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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their member states, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 27 June 2014, a copy of which was laid before the Dáil on 9 December 2014.”

These three association agreements respond to the desire of the peoples of the countries in question to strengthen their ties to the EU on the basis of shared European values. The agreements are ambitious in scope and would replace the EU's current partnership and co-operation agreements with these three countries. They will also deepen political and economic relations with the three countries on the basis of common values in the context of the EU's Eastern Partnership.

As was mentioned during the select committee's discussion with the Minister, these agreements are mutually beneficial to the European Union and the three countries concerned. Respect for democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms is an essential element of the agreements. If any party is in breach of its obligations on respect for human rights, appropriate measures, including the suspension of the trade aspects of these agreements, can be taken in response. Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will be gradually integrated into the EU's Internal Market through the creation of deep and comprehensive free trade areas. Co-operation with the EU on reforms in some 28 policy areas is also an important feature of the agreements. The EU will assist the three countries with the implementation of the agreements, providing assistance with the modernisation, for example, of their agricultural sectors and better regulation of their financial services. In 2014, the EU made available €131 million each to Georgia and Moldova and €365 million to Ukraine in this regard.

The agreements were signed last year at European Council meetings. The three countries concerned - Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine - have already ratified them, as have ten EU member states. The ratification process is well advanced in most other member states and the European Parliament has also given its approval. Some parts of the agreements where the EU has exclusive competence are being applied on a provisional basis, pending ratification by all concerned parties. It is important to state that the agreements do not infringe on the sovereignty of Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine in any way. They are the result of lengthy and detailed negotiations into which the three countries entered freely. These negotiations were conducted by the European Commission on behalf of the EU on the basis of a mandate agreed by the member states, including Ireland. Georgia is the only country in the Caucasus region which has concluded such an agreement and opinion polls show that people there are strongly supportive of what is being done. Moldova ratified its agreement prior to recent parliamentary elections and the EU is committed to supporting its reform endeavours.

The EU's relationship with Ukraine has, despite the adversity of the ongoing crisis there, developed and deepened substantially. At Maidan Square and in the recent parliamentary elections, the people of Ukraine have made their voices heard on their desire for this association agreement. The EU has been at the forefront of international efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The security situation there remains extremely volatile and the recent escalation of violence which has claimed many innocent civilian victims is deeply worrying. I am particularly concerned by the horrific attack on the city of Mariupol at the weekend. High Representative Mogherini is convening an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on Thursday, which the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, will attend, to consider the EU's response, including possible further restrictive measures. The EU has consistently called on all sides to fully implement their commitments under the Minsk agreements and to take no action which might undermine the objective of a negotiated and peaceful end to the crisis that we all wish to see.

The association agreements will provide a long-term basis for the EU's relationship with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, based on shared European values and mutual interests. Closer economic integration with the EU will in time create opportunities for Ireland to forge stronger political and economic relations with these countries.

On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I commend these motions to the House.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute once again on the subject of the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The tensions and conflicts in the region to which the Minister of State refers cannot be glossed over, despite the positive impact on relations - both trade and political - that will result from these agreements between the European Union and the three countries involved.

The European Union has served as a shining example of how increased co-operation in the area of trade can result in a consolidated and lasting peace between neighbours. Internally, membership of the European Union has resulted in a previously unknown peace between neighbours who would have viewed each other as enemies. Externally, these association agreements allow a pathway to increase trade, consolidate peace, enhance the rule of law and improve bilateral relations outside our borders. These positive elements can only be celebrated. However, we must sound a note of caution. Unfettered enthusiasm for continually increasing the EU's sphere of influence on our borders must not undermine those with whom we seek to do business. We must be careful in our endeavours and prudent in our approach to these agreements. We must ensure that the interests of the European Union's citizens and those of the people with whom we are seeking these agreements are protected.

I have no doubt that this agreement will benefit the people of the Ukraine but I question whether things could have been handled in a more prudent manner. The current conflict in eastern Ukraine must be of grave concern to the international community. Obviously, the EU is not the aggressor here. It is for others to defend their positions with regard to the horrific conflict we are currently witnessing. Nonetheless, there is a responsibility on the EU and its institutions to ensure peace and stability and element of buy-in on the part of the people. These aspects must come into consideration at all times in the development of agreements of this nature.

With regard to what occurred after the signing of the association agreement with Ukraine, let me be clear on our position. Fianna Fáil believes the result of the referendum regarding Crimea becoming a part of the Russian Federation was illegitimate and has far-reaching consequences for the concepts of national territory and sovereignty in Europe. The latter must be a matter of concern to us all. We welcomed the European Council's strong condemnation of the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation and support the decision not to recognise the annexation. We also support the European Council decisions to extend the visa ban and asset freeze on senior members of the Russian Government and the sanctions that were subsequently imposed. We support the wish of the strong majority of Ukrainian people to be part of the European democratic mainstream. What we will not support - we strongly urge caution in this regard - is Europe pushing too hard and too fast with an association agreement which causes a fracture in a neighbouring country. I am sure the EU would acknowledge that its strategy in this regard could have been more prudent and careful and that matters could have been handled better. The fact that the Union - in the aftermath of a meeting between it, Russia and Ukraine - has agreed to postpone the free trade aspect of the agreement with Ukraine until January 2016 is an acknowledgement of this. In any event, lessons must be learned from this experience by those at the highest level of the EU's political leadership.

Sadly, and from what we know, a significant number of lives have been lost in eastern Ukraine. Much of what is happening in that part of the world is not being reported in full. As indicated at the meeting of the select committee, my party and I will be voting in favour of these agreements. I am of the view - my party leader reiterated this earlier - that the frameworks which have been outlined will result in an increased peace and improved living standards for the people of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine and the citizens of the European Union.

I was surprised when the new High Representative requested a discussion in respect of lifting the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia. I am glad the initiative she seemed to be about to undertake in this regard was not progressed in any way. When we had the opportunity to meet the new High Representative, I thought she was going to take a very positive, prudent and careful approach in terms of ensuring that the EU will enjoy improved relations with the countries to the east of its borders. There are so many potential benefits for all in the context of concluding agreements such as those under discussion. However, we must do our homework on them well in advance and we must adopt a prudent and careful approach. As citizens of the European Union, we must also ensure that we try to secure and safeguard the basic civil and human rights of those who are currently denied them.

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

I thank the Whips for agreeing to the debate on this issue. I raised it at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and, although only a small period is set aside for the debate, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposed association agreements.

Sinn Féin is not in favour of these association agreements because they comprise a Hobson's choice that does little to improve the socio-economic development of the countries involved and nothing to de-escalate recent tensions in the region. In principle, we are not against the further expansion of the EU. We fully supported the improved relationship between the EU member states and countries that border the EU. This is not just important but vital, given the long and historic divisions and conflicts that have bedevilled the many peoples of the region.

As a party, we have no objections to improving visa regimes operating between the EU and these countries. We certainly do not wish to tell other countries how to conduct their international affairs. Moving in a direction towards the EU is a matter for their electorates. However, we do stand opposed to the insidious EU economic agenda that undermines the sovereign powers of states, seeking to end state involvement in economic development, and moves towards the breaking up or selling off of successful state-owned assets.

Association agreements used to be focused primarily on political commitments and co-operation but recently they have also contained deep and comprehensive free trade agreements, DCFTAs. These three association agreements have DCFTAs at their heart. They lock countries into so-called economic changes based on privatisation and cutting wages and worsening working conditions under the guise of stabilising market conditions. We opposed that element in Ireland's bailout and in the current TTIP negotiations, and we will oppose it in the EU's free trade agreement with Colombia, to be debated in this Chamber tomorrow. We oppose it in these association agreements.

We are in favour of improving trade with the countries. They are some of the most disadvantaged in Europe, but we cannot support what is essentially a political Hobson’s choice and the economic provisions on which the agreements are based.

The Ukraine association agreement agrees to remove subsidies that affect trade and it is the first free trade agreement to include specific provisions on trade-related energy issues. In the agreement, the parties commit themselves to let market prices prevail on the domestic gas and electricity markets and not to regulate prices for industry. Neither party will impose prices for exporting energy products which are higher than domestic prices, yet gas and fuel subsidies comprise one of the main ways in which people are able to heat their homes in the winter. Surely removing these subsidies will ensure many poor people will literally freeze to death in the bitter Ukrainian winter. Rules on non-discriminatory access to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons are a nod to EU firms to exploit Ukraine's natural resources for their own corporate gain.

Georgia is a minor trade partner of the EU and has a considerable trade deficit with regard to the Union. The association agreement will not change that. In fact, Georgia has attracted EU attention chiefly as a transit route for energy supplies from the Caspian Sea, as reflected in the association agreement’s energy security chapter.

Russia has repeatedly threatened Moldova about the risk of losing out on trade with Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS, markets if Moldova goes ahead with the EU agreements. It has also banned agricultural exports from Moldova. A country as poor as Moldova should not be faced with this Hobson's choice.

The agreements aim to expand to the countries in question the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, including the common security and defence policy. Sinn Féin stands in opposition to this and to attempts to incorporate the countries into NATO. All three countries contain breakaway territories that neither Russia effectively controls nor directly supports. These association agreements do not fully take account of this and do not seek to try to resolve any of the conflicts or de-escalate the recent tensions in these regions. The EU knows that and that is why it suspended the full implementation of the Ukrainian association agreement from September 2014 until December 2015.

These association agreements are attempts to move closer to one bloc of countries at the expense of others. This either-or, take-it-or-leave-it type of deal is unhelpful economically, socially and politically.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Right now there is a nightmare in Ukraine. That is clear and indisputable. Over 2,000 people have been killed in the conflict, which is currently escalating. Living standards are plummeting dramatically and GDP fell last year by 7.5%. Significant attacks have taken place on democratic rights and the Communist Party was banned. In the west of Ukraine under the Kiev Government there has been a rise of fascist forces, including on the streets. This association agreement is part of the reason. It sums up the imperialistic and expansionist policy of the EU. It, on the one side, and Russian imperialist ambitions on the other, are responsible for the treatment of the people of Ukraine, regardless of ethnicity, simply as pawns in a great power game and their being put in an extremely difficult set of circumstances.

These association agreements reflect how the so-called European neighbourhood policy works. The policy, summed up in the European Commission's own document, is about establishing a ring of friendly countries around the EU. That means a ring of friendly countries that are not in the orbit of Russia but instead in the orbit of the EU. The entire European neighbourhood policy, both in the east and south, is about the assimilation of countries without them entering the EU. They sign up to all the new liberal rules of the EU, including free trade agreements, but do not actually get to enter the Union. They accept the dominance of the dominant capitalist classes within Europe. At the heart of the association agreements are the DCFTAs.

The European Commission states the DCFTA with Ukraine is one of the EU's most ambitious bilateral agreements yet. What does it mean to be deep and comprehensive? It means it is not just about customs tariffs, just as TTIP is not primarily about customs and tariffs. It is about a restructuring of the economy, including through the changing of procurement law, giving European multinationals access to Ukrainian public services, EU rules on intellectual property, EU rules on competition law, and driving a process of neoliberalism and austerity that is greatly embraced and already being implemented by the Ukrainian Government of the oligarchs. We should oppose and block this agreement. Instead of accepting it, there should be support for a united movement of the Ukrainian people against the rule of the oligarchs, recognising the democratic rights of all.

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

The last thing the people of Ukraine need is this agreement. The initial discussions on it helped to prompt the conflict in Ukraine and split the Ukrainian people apart.

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

The ambassador is present. The Deputy is speaking to the people of Ukraine.

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

I did not interrupt the Minister of State.

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

The Deputy did, actually.

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

In 1991, when there was a referendum on independence in Ukraine, 84% of people turned out. Even in the industrial regions in the east, where there are mostly Russian speakers, the vote for independence was never lower than 83%. Even in Crimea, a bastion of Russian influence, 54% were in favour of independence. As I mentioned earlier, the biggest linguistic category that has grown in recent years, up until the conflict started, comprised those who spoke both Russian and Ukrainian. Therefore, all the divisions were breaking down. What ruined this was the economic shock therapy of privatisation, which enriched a small number of corrupt politicians and the oligarchs, who gained fantastic wealth at the expense of a brutally impoverished population, to the point that in Ukraine last year income per capita was €3,900 per year, by comparison with Hungary, where it was €12,560. In Poland, it was €13,432 and in Russia it was €14,612.

Life expectancy in Ukraine is almost ten years less than in Hungary, Poland or Russia. All of that is a result of the devastation of economic shock therapy of privatisation and neoliberal dogma that was enforced, benefiting the oligarchs, who had been former communist party hacks and apparatchik and now become the new entrepreneurs of Ukraine, in getting fantastically rich at the expense of all of the Ukrainian people, whether they were ethnically Russian speakers or Ukrainian speakers.

This agreement will only further that situation and encourage those on both sides who are turning the population against one another in the most horrendous way, whether by whipping up nostalgia for Stalinism or, on the other side, whipping up nostalgia for Nazism and creating heroes of those who collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War. We should reject both Russian and European interference in Ukraine and let the Ukrainian people themselves sort this out.