Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the House about discussions at the December European Council and to look ahead to the informal meeting of Heads of State and Government on 12 February.

I note that the first Latvian Presidency has recently begun. This will also be the first full Presidency since the changes in the Union's institutions in the autumn, and it is shaping up to be a very busy one. Latvia's Presidency priorities are grouped under three main themes, namely, a competitive Europe, a digital Europe and an engaged Europe. The underlying and continued focus on stimulating growth and job creation is extremely welcome and reflects the expectations and priorities of Europe's citizens. The Latvian Presidency has also pledged to drive forward urgent work on counter-terrorism, and I will return to this later in my statement. As we in Ireland well know, an EU Presidency can be a daunting prospect for a small country, but is also extremely rewarding. I wish Latvia well and assure it of Ireland's full support in delivering on our common priorities.

Let me reflect on the last meeting of the European Council, which took place in December. This meeting sought to agree the tools for addressing one of the key challenges facing the Union today, which is the low investment levels which continue to stymie growth. We also returned to consider the evolving situation in Ukraine. In addition, our conclusions touched on the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning, as well as the functioning of economic and monetary union. The December meeting of the European Council was the first to be chaired by the new President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. Deputies will have seen that the conclusions are focused and succinct, avoiding repetition of statements already made and positions already agreed in Council. I know that President Tusk intends to continue this approach, to minimise time spent on drafting and maximise the time Heads of State and Government can spend on strategic discussions.

The focus of our December meeting was on efforts to boost investment, based on a comprehensive plan brought forward by Commission President Juncker, who has personally attached a very high priority to this issue. Boosting investment in the real economy is critical for growth, and for bringing down the persistently high levels of unemployment which continue to plague so many countries in the Union. In my contribution to a panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, I spoke of the critical importance of European governments and institutions working closely together. The investment agenda is one practical area where close co-operation between the Commission, the European Investment Bank, EIB, and member state governments can make a real and positive difference, not least given the inter-dependence of member state economies. The European Council gave its strong political backing to President Juncker's investment plan. This does not mean that every element was agreed; this was not the intention. However, there was consensus with regard to the broad outline of the new approach.

The European Council set the ambitious goal of having the new European fund for strategic investments, EFSI, up and running by the middle of this year. The aim is to mobilise €315 billion in new investments between 2015 and 2017. The European Council clarified that the EFSI will complement and be additional to ongoing EU programmes and traditional EIB activities. This was an important point, and something which Ireland raised ahead of the meeting.

I do not pretend, and neither does President Juncker, that this investment plan is a magic solution which can single-handedly solve the problems of stagnating growth and high unemployment in Europe. However, it is one important aspect of a broader policy mix, which also includes structural reforms, prudent fiscal policy and monetary policy. With regard to the latter, I am very encouraged by the decision of the ECB last week to expand its balance sheet through large-scale asset purchases, including the purchase of sovereign debt in the secondary market, otherwise referred to as quantitative easing. This should create upward pressure on inflation and lead to improved financing conditions for households and firms, thus supporting investment and job creation. I hope that the move will help restore much-need confidence in the euro area economy.

Since December, work has been moving ahead quickly on the European fund for strategic investments, EFSI. A legislative proposal to facilitate the establishment of the fund was published by the Commission on 13 January. This is being considered in detail by experts in Brussels, including from our Department of Finance. The intention is to reach agreement at the ECOFIN meeting in March in order that negotiations can open immediately with the European Parliament. I have asked my Department to work with other relevant Departments towards a coherent and well-co-ordinated approach to the new investment plan, including early shortlisting of options. This has begun and will continue over the coming weeks, closely aligned with deliberations in Brussels and preparations for the March meeting of ECOFIN.

While we should be careful to avoid unrealistic expectations, there may be opportunities to develop synergies between the new investment plan and the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund established by the Government last year. I have also asked my officials to ensure that careful consideration is given to any potential in the area of infrastructure investments by State bodies, as well as to the implications for Ireland of a refreshed Commission guidance on making best use of existing flexibility in the Stability and Growth Pact. I will be happy to keep the House informed in the period ahead.

While much of the media attention in relation to the investment agenda has been focused on the EFSI, the European Council also called for progress in other important areas which can provide a supportive environment for economic growth through investment and trade. For example, we called for speeding up the adoption of Union legislation in the Single Market area and the enhancement of efforts to remove barriers.

The European Council also called on the Commission to present a comprehensive energy union proposal well in advance of the March 2015 European Council. The crisis in Ukraine and the challenge of climate change have underlined the need to reduce European reliance on imported energy and to secure the energy future of the EU. Increased energy efficiency is also a key component of the Union's strategy.

The European Council called for the further strengthening of the multilateral trading system and the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements with key partners. Needless to say, concentration was focused on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, agreement. We encouraged the Commission and US negotiators to make every effort to conclude an ambitious, comprehensive and mutually beneficial agreement by the end of this year. While this deadline is looking increasingly challenging given the many complicated issues under discussion, TTIP remains a priority for the new Commission and the Latvian Presidency. The Irish Presidency also played an important role in the process when it helped to secure the Commission mandate to open negotiations. The Government will continue to support efforts to conclude the talks in the shortest time. The United States is one of our most important trading partners and improved access to the US market will benefit Irish companies and, in particular, small and medium enterprises, SMEs. We owe it to ourselves to work towards this ambitious outcome rather than settling for a lesser agreement which fails to realise the full potential of our trading partnership with the US.

In regard to taxation, conclusions were adopted which stressed the need to advance efforts in the fight against tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. As Deputies will be aware, Ireland has engaged actively with these discussions at the OECD and we will participate constructively in EU efforts while maintaining the firm position that matters of direct taxation remain a member state competence. There is a commitment to return to taxation issues at the June European Council, and I will keep Deputies fully briefed in advance of and following that meeting.

Moving on to external relations, the Minister of State, Deputy Murphy, will update members shortly on our discussions and decisions in regard to Ukraine. Unfortunately, the situation on the ground has deteriorated. EU Heads of State and Government today issued a joint statement condemning the killing of civilians during the indiscriminate shelling of the city of Mariupol at the weekend, and noting evidence of continued and growing support given to the separatists by Russia. We have asked the Foreign Affairs Council, which meets on Thursday, to assess the situation and to consider any appropriate action, in particular on further restrictive measures. The Minister, Deputy Flanagan, will participate actively in these discussions.

I also raised at the European Council the horrendous attack which took place on the school in Peshawar, Pakistan on 16 December. More than 140 people lost their lives in this barbaric attack, the vast majority of them children. The High Representative, Ms Mogherini, released a statement on behalf of the EU which expressed our collective shock and confirmed the EU's commitment to tackling the threat posed by terrorism and our readiness to further assist the Pakistani Government.

Since the last meeting of the European Council, we have also witnessed tragic events here on European soil. On the Sunday after the attacks in Paris, I had the opportunity to convey directly to President Hollande Ireland's sympathy with and support for France and her people at this very difficult time. The attacks were a very stark reminder of the very real threats to our common European values and way of life, but they also highlighted the enormous value of unity and solidarity among the member states in addressing these common challenges. We must continue to work closely together to protect and preserve our fundamental values and freedoms from the scourge of terrorism.

On 12 February, Heads of State and Government will gather for an informal meeting in Brussels. The overriding focus of that meeting will be to consider how we can work together to counter the threat posed by terrorism and extremism. Our discussions will be informed by work already taken forward through the Foreign Affairs Council on 19 January and by an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council later this week.

As Deputies will be aware, there is considerable concern across Europe and elsewhere at the phenomenon of individuals travelling to conflict areas in the Middle East and the consequential threat posed to national security. The recent events in Paris and also in Brussels are just the latest and most serious manifestations of the threat posed by foreign fighters. Even countries with highly sophisticated intelligence resources are finding it difficult to predict and counter attacks. At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers were united in their resolve that the 28 members of the Union would stand together in the face of the threat posed by terrorism and extremism. The Council considered a number of practical steps to improve the EU's counter-terrorism capacity, mainly aimed at improving the coherence and effectiveness of our efforts. It was agreed, for example, that there will be heightened co-operation with Europe's near neighbours, including on policing. Consideration was given to how we can strengthen communications with the Arab world, which is vital in addressing the root causes of extremism.

Issues to be considered at the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council later this week are likely to include the need to strengthen the borders of the EU; the adoption of an EU passenger name record system, which continues to be held up in the European Parliament; improved police and judicial co-operation; measures to improve control of firearms; and measures for countering extremism and radicalisation on the Internet. Let me emphasise that Ireland, like all other EU member states, favours a strengthened EU role in this area but one that is simultaneously fully respectful of human rights principles. We must avoid, in our determination to stand up to and defeat the scourge of terrorism, the pitfall of undermining the very rights and principles that are the cornerstones of our democratic societies.

In addition to considering counter-terrorism measures, the informal meeting will provide an opportunity for a first discussion since the appointment of President Juncker and President Tusk on the strengthened co-ordination of economic policies to ensure a smoother functioning of economic and monetary union, EMU, and the avoidance of future crises. Together with Mario Draghi as President of the European Central Bank and Jeroen Dijsselbloem as President of the Eurogroup, they will present a report to the June European Council.

Although the situation in Greece is not formally on the agenda, it will be on everyone's mind. It will also be a first opportunity to engage with the new Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras. I wish him well in the huge challenges he faces. There are undoubtedly difficult choices ahead for the new Greek Government and it is important for it to choose the path of constructive engagement. I hope that any negotiations will result in a politically and economically sustainable basis for Greek recovery within the framework of euro area rules and commitments.

I also wish to inform the House that next week I plan to travel to Brussels for bilateral meetings with President Tusk and President Juncker. This will be an important opportunity to renew what are already very close personal relationships with the Union's new leaders and to convey Ireland's views on the issues of priority to us and to the Union. I will be happy to report back to the House on both of those meetings.

I thank Deputies for their attention and look forward to hearing views from the floor.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Events in the past month have made largely irrelevant the outcome of the last European Council. The items which were formally adopted had been agreed in advance and discussions did not move any major issue forward significantly. In fact, the Council did not discuss the major economic and political developments which were in train back in December and have come to the fore since then.

The victory of Syriza in last weekend’s Greek election represented a substantial cry from the people of Greece to be shown a more hopeful future. As the parties campaigned, as outsiders always do, Syriza promised that the answer to Greece’s problems was quite simple and the enemy clear. The idea that all Greek austerity was avoidable and was imposed from outside is manifestly and cynically dishonest, and we heard some of that commentary today. Unlike the situation in Ireland, Greece’s debts were incurred solely to pay for normal budgetary items and none of these bills was imposed on Greece. However, it is absolutely true that more must be done to assist Greece and the rest of the eurozone to return to more sustainable and fairer growth. There are certain realities in terms of the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio that have to be dealt with. This is something which I and Fianna Fáil’s spokespeople have repeatedly called for over the past three years.

We should note that Mr. Tsipras and his party spent much of the last month sending envoys through Europe to stress that Syriza is absolutely committed to keeping Greece in the eurozone and that it does not have an agenda which is a threat to foreign lenders or investors. In a meeting with investment funds in London they are reported to have said that they do not intend to take unilateral action on Greece’s debts. There is an underlying reality in regard to Greece’s debts which is that no matter what is done with the debts, nothing in the new Government’s programme is achievable without continued foreign borrowing. It understands this and its actions will reflect this.

It is the responsibility of Europe and individual states to engage actively and constructively with the new government in Athens. This should be done in the context of an overall settlement of debt-related issues within the Union and the adoption of a credible growth agenda. As I have said for a number of years, there are parts of Europe where fiscal reality means that there has been no credible alternative to tightening budgets. What there has been, and continues to be, an alternative to is the failure to help countries to stimulate growth and the avoidable austerity of countries with low debts and falling spending.

While the idea of a debt conference is good and one which I support, it will not solve all of Greece’s problems. The short and medium-term impact of its debts is relatively low because the money it has borrowed from international lenders is on very long terms with very low interest rates. What Greece needs is a pathway back to investment and this can only really come from international support. Part of this may come from the outcome of a debt conference and that is why we support the holding of one, but only if the concerns of all countries are on the agenda.

Ireland should be willing to be flexible about how the €350 million it has lent to Greece is returned and the terms of this loan. However, Ireland should not lose sight of the core point, namely, that it remains the most unfairly treated of all of the countries which either received a bailout or have seen steep increases in debts in recent years.

In the coverage here in recent weeks, a point missing most of the time is that Greece has already received preferential treatment to that received by Ireland. Its loans have been lengthened to dramatically lighten financing needs in the next decade and the interest rates have been reduced to effectively nothing. In addition, all profits which the European Central Bank makes on Greek bonds are returned to Greece. If these policies were applied to Ireland, it would make a significant difference to our budget.

We got the benefit of many of the changes negotiated by Greece, but because our Government was so busy spinning these as great victories, it has never sought full equality. In the case of the promissory notes, the Taoiseach will remember that when that particular deal was announced in an avalanche of self-praise, my party pointed out that it would only benefit Ireland if bonds were held by our Central Bank to maturity. This is because it can return to the Exchequer all profits on these bonds.

Last month, it was revealed that the Central Bank has actually speeded up its sale of Irish bonds, and the new situation is that the entirety of the promised windfall will be lost and the bill actually increased. The refusal of the Minister for Finance to explain fully the likely cost of the promissory notes deal suggests that this is something which he knows will undermine the official story. After two years of posturing, the Government last month quietly admitted that it is not even asking for a relief of bank-related debt. Even though the ECB’s determination to avoid a European Lehman Brothers has been shown to be central to the scale of debts incurred by our government, the Taoiseach will not say this in public. If Greece can seek to revise terms, then Ireland, with its stronger case for relief, must do so.

To start with, we need the Government to be willing to state this in public. The idea that this will associate us in some way with Greece’s wider economic problems is nonsense. There are underlying strengths in our economy which are well understood. The skills of our people, our broad export-focused industrial base and our pro-job creation policies have been built up over many years and lie at the heart of a return to growth. It is because they are long term, and not a product of a few years of one Government, that they have a credibility internationally which will not be challenged by looking for fair treatment on debt.

Some two years ago the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister, Deputy Howlin, were willing to envisage €30 billion in debt relief. Today they are looking for nothing. Hanging around to see what others get and hoping that it will be extended has failed. It has delivered nothing extra to Ireland and the policy of hyping everything has delivered the Government nothing politically. This is a moment when Europe must engage with the deep disillusionment of many of its citizens. Ireland must play its part and start seeking full justice for its case.

Since the Council met last December, the European Central bank has launched its programme of quantitative easing. This is extremely welcome and it should not have taken six years to happen. The quantitative easing programmes of the Bank of England and the US Federal Reserve worked. They delivered higher growth and employment and provided a more secure environment for a return to investment. Due to the constraints placed on the plan by those who would have preferred to do nothing, its impact may be lower than if President Draghi had been given more freedom, but it is still welcome.

It shows the ECB beginning to work more like a true central bank, one which is focused on the interests of all part of the eurozone and not just the most powerful. I welcome the fact that, after three years of being pressed on this, the Taoiseach finally asked the ECB to co-operate with our banking inquiry. Only those who put politics first deny the central role which the failed and abandoned ECB policies had in increasing the scale of Irish debt and the requirement for a bailout. The Trichet presidency of the ECB was disastrous for Europe and Ireland.

I welcome the indications that the European Court of Justice will shortly rule that the ECB should not participate in any troika-like arrangements. It has no legitimate role to play in fiscal and social policies and was a regressive force in opposing the burning of bondholders which was supported by the IMF. Ultimately, as the troika repeated time after time, individual measures were open to amendment by the Irish Government and that its concern was hitting overall targets. It was not the troika which forced our Government to implement a decisive shift to unfair and regressive policies; that was the choice of Fine Gael and Labour Ministers.

As the CSO figures have shown, the impact of the Government’s policies is that inequality and deprivation have grown by every measure. What has also been seen is a new phenomenon of deprivation being experienced even by families with reasonably paid jobs. They have been hit by the policy of piling up new charges, without concern for ability to pay and the weighting of four out of four budgets to give the largest benefit to the wealthiest in society. Equally, they have been hit by the refusal to engage with the mortgage and household debt crisis. Fattening up the banks for a pre-election sale has taken priority over helping the over 100,000 families in severe trouble and the net economic impact of this has been devastating. If this is to be a moment when Europe discusses a credible approach to debts and investment, then our Government needs to start demanding fairness for our country and needs to start showing fairness in its policies.

The escalation of violence in Ukraine has at its core the continued work of Russia to destabilise and further partition a neighbouring country. President Putin said yesterday that it was the duty of Kiev to support Russia, rather than to seek accommodation with Europe.

The entire rebel effort is funded, organised and in many cases carried out by Russia. The only people who deny this are those who are wilfully blind to Russia’s behaviour and who are disinterested in the rights of nations which want to be free of former imperial powers. The efforts of the High Representative Mogherini to start a discussion about lifting sanctions on Russia were unacceptable and my party welcomes the strong reaction of President Tusk and many governments which forced its abandonment. It is unfortunate that there are still many apologists for Russia’s behaviour and those who are willing to parrot its anti-Ukrainian propaganda.

The government in Kiev is a mainstream democratic government that enjoys overwhelming democratic legitimacy. It is implementing policies which are endorsed by its citizens. It needs two things most of all now. It needs us to be resolute in saying to Russia that it should get out Ukraine or there will be no let-up in sanctions. It also needs a far more generous international support programme. This is a democratic country which is under attack by a neighbour which wants it to be a servile and undemocratic puppet. The economy is devastated by the conflict which outside aggression has caused and by the lasting impact of the policies of a past government. The economic and social burden being carried by the Ukrainian people is too high and it is our duty to support a much more generous financial aid package. It has been an incredible feature of the past 12 months that we have had to listen to voices which pretend to support the rights of nations to be free but have refused to speak clearly against Russian aggression. Instead, they have promoted the lie that Europe and America are somehow to blame. The House should note that, yet again, Sinn Féin representatives have stood in the European Parliament with those seeking to attack the Ukrainian Government and excuse the Putin regime. They supported their group when it put down a series of outrageous motions opposing a proposal to condemn Russian aggression and support the rights of the Ukrainian people.

I endorse the Taoiseach's comments on the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism and, in particular, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris. I note the resolve of the European Union and all member states to work in solidarity, particularly in terms of security, policing and a sharing of knowledge and information in dealing with a very fundamental and serious threat to the freedom and liberty of individuals and the safety and security of our citizens.

The House should note that since we last debated European matters, the European Parliament has taken a position which would be directly damaging for Ireland’s economy if it were allowed to proceed. The vote seeking a break-up of Google is a classic example of Europe spending time on grandstanding rather than constructive work. It is noteworthy that representatives of Sinn Féin and some other Irish MEPs were present for the vote but refused to support one of our most important investors. This has the potential to be a repeat of the long and pointless engagement with Microsoft in the past. As has been seen with the incredible changes in the web browser sector, Microsoft’s contention that change was inevitable was true. Europe wasted an enormous amount of time, energy and money based on the false premise that Microsoft had a permanent monopoly on browsing. The idea that Google will never face competition unless it is broken up is nonsense. A much better approach would be to support a proper increase in funding to support innovation in information and communications technology. There is a fundamental need for the European Union to be far more outward-looking in its economic policies, particularly with regard to competition, state aid and its attitude to globalisation and the emergence of key companies in the technology sector. It should have a broader perspective than it has shown to date.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Taoiseach noted, the European Council meeting took place in December and much has happened since. Not least of these events was the historic and groundbreaking election in Greece. I congratulate the new Greek Prime Minister, as the election result was a victory for hope over fear, which opens up a real prospect of democratic change not just for the people of Greece, but for citizens right across the European Union. The new Greek Government is seeking to renegotiate Greece's debt burden. Despite the impression created by the scaremongering of some, including the Taoiseach, it is not threatening a unilateral default. The Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Tsipras, has called for Greece's debt burden to be considered within a broader restructuring of sovereign debt in the eurozone. He has also raised the demand for a European debt conference. This is a proposal which the Tánaiste said "has some merit", although when I asked the Taoiseach last week for his position, he bluntly rejected the idea. Why did he do so and did he consult with the Tánaiste about this? Did she know the Taoiseach would rule out this initiative? It makes absolutely no sense for a Taoiseach and Government of a state with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 111% to say "No" to a debt conference.

The citizens of this State should not have to depend on Greece to propose something which is so obviously in the interests of this State and its citizens. The Taoiseach's negotiating track record in the EU and on Ireland's debt has been utterly pathetic. He has committed at every turn to repaying every cent of the toxic Anglo Irish Bank debt and completely surrendered on the recapitalisation of the pillar banks. The Government has refused to negotiate in any serious way at an international level in the best interests of the Irish people and, instead, it has inflicted widespread hardship on Irish citizens and damage to this society, leading to inequality in communities across the State.

The latest Central Statistics Office statistics indicate that the number of children in poverty has risen to 140,000 and that the Government will miss anti-poverty targets, with more than a third of young people in the State experiencing enforced deprivation. Sinn Féin has never indicated that the Irish people should have to pay private bank debt. It is not the people's debt but that of a small elite who caused the financial and economic crisis. The reality is that €62 billion in loans were in the hands of just 190 people. It was not about Paddy going mad, as the Taoiseach famously said at Davos one time. There was a small golden circle, and 50% of the loan book of Anglo Irish Bank was held by just 20 individuals. Irish Nationwide was a similar example. The original bank guarantee was introduced by the previous Administration but it was renewed at least twice by this Government. Ordinary people have paid and are paying the price. The Government turned private debt into sovereign debt, and this has left a legacy of debt for generations to come.

The Fine Gael and Labour parties, despite their election rhetoric, rolled over on this issue. Interestingly enough, the Government rubbished our notion of separating sovereign debt from banking debt - burden sharing - but it is now EU policy. We will continue to push for the European Union to honour its obligations for unfairly forcing this debt on Irish people. The Government has had the option to apply for retrospective recapitalisation of bank debt in AIB and Bank of Ireland but so far it has not been achieved. Why is that? Meanwhile, at the most recent visit to Davos, the Taoiseach advised European leaders to press on with the austerity agenda and ignore growing demands for a more thoughtful and sensible way to deal with European debt. He dismissed democratic demands as populism but the Taoiseach has no mandate to act as an adviser to the EU elite and its friends. His remarks make it clear that this Government is ideologically wedded to austerity and has no interest in seeking a better, fairer deal for Irish citizens.

We support the growing cause for a debt conference that will make debt sustainable and fair. There is a need for an honest debate based on proposals rather than scare tactics from a Government which has demonstrated it is not prepared to consider alternatives to what it has already promoted.

Can the Taoiseach outline any logical reason he will not support a debt conference? The ECB's move on quantitative easing last week was welcome, and Deputy Doherty has argued that cause for a long time in this Chamber and outside it, but it is only one part of what is needed for economic recovery. The two other parts are a change in fiscal policy and a debt conference. Providing extra credit to over-indebted countries will not make their debt any more sustainable and it is a measure of this State's status that the Central Bank of Ireland did not even have a vote on this matter. Will the Taoiseach reflect on his rejection of this initiative and, having done so, will he, as the Tánaiste suggested, see that such a conference has some merit and, accordingly, on behalf of the Irish people, will he support a debt conference? Will he ask for relief of unfair bank debt and will he raise these matters in his meetings next week with President Tusk and President Juncker? Will he take the opportunity to apply for retrospective recapitalisation of pillar banks, as he promised and as he predicted so long ago?

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These post-European Council statements relate to the meeting on 18 December but, along with the Taoiseach, I wish to express my condolences to all those killed and injured in the recent attacks in Paris as well as in Pakistan and Ukraine. I hope that at the next Council meeting the Taoiseach will inform President Hollande of the condolences and the messages of sympathy of all parties in this House.

As my colleague, Deputy Adams, has outlined, the election in Greece on Sunday was historic and it is fitting that we formally congratulate Syriza on its victory. The message coming from these benches is that the Government needs to seriously reconsider its position on the merits of a debt conference and the call for such a conference. The Syriza victory also came in the face of EU opposition and the unprecedented interference of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker into this domestic election. For many, the Syriza win was a victory for hope - something the current EU system is still not offering the majority of citizens of member states.

Last month the European Council also discussed the need to fight tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. Was Ireland’s tax regime discussed? Will the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, respond to that question? Was there any discussion about whether Apple's specific tax arrangements with Ireland are legal? Just before the European Council, the new EU Competition Commissioner said there is reasonable doubt about whether Apple's tax arrangements with Ireland are legal and that the investigation into the case remained open and this is despite the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan's remarks in November that he expected the case to be dropped.

Ireland is not alone in regard to specific tax arrangements. The Netherlands and Luxembourg are also facing investigations into how their tax arrangements with global multinationals may have been a form of illegal state aid. Ironically, the Luxembourg scandal directly involves the current European Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker. It is alleged that Mr. Juncker, when he was Prime Minister of Luxembourg, played a key role in the affair and, in fact, was the architect of Luxembourg's tax avoidance system. Harmful tax practices are now supposedly at the top of the Commission's agenda, but the Commission is being led by one of the alleged prime culprits.

The European Parliament also attempted to launch a full inquiry into sweetheart tax deals with some multinational companies. More than a quarter of MEPs - many in defiance of their own party leaders - called for a thorough probe into alleged state-facilitated tax avoidance across the EU. The large number was sufficient to trigger a formal request for a committee of inquiry. Fine Gael’s four MEPs voted against a European Parliament committee of inquiry into the Luxembourg leaks scandal two weeks ago, which is very disappointing. Mr. Juncker is also a member of the EPP, along with Fine Gael, but what Irish people would really like to know is what Government MEPs fear from such an inquiry. Do the Government MEPs have anything to fear from such a probe into the Irish tax system and supposed sweetheart deals? Why is there no political desire to tackle corporate tax avoidance schemes? With European citizens continuing to face enforced austerity policies, surely it is more important than ever that companies pay their fair and equal share of tax.

The Taoiseach mentioned Ukraine which was also discussed at this European Council meeting. We know that unfortunately the fighting has got worse in eastern Ukraine since the meeting and 30 civilians were reported dead after mortar fire struck the outskirts of Mariupol city last weekend. According to the UN, more than 5,000 people have been killed in fighting since the rebels seized large swathes of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions last April and more than 1 million people have been displaced. It is now being reported that EU Foreign Ministers will hold an extraordinary meeting on Thursday to consider imposing further sanctions on Russia. Can the Minister of State provide any more detail on that? Does Ireland support further sanctions against Russia?

Some 70 years ago today the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated by the Soviet Red Army and last Sunday was the annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The genocide carried out was one of the most horrific crimes ever committed in Europe or the World. Unfortunately, we are currently seeing a resurgence of far right groups in Europe and anti-Semitism, including violent attacks, have seen a sharp increase in recent years. We also have seen the growth of many of such political parties across Europe. Does the Minister of State agree that collectively we must unite to eliminate anti-Semitism from society and never forget the horrors that led to the Holocaust and murder of so many millions of innocent people?

With this in mind and in remembering the violent attacks in Paris, I hope that combatting anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and other forms of sectarianism and racism can be discussed at the next European Council meeting. Perhaps the Minister of State will respond to that.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputies Healy, Clare Daly and Wallace.

As was said by others, much has happened since December, not least the weekend election in Greece which is part of a trend throughout Europe. Calls for a European debt conference ought to be heeded by this Government. Looking back, it is difficult to believe that the last time such an international conference of creditors took place was the London debt agreement of 1953. I have made this point in the Chamber on several occasions. That agreement reduced Germany's external debt by about 50%. The IMF has essentially controlled international debt since then and, as such, the kind of progressive thinking which saw the value in allowing Germany to thrive economically by freezing its huge debts from a combination of the Treaty of Versailles, the Nazi era and the post-World War II debts has vanished. We need to retain that vision for the good of the Continent as a whole. It is an historical irony that the biggest beneficiary of debt forgiveness now leads the charge against easing the debt burden of several of the original creditors, namely, Greece, Spain and, indeed, Ireland.

The Taoiseach has on numerous occasions come into this House and said we cannot have defaulter marked across us as it will ruin us for all time. Germany was one of the biggest defaulters and it is now the powerhouse of Europe. That should tell us something. It is not just about what happened in Greece. The German debt campaigner, Jürgen Kaiser, noted that few sovereign debt restructurings have so clearly marked the transition from critical indebtedness to a situation where debt is no longer an obstacle to economic and social development and that the agreement remains one of the few historical examples of how circumspect and sustainable a debt workout can be, if the political will exists.

However, the political will has been absent. The one dimensional thinking has forced the populations to rethink the political direction of Europe. We saw an example of that at the weekend in Greece, and I hope we will see more of it, but our Government must sit up and take note of that change in direction because we should be an ally of those who are calling for that debt conference. I hope that will be taken up in a future setting, if not the next Council meeting.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The biggest story in Europe at the moment is the success of Syriza in Greece and I, too, congratulate it. The challenges it faces will be great given the powers that are stacked against it. It is a symbol that many people in Europe today are not happy with the powers of the banks and the wholesale sacrifice of our collective social good in the name of so-called free market forces. We have seen an anti-social, neoliberal agenda imposed across Europe and here, and at this stage many people in Europe have seen enough of it.

It is also indicative that this week Ireland will ratify the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement that has been at the centre of the troubles in Ukraine. The agreement is part of a wider narrative about the role of powerful but unelected forces such as the IMF, the European Central Bank, ECB, and the fossil fuel industry interfering in wide-ranging policies of sovereign states. If people want to live in a society that is worth believing in or a sovereign democracy that is worthy of the name, they need to have independence from these unelected powers.

The agreement is just the next stage in the struggle for control of a country whose political, financial and infrastructural problems are being used as a pretext to exploit the situation for private gain. Ukraine is a pawn in what is essentially a colonial stand-off between Russia and the West as the United States and the EU attempt to dig their teeth deeper into the former Soviet bloc. People have forgotten that over 20 years ago when Gorbachev did the deal with the West, they agreed that they would not impose on the countries around the Soviet Union in the interest of peace, but that is exactly what has gone on for the past 20 years, and they have gone even further into that area and destabilised the region.

The trade deal ignores the fact that tensions between East and West inside Ukraine are far from resolved, with many commentators arguing that the pro-Russian eastern region will lose out massively as a result of the agreement, causing further destabilisation. Like all the international trade deals of late, they are not so much about trade as writing into law the primacy of the rights of corporations above those of citizens. We are also looking at the TTIP coming our way.

The Ukraine agreement will do away with restrictions on trade and production, the purpose of which is to protect the citizenry. It will also facilitate the export of Ukrainian shale gas to Europe by the biggest polluter in the world, Shell Chevron and friends, regardless of the consequences for the communities getting "fracked" or the planet being cooked. Shell has signed the biggest shale gas contract in Europe, a €10 billion deal in Ukraine where it will drill 15 test wells.

The question for us today is why, in the name of God, we are taking part in this expansionist economic war between Russia, the EU and the US. What do we have to gain? Is it for lower prices on dirty gas that we should not even be burning or a pat on the head from the US? Why take part in sanctions against Russia and protest its abuses against the human rights of Ukrainians when that is obviously not the Minister's concern? Saudi Arabia has chopped the heads off over 2,000 people since 1985 for offences such as witchcraft and discussing atheism in public, and we have no problem doing business with it. Israel murdered 500 children in Palestine last summer, and we do not have a problem doing business with it. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, made the answer to these questions clear to me here last year when he said that trade missions were no place to discuss these kind of issues, which means that where there is money to be made there is no place for human rights. Following that logic, what hope is there for the people of Ukraine?

Ratifying this trade deal will only subject Ukraine to unfettered exploitation by unaccountable corporations, destablilise the region further and entrench us more deeply as partisans in a new cold war that we should have nothing to do with.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The election of Syriza has been a fantastic shot in the arm for hard-pressed citizens throughout Europe by raising the prospect of a Europe that could be run in the interests of the millions rather than the millionaires. I, too, pass on my best regards to the new government and the Greek people.

It is against that backdrop that I was appalled to hear the comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs dismissing the prospect of a debt conference on the basis that it is not in Europe's interest. What Europeans is he talking about? Such a conference would certainly not be in the interests of the big bankers and bondholders but it most definitely would be in the interests of the ordinary citizens of Europe, not least Irish people as well as our Greek and Spanish peers. That vision of hope that the Greek Government has given us is something that people the length and breadth of this country will seek to emulate in the next general election.

It is illustrative to read Paul Krugman's article in The Irish Timestoday in which he said we have to look at the roots of the political earthquake in Greece and realise that it comes from the troika's programme there. These are the people who unleashed a human nightmare of 28% unemployment and 60% youth unemployment in Greece. Those situations exist not because the Greek Government did not listen to the troika, but because it did, and these are the same forces who are telling the new government that it has to be reasonable and realistic. As Krugman says, if anything, the problems that will face Syriza is that it is not radical enough and it needs to take that situation forward, and we should be doing everything we can to support it.

There has been a nauseating hypocrisy, which was dealt with by Deputy Wallace, in regard to how this Government has slavishly followed EU foreign policy. It is a violation of our neutrality and not something in which I believe the Irish people are interested. We are very quick to impose sanctions on Russia, like everyone else, for the illegal annexation of Crimea and the deliberate stabilisation of Ukraine but, as Deputy Wallace said, we have no problem dealing with Saudi Arabia, which nearly makes ISIS look good. Ten people were publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia this year alone. It is nice not to see flags being flown at half mast here. It would be an outrage to women and human rights activists that we would go along with that.

We stand idly by and allow Israel bomb people in Gaza. We have no problem with what is going on in Egypt and so on but it is an entirely different matter when it comes to Russia. What sickening hypocrisy. If we are serious and neutral, why would we not be consistent across the board? The reality is that the conflict between NATO and Russia has been going on for decades but the imminent pressure behind it now is that NATO has basically taken over all of eastern Europe, encircling Russia with military bases. If that was happening on the Canadian or Mexican border, we would have a far greater level of aggression and fatalities than currently is the case. Instead we have an anti-Russian agenda-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----which is basically forcing Ukrainians into a deal with the EU. If we were really neutral, we would be supporting the Ukrainian people in their ability to internally sort things out for themselves-----

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what we are doing. The apologists-----

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

----and not slavishly follow the EU agenda which, as Deputy Wallace accurately put it, is also about gas, financial resources and so on. It has nothing to do with human rights or self-determination. It is a scandal, yet again, that this Government goes along with the same slavish adherence to US and EU foreign policy.

Séamus Healy (Tipperary South, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The election at the weekend of the anti-austerity Syriza party in Greece is a significant development not only for Greece and the Greek people, but also for all of Europe, and particularly for the programme countries including Ireland, Spain and Portugal. I heartily welcome the victory. The Greek people have supported all those in Europe suffering from unjust austerity imposed by the troika.

They have opened the door for the long-suffering Irish people. We must grasp this opportunity with both hands immediately. If Ireland does not join Syriza in supporting and preparing for a European debt conference to write down debt of all programme countries, it will face another 20 years of austerity. The 1952-53 European debt conference, which halved the German debt, gave a moratorium on repayments and extended the repayment period when it started to 50 years, offers a precedent. Another initiative of that nature is absolutely necessary for Ireland, Greece and the other programme countries.

It is regrettable that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have said in recent days that Ireland does not want a debt write-down. I assure them that the 1.4 million Irish people who are affected by deprivation and the 376,000 families that are living in consistent poverty in this State - both figures are taken from last week's CSO statistics - want a debt write-down. The same thing can be said of the 211,000 children who live in consistent poverty in this country, the 90,000 families on housing waiting lists, the 350,000 people who are unemployed, the 83,000 people who are on schemes and the almost 100,000 people who have emigrated.

If we do not get the debt write-down we seriously need, we will continue in austerity for the next 20 years. That is due to the fiscal treaty, about which we are hearing nothing now. When the fiscal treaty clicks in after the next election, it will impose ongoing austerity for 20 years. The structural deficit will cost us €4.5 billion. After that, the reduction to 60% of GDP will cost approximately €3 billion a year for 20 years. This country needs and wants a write-down. The Government, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste should support Syriza and the other programme countries in calling for a European debt conference.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now move on to questions to the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy. This part of the debate will last for a period not exceeding 20 minutes.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to repeat a question I asked the Taoiseach earlier. I did not get much of an answer. It has been asked again by other Deputies. Maybe the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, can enlighten us. Why on earth is the Government not joining Syriza and the people of Greece in supporting the idea of a debt conference? It is absolutely beyond belief. Frankly, it is economic treason, to use a phrase that the former Tánaiste once used in a different context. Next year, we will have to pay €8 billion in interest on a debt that was inflicted on the people of this country because of the activities of bankers, bondholders, developers and the political establishment here. That figure is slightly less than this country's entire education budget. Such moneys could be used to provide a decent social housing programme, reverse the cuts that have been inflicted on the health service and stimulate a real economic and job creation programme in this country. However, the Government has said it is not interested and would prefer to have to fork out this money, thereby starving the public services and inflicting misery and suffering on the people. The effect of what it is doing in the process is to scab on the Greek people's fight for debt relief.

For the first time in a number of years, there exists a real prospect of a united front of the victims of austerity across Europe, particularly in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain, where very soon we will see a similar election result to the one we saw in Greece. The same thing applies to the so-called central countries. I ask Members to believe me when I say that most Germans are not to happy with Angela Merkel's economics and politics. There is a real chance of a revolt against what Dr. Paul Krugman has rightly described as the "fantasy economics" of the troika, which believed the imposition of cruel and vicious austerity would somehow produce economic growth and jobs. It has produced the exact opposite. It has produced Europe-wide stagnation and brought Greece to its knees. Now that we finally have a chance to look in another direction, the Government is saying it is not interested. How can it possibly justify saying that? It beggars belief.

I wish to raise an issue that we will discuss again in the context of the motion on the association agreements. It is beyond belief that the situation in eastern Europe is getting close to terrifying. I refer not only to the serious political and economic crisis in Russia but also to the alarming rise of the far right in a number of places in Europe, including Ukraine. Figures in the far right have been included in the Ukrainian Government. Shock troops have been used to terrorise Jewish people and whip up ethnic divisions in Ukraine. On Holocaust remembrance day, we should be considering where all this stuff led in the 1930s and 1940s. We are seeing alarming echoes of all that happening again. What is the EU doing? It is involved in an expansionist agenda. It is competing with an equally rotten, corrupt, totalitarian and brutal regime in Russia. I do not think anyone who is criticising the policy of the EU and NATO with regard to Ukraine is a supporter of Russia or Mr. Putin, whose regime is rotten.

The point is that two big powers are playing geopolitical games over the heads of the Ukrainian people. Sadly, this is happening against a background in which opinion polls in Ukraine in recent years had consistently shown that sectarian or ethnic differences between Russian speakers and Ukrainians were breaking down. The majority of people in the east and the west of Ukraine actually wanted independence. They were overcoming some of the historic divisions that existed in that country. However, the interference of the EU and NATO on one side and Russia on the other has stirred up a hornet's nest that threatens to worsen the alarming situation in Ukraine and right across eastern Europe. Why are we a party to this? As a neutral country with a credible reputation, Ireland should make it clear that it is standing not with either of these two expansionist powers, but with the self-determination of the Ukrainian people.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by dealing with Deputy Boyd Barrett's rather long question. Some other questions were asked by Deputies Martin, Adams and Crowe, as well as by the various Technical Group speakers, during the first part of this debate. Obviously we have a new Government now in Greece. It is very much at the early stage. We have to welcome the clear statement by the new Greek Prime Minister, particularly in the latter stages of the election campaign, that he wishes to negotiate. We have heard demands for negotiations today. While it is important for the new Greek Government to focus clearly on its specific challenges, some of which we have in common, I emphasise that the Irish and Greek economies and debt situations are very different. Regardless of how much the parties on the hard left might like to see similarities where they do not exist, we need to be careful not to allow the differences to be blurred.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The principle exists.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The private sector was involved in the restructuring of Greek debt in 2012. It was recognised at that time that Greece could not pay.

Our debt burden has been significantly eased by policies adopted by our European colleagues through the self-same negotiation. These included the promissory note deal, lengthening of maturities on the European Financial Stability Facility, EFSF, and European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, EFSM, debt and facilitating the early repayment of our IMF debt. These responses were specific to our respective and different situations. If there are developments in a Greek context that could be of wider interest to Ireland, it is something that we would be willing to explore. Given the differences between our situations, however, it is difficult to see what they could be.

Of immediate and more important interest to Ireland is the overall fiscal and monetary stance of the eurozone. I agree with Deputy Martin, who suggested that the quantitative easing measures of recent weeks were overdue and welcome. In that regard, we wish to see those member states that have greater fiscal room for manoeuvre using it effectively.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will put a number of questions to the Minister of State. One relates to the Government's tendency to wait for other countries to negotiate on debt issues. For example, the substantial reduction in interest rates was essentially the work of the then Greek Government, which sought and secured four times what our Government requested.

Regarding retrospective recapitalisation, the Ministers, Deputies Noonan and Howlin, referred to approximately €30 billion in debt relief two or so years ago. Now, they are looking for nothing. The formal position is that the Government is not seeking a retrospective deal. People discuss the potential sale of AIB, but that was never envisaged in the former Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore's talk of a seismic change - the breaking of the link between sovereign and banking debt - after the June 2012 summit. The Government stated that the pathway had been created and the door had been opened for substantial retrospective recapitalisation of debt.

It is a fact that Europe, particularly the ECB, was adamant that no bank would fail after the failure of Lehman Brothers in the US. In guaranteeing Northern Rock, the UK gave an implicit guarantee of the wider British banking system. There were similar guarantees across Europe, including in Germany. The orthodoxy was that no bank could fail and no bondholders should contribute. Consequently, Ireland was treated unfairly. As such, there is a case. There will be renegotiations of the Greek situation, although it involves a different debt structure and the circumstances are somewhat different. None the less, debt as a percentage of GDP in Greece is 175%, which is unsustainable. Therefore, something must happen, just as something happened previously. For example, any profit made from the ECB's holding of Greek bonds will revert to the Greek Government.

There is an opportunity for a broader, pan-European discussion about debt sustainability. I am curious about why the Government has quietly dropped any real push for retrospective recapitalisation of the banks. It would essentially be debt relief. Ireland should get something back for the decisions it took at the behest of the ECB and under the policy framework. Long after the bank guarantee, the debts of unsecured and unguaranteed bondholders were honoured. Even in recent times, billions of euro were paid to such bondholders because that was the prevailing orthodoxy at ECB level.

Separate to the issue of AIB, what is the Government's position on seeking relief on banking debt and would it support a European debt conference in the near future? The negotiations that will undoubtedly start with the Greek Government will provide an opportunity for the Irish Government to become proactive in its own negotiations.

Regarding the Ukrainian situation, I was taken aback by the commentary in the House just now to the effect that everything was essentially the fault of Europe, the West and the Ukrainian Government. Has anyone thought about the citizens of Ukraine? They voted in a general election. Have Members any empathy with the citizens of states formerly controlled by Russia? Be they Polish, Czech or so on, they do not want to return to that regime. It is not a question of NATO or geopolitics. While those have always been in the backdrop, the fundamental issue is the sense of liberty that people in these states have enjoyed for the first time in a long time.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is why there is a degree of paranoia and anxiety in many of the former states of the Soviet Union that are now free and in the EU. The most overriding consideration that many of them have is to avoid returning to what they experienced. These are legitimate issues. What is happening in Ukraine is not satisfactory and what Russia is doing cannot be ignored by Europe. This is not to follow any line slavishly. It is a question of whether we should allow this situation or messing with the Baltics to continue.

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is happening to the Baltic states is provocative, dangerous and unnecessary. Europe must be on its guard. Of course, there is no perfect policy, but the degree of naivety regarding the Russian agenda is breathtaking in how it has been articulated by a number of parties and Independents in the House. Will the Minister of State comment on this point?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Three other Members - Deputies Mick Wallace, Clare Daly and Seán Crowe - wish to speak. I ask them to be brief, please, as we only have a few minutes left.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to be brief. I have two questions for the Minister of State, which I referred to in my contribution. Why is it okay to trade with Saudi Arabia, which cuts off people's heads every month, and Israel, which murders children in Palestine, but it is not okay to trade with Russia? If we were interested in having peace in eastern Europe, would it not be a good idea for the EU to encourage the US to sit down with Russia and have a chat about how what was happening in Ukraine was terrible for the country's people? Could these three powers get together and agree not to intervene in Ukraine and to leave the country to its people? Interference by Russia, the US and the EU in Ukraine is causing terrible misery for its people.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State was at pains to point out the differences between Ireland and Greece in response to Deputy Boyd Barrett's question, but he stated at the end of his contribution that, if there were developments for Greece, we might be happy enough to tag along. When will the Irish Government see itself as a sovereign that can make a stand on the world stage and develop ideas and strategies of its own instead of kowtowing and picking up the crumbs that someone else delivers for us-----

Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----which is what the Greeks did for us previously? Why do we not stand by them and help them instead of piggy-backing on anything they might get?

The Minister of State will be aware that, next week, the eighth round of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP, negotiations between the EU and the US will take place in Brussels.

It is an important agreement that could see this country being tied up and our democratic rights undermined by matters such as investor dispute settlements. However, not a single discussion has been tabled by the Government on this matter. When will we see a discussion on that?

My final question concerns Ukraine and what Deputy Martin tamely calls "messing in the Baltics". There certainly is messing in the Baltics and it is most definitely going on on two sides, not one side. The point that has been raised is that we have shacked up with one of the sides perpetrating that proxy war. The victims of it are the people of Ukraine. An expansionist and interventionist approach is being nurtured to suit Western agendas, as of course there is with Russia's agenda also. As a neutral country, however, we should not be taking one side over the other.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, has said it is time to move away from slogans to policies that might actually work. Whether we are talking about Ukraine or other conflicts, we need to examine that idea, although I do not think there is any simplistic answer. As regards Ukraine, rather than the Hobson's choice of going with Europe or Russia, the way forward would have been to develop the whole region. That is an alternative view.

Was Ireland's tax regime discussed at the European Council meeting? A statement after the Council referred to it and one company, Apple, was mentioned in relation to Ireland but it went off the agenda afterwards. We do not get a sense of what is going on at these Council meetings.

I presume that sanctions against Russia will be on the agenda again, so what is Ireland's position in that regard? Do we support the idea of such sanctions? Would the Minister of State not accept that falling oil and gas prices are probably having a greater effect on Russia than European sanctions, limited as they are?

We began by discussing the attacks in France and other countries, as well as the rise of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In our own country, there has been a rise of sectarianism and racism. I suggest that Ireland could raise these matters at the next European Council meeting.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call on the Minister of State to conclude.

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a concluding statement but if I read it, I will not get to answer any of the questions that have been raised. To answer Deputy Crowe, the issue of our individual tax arrangements was not discussed at the European Council and there was consequently no discussion on any company based here. We defend our tax system rigorously. We have obviously made moves in support of international discussions on BEPS, base erosion and profit shifting with respect to the double Irish and the stateless nature of some arrangements.

Deputy Clare Daly mentioned the TTIP negotiations and we are strong supporters of the advantages that could arise for Ireland, the EU generally and indeed for the United States. Half the world's GDP comes from trade between Europe and the United States of America. Her specific question was about state dispute settlement arrangements. We must welcome the fact that European Commission President Juncker has asked Vice President Timmermans to specifically examine this issue. If Vice President Timmermans does not support the inclusion of these, they will not form part of the TTIP arrangements.

We had this two weeks ago from elements of the Technical Group during the debate on the terrible events in Paris. They are seeking to suggest that because there are other atrocities or civil breaches around the world, we in Europe should not play our part in identifying significant issues. The way Russia has treated the people of Ukraine, international law and the EU is deserving of sanctions. I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in July immediately after flight MH17 was downed, having left European airspace. I saw the pain and suffering reflected in Vice President Timmermans at that point. It is vital that Europe acts in a unified way-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did you go to Palestine? What about the fate of Gaza?

Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----with respect to trying to reduce the crisis and uphold international law. In that regard, it is frankly ridiculous to try to introduce other issues which are irrelevant.

It has always been the case that there would be a scale towards sanctions. That has been the Irish position. Unfortunately, however, more recent events would suggest that unless we see an improvement and maybe an acceptance of the Minsk agreement from the Russian side, there is no immediate chance of that scale working to reduce sanctions.

The other main area that was addressed by most speakers concerned the Greek elections and Greek debt. There has been significant action - independent of other nations and given the uniqueness of our position - by the Irish Government to date. There was some talk of innovation. The most innovative piece of financial engineering we have seen to date was in the construction of the promissory note, which was of huge benefit to the Irish people. We have now seen a saving of €50 billion through the extension of terms, a reduction of interest rates, and the renegotiation of terms with the IMF. To suggest in any way that Ireland has not achieved through negotiation the most that it could for the Irish people is absolutely ridiculous.

Deputy Martin correctly pointed out that Greek debt now stands at 176% of GDP, which is the highest in the eurozone. Our debt is now at 111% and continues to fall. We must remain focused on the measures and not be distracted in some regards by what is happening in Greece with measures that have continued to have Ireland for a long number of months as the fastest growing EU economy with the fastest falling rate of unemployment. Confidence has been restored after many years of uncertainty caused by the fact that we had inherited an unsustainable debt burden. We will of course continue to examine ways of reducing that burden in the future.