to say that there is not any real prospect of achieving that level of agreement. Even if such a prospect were evident - I do not believe it is - it is doubtful whether any of the Eastern Partnership countries would be in a position to assume the obligations of membership in any event. It is not really appropriate to suggest, therefore, that membership will follow.

Deputy Durkan and others referred to the position of neighbouring countries such as Azerbaijan, Armenia and Belarus. As the committee will be aware, the Union has continued to seek progress in the context of relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Like Deputy Eric Byrne, I welcome the new ambassador who is presenting his credentials at Áras an Uachtaráin this afternoon. I look forward to having an early opportunity to engage with him. Members will be aware that although Armenia decided not to complete the association agreement which it had successfully negotiated with the European Union, it continues to express an interest in concluding a new agreement. Both sides will continue with the discussions on the extent of future agreement.

Deputy Crowe expressed his opposition in respect of this matter, which he is entitled to do, and sought further debate at Dáil level. I presume the Deputy's opposition will be included in the committee's report. I do not believe Deputy Crowe is well guided in his thesis. There is no evidence to show that any of the states which are the subject of the agreements we are discussing have been pushed by the European Union into concluding such agreements. Each of the agreements is the result of negotiations into which the three countries involved entered freely. I do not believe there is any evidence to suggest otherwise. In each individual case, the negotiations were lengthy and detailed. This was always going to be the case. The negotiations were conducted by the European Commission on behalf of the Union. The outcome responded clearly to the will of the three countries in question to move closer to the European Union. The specific terms of the three agreements reflect that as far as the three countries are concerned. The parliaments of these three countries have again, on behalf of their people, ratified the agreements. There is no promise of EU membership and there are no side deals involved. The agreements do not contain anything which was not concluded openly or which is not reflective of the principles of democracy. The fact that two other Eastern Partnership countries chose not to conclude such agreements is clear evidence that decisions relating to these agreements are made on the basis of sovereignty. Far from exerting pressure on countries which choose not to sign, the Union has made continued efforts to seek progress in respect of the matter of relations between it and those countries. I do not believe there is any evidence of the type of influence, duress or any undue pressure to which the Deputy refers.

Deputy Quinn raised a number of important concerns and made particular reference to the issue of a possible future misappropriation or mishandling of funds in a way which would not be in accordance with proper procedures. Article 392 of the agreements deals with measures to prevent and fight corruption, fraud and any other illegal activities in connection with the implementation of EU funds inter aliaby means of mutual administrative assistance or mutual legal assistance in the fields covered by the agreement. The power exists to suspend one of the association agreements or expel the state involved in the event of conclusive evidence of the nature described by the Deputy having been identified. Deputy Quinn is quite right to stress the importance of respecting the independence and freedom of the Eastern Partnership countries to decide on their own external relations. As stated earlier, at no stage did the EU pressurise any of the countries involved to make a choice between it and Russia. That is evidenced in the context of the different activities undertaken in the countries with reference to Georgia, on one hand, and Armenia, on the other.

The EU trade offer was compatible with agreements that already existed with Russia. I note Deputy Quinn's comment regarding the current crisis and the perception that perhaps competitive interests may well be at stake between the European Union and Russia. However, I am of the view that the agreements stand on their own merits. The decisions relating to them were taken in the aftermath of the sovereign decisions taken by the parliaments involved while exercising their own free choice. It would be a misrepresentation if that which I describe were to be regarded in Moscow as any form of provocation.

The EU Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine was established by the European Council in July of last year in order to support the authorities in Ukraine in reforming its security sector. The aim of the mission is to help Ukraine develop an effective and accountable security service that contributes to strengthening the rule of law. I remind Deputy Eric Byrne that Ireland has two members on that mission and they keep the Government fully informed of developments in Ukraine.

I acknowledge the comments made by Deputy Mitchell and I must inform Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan that we are very mindful of the issue of trade with Colombia. The latter is in no way reflective of any form of parallel with the current agreement.