Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Dillon, to the House.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister of State to update the House on the position that Ireland will be, and has been, taking to date in relation to the proposed renewed EU-Morocco trade agreement, which is due for decision at the European Council tomorrow. This relates to an amendment of protocols 1 and 4 to the previous EU-Moroccan agreement. The need for the change to the protocols comes from a Court of Justice of the EU, CJEU, ruling in October 2024 whereby the court annulled the application of the previous 2019 EU-Morocco trade deal in relation to Western Sahara because the Sahrawi people had not given their consent to that agreement. The court set a one-year deadline for the EU to bring its actions into line with international law. There has been an entire year for action to have been taken but it is important to look at the timeline here. We have seen no public action, nothing shared in the public domain and no clear consultation until July, when the European Commission produced a proposed negotiated agreement, which was only brought to the European Council on 10 September. Then we were told, with the Commission only given a mandate to negotiate this trade agreement on 10 September, that magically it was all negotiated by 18 September. In one week this supposedly, as we were told constantly, very complex and very nuanced issue which has serious implications for international law and EU compliance with same, was settled.

There are huge questions on that timeline and there are also questions around the nature of the agreement. We have now, in the public domain, the text of what is being proposed and what has been brought to the European Council. We know that the European Commission did not consult with the Polisario Front which is the privileged interlocutor, according to the CJEU and, according to UN Security Council Resolution No. 658, the sole legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people. The Sahrawi people are required to either consent or for there to be demonstrable, tangible benefit for them which does not lead to obligations. Those were the conditions that the court set out but the EU did not speak to the Sahrawi people. We also know that the proposal is that there would be intensified trade with the areas of the Western Sahara that are occupied by Morocco, with no differentiation to ensure that these benefits or additional privileges of trade given to Western Sahara are not in fact just being given to Moroccan settlers and Moroccan companies illegally operating who will now have even further access to the European market on an even more preferential basis. This is literally like rewarding Israeli settlers in the West Bank as a way to supposedly address the fact of the illegal occupation of the West Bank. That is the kind of analogy we are looking at here.

What position will Ireland be taking tomorrow on the signature? Has the Government been engaged in this process? Has the Government sought amendments to the negotiating position that was proposed in July? Did the Government engage with the Polisario Front? Does it recognise the dangers inherent in the EU declaration which will actively incentivise further Moroccan settlement and illegal occupation of Western Sahara? Has the Government encouraged the Commission to seek explicit consent from the Sahrawi people rather than simply saying that it will provide a little bit of humanitarian aid and will give some money to somebody and it might trickle down to them? What has Ireland been doing and what will Ireland do tomorrow?

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Higgins for raising this important matter at a critical junction of EU external trade policy and international law.While it is a complex and sensitive issue, I appreciate the opportunity to outline Ireland's position.

On 4 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the ruling of the General Court of 29 September 2021 annulling the Council decision on the conclusion of the 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. This agreement concerned the amendment of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European communities and their member states, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled the people of Western Sahara must give their consent to any new agreement concluded by the EU. In the view of the court, the right to self-determination belongs to that people, and not only to the population of that territory in general, which for the most part has been displaced. This consent may be either given explicitly or implicitly. In the particular case of a people of the non-self-governing territory, the court ruled the consent of that people to an international agreement, in which it has the status of a third party, and which is to be applied in the territory to which its right to self-determination relates, may be presumed so long as certain conditions are satisfied. First, the agreement in question must not give rise to an obligation for that people. Second, it must provide for the proportional benefit of that people. This decision required a negotiation of a new trade deal between the EU and Morocco and the court set a deadline of 4 October 2025. Ireland has taken note of the judgment of the CJEU and the specifics of the judgment with regard to Western Sahara.

In July 2025, the Commission submitted to the Council a recommendation for a Council decision concerning the opening of negotiations on the amendment of the 2018 agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. The negotiations on the replacement agreement commenced in September with a view to meeting the deadline of 4 October 2025. As the process has evolved, Ireland has kept progress in those negotiations under review to ensure any new proposed arrangements respect the conditions established by the court and the duty of the European Union to comply with both EU and international law. Ireland continues to be guided by these principles. Ireland’s long-standing position on Western Sahara is one of full support for the UN-led process, including the MINURSO mission and the efforts of the personal envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Staffan de Mistura, to achieve a political solution to this long-standing dispute. It is our hope that these efforts will help to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution that provides for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

Both Ireland and the European Union support the efforts of the United Nations to find an acceptable political solution that would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Ireland does not have a view on the outcome of that solution so long as it is approved in a genuine exercise of self-determination.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not believe Ireland is being very supportive. First of all, we pulled out of the MINURSO mission and do not have anybody there anymore. Also, if we are so keen to see the long-awaited referendum, why have we not taken any advantage of this opportunity? This is a point at which Morocco's trade with the European Union and much of its relationship with it depended on, potentially, the requirement for consent to be sought. Why did we not push for explicit consent? Why was that not sought? If one looks for explicit consent, one then has an opportunity to fast-track, after decades, the requirement for a referendum. Why was that political opportunity missed? Does the Government recognise the danger of incentivising and financially rewarding settlers and Moroccan businesses operating in occupied territories, given that we have made those arguments in respect of other occupied territories?Does Ireland believe an opportunity has been missed by not seeking explicit consent and trying to fast track the referendum that would provide that?

Alan Dillon (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must note that the negotiations on the replacement agreement have not yet fully concluded in Brussels and any further comment would be inappropriate at this stage. However, I will say that Ireland's approach has been guided by two principles, namely, respect for the rule of law and support for the United Nations-led process on Western Sahara. I reiterate that Ireland continues to keep all aspects of the negotiation process under review to ensure that any proposed arrangements will respect the conditions established by the court but also the duty of the European Union to comply with EU and international law. Ireland will be guided by those principles in finalising our position. I wish to underline once again that Ireland's engagement on this issue will be guided by the European Court of Justice judgment and on the principles of international law.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect, the Minister of State did not answer my question and I am hoping that this means he will be voting against it tomorrow.

Victor Boyhan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, Senator, we have to push on. I thank the Minister of State for staying with us.