Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar son an choiste, cuirim fáilte roimh an ambasadóir, H.E Mr. Vincent Guérend, agus a chomhghleacaithe go dtí an cruinniú inniú. I welcome the ambassador and his colleagues to this meeting today and look forward to the engagement.

Before we begin, I will read a note on privilege and some housekeeping matters. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons 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 the statement of a witness is potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, the witness will be directed to discontinue these remarks. It is imperative that he or she complies with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or against an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind members of the constitutional requirements that members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex to participate in public meetings. I am looking at Deputy Harkin there. The train is not on the complex yet. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I would ask members partaking by MS teams prior to making their contribution to the meeting to confirm they are in the Leinster House campus.

I call on the ambassador to make his opening statement.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Chairman for inviting me to this Joint Committee on European Union Affairs meeting. I had the chance to meet many of the members before becoming French ambassador in October 2020. Every day I am enjoying tremendously this function. Now that France is nearing the end of its Presidency, I thought it would be useful to exchange with the committee about and look back at the five, soon six, months of our Presidency. I am delighted to be with the Deputies and Senators. I will make an introductory statement and be glad to answer any question afterwards.

As the committee members well know, the French Presidency of the Council of the EU started on 1 January and will end on 30 June. France took the baton from Slovenia and will hand it over to the Czechia. We are part of a so-called trio with Czechia and Sweden.

As the committee well knows, holding the Council Presidency is a tremendous responsibility for any member state, including for France. In my own career, I have had the chance to follow this in 1995, 2000 and 2008. It has been 14 years since we last held the Presidency.

As the committee well knows, France sees its destiny very much in the EU and wants the European Union to grow as a political union based on democracy and the rule of law ensuring peace and prosperity to its 450 million citizens.

That is why France had an ambitious agenda for this Presidency, focusing on three key objectives, namely, recovery, strength and sense of belonging.

We believe the recovery chapter of the Presidency remains essential after two years of duress due to the Covid pandemic. We also believe that the EU has taken up the challenge by adopting and rolling out an historical recovery package of more than €800 billion and by co-ordinating the response against the pandemic, on vaccines in particular. As the committee well knows, where there is very little on health in the EU treaties except from a product quality or consumer protection point of view for pharmaceuticals, we have seen a remarkable political mobilisation around, first, vaccines, with procurement, but also with market authorisation and distribution to developing countries. The committee will remember that the EU has been not only ensuring a high degree of vaccination of its own population but it also has been the biggest donor worldwide. In addition, there has been co-ordination around free movement of people and as little limitation as possible to the free movement within the EU for sanitary reasons. On both accounts we believe the EU did well. Certainly, before the French Presidency, but including in the past months.

Second, high on our agenda, as kind of a catchword, is strength. It is vocabulary which was not necessarily very associated with the EU before, but we believe that this was very much needed. War is very sadly back on the European Continent and the threats are many. Against this background, the European Union has been remarkably united, swift and resolute in front of the Russian aggression on Ukraine by imposing unprecedented sanctions on the decision-makers in Russia, by supporting Ukraine militarily with a €2 billion military aid package and by extending up to €9 billion in financial and macro-financial aid for the years to come. The EU also has made a leap forward by adopting the so-called EU strategic compass back in March, which is a roadmap to beef up the European defence with as many as 72 concrete projects to be implemented in the three years to come, based on a common strategic threat analysis.

The EU is also affirming its strategic thinking by reinforcing its dialogue in co-operation with Africa. A summit between the European Union and the African Union took place in Paris in February to intensify co-operation across the board with Africa as a whole as a political organisation.

A ministerial conference between the EU and European ministers from the so-called Indo-Pacific region took place in March to share analysis and reaffirm the opinion and interest in the Indo-Pacific region, which is a region that is strategically so important for peace and prosperity in Europe.

After recover and strength, our third kind of catchword, if I may call it such, is the sense of belonging. The European Union, as the committee well knows, is a political union designed to serve its citizens, not against their wish and will, but with their democratic support. In this respect, the French Presidency has launched several cultural initiatives, with writers, thinkers and youths to nurture the human dimension of the European project, based on diversity, pluralism and multilingualism. I will name two initiatives. We invited, for example, two pupils from each and every member state, certainly also including from Ireland, to go to Strasbourg, spend a few days there and share their expectation on education and Europe's future. We also invited academics from all EU member states to share their thinking about Europe’s future. For Ireland, it was the provost of Trinity College. Also, the Conference on the Future of Europe, which was concluded on 9 May, certainly was a unique opportunity to let European citizens express directly their expectations and aspirations about Europe.

Beyond these key political objectives, the French Presidency was also about pushing the ambitious European legislative agenda built around climate and digital transition. Just perhaps to remind members, as they probably well know, at a given day in Europe, there are as many as 200 or more legislative texts in the legislative pipeline. Therefore, when we started our Presidency on 1 January, we knew that we would not be able to, of course, adopt all the 200 texts, because the legislative process in Europe takes more than six months between the Commission proposal, the First Reading by the Council, the First Reading by the Parliament and, if necessary, a trilogue and Second Reading. We wanted and were determined to push certain agenda, certainly on climate and digital transition. We believe that the result now, close to six months later, is pretty impressive, because many landmark items of legislation have been adopted or have been subject to political agreements between Council and European Parliament. Again, just to name a few, on climate action, there were as many as 13 texts to translate legally the so-called Fit for 55 agenda. We are pushing this across the board. We also achieved a political agreement on the establishment of a so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism, which will create a level playing field between businesses established in the EU and subject to carbon pricing on the one hand and those located outside the EU that are currently not subject to the same rules and climate-friendly measures on the other. There was a political agreement on this, even though of course this text also now will be considered within the larger package of climate change legislation, particularly what we call the emission trading system, ETS, for buildings and transport.

On trade, the EU has added a so-called anti-coercion mechanism to its toolbox and will have greater leverage to get access to international public procurement markets. This was much needed to restore a level playing field between, in particular, Europe on the one hand, but also the US and China on the other where, as the committee knows, our companies had no access to public procurement in those two big trade partners, but asymmetrically, American and Chinese companies had full access to our public procurement. Public procurement in Europe is a multibillion euro market.

On digital, the political agreement on the so-called Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act, two key pieces of legislation to ensure fair competition in the digital industry and increase accountability of large players on harmful content, were very important decisions which will not only better protect European citizens and competition in Europe, but also set benchmarks globally. Agreements were also found on the establishment of a minimum wage around the same principle in all EU member states. This measure is socially progressive and will prevent a race to the bottom at European level when it comes to salaries. Anecdotally, even though it is probably important also in the long term for citizens and consumers, an agreement was found on a universal charging cable. This is also a decision that will prove that the EU is delivering for citizens and setting global standards.

More generally, and I will conclude with this, the French Presidency was the occasion, thanks also to the receding pandemic, to organise hundreds of meetings in France at Head of State and Government level, ministerial level and high official levels to share analysis, compare approaches and set common objectives. This is what ultimately the EU is about on a daily basis for decision-makers and officials.

The Taoiseach, Tánaiste and many members of the Irish Cabinet participated in these events organised throughout France. Ireland's point of view and contribution are much sought after and important in the decision-making process. Ireland's testimony after 50 years of EU membership is a superb illustration of what EU belonging can do best.

Here in Ireland, the French Embassy co-ordinated the work of EU member state embassies around three kinds of activities. First, at ambassadorial level I had the privilege to chair meetings twice per month with high-level guests. We invited the Tánaiste and several Cabinet Ministers, including Deputies Eamon Ryan, Paschal Donohoe, Michael McGrath and Stephen Donnelly, and the Minister of State, Senator Hackett. We also involved other political figures, the chairwoman of Sinn Féin and high-ranking officials like the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces and the Data Protection Commissioner.

These were closed-door meetings between ambassadors and guests but we also had events for members of academia. We held a conference on plurilingualism in March, introduced by the Minister of State, Deputy Byrne, and one on how to feel European while having national and local identities. This conference was held in Galway with guest speakers from Galway, the west of Ireland, Brittany and Galicia in Spain.

We had a few events for a broader public. On 9 May, Europe Day, the screening of so-called short shorts took place online and physically in Dublin and Cork. Those short films were directed by various European directors. On the same day, it was an honour and privilege for me and my fellow European ambassadors to join Cabinet Ministers, Deputies Coveney and Michael McGrath, in Cork and visit some schools. Our message to the pupils was simple: Europe is a project of peace and prosperity, based on values. In the current global context, our message was to say we are stronger together.

I thank members for their kind attention, belatedly congratulate Ireland for 50 years of membership and, with my national hat on again, say how pleased we are to be Ireland's closest EU neighbour.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador. We are close and many French live in Ireland. I think there are more than 11,500, and more than 8,000 Irish people live in France, so there are good connections there.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassador and his team. I think they have possibly been our closest European neighbour since 1798 but we can discuss that again. I will not mention the protocol because I am sure the many experts on it in attendance will mention it.

I will come back to the themes of the Presidency - recovery, strength and belonging. They were the themes on 1 January and today Europe is in a very different place. What are the lessons to be learned from how Europe allowed itself to become so dependent on Russia that we are now struggling and our people are paying an enormous price, and will pay a bigger one in the coming months to take ourselves away from that, economically and politically?

The ambassador mentioned that the threats are many. The biggest threat at the moment to European solidarity and unity is economic. What are the lessons from the Presidency? What is the view, as France begins to move on from the Presidency, of how that will be managed? The ambassador mentioned European unity and since the invasion it has been superb. Before the invasion, I criticised it and felt the Commission and President were laissez-faireand there could have been far more intervention at an earlier stage. Since the end of February there has been an excellent response. Does the ambassador feel that will continue as the pressures grow and we go into a winter where our dependence on energy, in particular, will be tested? What is the view of the French Government regarding lessons to be learned?

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Deputy for those important and difficult questions. When we prepared for the Presidency in my previous job - until summer 2020 I was chief of staff of the French Minister for European affairs so was part of the preparation - we were heading towards Covid and so on. It was the French Presidency's agenda that we had to reconcile Europe even more with its citizens. In Ireland, you do very well; in France, we do less well, hence the agenda of belonging and connecting with citizens. That was one challenge and the other one was to assert Europe more at international level and beef up European tools against a more and more challenging, not to say hostile, environment, including the close environment. As the Deputy said, events in the Ukraine have made this much worse than we anticipated.

On dependency, I believe there are two kinds of dependency. The dependency of some European countries is not really a choice but is inherited from the past. I think particularly of all the eastern EU member states, which inherited gas, oil and coal supplies from their old connection with the former Soviet Union and which have been slow in transforming this, even though the climate change agenda was a driver of change. This was not really their choice and now they face an extremely difficult timeline in which to transform this. We see that some for political reasons have been very swift, like Poland and the Baltic states. Others, like Hungary, consider it is too quick and difficult.

The other category of countries, in particular Germany and Italy, for political reasons which are perfectly legitimate but are now showing their limitations, believe that engagement with Russia was the right way to ultimately find a shared prosperity agenda on the European Continent. Speaking about Germany, it dates back to the early 1970s. For Italy, it is probably an even older agenda if you look at all the industrial joint ventures between Italy and Russia in the 1960s in the automotive and other sectors.

This agenda has blatantly shown its strong limitation and it is extremely painful for all European countries, and those in particular, to be faced with this limitation. It is difficult to blame them because the whole EU and the whole world had the same agenda with regard to China. In the 1990s and 2000s - and it continues to a lesser extent - we engaged heavily with China, considering that shared prosperity and globalisation was, as our Chinese friends would say, a win-win and would create a de facto solidarity which would prevent war, etc.

When considering what we have done with Russia, mainly on energy but also in the context of other kinds of commodities, we should not forget that we do the same with China on a broader range of products. Against this background, we will have to respond rapidly and strongly to the challenges of climate transition and the transition in our energy supply. There is, therefore, the double challenge of accelerating peace. It is also an opportunity, even though we know there are bottlenecks in terms of being able to equip ourselves with wind turbines, solar panels and this and that. In a way, it strongly reinforces the call for renewable energy sources and energy autonomy in Europe. We in France believe this has strongly reinforced our agenda of energy autonomy with nuclear energy. It has more generally reinforced our agenda for the so-called strategic autonomy of the EU.

I will say clearly that this is not about building a fortress Europe or an autocratic Single Market cut off from the rest of the world. It is not at all about that. France is a big exporter of goods and services. We need trade on goods and services and there is no intention whatsoever to close this exchange with the rest of the world. There is, however, an intention to say that on certain critical commodities and products, we can no longer just believe that our trade partners will respect their contracts. Remember the kind of extremely dramatic scenes we saw relating to the supply of masks two years ago. It became a terrible race to get a supply of masks, etc. It does not mean necessarily that we need enormous production of masks but we must think more strategically about what is critical for business continuity in Europe and where we have to act more strategically without being overly dependent on supplies from overseas.

The war in Ukraine is far from over. It has taught us that we can be united and should remain so. European strength is based on values. We have the financial and legal tools to remain united. Economically and in terms of defence, we want to beef up capacity. We have a roadmap now and it is important to roll it out. There are 72 measures included in the strategic compass, 48 of which are to be rolled out in 2022 and 2023. It is now about implementation based on a shared analysis and the best analysis of the need of the day. It is now about implementation.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador for coming. I apologise for being a couple of minutes late in attending. I was listening to the meeting on my way in. I had to deal with logistics relating to children this morning.

Many of us would say that if we were dealing with the European question during the financial crisis, we would not necessarily have got support on the street for the European project due to the conditions at the time. I ask Mr. Guérend for a comment on the present circumstances. There has been solidarity across Europe which to a degree has been unexpected. The old argument that was always made was to ask what would happen when German carmakers or French winemakers wanted to sell into Britain but we have seen the colour of the European Union's money in that regard. We are dealing with Boris Johnson, who increasingly appears almost to fall into the category occupied by Recep Tayyip Erdoan, Viktor Orbán and others. I ask Mr. Guérend for a comment on where Boris Johnson stands at the moment. We are all guessing as to whether he is serious or not. The European Union has probably set out a slightly more robust response.

It is not only a matter of solidarity around Brexit. How we dealt with the pandemic and the response to the war in Ukraine showed a level of co-operation and cohesion that was higher than people may have expected, particularly, I imagine, Vladimir Putin. We have also shown that as difficult as it is, we can come to agreements, including an element of opt-in co-operation. Deputy Richmond and I, among others, were involved with the Conference on the Future of Europe. The timescale was a bit restricted. The French presidency was somewhat chaotic in the beginning. It fell into a better structure as it went along. Some citizens came up with some very innovative suggestions but at times possibly fell into a need for greater context in respect of the European institutions. Beyond that, there was almost expert testimony on particular niche issues. Due to the difficulties with the likes of Hungary, there was a focus on qualified majority voting versus unanimity. I am asking Mr. Guérend for a view. We have shown how opt-ins work. We know that this is to go somewhere and that there are varying views. I am asking for the French view.

There has been certain commentary about it taking 20 years for the accession of Ukraine to the European Union, which probably make people ill at ease. That notion existed previously and I can understand some of the reasoning behind it. Where does France stand on a two-speed Europe?

Mr. Guérend said we are dealing with the particular crisis in Ukraine but we know we are also dealing with impending issues relating to climate change and all the rest of it. Supply chain planning is something that must happen without Europe becoming a protectionist bloc. The one thing the pandemic showed was that the State is required to do the heavy lifting if we are going to make real change. We have seen in French politics that if people do not buy into the necessary moves on climate change, the door will be left open for certain non-progressive people and space is allowed in that regard. It is vital that we bring people along. Some of that will involve considering fiscal constraints and understanding that the constraints are greater now. When I am talking about supply chain planning, I am also talking about energy, food and all those other issues. I think that is a sufficient amount of questions to put in front of Mr. Guérend. It will probably take the rest of the meeting for him to respond.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have plenty of time but many committee members have indicated a wish to contribute. I encourage members to be more specific and succinct in their contributions and it would be welcome if that were reciprocated.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was why I got in early.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

Will I answer the Deputy's questions now or will I take a group of questions?

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Guérend can respond.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Deputy for his interesting points. He asked about the relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom and the latest announcement by the British Government concerning the protocol and this draft law.

There was a public reaction from the EU institutions and the vice-president of the European Commission, Mr. Maroš Šefovi. There have also been reactions from many European governments, including the French Government, in full support both of what Mr. Šefovi said and the Irish Government's concerns. There is strong unity regarding those concerns and a strong sense that what the British Government is now tabling is in full contradiction of its own commitment to the signing and ratification of the protocol two and a half years ago. Again, we are fully supportive of the efforts of the Commission and in full solidarity with Ireland on this very important subject. I think that is clear enough. There is no ambiguity in respect of that.

When it comes more generally to the Conference on the Future of Europe and how we want the debate to continue, I realise the timescale was very packed initially. The pandemic and virtual meetings probably did not help either, including with national debates, but ultimately we believe it was a useful exercise. The point was not to again open the Pandora's box of the institutional debate in Europe, even though it was an expectation, particularly in respect of the European Parliament, to move the lines with this right of initiative, which France supports. We believe Europe has to work and function. We do not have to fix something that is not broken. We never said that Europe has a broken engine but in view of the extremely fast developments we mentioned previously, nobody should be complacent and should consider that just because it works and broadly delivers a good service to European citizens, Europe should just stand as it is in light of the upcoming enlargements. In this context, the French President made a speech on 9 May in Strasbourg at the close of the conference, where he called on European citizens and institutions to see how best to serve the European citizen with no taboo on institutions. Even though it is certainly not the priority of the day to have a new institutional debate, it should not be a red line either.

When it comes to EU enlargement, it is about what we said on the French side before the presidency and now that we have it. In 2019, before France held the presidency, I was part of the decision-making, or at least the thinking on this on the French side. The accession procedure that had been developed in the 1990s and early 2000s, before a large number of central and eastern European countries joined, was no longer fit for purpose for the new applicants, including the current applicant in the western Balkans. As we can see, the negotiating process with the western Balkans is, in a way, stalled because of the many challenges faced by these countries but also because the process is just too heavy and not political enough, in a way. As members will probably well know, the process is based on 35 chapters with many sub-groups and sub-meetings, which I should certainly not criticise as being too bureaucratic. I am a bureaucrat myself and, at the end of the day, papers and analysis etc. are needed. It is just a very heavy process because, ultimately, the applicant countries have the impression of being drawn into procedures about internal markets, the Single Market, and the TETRA project, without having a political vision. The process then stalls.

We wanted to propose in this new scheme for accession negotiations, which was partly taken over by the Commission, the ability to propose to these countries a mechanism of better and stronger political dialogue with the EU on foreign policy issues, values and the way the EU works on the one side, and keep a certain track on technicalities that are ultimately key. If these countries want to be member states, they have to have policies on transport, social issues and the environment that fit and match with EU standards and, generally, keep to this double track. In a way, by extension, what the French President proposed on 9 May to Ukraine, but also to non-EU countries such as Norway, Switzerland and, why not, the UK, was a little the same. We need a basis of political dialogue with these countries, including Ukraine, on foreign policy, where we have shared interests. This includes the UK where we have a shared foreign policy interest to have the UK be part of continental foreign policy and security thinking, and also in respect of values and the fact that on the European Continent we all share the same democratic values - at least we hope so - on the rule of law and are part of the Council of Europe. I exclude Russia, of course. This is one political platform.

When it comes to Ukraine, we will have to continue to see when and if we start negotiations for accession. On the French side, we really believe it would be deceiving to let the Ukrainian people believe Ukraine will be a member in five or ten years' time. We consider this not to be the case, not because we do not want it but because Ukraine is not ready for it. Look at the extremely high standards we Europeans have on everything. We have the highest standards in the world. How do we want a country, which has a GDP of probably not even €1,000 per head, to comply with this? It is just not realistic. We certainly have to find a mechanism to bring Ukraine closer to Europe on everything, including on political and foreign policy issues in particular, but the shortest way for this is not EU accession.

On supply chains, as I mentioned previously, as Europe is a major powerhouse at global level, it should remain the case our own interests are completely plugged into global supply chains. I am not sharing a scoop here, but when we see that close to 90% of the supply of microchips comes from Taiwan, the risk that is can be measured. The fact is the EU is correct to now develop a strategy on microchips. It cannot be that we are so over-reliant on one single site of production that is marred, whether we like it or not, by some risks.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Time is running against us. I will ask members to be more specific.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I will shorten my answers too.

Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador for his presentation. I congratulate the French Republic on its presidency. It has driven the EU forward with very ambitious plans, many of which are being realised. I also acknowledge the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, is giving real leadership to the EU at this time.

I have two questions following on from my colleague, Deputy Ó Murchú, on the Conference on the Future of Europe. What are France's plans, or aims and objectives, for the post-conference scenario? In particular, given the ambitions of the French Republic for the EU, I am especially interested in the issue of unanimous decision-making. Treaty change is linked to that. As the witnesses will know, we have unanimity on a number of issues, including taxation, accession and defence, which is a national competence. We have unanimous decision-making in a number of areas.

What is France's ambition now that the 49 proposals have been presented and the conference has concluded with 300 concrete measures?

My second question is about the war in Ukraine. We are told that the French President is in communication with Putin regarding a negotiated settlement. What is the policy objective of France in that regard and its strategy in dealing with Putin? We are told the Baltic states are not happy with the constant communication involving France, Germany and Italy in particular. What is Emmanuel Macron's strategy regarding his communications with Putin and bringing this war to an end or bringing about a negotiated settlement?

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

On the Deputy's first point about the Conference on the Future of Europe, the conference has published a report. Now the ball is back in the court of the various European institutions to see how to bring this forward. As for the substance, it is true, as the Deputy mentioned, that the French President, in his speech on 9 May, endorsed pretty strongly many of the proposals, including probably the most innovative, which would see the European Parliament having a right of initiative. He has also said very strongly, however, in his national capacity that he believes we should generalise qualified majority voting, including in areas where there is still unanimity voting, including on foreign policy, which until now has not at all been the French line. Yes, he has made pretty remarkable moves compared with the traditional French position on this within the context of an EU which he believes needs to adapt to the challenges of the day and which is delivering, as I said and as we have seen, but also facing too many obstacles, including generally with some member states. Frankly speaking, the difficulties we have with Poland and Hungary in particular not only on some human rights issues but also on some policy issues - energy and other things - are a real obstacle to swift decision-making. Yes, the French President has been pretty clear on this. He now wants this agenda to be moved forward by the EU institutions.

When it comes to Ukraine, the French strategy with Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, certainly since the 2000s, has not changed. It is a strategy based on engagement and shared interests in the sense that we have an interest in seeing Russia being as close as possible to Europe. There is also, however, a lot of realism. We have been constantly criticising, condemning and sanctioning Russia since 2008, after the aggression involving Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, etc. Now, since January, in a way the three objectives are similar. We want to stop this war and want the conflict to stop. We want to see a negotiated solution but not on the backs of Ukrainians. It is for Ukraine to decide whatever it wants to settle with Russia or otherwise. This is not just the starting point. We will not compromise on the full territorial integrity and the full sovereignty of Ukraine.

Ultimately, we also believe that we will need, at a certain stage, a channel of communication open with Mr. Putin himself, not just his foreign minister or some other decision maker in Russia, because he is probably the only one in Russia who decides. Why should we now break this communication, which is already so challenging, only to resume it with even more difficulty in three months, six months or five years? We need that channel of communication open, as difficult and as frustrating as it is because we realise very much that he has been, frankly speaking, lying to us over the past six months. We believe, however, that it is important to keep that channel of communication open. Ultimately, one day, be it in five years, ten years or 15 years from now, it is our strong conviction that we will need to find, as difficult as it is, a security architecture with Russia. We have to find a way to bring Russia back to the various treaties on non-proliferation, conventional forces in Europe and non-aggression, which Russia has been either violating or quitting over recent years. We must have such a long-term perspective. We certainly do not want to compromise anything at the expense of Ukraine.

In the meantime, we have to pass strong messages. We also pushed very hard for the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Guterres, to go to Russia. It took a long time for him to go there. He went there only in early April just because the Russians did not want him to come. We had insisted with other Security Council members that he go there. Again, as frustrating and as unfruitful as it was, it was important. That is why we also considered that it is important to keep a channel of communication open with Mr. Putin.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that specific point, Mr. Guérend might tie this into a general response rather than coming back to me because that might require a wee bit of time. President Macron has made commentary to the effect that a resolution needs to be found without humiliating Russia. Mr. Guérend might keep that in mind when answering, but I am-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to ask about that.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will tell you what-----

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman has asked it now.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator McDowell wish to add anything?

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. That is all. I would just like commentary on that. Does it mean that Crimea will de factoremain Russian? It was Russian until 1954. Are we talking about requiring Russia to evacuate all of the eastern region it now controls? Is that what humiliation involves? I am not being in any way dismissive of what is being said, but if we are to have a pragmatic solution and say Putin is not to be humiliated, what does that imply? That is all I am wondering.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it okay if the ambassador takes that question before Senator Chambers' slot?

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator can give out to Senator McDowell afterwards for skipping the queue.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I am glad to answer that question, which is very important and has been the subject of many comments in the press, including here in Ireland. When the President said that, it was in reaction to many remarks and comments made, particularly in the United States three weeks or a month ago, when things were looking a little better for the Ukrainian army than they do now. There was a sense that a victory for Ukraine was within reach pretty soon and that we should teach Russia a lesson once and for all in order that Russia should not be tempted anytime soon to cross the line again. There were some very high-level US decision makers making such remarks. We still believe not only that those remarks are slightly dangerous but also that the idea of teaching Russia lessons is dangerous. That is not because we believe that what Russia has done over the past six months is permissible or admissible but, rather, because the history of the European Continent over centuries, certainly over the past 100 years, has taught us very painfully that if one teaches a country a lesson for having invaded a neighbour, it bounces back very strongly a generation later.

Just look at the First World War in this respect. Looking at the Franco-German conflicts, there was a war in 1870 in which the Germans humiliated us and we fought hard to recover the province we had ceded. The idea of teaching one's neighbour a lesson is very dangerous. As much as we support sanctions and strongly consider that the full territorial integrity of Ukraine should be restored, including Ukraine, as well as that of Georgia, with the provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the same time, we believe it is dangerous, when speaking about Russia, though not Mr. Putin, to engage in a narrative and strategy with an objective of humiliating a country. We would then, in one generation's time, see serious consequences. We have to defeat Russia. We want Ukraine to win. We have to put all efforts possible towards the objective of Ukraine winning this war and seeing Russia lose it, but with no humiliation.

Lisa Chambers (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador. I agree with his comments about having a bigger picture, longer term view. We should apply the same thinking to Brexit and not rise to the bait. The EU has to be the adult in the room. Matters are playing out domestically in the UK. One could be forgiven for wanting to throw in the towel, because it is challenging. Maroš Šefovi has done a good job. He has been patient, as has the EU, as have we in Ireland. We have to find a way forward that is agreeable to the UK as well as the EU, so that nobody feels like they have won or lost. There are concerns in some quarters in Ireland that there is such growing frustration on the Continent that there is a temptation to retaliate or to regress from our adult-like position. We should be conscious to not do that, as tempting as it might be. That is my only comment on Brexit. It has been dealt with well. We are on the same page with regard to our views on that legislation.

It is unbelievable and remarkable that we are discussing the UK breaching international law. I agree that the legislation published does exactly that. No matter how it is spun or interpreted on the other side, it is disappointing, to say the least, that the dispute resolution mechanisms within the withdrawal agreement and treaty are not utilised, because they were intended to deal with these conflicts and disagreements, which were expected to take place. We knew we would have disagreements and we will again at some point in the future. It is important to use the dispute resolution mechanisms built into the agreement to deal with those so that no side goes off to do its own thing, for want of a better phrase.

We had reports in our country discussing the docking of two Russian ships in our ports to deliver grain and fertiliser under a derogation of the sanctions, which are supposed to not allow these ships to dock, but we can use those derogations where there is a necessity under the principle that we should not seek to do more harm to ourselves than we are doing to Russia, which I understand. It brings into question the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. The intention behind the CAP was to have a level of self-sufficiency and to have access to good quality, sustainably produced food that is as carbon neutral as possible. It suggests we have not done a great job on that front if we find that we still have to import grain and fertiliser because of our over-reliance on Ukraine and Russia. I am not disagreeing with the ships coming in. It was a necessity to not create bigger problems for ourselves further down the track. We need to have a conversation at EU level about the Common Agricultural Policy and what we need to change to encourage our farmers, which we are trying to do domestically. Our Minister announced €56 million to deal with that issue, to try to encourage farmers to grow more grain. That needs to happen across the Continent. The CAP is the way to achieve it. I would welcome the ambassador's comments on that. It is the same as the problem with microchips, but with a different product that is even more vital. Food is a necessity.

I am probably straying a little. I think this issue concerns Ireland because we all share the same values of human rights, protection of refugees, how we treat them and the dignity that we treat human beings with. What are the ambassador's views on the UK's policy on Rwanda? My view is that it is disgusting, disgraceful and abhorrent. It breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. It flies in the face of human decency and dignity. It clearly breaches the UN Refugee Convention. There have been allegations in the UK, some quite direct and other more nuanced, that the French are to blame. They say people are travelling from France to the UK and ask what the French authorities are doing about it. I do not agree with that narrative. That is clever spin they are putting on it to sell it domestically and say that whatever problems are happening domestically, somebody else is creating them. The latter seems to be the modus operandiof the UK Government. It is deeply concerning to all who hold those values close that the intention is to put people on planes and send them to Africa to be dealt with. It is a disgraceful policy. I welcome the ambassador's comments on how France is dealing with that and about his engagements with the UK. Does he see a path to address that from an EU and from a French perspective?

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Senator for raising those important points. On the matter of the CAP and ships, I do not have specific information on those ships, but some exceptions are provided for in the sanction regime, and I am sure it is all legal. From a French point of view, we believe that after 60 or 70 years of the CAP, it has been a huge success, even though it has to be changed to be more friendly to the climate, environment and biodiversity. We are fortunate to have developed this policy for the past 50 or so years. As the Senator probably knows, the EU is a strong net exporter of food and agri-products. We are able not only to feed our population but to export, which is good. We may need to import certain products. We are a bigger importer of sunflower oil and maize, which Ukraine is a significant producer of in the world.

We need to remain open to exports and imports of food products. It is in our own interest as a net exporter. From a French point of view, we want to put an emphasis on not being too lenient towards big exporters which are not complying with the Paris Agreement requirements relating to climate change and are pushing deforestation or are exporting products which do not match our sanitary standards. We need to import some grain or some fertiliser and I believe that will remain a necessity.

I have a couple of remarks on migration and the recent developments in the UK. The EU in general, the UN agencies and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have stated clearly what they think of this policy. We strongly disagree with the policy. As has been said, it is probably in breach of several conventions.

Certainly it is not in the spirit of the way we in the EU want to deal with illegal migrants. Within the EU, as the Senator knows, over the last number of years there has been a new proposal on the table called a migratory pact. It is made of various subtexts of regulation on asylum, legal migration and how to fight illegal migration. There has been some progress, by the way, under the French Presidency, even though we have not been able to push this through completely because they are extremely politically sensitive documents. However, we have made some progress. Ultimately, we on the French side strongly believe that first, Europe needs migrants in the long run because of our demographics, second, that we must manage this migration and remain a Continent that provides asylum for asylum seekers for the values we mentioned before and third, this has to organised, managed and with some solidarity mechanism within the EU between the front-line countries and those that are less on the front line. There is a financial burden etc., so there has to be a mechanism or at least redistribution solidarity.

This being said, when it comes more precisely to the UK and France and also the situation in the Channel, and with Calais and Dover, this is not new. We have had these problems for at least 20 years or more. It is true co-operation with the UK was always difficult and it has become really difficult since Brexit, basically, and particularly over the last two to three years with the new British Government. We believe that we are a little bit too easy to use as a scapegoat of some of the difficulties it may have. The co-operation on a practical, daily basis is less smooth than it used to be. The British Government is also now indulging in some practices we believe are in breach of international law, the law of the sea, rescuing people at sea etc. In certain cases - we have seen this even with the Ukrainians - some of the basic factors like accepting families to reunite and others have not necessarily been swiftly followed by the British.

At the same time, we see our responsibility as a kind of last point before the UK on the Continent and we are working closely with our other European partners and neighbours like the Benelux countries, Germany and others to see how to reform this because ultimately, the whole system has to be reformed. You have some of the asylum seekers who ask for asylum in Germany, let us say they are from Afghanistan or another country, they stay in Germany for a couple of months or years then are for different reasons denied asylum in Germany. Then they move to the next country and then through to France, whereas they should stay in Germany and be deported. Then in France they ask for another one and then they try to go to the UK. This mechanism needs the full co-operation of the UK within the EU. Even though Brexit has occurred it should still, in its own interest, remain at the table and it is not at the table. It does not want to address this very complex and very humane situation with us and I mean humane in the sense that we are talking about people here. The situation means there are often very tragic cases, so the UK should remain at the table and it has not and that makes it extremely difficult.

In short, we need more co-operation on this from the UK and over the last couple of years, we have seen a lack of co-operation.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador. The Senator has covered a very broad agenda, one probably well beyond the scope we have asked the ambassador here to discuss. I am probably going to add to that. I have three questions. My first builds on the initial commentary by Deputy Calleary. He talked about a sense of a lack of cohesion, if you like, on the day France took over, though it was not France's fault. Since then, because of events, the degree of focus, determination and solidarity has astounded even ourselves. There has been the focus on the vaccines, on our response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine and indeed on solidarity with Ireland in the context of the protocol. The French Presidency coincided with the French election cycle and there was a real battle, if you like, over what the outcome would be and a belief in and significant vote for those who want to withdraw from the European Union itself. This is an organisation Ireland has been a member of for 50 years and has invested so much in. I cannot think of any parallel organisation that is so fundamental to our well-being to which there is periodically an existential threat. I do not know whether the ambassador has a view on that. It cannot be that an institution that is so structurally important to us in Europe can be undermined by a particular election cycle at any event. Is that to be a permanent feature of the Union? Is there a thought on that?

My second question is related to that. I wish to amplify a question Deputy Ó Murchú asked because I am not clear on the vision of France in relation to how it envisages connecting non-EU core members to Europe. The phrase used as shorthand is "two-tier" Europe. Is it a bilateral relationship on an individual country basis that is different in each case and unique in each case? How does France see the deepening of the core members and how a relationship with non-core members might be developed in the future? I just am not clear on the French vision on that.

My final question is on Africa. The ambassador talked about the dialogue that was very important between the EU and Africa. What was the outcome of that in terms of the normal declarations and so on? Is there a real strategy to ensure Europe is as competitive in Africa for the hearts and souls of people as China clearly is at present? We have been talking for a very long time about the migration issue and the solution being an investment in Africa and the European neighbourhood such that there is not an economic imperative on people to migrate to Europe because there is an economic future for them at home. What is the ambassador's view on that?

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I thank the Deputy. I would probably need another hour to answer all those very important points. On the first point on a lack of cohesion and what was mentioned before by Deputy Calleary, I am not sure precisely what the Deputy referred to. Was is a lack of cohesion within France and other member states or within the EU group?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, the EU itself was seen to be riven by internal strife. We were all looking at the Conference on the Future of Europe debate in the context of whether the fundamental principles of Europe were being abided by and whether we could do something about that. Then, suddenly, we were almost in lockstep on the critical issues, which was heartening for us all.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

I am not sure how to answer the Deputy's question here but when it comes to Poland and Hungary in particular, nothing has been set aside. In the EU institutions, the Commission and so on, the various legal proceedings against Hungary are still running and we have not put that aside just because of the difficult hour of the day due to the war in Ukraine and so on.

There is no compromising on values, human rights and rule of law in Poland and Hungary, because of our concern about Russia and energy supply and the need to have both Poland and Hungary on board. When Commission President von der Leyen visited Warsaw very recently, she again stressed that the share Poland should receive from the recovery package was still conditional on reforms to its justice system.

Cohesion within the EU is still strong. Yes, we have difficult debates with Hungary on sanctions in terms of various aspects or individuals. The Deputy will recall that Hungary has asked that the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church be excluded from the sanctions. It has also asked that sanctions not go to 100%, but to 90%, on fuel supply etc. Hungary is a difficult partner but it is still around the table and, ultimately, it is still supportive of the general move. When one looks back, the cohesion of the group is still remarkable and the reaction was very swift and united, all in all.

When it comes to the French Presidency and its cycle and, more generally, I felt the heat in respect of how great the hazard was that the whole EU, which is such an important project, could be jeopardised by a few million voters in France or elsewhere. I see what the Deputy means. I can only speak for France here but I guess it is the same in other member states. Time and again, we have to make clear that the EU delivers, is close to the citizen and, ultimately, is the best answer to the problems and not the root of the problem. I confess this is especially challenging to make clear in France, for many reasons. The only heartening lesson in France over the past couple of years is that even Ms Le Pen is no longer talking about exiting the EU or the euro. She is now just talking about reforming the EU. The so-called Frexit is no longer an issue in France.

One may say that, on the left side, Mr. Mélenchon is basically openly calling, not to leave the EU, but to disobey the rules and to become rogue when it comes to the EU institutional framework. He does not have the majority of the vote in France and is still far from a majority. If one combines the left and extreme left or the right and the extreme right, it is true that they add up to quite a significant number of French voters but, if one looks at the presidential election, even though many voters did not show up, a strong majority was for a very pro-European president. I see that the ice is sometimes thin but the agenda of the French President has been remarkably constant in continuing to push EU integration and the EU agenda, rather than weakening it.

I see the broader perspective and the points of view of Ireland and other member states that our prosperity is shared and of the risk it can be jeopardised by one member state. We have to continue to make sure that policy delivers and that the citizens feel part of the debate and that, with all its limitations, was very much what the French President tried to do. Of course it was a kind of a bet to have the French Presidency of the Council of the European Union at the same time as our electoral cycle. The President won that bet and he will win again on Sunday. Being pro-European remains a winning ticket in France. He also wanted to consolidate this EU anchor in France by having the two coincide this semester.

When it comes to a two-speed Europe or core members and others, we all know that all member states want to be in the core. Nobody wants to be on the fringe. Those who are on the fringe are gradually coming to the core. I am thinking of Denmark in terms of defence and Croatia, which will soon join the euro. Some member states are still not willing to join the euro. Czechia and Sweden are part of the trio. When France presented this Permanent Structured Cooperation, PESCO, a couple of years ago, all but one member state joined. Ireland also joined. We see that everybody wants to be in the first league and not the second, which is reassuring.

However, it is true that the more the EU evolves and the more member states there are, the more it will be difficult to keep the same pace for all. We believe the answers to that are more qualified majority voting or, indeed, depending on the policies and the agreement of all, structured co-operation in certain cases. When it comes to European non-EU member states, such as our Swiss and Norwegian friends and maybe, one day, the Ukrainians, we will have to see other mechanisms of co-operation.

The French Government over the past 30 years, basically since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the early discussion on EU accession enlargement in the early 1990s, has been invoking a two-speed Europe. It has not done so as a threat to all those who are less convinced by deeper integration, but an appeal to the need for further integration and not to necessarily just adopt the pace of the slow ones.

Maybe I was a bit short on Africa in my introductory remarks. Within the EU and, certainly, in France, the feeling is that for the 20 years and more to come, the importance of Africa is such that we cannot devolve enough resources to it, because of its size, proximity and the many challenges it faces. Moreover, all the efforts made over the past 50 or 60 years have been very important but probably not sufficient to address these challenges and that the format of the previous EU-Africa summits were not necessarily delivering in terms of substance and dynamics.

This time, we decided not to have all African heads of state. There were also, in fairness, issues as a result of coups etc. We wanted to concentrate on the institution of the African Union, which is also a very good dialogue partner. We also wanted to focus more on civil society because in many African countries where states' institutions are weak, there is a very vibrant civil society in business, culture, education and youth. There was a whole forum on civil society.

Ultimately, we wanted the delegation led by the European Commission to be a little less dominated by development issues, although they are important, and more driven by a political agenda, where we really address political and security issues of these countries. I do not say this is a magic wand and there is a magical way to complete the relationship in the 20 years to come. The strong attempt was to establish a more political dialogue with the African Union and help it even more in being the kind of driving force for the continent.

Neale Richmond (Dublin Rathdown, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have two brief questions because we are more or less out of time. The ambassador has been very kind and generous in giving full answers and I will not ask anything new. I just wanted to pick up on two matters and ask two supplementary questions to the comments already made by the ambassador.

In his first intervention the ambassador referred to the strategic compass, the 72 projects and 48 of those in the short term. There was a huge discussion during the course of the French Presidency at Versailles on the future of security arrangements in the Union. That issue is becoming ever more apparent as a result of the war in Ukraine and everything else. Beyond the strategic compass and in the longer term, what is the ambition of France as we go through the next decade of greater European co-operation? Where could Ireland play a role, taking into account our constraints?

Senator Chambers referred to the understandable reaction to the nonsense, for want of a better word, going on in London currently. The response of the European Commission is to be expected if it potentially unpauses legal action and commences new legal action, depending on how this legislation progresses. What is the feeling of the French Government, with the ambassador as its representative, about this Commission action? How supportive of it will the French Government be and how fast should it occur?

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have gone over time but two more members are seeking to contribute. We will take them together after this reply.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

The strategic compass is a very important document and very much fit for purpose. We are very happy with this outcome. Again, it is based on shared analysis and it is a roadmap with very concrete steps to move forward. On this basis, Europe should first continue to have a shared analysis of its environment. It is not just about the French with the Sahel, the Greeks with Turkey and the Poles with Ukraine; it should be a process that we enter together. That is happening now.

We should have the proper tools, specifically the proper defence equipment. There is even more thinking and money going into the European Defence Agency and, as members know, more money coming from the EU budget to research into defence in order to increase our European capacities. We should use these rapid deployment elements to be able to act on the ground with military troops whenever that is needed. Much progress has been made on this over the past 20 years but we are not completely there yet in terms of the ability to intervene. It is fair to say the extreme difficulty we had in Kabul in August in evacuating our staff was a big wake-up call.

That is the direction of travel. All member states that are willing to participate are, of course, very much welcome. Ireland has so far been an active contributor, with limited caveats expressed in the declaration and through the Lisbon treaty accession. As I keep saying, it is really for the Irish debate to take place at its own pace on whether the country should see an evolution of its neutrality stance when it comes to the certain limitations in the engagement with EU defence. The more this is integrated and the more members will fully participate, the better.

On the UK and the very regrettable developments of the past couple of days, as I have said we are fully behind the Commission. Senator Chambers also mentioned the need to have a strategic approach to the UK, which is a close neighbour and important player. It is a country with which we want to have the best relationship. We did not want Brexit, as members have repeated. We want the best relationship possible with Britain, and that is important, but we cannot just let one partner violate the rules without any consequence. We will have to see what occurs as this draft law progresses in the British Parliament, ultimately becoming law, how we can raise our concern, our voice and ultimately take some action to draw a line. Again, we fully support the Commission and in solidarity with Ireland on this. We very much follow Ireland on this and we are liaising very closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Taoiseach on it.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the response to the Ukrainian issue and how many refugees does France have from there? What is the position on whether to release funds from the recovery and resilience funding to Poland in light of the funding being conditional on the rule of law?

Vincent P Martin (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of the ground has been covered but it is always a pleasure to welcome a voisinto the Houses of the Oireachtas and acknowledge his generosity of time, as the ambassador has made himself so readily accessible to Members of the Oireachtas. He has communicated clearly, including when over a year ago he wrote an excellent piece in The Irish Timessetting out the new opportunities.

No opportunity should be lost to say the Good Friday Agreement, as we all know, has saved a countless number of lives. It is a precious peace. I know I am preaching to the converted but I cannot emphasise enough how much umbrage many people in Ireland have taken that this amazing, historic and solemn peace agreement has been bandied around and it is somehow purportedly being used as an excuse or a justification to proceed to breach international law. It is reprehensible. There are certain non-party political agreements that are so solemn and precious, we do not mess around or play politics with them.

We are now at our most vulnerable stage since the Good Friday Agreement. France is an old friend of Ireland and we go back way beyond what is now called the European Union. Ireland has taken its place in Europe for over 1,500 years, having much of an input into culture, heritage and security. We have a special relationship with America but, relatively speaking, it is only a couple of hundred years old. The French and Irish go back longer than that. If I am put to the pin of my collar, I cannot think of a country that Ireland has closer links to over centuries. France came to our aid and it is a bulwark of democracy. It is a pivotal part of the EU and we need the French voice and continued support like never before at this defining and precious point. I ask the ambassador to use the influence of his office.

The other question that has not been answered is whether this section of unionism wants the internal UK market. Have unionist leaders explained to their people that if they exclusively want the internal market and to ditch the protocol - as some do, although moderates want to amend it - that they will lose out on the EU market, the Single Market? I do not know if that has been communicated to their supporters. Doing so might help them see sense and see that this is a wonderful opportunity. I cannot say this often enough and have I said it in the Seanad. The Alliance Party in Northern Ireland is constitutionally agnostic. A lady who won a seat for that party, Sorcha Eastwood, was asked after she won the seat if the protocol came up on the doorsteps when she was canvassing. She said it came up twice. There is another narrative that is not getting out there. The Green Party is an all-Ireland party. We canvassed in the North and it never came up. There is something missing here. We are not putting people before politics.

France is very influential in the European project. Ukraine will be demoralised and devastated if it is told it has to wait ten, 20 or 30 years. That is not what it wants to hear now. France has articulated a two-speed approach. I hope there is some good news in the post for Ukraine because it is clinging to hope. It wants to take its place among the nations of Europe like France and Ireland. France has huge influence in making that happen. It has been reported in the media that Germany and France are a bit nervous about it, for obvious reasons. There are very strict criteria. That said, surely in a time of emergency some preliminary and concrete steps can be taken on that road to European membership. I would ask France to please give Ukraine something concrete in the next few days through the mechanisms and workings of the European Union, of which it is a central part.

H.E. Mr. Vincent Gu?rend:

On the last point, I will see what happens in the coming days at the European Council. We believe, for the reasons I explained, that full membership is probably not the best answer to the problems Ukraine is sadly facing. Its legislation is very far from being able to comply with everything.

I have already responded to the points on Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement. Regarding the resilience and recovery package for Poland, we have the full support of the Commission and for any restrictions that may be put on the payment of this fund to Poland as long as the situation with the judicial system remains unsatisfactory. On Ukraine again, it is good to see so much solidarity here in Ireland and in many other member states. In France we have close to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees and we are ready to host more if needed.

I extend my heartfelt thanks to the committee and the Chair for their interest. I stand with my colleagues and my capital willing and ready to share analysis and documents. I would also be more than happy if the committee were to visit its counterpart in the French Parliament, where we also have an EU affairs committee. The role of Parliament in the EU institution, and of national parliaments, is extremely important, as members well know. It was good to be here today. I remain open to all engagement. I am just next door in Merrion Square if any bilateral context is needed and to pursue the discussion.

Joe McHugh (Donegal, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an ambasadóir agus leis na finnéithe uilig as a gcuairt ar an gcruinniú inniu. Guím gach rath orthu. I wish the witnesses the very best. We will continue to keep our engagement up close and personal. I would reiterate Deputy Howlin's words. We are always grateful for solidarity, especially that shown during the Brexit situation from 2016 on. We are thankful for that. We will be in touch and will take His Excellency up on his offer of further engagement with our counterpart committee in France.