Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will develop some of the points raised by Deputy Halligan. I was approached by people on the same issue, with regard to dealing with minorities in Europe. Latvia has its experience, as do other countries in the region. Part of the difficulty in Ukraine was the response of the authorities to people who see themselves as Russian speakers. There were also outside influences. With regard to addressing minorities in Latvia and other regions in Europe, will Latvia encourage a different approach from that which we have had until now? This is an issue not only in Latvia's region, but throughout Europe. There is a difficulty with the approach to the Irish language in Northern Ireland. The issue exists throughout Europe, such as in the Basque country and Catalonia in Spain. At one time Latvia had a language test, which people said was quite expensive. People stated their payscale was based on the outcome of this test on their language ability.

Some people have what is deemed to be an alien passport even though they were born in that country. That seems to be a difficulty in some regions. Does the ambassador have views on those matters? What approach should Europe be taking in that regard?

The ambassador mentioned the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, agreement in his presentation and that progressing the negotiations on it will be a priority for the Latvian Presidency and that trade issues and geopolitical issues will also serve to broad the EU's relation with the US. If it is sought to popularise this agreement in Europe, part of the difficulty - although there does not seem to be the same difficulty in the US - is the secrecy that has surrounded much of the negotiations on it. Does the ambassador envisage a different approach will be taken under Latvia's Presidency to open up the process and give people across Europe more information on it? I have attended a number of meetings on it and we have discussed it at this committee, at the foreign affairs committee and at other fora inside and outside the Parliament and people have continued to point to the secrecy surrounding the negotiations. While they have heard all the positive news about it, they have not heard of the potential negatives involved for different industries and workers. Does the ambassador have a view on that?

The ambassador talked about the accession countries and he mentioned Serbia and Turkey. There has been a breakdown in the talks over the partition of Cyprus. Does the ambassador consider that issue to be not only part of those negotiations, but part of the proactive work that needs to be done within the EU? He referred to the Presidency being a symbol of reconciliation. If we consider what happened in Cyprus, it was invaded and partitioned. Part of the negotiations comprised the potential for reconciliation and that the city of Famagusta would be rebuilt but unfortunately the Cypriots withdrew from the discussions because of the Turkish involvement in searching for gas and oil off the shores of Cyprus on the Turkish-Cypriot side and the impact it has had. Does the ambassador believe there will be any movement forward in dealing with that conflict and would he view that as a priority for his country's Presidency? It is a country within Europe but it is divided. It is similar to Palestine in the Middle East with people having been settled on the island and the impact that has had. There has been a planation of sorts there. Does the ambassador view that issue as one of the Latvian Presidency's areas of priority?

In terms of an inclusive approach in Europe, one of the issues is migration and emigration. The ambassador spoke in terms of having more open borders and so on but how does he see that developing with the imbalance that there is in Europe with northern Europe carrying the weight for southern Europe? How does he see that impacting and the Latvian Presidency addressing it? We discussed the experiences of some countries in Europe last week. It would not be unknown in some countries for 4,000 or 6,000 people to land on their shores in boats and to find bodies floating up on to beaches.

Should Europe have a common approach to people fleeing conflict or war and how does the ambassador see such a system developing? Will greater supports be available for those countries that have a significant impact in that regard? I seek an overall view of the Presidency itself.

President Juncker was quoted. There was much criticism of his involvement in the Greek elections. Does the ambassador consider it helpful to the new Commission but also to the European ideal of the Commission for people to involve themselves in elections in various countries in the EU? Does the Latvian Government, as President, have a view on more involvement from Commission members in such elections in terms of who they would like to see being elected and the approach of governments? It is seen by many as a direct intervention in the political process within the country in question. If a similar intervention took place in Ireland or Latvia, people would have been extremely upset and annoyed. Does the ambassador have a view in that regard? I wish to hear a response to the rise in racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism across Europe. What is Latvia's experience? Does the ambassador see that as one of the key issues to be addressed by the Presidency?

I wish Latvia well with the Presidency. The issues of focus such as growth and jobs are positive. In terms of jobs, we are interested in the type of jobs created, equality and who the growth will benefit. They are some of the issues I wish to raise. I do not know if other speakers addressed them. The ambassador outlined some of the priorities in his speech but I wish to dig down and get a sense of what new issues will come forward during the Presidency.