Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this important proposal. Last year, the Commission proposed to add the violation of EU restrictive measures to the list of EU crimes and the proposal that is being put to us today is for a directive on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of Union restrictive measures.

Before I speak about this, I have to agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett. We contrast the European Union's reaction to the absolutely wrong invasion of Ukraine with how the Union treats Israel, the destruction of Palestinians, Palestinian property, villages and lives, even during this last week. There is also the reaction to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. It is contrasting and the only option that can be seen is that Israel and Saudi Arabia are the good guys and Russia are the bad guys. That seems to be the way it is. Is that the way the European Union going to work from now on? Maybe they should put a clear list up there, so we will know that when one government kills people it is okay and when another government kills people it is wrong. That seems to be what is going on here.

Before I speak to this measure, I would first like to point out that, to my knowledge, the proposal was still ongoing while this debate was starting. It was actually on the agenda for discussion of the justice committee today. Luckily enough, it flew through in a flash because there was no discussion on it. I had been here in the Dáil and was a couple of minutes late getting to the justice committee meeting, and it was gone. At least that part has been rubber-stamped for the measure to go through. These things should probably be taken to a meeting. I understand that this motion requires a resolution of the Dáil. It is coming through the Dáil today so it will be put into force.

The Attorney General found there was no constitutional impediment to Ireland opting into this directive, but noted a few areas that would need to be considered from a transposition perspective, including the provision under article 3 which criminalises the breach of a travel ban. The text of this directive is still being negotiated, with the most recent meeting between officials taking place only yesterday. Yet, we are putting through the adoption today, which is disappointing. It is disappointing that we are debating the proposal today given this and it is very concerning that we are trying to push approval for it through before the deadline next week, without proper debate. The reason given by the Department for rushing this through is that: "not opting in under Article 3 of the Protocol would present risks in terms of Ireland’s reputation and the perception of Ireland’s commitment to the international sanctions regime". Let me be clear, that fear of repudiation and perception are terrible reasons to rush a decision on any proposal, never mind important proposals such as these, of which we do not yet know the full implications.

I would now like to speak to the proposal itself. I absolutely condemn the horrendous acts by Russia towards Ukraine and my thoughts go out to all those suffering from the violence of the past year. I also understand the implementation of a series of sanctions against Russia to demonstrate our condemnation. All EU countries have been in favour of these restrictive measures and therefore I would like to know the reasoning for adding the violation of EU restrictive measures to the list of EU crimes. It seems extreme to me when every country is actually in favour of this and has been implementing sanctions already. I personally question the use of sanctions and their effectiveness, but there is no doubt that all European countries have been supportive of them by choice. I do not see why it would be necessary then to force this support and to threaten countries with criminalisation if they do not agree to it. It is unnecessary, extreme and controlling.

This proposal has the potential to foster mistrust and resentment between the Union and member states who have happily supported sanctions until now. Criminalisation is not the answer and it is for this reason that I am very wary of this motion and do not support it. Instead of focusing on unnecessary criminalisation, the focus in Europe should be on facilitating negotiations and a ceasefire. It should be on promoting peace, which is the very first of the European Union’s listed aims and values. We will see how that goes as well.

See this speech in context