Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I thank the Minister of State for coming in to deal with this very important question. I put it originally on the day before the decision was to be made. Now I am merely asking what decision has been made and for further details in relation to it. In October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, annulled the application of the EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent. The court gave the EU a one-year deadline to try to bring its actions in line with international law. It ruled that the consent of the Sahrawi people had to be sought, explicitly or implicitly, and that there would need to be tangible benefits for the Sahrawis which did not give rise to obligations. During this one-year period the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which, according to the CJEU, is the privileged interlocutor and the only recognised legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people.

The text of the European Commission's proposal reveals an approach which, rather than taking a step back in terms of international law, threatens to embed further the situation whereby there has been illegal occupation and exploitation of the resources of Western Sahara, without a mandate, by Morocco. Again, the current proposal from the Commission will be preferential tariffs for goods from Western Sahara, albeit with a labelling requirement, and investment in Western Sahara, all of which will benefit Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies that have been operating outside the law in the extraction of resources, value and profits. This is literally akin to saying that we will intensify and give even greater benefits to settlers in the West Bank. This is the analogy, effectively, and it is true in terms of settlers in the West Bank. The proposal is that settlers will be able to profit and that is how we will engage with the issues.

Ireland has been clear on the issue of occupied territories. You do not embed or intensify occupation or create a scenario where the situation on the ground becomes impossible for the people of that place to reverse or act upon, but yet this is the proposal that seems to have been agreed. Right now, the proposal is in provisional application even though the European Parliament had not been informed on it, which was an obligation. The dates do not add up. The Commission got the mandate to negotiate on 10 September and suddenly the negotiations were over on 18 September. That is an eight-day negotiation, which seems extraordinary. Was the Commission negotiating without mandate previous to that time? What was the basis there?

We are told not to worry, that the Sahrawi people are going to get something. They are going to get humanitarian aid, which should never be linked to a trade deal. They are getting €9 million in humanitarian aid and, meanwhile, the bilateral trade between the EU and Morocco is worth €60 billion annually. That is the context in which I pose a number of very specific questions.

What position did Ireland take at the meeting? How did the Irish designated officials vote on the proposal? Did they ask the Commission whether negotiations had been taking place prior to a mandate being given by the Council? Did they seek to influence that mandate? Do they accept that the idea of a unilateral definition by the EU on investment without differentiation annexed to the agreement could incentivise occupation? Did they press for an explicit rather than implicit approach to consent? This was the opportunity to leverage the referendum we have been told is long awaited and that Ireland and the EU supports. Surely this was an opportunity to press Morocco to support a referendum and allow explicit consent from the Sahrawi people. Does the Minister of State accept that humanitarian aid is not a benefit under international law and cannot be withheld in that same way and the giving of it cannot be seen as a benefit within trade relations for a people?These are key questions. I would also appreciate if the Minister of State could comment on the timeline. There seems to be confusion, even within the Irish Government, in relation to the time. There is great concern in the European Parliament about the timeline now, where it is not being consulted in advance of provisional application.