Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to welcome all the MEPs, and some of them back to the Seanad. We are here at a key moment for Europe. Much of the connection that Ireland has - much of the pride that people have for the European Union - is in its history in driving forward workers' rights, women's rights, environmental progress and disability rights. However, much ground and trust was lost during austerity because it seemed that those social solidarity principles and that idea of progressing rights and progressing bigger, better ideas of how we live together, was put aside. The smart sustainable inclusive growth of Europe 2020 was pressed aside in favour of short-term fiscal targets. Some of that lesson has been learned because we see in the response to Covid that there is recognition of the need to suspend fiscal rules and to focus on stimulus and on solidarity funding. I believe it is a great disgrace, however, to the European Union that a TRIPS waiver is still bring blocked, almost only by Europe. Even the United States of America is now supporting it, together with 100 other countries. This is probably one of the greatest moral and, indeed, diplomatic failings that Europe will ever have made.

Within Europe, there was a response on solidarity. I note the recovery and resilience funding was mentioned. Unfortunately, Ireland was one of the only countries that did not have parliamentary scrutiny or debate on that recovery and resilience funding. I hope that, on just transition funding, we will have that. I would encourage my MEP, Ms Fitzgerald, who is active in these areas, to press the Government to ensure that it engages at national level in proper debate on these fundings. They are important decisions on a European Green Deal, on digitalisation and, crucially, how they overlap because one of the issues that does not get discussed is the energy footprint and the environmental footprint in relation to digitalisation and how we do that right and in an ethically and environmentally sound way.

Another aspect, of course, is what comes next. We are in the debate about the future of Europe. I am lucky enough to be one of the national parliamentarians taking part in that. There are some very fundamental questions. It is about priorities. The questions will be, for example, whether we will strengthen the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it was Ireland and the UK that blocked legal force for the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the past. Ireland withdrew its objection and the UK has now left the EU. Can we strengthen the Charter of Fundamental Rights? What are the MEPs' views on a social progress protocol? The issue of collective bargaining has been mentioned and that is something where the EU has competence. In terms of workers' rights within care, the EU has strong competence. The European women's lobby has been active in working on a new care deal with the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC.

These are really important choices and they will be fundamental as to whether trust is rebuilt in the long term. Alongside that, there is a question of how we avoid rushing back to business as usual. I would like the MEPs' views on the replacement for the semester process and recovery and resilience. Do we continue to suspend the fiscal rules to re-imagine them? There is a review of European economic governance under way and I seek the MEPs' thoughts on key issues for that EU economic governance.

I will move to the wider question on trade because two of the MEPs are members of the Committee on International Trade. Indeed, the Energy Charter Treaty is, of course, related to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy where the MEP, Mr. Cuffe, also sits. We have seen, as has been outlined, the tension that is there. The European Court of Justice has adjudicated that there is a tension with those cases but we know that the arbitration panels choose to disregard the ruling of the European Court of Justice as they have done in the Achmea ruling. I believe we are looking at a rule of law tension here whereby we have a situation where the European Court of Justice is saying that things do not apply and yet we have arbitration panels. Is the only option in that context to leave the Energy Charter Treaty and to move into our next era? What are the MEPs' views on that?

In relation to due diligence and the question of human rights in trade and the supply chain, the Control of Economic Activities (Occupied Territories) Bill 2018, which the MEPs will be aware of, explicitly tried to address that because, of course, it was a supply chain that went outside EU trade competency and into an occupied territory not covered by EU trade. I would like the MEPs' views on whether this issue might be addressed by that.

In terms of the TRIPS waiver public-public research, what can we learn around technology transfer and public-public research on climate because we have seen the dangers that intellectual property protectionism may cause in terms of bringing solutions to scale? Does that mean we need to reimagine how we do research?

In terms of the social cohesion funding and its re-routing into defence, social cohesion is what protects us as the EU. Peace-building is something that is different from security. What are the MEPs' thoughts on that? I will not comment further on migration but I am sure the debate will come forward. I thank the MEP, Ms Clare Daly, for her comments on that matter.