Seán Haughey (Dublin Bay North, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication last week by the European Commission of the package of proposals on the Northern Ireland protocol. Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič has taken a huge interest in this issue. He has consulted widely and listened to the concerns of businesses, stakeholders and individuals on the ground in Northern Ireland and he has done everything possible to address the challenges. We now need serious constructive engagement by the UK with the European Union, through the established mechanisms, to resolve these problems. Practical and pragmatic solutions can be arrived at in regard to the movement of goods and medicines, customs and sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, provisions. In addition, there will be greater participation by politicians in Northern Ireland, and by civil servants and civic society generally, in this ongoing process.

We need to remind ourselves of the rationale for the protocol, that is, to protect the Good Friday Agreement, to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and to protect the integrity of the EU Single Market. I hope that the UK will engage constructively. The remarks by David Frost concerning the European Court of Justice in this context are a bit of a red herring. It is a theoretical issue of no practical consequence for the day-to-day problems being encountered on the ground in Northern Ireland. As an arbitration in this regard is unlikely to arise in practice, all concerned now need to get on with it.

Like others, I would like to comment on the rule of law issues, with particular reference to Poland. As we know, Poland's constitutional court has rejected the supremacy of EU law. Questions arise as to whether the ruling Law and Justice party actually subscribes to European values and democratic norms, having regard to issues such as media freedom, an independent judiciary and the treatment of the LGBT community. The question is how should Europe react to these developments. Article 7 proceedings have commenced but at the end of the day, sanctions arising from this process must be agreed by the General Affairs Council and, ultimately, by unanimity at the European Council, which is unlikely. Funding, including recovery and resilience funding, can be withheld. The European Court of Justice is due to issue a ruling next month on the conditionality regulation. We await the outcome of that. This issue is probably best tackled by way of dialogue and moral pressure brought to bear on Polish politicians and society generally. All of us have a role to play in that regard. It is in nobody's interest for Poland to leave the European Union. Hopefully, these issues can be resolved and it will not come to that.

I would also like to address the issue of the so-called strategic compass, which is to be outlined in November by the European Commission and will point a pathway for European security and defence capabilities. According to the Minister for Defence, Deputy Coveney, it will define policy orientations and specific goals and objectives in four clusters, namely, crisis management, resilience, capability development and partnerships. As I mentioned in the House yesterday, this initiative should be seen in the context of recent events, including the cyberattack on the HSE, recent events in Afghanistan, the hijacking of a Ryanair flight in Belarus and the AUKUS decision on nuclear submarines involving France, the UK and the US. Yesterday, in this House, the Taoiseach outlined to me Ireland's defence policy in an international context. I agree with what he stated in that regard. We need to be cautious about France's call for a greater self-reliance but we also need to be conscious of these recent developments; these new threats so to speak. Ireland is not neutral when it comes to terrorism, extremism or cyberattacks. We await the publication of the strategic compass proposal and look forward to a comprehensive debate on it in this House in due course.

See this speech in context