Mr. Conor O'Neill:

I thank the Senator for the questions. That is extremely important. We have said since work on this started in 2018, or even much before then, that one of the levers we wanted to pull with this was not just to try to make sure we are doing everything possible in this jurisdiction to meet the obligations clarified by the ICJ, but also to try to move the dial at EU level. As was recognised by the Department and as the Tánaiste said himself, at EU level, we are at this crippling point of paralysis going back decades. It has been almost like a policy of managed decline where there is a refusal to address the underlying root causes and there is horrible, cyclical violence. There is unwillingness at EU level on the part of a number of member states and sometimes, because of that, on the part of the Commission to grasp the nettle and take this seriously. We cannot wait for an EU consensus that may never come.

I want to recognise, in fairness to the Government, that letter which nine EU member states sent last month. Not only did that take a lot of diplomatic work behind the scenes, but to do it publicly shows the emergence of a coalition of the willing that includes Ireland, Spain and those other member states. They are sending the message to the Commission that it either addresses this properly or we are going to have to, because we have an obligation to do so. It has happened before.

Senator Higgins mentioned the labelling provision. Members will be aware that already under EU law, each member state is required to label goods correctly as either coming from Israel or from the illegal settlements. That is already the case and has been for a number of years. People were calling for this measure for a long time and the Commission did exactly what it is doing now and waited and waited, and refused to act, then a number of member states did it themselves. The United Kingdom, believe it or not, was first, in 2009, followed by Denmark in 2013, Belgium in 2014 and then there was a divergence. That is what forced the institution to say it needed to stop that divergence and deal with this properly. That is the same lever we want to pull here. That case could be emblematic. The Chair mentioned that we have a different perspective on this. The case is not something we should fear. It is something we encourage and welcome. We do not just want this to resonate here. We want it to resonate elsewhere. Did Mr. Liston want to mention the point about the European Communities Act?