H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

It is not only President Juncker who has said this. The responsibility of the Presidency is only to ensure that the negotiation process continues and that the process is credible.

Concerning the countries specifically mentioned here, with regard to Montenegro I can only confirm that the Latvian Presidency will proceed with the ongoing accession negotiations with Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey, with the view of achieving further sustained progress. In the case of Montenegro, we expect to continue to work mainly on chapters without opening benchmarks.

In the context of Montenegro, we expect to continue to work - mainly on chapters and without establishing benchmarks - provided progress continues in the areas of the rule of law and fundamental rights. We know that the rule of law is a problem for many accession countries. This could, therefore, be regarded as our priority in respect of Montenegro. We would also like progress to be made in the negotiations with Turkey. If actions are to follow words with regard to moving closer to EU values, certain internal developments in Turkey could give rise to questions in respect of the application of such values there in daily internal political life. We hope that Turkey will be as credible a partner as all other accession countries and we intend to continue the negotiations in good faith. We hope to be able to open the first chapters of negotiations with Serbia. We are aware that serious efforts will be necessary on both sides regarding the process of normalising relations with Kosovo. As members know, significant progress has been achieved in this area during the past two years. However, that progress has not exactly been conclusive. Problems remain and these are a consideration in the context of the negotiation process. We will pursue the negotiations relating to all three countries and enlargement policy in general on the basis of the principle of conditionality and the merits of each individual state.

The question of a banking union is an extremely complex subject in respect of which not only the Presidency but also many member states, the Commission and the European Central Bank have roles to play. The Presidency can only represent the Council in negotiations with the Commission and the European Central Bank and seek to advance the process in all Council deliberations relating to that subject. The general approach of the Presidency is characterised by the fact that Latvia believes the new legislative framework for the formation of a banking union will have a positive impact on the stability of the financial sector. We will follow closely the implementation of the banking union. Proper and timely implementation of measures aimed at ensuring the smooth functioning of newly-operational banking mechanisms will be at the centre of the Latvian Presidency. Members will excuse me for voicing such general comments as I try to explain the position. Progress depends on the specific positions of member states, the Commission and the European Central Bank and, therefore, we can address these questions in more detail separately rather than during this meeting.

Digital Europe is a high priority for my country's Government. An interesting debate on the subject, organised by the European movement, already took place here in Ireland. During this debate representatives of the Irish public voiced similar questions and it emerged that we should consider digital issues from three different perspectives. The most important of these is the economic perspective. We are looking at the digital economy as a way to produce jobs, etc. As members stated, there are also issues relating to human rights involved. I refer here to the need for data protection. In addition, issues of social policy come into play and these have already been highlighted by members of the Irish public. The Presidency will certainly do its best to take all three dimensions into account when advancing the debate on the digital economy at the Council. Of course, the overarching objective in this regard is to stimulate economic growth. However, the issues mentioned at this meeting and at others already held in Ireland will be duly communicated to my Government and to colleagues back home in order to draw their attention to the many matters that are related to the digital economy and the overall objectives relating thereto.

I am of the view that security issues should be discussed in the context of human rights dimension of the digital economy and data protection.

At the same time one should protect not only the individual security of a person in the digital environment, but also the security of businesses, institutions and, possibly, nation states. This will remain a big issue for the future and that will be addressed in the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The next meeting of that Council, an informal one, is scheduled for 29 January and it will take place in Riga. It will address many issues which were already raised on 11 January following the acts of terror in Paris and continue the debate on many issues, including data and digital security, and partially related phenomena such as foreign fighters and the reason for them. The departure point of my government is to start from better implementation of existing European decisions. Before producing new decisions we should implement what is already on the table. We should also aim at better efficiency within the existing European structures in that area as well as co-operation between all member states.

There was a set of questions concerning the eastern partnership, Ukraine, the role of the Russian Federation, our approach to the crisis in Ukraine and relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. I share the view of Deputy Eric Byrne that the speech of the High Representative in Dublin was very impressive. We heard a very balanced approach to all the questions mentioned by the members. On the one hand it did not compromise on our principles, including the fundamental principles of international law as far as Ukraine is concerned, and on the other it referred to continuing constructive dialogue with the Russian Federation and trying to achieve normalisation of the situation in Ukraine.

The role of the Presidency in that area is not decisive. The External Action Service and the High Representative have the prerogative of steering the external relations of the EU. The Presidency may assist the High Representative and the External Action Service, if invited. Certainly, my government has assisted the High Representative on several occasions, for example, presiding over several ministerial level meetings with central Asian countries, both in the region and in Brussels. However, the ultimate responsibility remains with the High Representative. The Latvian Foreign Minister has done much to assist the High Representative to promote progress on the crisis in Ukraine and to achieve some progress in normalisation of EU-Russian relations, namely, by paying a visit to Moscow a few days ago. That visit followed his visit to Kiev. The Presidency can use its position to pursue bilateral national dialogue and then use the results of the dialogue during the debate on external relations in Brussels when formulating the common European position. This is exactly what my authorities are doing and will continue to do.

One of the specific questions raised by Deputy Eric Byrne concerned the future deep and comprehensive free trade agreements with three countries, which will be discussed tomorrow in the Dáil. My government is 100% positive that these agreements should be concluded and implemented. The philosophy and approach of the EU to the eastern partnership has been based not only on political partnership, but also on economic partnership. The deep and comprehensive free trade agreements are an integral part of the association agreement and one cannot separate the political dialogue from dialogue on other issues, be they economic, social or legal issues.

We should have a more complex approach and, therefore, these agreements will probably provide a positive effect for the overall relationship within the EU and eastern partnership countries and will also leave a positive impression on EU relations with Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

On the question concerning lessons from EU-Ukraine relations, the lessons will be drawn collectively in the formation of an EU Council or a European Parliament. In my national capacity, I can only say that the experience we had with Ukraine affirms two important lessons. One is that we should advance the negotiations and have a firm legal basis for our relationship in the form of an association agreement, including the economic part. The second is that we should keep the eastern partnership as a platform comprising six countries so that we could have multilateral dialogue with all of the countries concerned. By doing so, we could avoid bilateral contradictions. This could also be possible between the Russian Federation and the countries concerned.

The question of security and Ukraine was already addressed. On the euroscepticism issue, it does not belong to the competencies of the Presidency. As a diplomat, I can only observe that the degree of euroscepticism varies throughout Europe. There are countries which are more eurosceptic and others that do not have any significant political force which could be described as eurosceptic. It is probably related to the overall perception of the euro and economic prospects in society. Delivering on the primary objectives of the Presidency, which are stimulating economic growth, employment and social cohesion, would probably be the right answer to euroscepticism. Euroscepticism could also be approached from the perspective of social cohesion.

On the question concerning the European Investment Fund national allocations, this question belongs to discussion on the Council and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the positions of individual member states and their national priorities. Youth unemployment is a general problem which will be addressed in close co-operation with the European Commission when implementing the youth employment plan in all European countries.

At this stage I will stop and listen to further comments and questions.