Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It was a sad reflection when we saw the EU's inability to sort out the top job as there was no majority for any one candidate. However, there is an essential lack of democracy in that process. The EU electorate does not have a direct role in who gets the top jobs in the EU. I noted one positive, namely, President Tusk's remark that the European Council agrees that there needs to be a package reflecting the diversity of the EU.

It was surprising in one way but not in another that unanimity was not reached on ensuring a climate-neutral EU in line with the Paris Agreement by 2050. Again, listening to what President Tusk said, no country ruled out the possibility of achieving this so he is hopeful of a positive decision in the coming months. When I read about taking account of member states' national circumstances and respecting their right to decide their own energy mix, it raised alarm bells that some countries might be able to slide further down the scale when it comes to climate change. We also need more detail about how the EU will scale up the mobilisation of international climate finance from private and public sources because, again, we wonder what agenda private-public sources are working to.

It is also a sad reflection that we are not seeing in a real way that the EU will be a driver on climate change. It must get into the main driving seat on that. This is the only planet we have. I have recently become aware of Costa Rica due to a personal situation. There is a significant example for us in that country. We look at the militarisation of the EU. Costa Rica actually forbids an army and has had no army since 1949. It also has plans to be carbon-neutral by 2021. It takes up 0.03% of the planet but hosts 5% of the world's biodiversity. At one stage, it was third in the world and first in the Americas on the Environmental Performance Index, so there are good examples there at which we could look. This is imperative, particularly when we consider the very ambitious agenda for the sustainable development goals by 2030. I would hope that the EU would have that as a continuing item on its agenda.

I have a great problem with sanctions because at the end of the day, they hurt ordinary people the most. The richest people are rarely affected by them. Economic sanctions against Russia will continue for a further six months but it is ironic that the Council of Europe took a very different approach just recently. We know the US sanctions against Iran are hitting ordinary people. I have previously referred to how the long-standing US sanctions against Cuba are having a disastrous effect on the Cuban economy.

The strategic agenda sets out four priorities. One is a strong and vibrant economic base while the other was promoting European interests on the global stage. I want to look at those two in terms of trade agreements the EU has been and is negotiating. There are concerns about the EU-Vietnam trade deal regarding serious consequences for workers, not to mention climate issues. The investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism is included. This is a system that threatens public budgets and the environment. It means that foreign investors can use the ISDS to sue governments. Two oil firms have already used it to avoid paying taxes in the country. One of the current ISDS cases against Vietnam involves two companies suing the Vietnamese Government over a takeover of one particular company. One of the companies involved made a profit of €787 million on the sale but is refusing to pay taxes. We know that foreign investors can use the ISDS to sue a government, which has an effect on budgets. There is a similar ISDS case in Croatia and another one in France where a company was able to weaken a climate change law by threatening to bring an ISDS case. We have raised that in the Chamber quite a number of times over the past number of years. There has been much criticism of the ISDS - mainly because it is biased in favour of the interests of the investors at the expense of the public interest. The public can sue companies on human rights issues or labour rights. The EU has not listened to the criticism and concerns. With this EU-Vietnam trade deal, there is no obligation on EU companies and corporations to respect human rights, which is very serious.

A free trade agreement is being negotiated with the Mercosur bloc encompassing Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. I will refer to a letter from over 350 civil society organisations to the EU asking it to halt the negotiations because of the deteriorating human rights and environmental conditions in Brazil. It follows a call in April from 600 scientists and representatives from 300 Brazilian indigenous groups asking the EU to support human rights and sustainable development in the face of increased human rights violations and threats to indigenous peoples and their lands in areas that are very valuable ecologically. Civil society is under severe threat in Brazil. The Brazilian President's campaign of ending any form of activism is being implemented, which means that the Brazilian Government has the power to supervise and monitor the activities and actions of international agencies and NGOs in the country. The foreign affairs minister and the environmental minister are also global warming deniers. The Brazilian department of climate change was abolished. As the EU is Brazil's second largest trading partner, I feel the EU is not taking its responsibilities seriously when it comes to human rights. It seems to be a case of negotiating the best deal for Europe regardless of what is happening. Further deforestation must end. Will it, labour and human rights and climate issues be discussed or does promoting European interests, which is on the strategic agenda, take precedence over European values?

During pre-European Council statements last week, I referred to the protection of migrants. I recently put a question to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on the Libyan detention centres. The centre in question concerned the Qasr bin Ghashir detention centre. Since then, there have been reports of two other centres south of Tripoli in the Nafusa Mountains - Zintan and Gharyan. Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF, was recently granted access and found catastrophic medical situations that were confirmed by the UN agencies with 22 dead from suspected TB and other diseases since last September. MSF visited Zintan detention centre where 900 people are detained in May. Seven hundred people were housed in an overcrowded hangar while there were four barely functioning toilets and sporadic access to water that was not even drinkable.

The Gharyan centre is on the front line of the conflict between the Libyan Government and the Libyan National Army. These migrants fled harrowing situations in their own countries. They have had harrowing situations with traffickers. Now they are in further harrowing situations in the detention centres. While it might be stated policy not to return migrants there, the EU is facilitating this illegal pushback to Libya. The EU is not proactive enough in dealing with these issues and preventing such atrocities. The strategic agenda referred to effective migration and asylum policy. Surely, respect for the human dignity of migrants is central to that.

The strategic agenda also reaffirmed the importance of the eastern partnership. Our foreign affairs committee made an official visit to Georgia and we know the extent of the work it has done on this.

Also noted in the strategic agenda was a reference to fostering entrepreneurship, innovation and increased research efforts. Several weeks ago on Leaders’ Questions, I raised the issue of access to medicines. The EU could take on a more progressive model in research and development. Currently, it is not driven by affordability or accessibility. There is a massive escalation and extortion with regard to prices of life-saving drugs. For example, one company claimed it could produce a drug for €150 million while another, big pharma, said it would cost €2.5 billion for the exact same drug. Reform is needed in this area because the universities and research institutes are publicly funded in the main. However, when it goes to the pharmaceutical companies, more conditions need to be attached. There are less expensive biosimilar alternatives. At the 2016 European Council, under the Dutch EU Presidency, strong recommendations were passed for this kind of reform. It would be a positive sign if a working group was established to drive these recommendations further.

The strategic agenda stated, “The EU also needs to take greater responsibility for its own security and defence, in particular by enhancing defence investment, capability development and operational readiness; it will co-operate closely with NATO” and then later it stated, the EU “will respect the principles of democracy, rule of law, transparency and equality between citizens”. I do not believe the two complement each other. On one hand, we are looking at a military solution, while on the other we are looking at more of democracy with increasing militarisation.

See this speech in context