Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is exactly the point that net contributors are concerned about. That measure of frugality is absolutely at the top of our mind.

We straddle the balance about needing to invest more in Europe. The Cathaoirleach is right to highlight it. That is the perspective we bring and I thank him for that. However, I do not know where it will land given the challenges of Europe as well. I again thank him for the reflection which is an important one considering his position.

There was a question on internal borders and migration. At some point we were talking about weaponised migration and we were talking about how different issues have been, I think, deliberately weaponised in physical form on the borders of Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland to disrupt those democracies and to disrupt European Society deliberately by an actor that does not want to see Europe succeed. That is also done as effectively through what we see on social media and then through the repetition of that by public actors, political actors or by becoming an issue of greater scale that it had been. It is very important to recognise there is a measure of intent with this. There is a measure of not wanting Europe to succeed and not wanting democracy to succeed. There is a different geopolitical balance at play and being played out in Ukraine and across Europe. The tools of that are both physical and through social media.

It is enormously regrettable that in less than ten years, a major European power such as Germany which took such an empathetic approach with Syrian refugees, for example, in 2015 or thereabouts has gone to now having these internal political pressures to react in this way albeit, as the Cathaoirleach says, temporarily. These should be points of concern. It is a reflection of how the politics has changed but I believe there is a very strong measure of weaponisation in that political shift.

Migration has always existed for different reasons - as a consequence of climate change, war and internal displacement - but the dynamic has changed across Europe. In my view, it is ever more important to recognise that this is something that has happened in the last three or four years, but the Single Market and the free movement of people have persisted for decades with benefits for hundreds of millions of people for decades. We must not allow nefarious malign actors to disrupt what we have carefully constructed together, which was at its core a peace project and a democratic project. It is very important that the Cathaoirleach has raised that and I hope I do not go too far in what I say.

He is also right in what he said about the western Balkans. It is astonishing to me that the countries that joined in 2004 did so having been part of the Soviet structure or its ilk as recently as 1989, 1990 or 1991. Just 13, 14 or 15 years later they became full members of the European Union. It took an incredible amount of work to get to that point and to join in such a short period. Meanwhile, for the western Balkans, there was a period of drift and not a focus an enlargement whereas the European project has always been about enlarging in different ways, in small ways and then in that big bang way in 2004 followed by this big gap. A vacuum will always be filled.

As it happens, I was in Montenegro on a personal holiday over the summer. I was asking people - maybe I should not have been - if they thought they would ever be part of the European Union and asked them for their perspective on it. There was considerable interest but also some fatigue and a sense merely that it might happen someday. That is not the enthusiasm we want to foster about Europe generally. We want different populations to be excited about coming to Europe and to believe that Europe is really engaged with them and really listening to them.

Our focus is on enlargement. We are a very strong supporter of enlargement. We are opening embassies to provide better support to that. Our tone is also one of encouragement and not one of criticism. They need to meet the rules and I accept those rules have become more complicated since 2004. It is up to us to provide better support both from the perspective of the European Commission and of individual countries. One thing that might be important - I discussed this with my Slovenian colleague at the Bled strategic forum - is looking at the way in which we open the chapters for negotiation. Of course, there are important political decisions and technical standards to be met in the closing of chapters and that is important.

When I spoke with my Albanian colleague yesterday, she said they had 1,500 people working on the measures to date and if only everything could be open together, they could generate a real synergy among the public service, a real synergy in the work that was being done, a real enthusiasm and a real sense of momentum. To me it seems fair never to pull up the ladder behind you but rather open things up say, "Fine, let's open the chapters and let's see how you get on and we'll provide support to you on that." This more piecemeal way does not foster that sort of enthusiasm, that encouragement or that sense of momentum.

At a time when I believe it is important that countries are moving more quickly towards the European Union, I believe we should be looking at different ways of opening those chapters. I hope the Commission might hear that conversation and reflect upon it in terms of the equality of opportunity that we would like to see for our western Balkan friends.