Ms Clare Daly:

I echo Deputy Howlin's point that themes and digging deeper are a good way forward for our interaction. Perhaps smaller panels, linked to the committees that people are on, could be useful fora.

In regard to that point about climate change and the impact of the US elections, a worthy discussion for the committee members would be to look at the recently voted upon CAP deal and the impact it is going to have on climate change.

It is in direct contradiction of the Green New Deal and the climate resolutions that the European Parliament has passed. It deserves further scrutiny. It is a greater threat to our climate change commitments than the US elections. We know with certainty that a wealthy 70-year-old man is going to win the US election, but who knows which one it will be? If it is Donald Trump, it will force the EU to develop a more independent foreign policy because he has been so utterly appalling and grotesque in his pronouncements that the EU has been forced to distance itself from him. Should he be re-elected, that process will continue.

Regarding the point on Turkey, it is a blot on the conscience of Europe. There is no way of explaining it nicely. Europe has externalised its border management to the enrichment of the Turkish regime, a regime that it criticises in other respects. Europe's criticisms are significantly weakened by the facts it gives Turkey money and President Erdogan endangers Europe's activities by threatening to open the floodgates should it challenge his rule. It is a major issue for our migration policy. The same applies in the case of Libya. When Croatia was found to be in violation of border management and asylum seekers' rights, the European Commission rewarded it with more money for border management even though it had not implemented a monitoring mechanism for fundamental rights.

Deputy Richmond asked why Ireland was not engaged in the debate on migration in the same way as other countries. One of the reasons is that these issues are not covered in Ireland. It is not just about migration. How does one make the EU relevant to Irish people if nothing that happens there is covered? I have worked on data protection and migration issues in committees. Our work relating to Bulgaria has been covered by media outlets in that country and The Guardianhas repeatedly published articles on some of the work in which we have been involved, but there has not really been anything about it in the Irish media. One of the ways we will overcome that is something that I discussed with colleagues in the European Parliament before Covid, and it is something that this committee might need to examine. Oireachtas TV is a brilliant mechanism for opening up the Oireachtas to Irish people, but there needs to be an equivalent in respect of the European Parliament. I am not just talking about following Irish MEPs, but the work that the Parliament does and that impacts on so much of our lives. It will cost money, but the UK is now gone and we are on our own on the periphery of Europe. We all try in our own way to connect people with Europe, be it through podcasts, leaflets or so on, but that will not be enough. There needs to be a national lead. I suggest that we work with this committee on considering options.

Deputy Richmond referred to the Conference on the Future of Europe, Article 7 and so on. That issue needs to be examined. Fundamental rights are fundamental rights. There should be no ifs and buts about it and delays in launching infringement proceedings should not happen.

The Deputy also asked about a motion on Belarus. I imagine there is an implication that I support Lukashenko, so I will start there. Mr. Kelleher knows the answer well. I do not support Lukashenko, and neither does Mr. Mick Wallace. I would be very happy if the Belarusian people were to get rid of him, but my position is that it is their job to do so. One of the reasons we voted against that motion as well as a number of others is that human rights have been weaponised by the EU. It is ironic. When I was asked to address the protestors in Sofia, the capital of an EU member state, on the 100th night of protests calling for elections, they asked how the EU could argue for new elections in Belarus and discuss human rights in that country when it would not support the protestors' call for elections in its own backyard even though they had been out on the streets every night. It was hypocrisy. The motion was rooted in foreign interference and neoliberal reforms, which will not benefit the people of Belarus. No more than it was the job of the US in nominating an unelected Juan Guaidó as the President of Venezuela, it is not the job of the EU to nominate Tikhanovskaya as the leader of Belarus. My decision was due to the weaponisation of human rights.

I have probably not dealt with many other points, but I would be happy to speak again.