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.