Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I have to make a declaration as it is my first time in the Chair. In accordance with Dáil Standing Order 113(4):

I do solemnly declare that I will duly and faithfully to the best of my knowledge and ability execute the office of Leas-Chathaoirleach of the Joint Committee on European Affairs without fear or favour, apply the rules as laid down by the House in an impartial and fair manner, maintain order and uphold the rights and privileges of members in accordance with the Constitution and Standing Orders.

We are joined by His Excellency Mr. Lars Thuesen from Denmark, who is the Danish ambassador to Ireland. He will discuss the priorities of Denmark during its six-month Presidency of the Council of the European Union - in Ireland's sight at present - which began yesterday. I congratulate him on that. I am sure he will have lots of exciting stuff to tell us. He is accompanied by Ms Mathilde Littau Christensen, political affairs assistant with the Danish embassy in Dublin. We will be joined by two more ambassadors from Cyprus and Italy. They are not here at present but will join us at some stage, to make members aware they might see some familiar faces in the Gallery today.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make any charges against a person outside the House, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. There is a reference to online but that does not apply to us today.

I call the ambassador to lay out Denmark's priorities. We are delighted to welcome him.

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and distinguished members of the committee very much for their kind invitation to give a brief introduction to the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. It is the eighth time Denmark assumes the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. For Ireland, it will also be the eighth time next year. As members know, our two countries joined the European Economic Community together in 1973, and our co-operation has widened and intensified since then. After Brexit, it is safe to say that we have never worked more closely on EU matters than we do today. I am sure that we will get all the support we need from Ireland during our Presidency. There is already ongoing and very useful co-operation between our Presidency and the upcoming Irish Presidency on an almost weekly basis.

The Danish Presidency has two overarching priorities under the slogan: “A strong Europe in a changing world”. The first priority is a secure Europe. The second priority is a competitive and green Europe. First, we will strive for a secure Europe capable of meeting urgent, shared challenges. The EU must take responsibility for its own and our Euro-Atlantic security, working closely with NATO. Europe has to be able to defend itself and we need to make it happen by 2030. There is an urgent need for the EU to strengthen Europe’s defence industry and production, which is essential to safeguard our security in the future. This is, of course, without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defence policy of some member states, including Ireland.

Equally, we cannot speak of defence without mentioning Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. The EU’s continued support for Ukraine’s fight for peace and freedom will be a key priority. The EU must provide political, economic, civilian and military support to Ukraine. We need more donations, especially to Ukraine’s defence industry. We must be ready to strengthen sanctions on Russia and minimise the risk of circumvention. We also have to move forward on enlargement. It is a geostrategic imperative.

The situation in the Middle East remains marked by war, suffering, tensions and unpredictability. We will continue the EU’s efforts towards de-escalation in the region, including support for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.

Security also relates to migration. We must ensure stability at the EU’s external borders and we must stop dangerous journeys to Europe. Irregular migration must not undermine European cohesion or security. We are facing dangerous situations at the EU’s eastern borders, including attempts to destabilise and undermine the security of the EU. That cannot be tolerated. We will work for new and innovative solutions to manage irregular migration and control the flow of people into the EU. The Presidency will also focus on further implementing the EU pact on migration and asylum.

Strengthening democratic resilience will also be a focus. The EU must regulate tech giants effectively holding them to account in combating misinformation and disinformation and in protecting children and young people online. Current geopolitical developments further underline the need to enlarge the EU. An ambitious, merit-based enlargement will make the EU geopolitically stronger. This especially applies to Ukraine, where the Presidency will prioritise significant progress in the negotiations. Ukraine is the engine for the momentum but we also need to focus on Moldova and the western Balkans. European values and the rule of law are cornerstones of EU co-operation. We must keep it high on the agenda and look at all tools to ensure respect.

Second, the Presidency will also work to make Europe both competitive and green. In a world of sharpened global rivalry, collective action is needed to boost the EU’s competitiveness hand in hand with the green transition. Last year, former ECB President Mario Draghi published a report on the EU’s competitiveness. It made for alarming reading. His analysis painted a bleak picture pointing to excessive regulation, a shrinking workforce and high energy costs. These issues have become a top priority and we are already drawing closer to consensus on the way forward. For example, we must reduce burdens on businesses, citizens and public authorities. We will aim for less red tape for European companies and individuals.

The EU's competitiveness, resilience and global influence are also strengthened through relations with strategic third countries. We will, therefore, also prioritise expanding the EU's network of trade agreements and economic partnerships. Instead of fragmented national capital markets in the EU, we need deeper integration and harmonised financial rules. We will also work to increase the pace of the green transition, including within renewable energy and better infrastructure. Security of supply in the energy market must be strengthened and the EU must be independent of Russian energy.

We will do our best to ensure that the EU continues to demonstrate leadership when it comes to climate action, including through an ambitious 2040 target. There is a lot on the international agenda for the time being but we should not forget the fight against climate change. It is also important because climate action and the green transition support European competitiveness.

During our Presidency, we will help set an ambitious and fiscally responsible course for negotiating the EU’s multi-annual financial framework covering 2028 onwards. It is also going to be a huge task for the upcoming Irish Presidency. The overarching success criterion for the Danish Presidency is that a clear direction is set for EU co-operation and that tangible progress on the ambitious political priorities for the Presidency is ensured, especially including defence and security as well as competitiveness, including the green transition.

We should remember that success is not only a question of finalising files and procedures but also of whether we as a Presidency have acted in an efficient and transparent way. For that reason, the Danish Presidency will be Brussels-based. That means that most Presidency decisions will be taken on the spot by our people in Brussels. All EU Presidencies adhere to the principle of being an honest broker but some are more successful in that role than others. We will definitely do our best and I am convinced that members will see a Presidency fully committed to the European agenda. Our national priorities are very much in line with European ambitions. We are steering from the strategic agenda and the Commission’s work programme. Both are well aligned with Danish priorities in general.

As the committee will know better than most, we obviously live in uncertain times involving geopolitical tensions, war on our continent and in the Middle East, accelerated strategic competition and trade conflicts between close partners. It is impossible to predict what happens next and that will remain the context for the Danish Presidency as well but that only underlines why we need a stronger, more determined Europe that is capable of defending itself and promoting European interests on the global scene. I hope this was useful for the members of the committee and I thank members very much for their time and patience.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador for the very informative opening statement. We have two important guests here today: the ambassador of the Republic of Cyprus, H.E. Mr. Louis Telemachou, who is joined by the ambassador of Italy, H.E. Mr. Nicola Faganello. I am delighted to welcome both ambassadors and their respective teams.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)

Everyone's preamble is always that we live in a very different world with a significant level of geopolitical uncertainty and that obviously relates to war, conflict and particular shifting economic issues to put it mildly. We can all see the importance of the next number of Presidencies, particularly with regard to the dealings with the US. We have been dealing with Russia's illegal war on Ukraine and the disgraceful genocide by the Israelis in Palestine. Denmark is one of the countries that has supported a review of the EU-Israel association agreement on the basis of its human rights conditions. Most right-thinking people throughout the world would agree. We just need this to happen. I accept that there are difficulties at an EU level regarding where some states are but we must do whatever needs to be done domestically by individual states. We need to see movement on that.

The ambassador spoke about security. While we all accept that it is a very different world, Ireland has a particular view. I do not think the world will be made better by us moving away from our independent foreign policy or our stance on neutrality. We also know we have a piece of work to do whether we are talking about the protection of undersea cables, cybersecurity and so on. We need to maintain our Defence Forces to a level they have not been at over many years.

The ambassador spoke about migration. Denmark has used a number of opt-outs. Migration policy probably has changed in Denmark. Could the ambassador address that and how Denmark's Presidency will deal with that issue? On a day-to-day basis, issues are changing across Europe. We can see what is happening in Poland. All those issues affect the wider question of Moldova, the western Balkans and increasing the size of the EU. Regarding competitiveness, the Draghi report, sustainable development and strategic autonomy, where does the ambassador see the major inputs for Denmark and those who will follow it in the Presidency?

That is a sufficient number of questions to get the ambassador started.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Ó Murchú. We will take one more set of questions. Senator Chris Andrews has expressed an interest. After the answers, we will use a similar format for the other members.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)

I thank the ambassador for the timely presentation. With regard to security and defence policy, can he provide further details on how the Danish Presidency intends to work to strengthen Europe’s defence industry and production? How will these efforts interact with Ireland’s neutrality? In what way does he believe Europe’s efforts to militarise are incompatible with Ireland’s current approach to defence policy?

It has been quite clear in recent years that the European Commission has strengthened its position as the executive force within the EU, acting as a president for Europe as a whole and taking positions, particularly on foreign policy, that are not necessarily in line with those of all member states, especially on the genocide in Gaza and Israel’s wars across the Middle East. Ursula von der Leyen has been unequivocal and uncritical in her support for Israel, which I believe represents a very dangerous trend, first and foremost in respect of the EU not standing up for human rights and international law abroad but also with the views of member states on foreign policy issues being ignored. Taking this into account, can the ambassador outline the approach of Denmark during its Presidency towards the European Commission and its President? Is it anticipated that the growing power of the Commission will detract from the Presidency’s ability to shape the agendas and priorities in the EU?

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

The ambassador might answer those questions.

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

Yes, with pleasure. Of course, the Middle East will be one of our main foreign policy priorities but all have to recall that this kind of Presidency is different from those I participated in before. This is my fifth Danish Presidency. What has happened over the years, not least with the Lisbon treaty, is that it has not been a case of presidency of the European Council. Nowadays, the President of the European Council is former Portuguese Prime Minister António Costa. In fact, we are not leading the European Council and that is a big difference. In my country’s view and that of Ireland, this is the right way to run the European Council. It is great to have some kind of continuity in the European Council and not to have a new country take over every six months, but that also means that when it comes to the European Council, we do not really have presidency. We are an individual member state. What I am saying also goes for the Foreign Affairs Council, where we now have a High Representative, Kaja Kallas, former Prime Minister of Estonia. In this regard, presidency has been delegated to an elected representative. That is just to give the context. When it comes to foreign relations, of course the Presidency plays a major role, because we have to tie the knot and co-ordinate with other councils.

To get back to the subject of the Middle East, what is important for us is that we try to maintain the unity of the EU. We have certain viewpoints, as do Ireland and basically all the other countries, when it comes to Israel, Gaza, Iran and the Middle East. It is not easy to achieve unanimity at the Council on these kinds of issues but it is a requirement. It is in the conclusions of the European Council, which every country has signed up to. This represents our aim. If we want to play a role – it is very difficult for the EU to play a major role when it comes to solving the conflicts in the Middle East – we have to do it together. If we send different signals from each country, including small and big states, and have different actions and so on, we are not presenting a united EU, which is necessary if we want to play a role in solving the conflicts.

When it comes to the association agreement, we are of course behind the European Council conclusions last week, and we take note of the report on Israel’s compliance or non-compliance with Article 2 of the agreement. We support the continuation of discussions and we understand that there are contacts with Israel on its interpretation of the report. We will get to the discussion but we are not at the point at this stage where we are going to take actions on the basis of the report. That is probably going to happen at the next European Council, in July.

There was a broad question on migration and Danish migration policy. Maybe before I answer, I will come back to the security part. As members probably know, Denmark had an opt-out from the defence and security policy of the EU. This followed the Danish note to the Maastricht treaty back in 1992. We do not have the opt-out any longer. We had a referendum two years ago and 60% of Danes voted in favour of getting rid of it. That means we can fully participate in the defence and security policy of the EU.

On migration, there is a lot of attention on Danish immigration policy. As in many member states, immigration has been a huge issue for many years. I can honestly say it has been a major political issue in Denmark for the past 20 years or so. Our starting point, of course, is that we want to help refugees – there is no doubt about it – but we also believe the current asylum system is broken. It allows migrant smugglers to make huge profits while people drown in the Mediterranean and Atlantic seas. This is simply not a sustainable system. We are advocates of the UN resettlement scheme and the orderly resettlement of those most in need, not those who can afford to pay the migrant smugglers. It is not always the most vulnerable refugees who make it to Europe. The more irregular migrants we need to handle on our borders, the fewer the number in acute and humanitarian circumstances we can help through the UN Refugee Agency. That is why we have taken a different approach during recent years. We have taken the agenda to the EU.

Let me say a few words on Danish immigration policy because I am aware that some of the members have expressed an interest in the issue. It has involved a long process, of more than 20 years, and various consecutive governments have focused on the issue. I am referring not only on the rights of migrants but also to their duties in Danish society. We believe the numbers matter. The Danish Government wants to control the inflow of migrants so we can maintain successful integration. It is crucial to the broader cohesion of Danish society.

There are three components that have been important over the years: temporary residence for refugees; effective return policies; and limited rights to extended reunification. It goes without saying that all the changes are in accordance with international conventions. This has been a part of Danish immigration policy in recent years.

With regard to migration at European level, the adoption of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in 2024 marked a major step forward in tackling shared challenges linked to irregular migration. The pact reinforces external borders and streamlines asylum procedures. Supporting member states in implementing the pact will be a central focus of the Danish Presidency, in line with the Commission’s implementation plan for the pact. We will also explore new solutions to break the incentive structures behind irregular migration and dangerous journeys to Europe.

This will include advancing negotiations on the proposals concerning amendment of the concept of safe third countries and the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level in the asylum procedure regulation.

Effective border control remains essential. The Presidency will continue efforts to strengthen the EU’s external borders and counter the threat of the instrumentalisation of migrants. Preventing and combating migrant smuggling, a serious cross-border challenge, is essential to dismantling the multibillion euro trafficking industry and addressing the incentives that fuel dangerous journeys to Europe. It is a priority for the Danish Presidency to advance negotiations of the regulation on combating migrant smuggling, as well as on the directive establishing minimum rules to prevent and combat migrant smuggling.

There are many other activities in this field but I will stop here. If I do not, it will take up the whole hour.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador. That was very comprehensive. We have quite a lot of members to get in. Is there a slight clarification or something else?

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

The Senator asked about how the EU’s security and defence policy affected Irish neutrality. The short answer is that it does not. Ireland’s neutrality is fully recognised by all the EU members. It is also part of the understanding that some countries are not members of NATO. Nowadays, there are 27 members of the European Union and four countries are not members of NATO, and that is taken into account. It is Ireland’s decision if it wants to open up the discussion. I am not aware of any EU countries that want to get involved in that discussion. That is a discussion among Oireachtas Members and the Irish voters. This is fully recognised. It is not an issue at the European level.

What is an issue is that we are 24 member states who want to move forward on this agenda, and we will do that. That is also because many of the decisions nowadays taken in NATO, like it or not, have a lot of effect on European Union policies as well. When we talk about how we will spend 3.5% of our GDP – of our national budgets - on defence, it has effects on our economies and, as members know, economic policy, especially in country members of the euro. It has tremendous effects on the economies of each of these member states and, for that reason, on the economy policy of the European Union. The same goes for our industry. If we are going to spend 3.5% of our GDP on arms, ammunition, defence issues and so on, then of course we have to develop our own industry. We do not want to be dependent on the American industry. We do not want to create growth and jobs in the American defence industry. We want to do that in Europe. It is also a matter of supply and getting the right stuff, and getting it when we think we need it. That was the response to the question about Irish neutrality.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador for being extremely comprehensive.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)

I have one brief comment. Does the ambassador believe that Ursula von der Leyen's statements have unanimous support within EU members?

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I cannot account for the statements she is making. The member states are all fully behind the conclusions of the European Council; if not, there are no conclusions from the European Council. Of course, there is a certain space for the Commission to interpret the decisions of the Council as such.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Fianna Fail)

It is a pleasure to have the ambassador here and to engage on the next EU Presidency, which comes at a challenging time. We in Ireland will be watching closely because we will be taking over afterwards.

I thank the ambassador for his comprehensive statement. It is good to see the two priorities he has outlined.

I will put three questions to him. He talked about advancing the EU’s green transition, which is important, and looking at energy, transport and agriculture in particular. We in Ireland have a very agriculture-based economy and have a concern about supporting our farmers and our farming industries. I wish to ask about the negotiation of the next CAP and the multi-annual financial framework, on which work will be ongoing through the Presidency, and the ambassador's views on same. For Ireland, it is clear that we want a simplification of CAP and a more straightforward version with practical and pragmatic measures. We would like to see greater flexibility so that different countries, such as our own, will be able to adapt according to our national needs. We would also like to see a sustainable balance between economic, environmental and social measures, ensuring they are brought into the context. We would like to see active farmers rewarded. By that, I mean those who are active, working on the ground.

My second question is about specific initiatives proposed through the Danish Presidency that would strengthen EU competitiveness in the face of the global economic shifts.

My third question goes back to issues in the Middle East. The two-state solution between Israel and Palestine that the ambassador supports is very important. It is an initiative that one of our former Members, who was then a Minister and Tánaiste, Brian Lenihan, was the first to suggest. It is good to see people coming towards that. I appreciate that the ambassador is representing his country here, but how does Denmark reconcile the stated commitment to international humanitarian law and to working towards de-escalation in the Middle East while still sending arms to Israel?

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I will ask Deputy Hayes to ask his couple of questions and we will then take answers to both members from the ambassador. I stress to members that five minutes is a long-standing protocol with our questions and answers.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)

I welcome the ambassador and his official. I thank them for coming in and making the time to do this. I also am honoured to have the other excellencies here today as well. I thank them for coming in.

In these kinds of fora, the exchange of views is important and helpful. Sometimes, there are differing views on different things, but it is important to let us exchange those.

From my perspective, and I think I speak on behalf of everybody in the committee and in the Oireachtas, our sincere thoughts are with the ambassador on the issues in Greenland and the conflict in words between NATO allies on that issue. For us, the principle of self-determination is extremely important. It is enshrined in the first article of the UN Charter, so we see that as being an important part of how we would think about the Greenland issue, but also when we think about other areas, such as Ukraine and Palestine. That, hopefully, gives the ambassador some colour as to the starting point for us when we ask some of these questions. Of course, our solidarity is with the ambassador as well.

I will ask some specific questions on tech regulation and democratic resilience, which the ambassador brought up in his comments. I represent this constituency where we are right now, which is home to many tech multinationals, including Google and Facebook. I have specific questions about the Danish Presidency’s approach and policy on some of these questions in that umbrella. One of the areas that seems to have deteriorated between the EU and the US has been the question of data regulation and privacy.

The privacy shield has not gone as well as we all hoped it would and has not been implemented in the way we hoped. I have significant reservations and I am sure many other Europeans have too about how we implement proper privacy and data regulation and the transfer of data in particular between the EU and the US. I would like to hear the Danish presidency’s approach to that.

Second, in the age of Trump’s reactionary geopolitics, there is a change to how we think about tax regimes on technology companies in particular. The BEPS regime and its implementationis under question by the US Administration. Its precursor, the EU common consolidated corporate tax rate, was something that was considered by EU member states prior to the OECD discussions. Some member states wanted to bring in digital service taxes unilaterally as a counter balance to that. The Canadian Prime Minister has rescinded on the digital services taxes so I am interested in the EU-wide approaches the Danish presidency might take.

Finally, I am conscious in the context of supporting indigenous industries within the European Union that indigenous tech supports are really important. There are state-aid rules at the EU level. What kind of presidential approaches will Denmark take on state-aid rules as they have been relaxed around green energy and so on? Is there more room for that in other areas such as technology and indigenous start ups that would be very helpful?

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

There are many different issues. I do not think I can go through all of them but I will do my best. As I said in my opening statement the green transition is definitely a priority for us. It is probably one of the areas where one could say there is a Danish fingerprint on the priorities because in general we see our priorities as European priorities, not as national priorities, that is also why we insist on being an honest broker, but when it comes to the green transition we really believe in it. We know there is a lot of other things going on in the world now. There are a lot of distractions, there are a lot of serious conflicts around the globe, but we do not think we should stop the green transition. We still believe in the green deal of the European Union so that will be a priority of ours.

Some countries think the green transition is contrary to competitiveness. That is not our view. We think it might be in the short run but in the long run it will help our competitiveness and our independence from the Middle East, for example, from oil and not least from Russia. What we have seen in Denmark, and also here, is a whole industry is growing because of the green transition. There is huge potential with offshore wind and I can see more and more companies are working in that sector. It is not just a question of transition but it is also good for our competitiveness.

As the Deputy mentioned, agriculture is a special issue when it comes to the green transition. It is one of the sectors which is most difficult to handle. We also have a big agriculture sector in Denmark. We have been working with it for the last three or four years in order to reach agreement on how we will handle the green transition in the sector. We managed, after more than 100 meetings, to get an agreement a couple of months ago which was quite a revolution of Danish agriculture and the support for Danish agriculture. We are very happy that we managed to get the agricultural sector on board. It also shows the rest of the European countries that it is possible to reach the goals and do it in co-operation with the farmers and the agriculture sector.

The Deputy mentioned simplification, how there are way too many administrative processes and so on and there is way too much reporting when it comes to the Common Agricultural Policy. We could not agree more. That is exactly our approach too, not just when it comes to the Common Agricultural Policy but also to our policies in general. The EU has for many years, for good reasons, been about how to regulate different aspects of our society. It has been extremely successful but we can also see in some sectors and areas that we might have gone too far with all kinds of bureaucratic measures, especially when we look at economic growth and innovation we have seen in the US and China, for example. I do not have to go through the Draghi report but we are simply lagging behind and we can tell that we are putting a lot more burdens on our citizens and our industry than what we see in the US. Compared to the economic growth in the US the EU is lagging far behind and that has been the case over the last 20 years. That is why nowadays there is a general consensus in the EU that we have to take a new approach when it comes to competitiveness and that also goes for the Common Agricultural Policy.

Reporting in itself does not necessarily mean we will reach the goals. I had an example from a big Danish company, that is very well-known in Ireland, that produces beer. It told me that because of a new EU regulation it had to employ 20 new staff just to handle the reporting. As I say, we are not doing things differently because we have always been very responsible but we have to report about it. Reporting in itself or administratory procedures do not necessarily mean we achieve new goals and that very much goes for agriculture. I follow the ministerial council for agriculture quite closely. I work closely with our Irish colleagues on these issues and we totally agree that we need to do something about it. It is not easy. One must also remember with these regulations that almost every single time we voted in their favour so it is not like we can say it is all the fault of the Commission or the EU. We have to look at ourselves because we are responsible as well. However, we are completely in agreement on the need for simplification of these procedures.

The tech companies is a huge issue for Ireland. It is a big part of its foreign direct investment. As the Deputy said, it also plays a huge role when we talk about the OECD agreement on co-operation on taxes which, like a lot of other stuff, is a bit up in the air because we have a new American administration which is looking from different view points or with different eyes. In fact, we only got the global agreement because of the previous American administration. A lot of things are going on and we are not sure where it is going to land but when it comes to the regulation of the tech industry, we want to make it very clear that this is our choice, not the American choice, how we regulate the tech industry, the flow of data and so on. We might have been able to do it in a more simple, less complicated, way than we have done it – that brings us back to competitiveness. Our line to take during the presidency is that Europe should decide how we will regulate the tech industry and that goes back to what I said in my introductory remark about democracy, resilience, misinformation, the responsibility of the tech companies etc. That is not something we will leave to the Americans. We have to do it ourselves.

There was also a question about Greenland. I thank the Deputy for that. I could talk for a very long time about Greenland but I will give a few facts, if I may. First, to make it clear that Greenland is not for sale if somebody would think so. Second, the future of Greenland is the decision of the Greenlanders.

It is not the decision of Copenhagen or Washington DC. It is the Greenlanders who decide their own future. They are a part of Denmark. We are very proud of and happy about that. However, if one day they want their independence, we are not going to tell them they cannot have it. We even have a procedure for that. We have legislation for the independence of Greenland and, by the way, for the Faroe Islands, if that is what their peoples want. It is in their hands, not in the hands of the Americans or our hands. We would love them to stay. Greenland is part of our history, culture, traditions and so on. However, I want to make that clear because once in a while some people express suspicion that we do not want to let Greenland go. That is not the case. It is in the law that if the people of Greenland want to leave, they can do so. We had elections in Greenland recently, where we saw that there is no support for independence at this point. If one looks at the opinion polls, there are very few people in Greenland who want to become Americans.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador. His answers have been very comprehensive.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I thank the ambassador for his presentation and answers so far. I am curious about this and want to get the wider context. Denmark has shown great leadership on green issues, as the ambassador mentioned. Trying to get the EU to move as a block is very slow and quite difficult. I am trying to get my head around the issue of the genocide, as we call it, in Gaza. Denmark was invaded by the Nazi regime during the Second World War, as the ambassador is very much aware. It has a reputation for doing so much to help Jews in Denmark during the occupation. Ireland's response at that time was mixed and quite embarrassing, to be quite honest. We took in some refugees. At the time, some elements within the IRA were linked with support for the Nazis because of our opposition to the British occupation of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. However, from our point of view, as a country that was occupied in the past for centuries, while we acknowledged and supported the establishment of the Israeli state, the way Israelis behaved in the West Bank and Gaza over the decades led to a shift in Ireland. Even though the middle ground here absolutely condemns Hamas - as I have done in the Irish Parliament - as a fundamentalist, murderous regime and totally condemns the attacks on 7 October, it does not matter what one says as the Israelis accuse us of being antisemitic. This is something that my colleagues and I totally reject.

Denmark, as a small country that was occupied during the Second World War, is a long-time friend and ally of Israel and has supported Jews in Denmark. In that context, it has considerable pull and leverage to put pressure on Israel. It has the ability to speak as a friend. We have done that with the United States. We are a small, meaningless country in global politics but when it came to dealing with the invasion of Iraq, for example, or what Trump is doing through various policies, for instance, in Ukraine, we spoke out and said our bit as much as we could. At EU level, the Taoiseach and Ministers are pushing for a stronger Europe-wide approach. Why, despite increasing opposition to what is happening in Gaza, has the body politic in Denmark not followed suit, so much so that in the election process for 13- to 16-year-olds that is so loved in Denmark a debate on Palestine was not allowed? It has been described as too complex. A debate on the climate crisis or Ukraine would be equally complex.

That segues into a related question on human rights in general. The Danish Presidency presents a lot of opportunities to make good on our wider human rights watch areas as well. The actual organisation, Human Rights Watch, called on Denmark to do more during its Presidency, not just in Gaza and the Middle East, but on Ukraine and also Hungary. Does Denmark have an official position on the Article 7 process in condemning the Hungarian stifling or choking of human rights issues? I am interested in hearing more on that and on Denmark’s immigration policies. How strong is the country's citizenship process? Migration is presenting as an issue in every single country. even those that were historically liberal and tolerant. Many people distinguish between refugees and economic migrants, for whom their country may or may not have the capacity, and those who claim asylum but are not actually fleeing persecution. What is the Danish position? Is Denmark tough on all refugees or just those who are actual refugees, as opposed to economic migrants? How quick is the turnaround when dealing with someone who comes into the country and claims persecution but is found not to have been persecuted?

I am going around in a circle but I am trying to keep within the allotted time. With regard to Denmark’s objective of reviving Europe's economic dynamism and making it a more productive block, is there a pathway? Through which mechanisms does the ambassador see that happening? The ambassador mentioned the green transition, which I believe was watered down following the trading Ursula von der Leyen had to do after the most recent election. Should Europe still have an auto-manufacturing base, for example? Where should Europe increase its manufacturing capacity and service activity? In general terms, should we go strong on the 10% US tariff, if that is the level, or just let the Americans get on with it?

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)

I will comment rather than ask specific questions. First and foremost, His Excellency is very welcome and I thank him for his time, and likewise Ms Christensen.

I note the ambassador’s point that Denmark will be an honest broker. I welcome that. Over 50 years, Ireland and Denmark have been walking the EU path together, the odd time stumbling, but very much taking the ups and the downs. I welcome the fact that is the approach that Denmark will take. As the ambassador said, that has not always been the case.

In respect of Mr. Draghi's report, I agree that it paints a very bleak picture. As I mentioned last week or the week before, never before has the "old Continent" been such an apt name for Europe. We need to be far quicker in how we process things. We talk about streamlining, but we have been talking about that for at least ten years and our processes have become more and more complicated. The more we talked about it, the more complicated things became. The ambassador probably mentioned, pardon the pun, a beer company that spoke about the extra costs with 20 people to do the same job as before. I would like some ideas on how that is going to happen because we talk a lot but we do not really produce a lot when it comes to that.

All my colleagues mentioned Ireland’s position on Gaza. We have been unequivocal in calling out genocide and it is, without a shadow of a doubt, genocide. We also get the sensation and the feeling that Ireland is very lonely out in Europe at the moment. We are not receiving the support we would have expected considering the conditions, growing tensions and acts of violence in Gaza. In the ambassador’s opinion, what will it take to bring Europe to a unanimous position to ensure that this stops? The Tánaiste and Taoiseach are in the Dáil every week reiterating and defending the fact that Ireland believes in the two-state system. We call out the genocide for what it is, but we do not really see anybody else in Europe truly having our back. I urge everyone in this room to come out and help Ireland to achieve that unanimity within Europe.

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I will start with the Middle East. We all have our history and we certainly have our own history when it comes to Israel. That is also part of our policy today. During the Second World War, Denmark was occupied for five years. At a certain point, we got information from the Germans that they were going to arrest all the Jews in Denmark and transport them to concentration camps. We managed to spread the rumour and during a few weeks, individual Danes, not the government, helped 7,000 Jews to escape to Sweden. It was a very serious and difficult action, with huge risks for people in small boats, but we did it. Why did we do it? We did it, not because they were Jews, but because they were Danes. They had always been a totally integrated part of our society. They were never seen as Jews; we just saw them as Danes. I am just telling this story because Ireland has its history and Denmark has its history. In the years afterwards, we have had very close ties to Israel. That does not mean that we are in agreement with what is happening in Gaza and Israel, for the time being.

I will take one minute to read what our position is. We call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and we also call for an unconditional release of all hostages. We continue to call on Israel to fully lift its blockade on Gaza, to allow immediate access and the distribution of humanitarian assistance to Gaza, and to enable the UN and its agencies and humanitarian organisations to work independently to save lives and to reduce suffering.

We also stress that when Israel wants to talk to us, it must fully comply with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law. We must ensure the protection of civilians, including humanitarian workers, at all times, as well as of civilian infrastructure. We follow international law. We tell the Israelis to follow the law. When it comes to genocide, I understand what members said when they called it a genocide. For us, it has to be a legal decision. It is our policy to leave it to the International Court of Justice, ICJ, to take a final position on this issue. However, I do not think it is fair to say that Ireland is alone in the European Council. It is definitely no secret that there are different positions on what is the way forward. I mentioned before that we have a historical background and Ireland has a historical background, but there is also a big nation in the European Union that has a background when it comes to Israel and the Jews. It is not an easy issue and probably also for that reason, it is hard to get the influence that we would like to have. It is not easy at all. We will do our best to be the honest broker and we will do what we can to. To say the least, the former European Presidencies have not been very successful in this area but we will do what we can.

There were a lot of other questions. Regarding citizenship, I do not know the procedure here in Ireland so I cannot really compare it with Denmark. Over the years, it has become more difficult to get Danish citizenship, as we have become stricter. For example, we look very closely at people's criminal records, because of our experiences. We adhere to all the international conventions and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, that it is very hard to expel people once they have Danish citizenship, although they might have dual citizenship. We have some people who have committed extremely serious crimes. Normally, these people would be expelled because we do not accept murderers and other people who have committed serious crimes. We would like to expel them but we cannot do so. Also, for this reason we have made it more difficult to become a Danish citizen. I stress again that we follow all international conventions and all the verdicts from the European Court of Human Rights. There is no doubt about that.

There was also a question about Article 7 and Hungary. We want to be an honest broker. In fact, the Danish Minister for European Affairs has been travelling to each and ever member state and each candidate country. I have heard her ask about the proposals from different countries. It is not easy; we need to have a qualified majority to use Article 7 and we are not even close to having that. We are going to act as an honest broker and we will listen to people. We want to take action and do something. We do not think we are in a position where we will be able to use Article 7 at this point, so we are looking for other methods. In our experience, using Part 8 of the MFA, or micro-financial assistance, once in a while helps. That might be the way forward.

We have some serious difficulties when it comes to the blocking of the enlargement, especially when it comes to Ukraine. In this case, we would like to start the negotiation on what is called cluster 1. Ukraine has fulfilled all the criteria to start the negotiations on this. However, one member country is blocking this. We need all the member states to be behind this solution. We do not think it is fair. Ukraine has done everything it can and has fulfilled all the requirements. It is time to start the accession negotiations. This does not mean Ukraine is close to becoming a member. That could still be years away, but we should honour our commitment and start the process. We have also asked colleagues for good ideas on how we can move forward. However, we also have to respect the treaties and the legal framework. At this point, I am afraid we do not know the way forward. We are still looking at different possibilities, talking to other member states and listening to the Commission.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)

I welcome His Excellency and his officials. A lot has been said and a lot of questions have been asked. I will comment on the ambassador's response to the Israel-Palestine situation. I welcome what he said. It is good to see that Denmark is of a similar mind to Ireland in this regard. At the end of the day, it will take a two-state solution to sort this out. I wish Denmark well and the best of luck during its Presidency. I hope it can keep this issue to the fore given what is happening. Honest to God, nobody can believe what is happening. I said yesterday that the UN Security Council could do much more, but it has not done so.

I see that €7.68 billion has been committed to Ukraine. That is fantastic. It is a massive amount of money to help and support the country.

Regarding migration, does Denmark have any issues? In Ireland we have a serious housing problem. Is that a problem in Denmark? How does Denmark manage in this regard?

The ambassador mentioned that Denmark had introduced a carbon tax for farming. How did that go with the farmers? This is a problem coming down the track for Ireland as well.

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I thank the Deputy for his comments. We are also a member of the UN Security Council for the time being.

We started on 1 January, and we will be a member for the next two years. Israel-Gaza is very much on the agenda there. It is not easy on the United Nations either because we have countries have veto power and it is hard to make progress. That is no secret, but it is a priority for us. Again, we are not alone. Some people definitely have more to say than we do. Some countries have the veto power. However, it is a priority and we will keep on pressing for a two-state solution. That has been our policy and the policy of the European Union for a long period. I am afraid to say it is not easy and will not happen in the short term. It is still the goal for all of us.

We are giving all the support to Ukraine we can. An interesting fact is that Denmark is the fourth largest donor in actual terms when it comes to supply of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. The three largest donors are the US, Germany and the United Kingdom. Number four is Denmark. Our country has 6 million people; it is a huge effort by us. We have donated not just military aid, but also humanitarian aid worth approximately €10 billion. This has the full backup of all political parties in the Danish Parliament and the full support of the population. It is not a political issue in Denmark. We will continue to do that. We are also trying to find new, innovative methods. We are investing in the Ukrainian defence industry, as such. We are making joint ventures with Ukrainian developers of defence measures, for example, in the development of drones and so on. We do not have the limitations, which I fully respect, that Ireland has. Gaza is very close to Ireland's heart and Ukraine is very close to ours. It is a priority for the EU and the Danish Presidency.

On the housing issue, I should not participate in political Irish debate. I will leave that to the committee members. That is not my role as an ambassador. I have been here for three years now and I am still trying to find out all the different reasons behind the housing crisis. I will not get involved in that discussion. We do not have anything similar in Denmark, but we have huge immigration, especially for labour, similar to Ireland. We are getting to 20% of our labour force being foreign. It has come more gradually than here. Ireland's population is growing faster than Denmark's. I do not know if that is the explanation, but when I look at the figures, that makes it a little easier to handle in Denmark because the population is not growing at a rate of 100,000 people per year, but at 30,000 people per year.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador. Our Teachta Scanlon will be well able to help him if he wants to get on the property ladder here. To provide a brief clarification, Deputy Hayes has indicated he wants to say something else. We will wind up after that. Members of the committee will have other business after this discussion.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)

I wanted to come back on something in particular I spoke about earlier, but more related to the MFF and how the Danish Presidency of the EU will pursue that. I noted in his comments he discussed a fiscally responsible approach to the MFF. There is now an opportune turning point in Europe to talk about how we think about fiscal responsibility in this new chapter of global geopolitics and economics. I know many member states are taking a more liberal view on fiscal policy, especially as it applies to defence policy and defence investment. As the ambassador can guess from me and other Members of these Houses, we would be sceptical of that being the use of a more liberal fiscal policy. We probably would prefer more liberalisation on state aid rules, social investment and those kinds of things. There is a worthwhile discussion to be had at the European level with regard to what a fiscal union, state aid rules and a new fiscal treaty look and how we think about fiscal transfers between member states more thoroughly, especially in the context of a monetary policy that may be restrictive on the economic growth of certain member states and shared prosperity across member states. I would like to hear the ambassador's views on that.

On the migration issue, I have emigrated, re-emigrated and come back. At one point, I nearly went to Copenhagen for a job. I met many people there who were new immigrants. Approximately 20% of our workforce is foreign. Migration is a huge and important part of our new story. My family migrated. So many of the stories in Irish families are about the culture of migration. My father grew up on the farm that his grandfather, my great-grandfather bought from his salary that he earned in New York city. This story is very much a part of our cultural heritage. We have a certain affinity with migration and migrants as a result of that and we want to see them treated really well. That is something I impart to the ambassador as Denmark thinks about migration in the larger terms of the Presidency.

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I thank the Deputy. He asked about the MFF and the budget. We used to be a part of the frugal four or five or however many it was in the end. We are not there any longer. We think we have reached the point in the EU where there are so many challenges we need more European action. Action requires financial resources. Like Ireland, we are a net contributor to the EU budget and have been for many years, which is only fair. Like Ireland, we are a rich nation and we benefit enormously from the Single Market. It is important, as a small country, that we have a Single Market, rule of law for our companies and so on.

We have changed our position when it comes to the budget. What we would like to see, as a country and not the Presidency, and it will be very hard, is the modernisation of the budget. I will say something that is going to be controversial to Irish ears. We are spending one third of the EU's budget on the Common Agriculture Policy. We are spending one third on cohesion policy. That leaves another third to all the other different policies of the European Union. As a country and as holders of the Presidency, we do not think that these are the right priorities when looking at the future sectors and future needs of the European Union. We will be the honest broker and do our best to make ends meet. As I said before, this will not be concluded during our Presidency. It might be concluded during the Irish Presidency. I know Ireland will be an honest broker as well.

If Ireland wants to have its national priorities heard, it should probably do it during the coming Presidencies because it becomes a lot more difficult when it holds the Presidency of the EU. The national delegation will be a lot quieter. In fact, during the Danish Presidency, it will be an exception that Denmark will take the floor. It will only happen if we have something vital on the table. If Ireland wants to promote its national interests now or during the Cyprus Presidency, it will be a different game when Ireland takes over the Presidency.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)

I would like nothing more than the Irish ambassador to Denmark to be absolutely grilled on the nitrates directive when it is our turn.

Given the size of the CAP funding that is supporting farmers, does Mr. Thuesen think it could be reoriented, wholly or in part, for more environmental sustainability initiatives, which farmers would be leading the way on, in many cases?

H.E. Mr. Lars Thuesen:

I am not an expert on agricultural policy. I grew up in a farm and spent the first 18 years of my life on a farm. That is many years ago and the world has changed a lot. Denmark's experiences are probably very different from those of Ireland because the structures are very different. We have huge farms in Denmark nowadays. We do not have family farms like Ireland still has, which in some ways makes it a little easier for us. When we talk about huge farms, it is easier to control and implement a lot of the environmental regulations than when it comes to family farms. Also, our farms are very competitive. Our agriculture is very competitive. I will now say something controversial. Denmark could easily live without the CAP. We would still be able to compete on the European and global markets. That is not the case for a large majority of EU countries and we realise that. Denmark's Presidency will be about the European spirit and reaching consensus on the issues. That is our national priority but will not be a Presidency priority. When it comes to the CAP, and part 8 of the MFA and so on, Denmark will be the honest broker and nothing else.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)

I thank the ambassador. He has been very frank and open with the committee. He gave detailed answers on a range of issues, a lot of them probably outside his and the committee's control. It was great to have them aired. As Denmark has taken on such an important role as of yesterday, the committee is delighted to hear the ambassador's opinions. On behalf of the committee, I thank him and Ms Christensen for engaging with us today. We look forward to working with Denmark over the next six months of its Presidency. Members of our committee will attend COSAC and the plenary meetings in Copenhagen in late November.

The committee will conclude its public session and go into private session as we have issues to discuss.