Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We know that the Commission, following the ruling of the European Court of Justice, found the basis on which the EU was trading with Morocco and with Western Sahara, which is illegally occupied by Morocco, not to be legitimate. A new negotiating mandate was sought and given on 10 September and we were told the new deal had been negotiated on 18 September, with the decision to be made yesterday at the EU Council. It would be good to get an update on that. Why, when the court said either explicit or implicit consent from the Sahrawi people would need to be shown, was the choice made not to engage with the only recognised representatives of the Sahrawi people, namely, Polisario, and not to seek explicit consent from the people of Western Sahara on the new trade deal, particularly when the stated position is that we support a referendum and want to move towards it? Why was this not used as leverage, for example, to press Morocco to support and allow a referendum to take place in Western Sahara?