Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There has been much debate and discussion about Brexit in the House since the start of the process. We have said our bit about the most recent deal and there is much point in going back over it, except to say, as we all know, that it will have a severe impact on us whatever way it is decided to be done. We will have to work our way through it at some stage in the future.

I will address a couple of other items that were covered at the European Council, namely, climate change, the migrant crisis and the EU's defence policy. I understand that the European Council welcomed the outcome of the UN Climate Action Summit 2019 on ambition, action and solidarity and is determined that the EU will “continue to lead the way in a socially fair and just green transition in the implementation of the Paris Agreement”. There are some contradictions, however, between its proposals and its actions, which seems to be common in politics. There is often a big difference between what is said and what is done. The European Investment Bank, EIB, for example, has turned on its commitment to divest EU investments in fossil fuel companies, particularly gas companies, due to intense last-minute lobbying.

According to the non-governmental organisation, Oil Change International, this delay tactic is a direct result of Germany and the European Commission pushing to add more fossil fuels, particularly gas, back into energy policy and is a worrying trend that flows in opposition to the sense of urgency for which millions of climate strikers are calling in response to climate change. What does it say about EU’s commitments to climate action if it caves in to the interests of the oil and gas industry? It sounds familiar. We must tackle the EU-wide notion that gas is a transitional fuel and its central role in energy policy. We need to be more ambitious if we are to tackle climate change.

There are widespread divisions on how to go about tackling climate change. While Germany wants gas to have a central role in the transition, Poland and Hungary are among a handful of countries that oppose the setting of an EU-wide zero-carbon target by 2050. I am interested to know to what representations Ireland has made in respect of the EU’s energy policy in the context of climate change, considering Ireland’s own recent divestment from fossil fuel companies, as part of my Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, and the fact that the EIB is owned by EU member states. We are a co-owner of the bank and it would be interesting to see what role or input we had in the decisions, if we bothered to have any. Unfortunately, however, I suspect we may not have had any say in the matter.

The EU stated at the Council meeting that it “remains engaged in its efforts towards effectively addressing the serious humanitarian and refugee crisis in the light of evolving needs, including by supporting those Member States that are facing the most serious challenges in terms of migratory flows in the Eastern Mediterranean.” The EU is failing, however, to resolve diplomatically the humanitarian crisis that has become so inhumane that on the Greek islands, a total of 28,000 refugees are being held in island camps intended for a maximum of 10,000, while 12,000 people reside in the Moria camp on Lesbos, designed for only 3,000 people. While migrant arrivals in Europe have declined, so too has co-operation and responsibility sharing within the EU. The migrant crisis issue is directly related to that of climate change, given that many of the migrants are climate migrants moving from areas of severe climate impact to seek refuge and resources. Our inaction on the climate will feed into the refugee crisis and we have to accept that now if we are to have any chance of tackling it. Ireland has to step up to the mark, lead the charge at a European level and tell European leaders that it is what we have to do.

EU member states have drastically reduced their dedication to search and rescue operations and seem to take on informal, ad hocinitiatives to deal with migration that have little transparency, as seen in its disembarkation arrangements and the Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, which involves the sending back of migrants to north Africa where many end up in camps, tortured or imprisoned. Meanwhile, EU foreign policy insists on reform in North Africa yet remains fickle in its own international commitments and obligations and even engages in counterproductive migration practices. We need to normalise the idea of migration to Europe, and to promote inclusion through policies throughout member states and with third countries such as Turkey and those in north Africa. Only then will we address migration in a humane and sustainable way while also addressing the tide of right-wing, xenophobic narratives sweeping through EU states. Part of that is our climate action commitment, which is the only way we can deal with the issue properly. I had intended to talk about EU militarisation but as I have only a few seconds remaining, I will leave that to my colleague.

The militarisation agenda could take up considerable time. I am very concerned about the Government's role in that. I believe it will go down the road of supporting a European army, which is very worrying.

See this speech in context