Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, your programme speaks as if everything is very rosy in the garden in Europe. And just to take a couple of your lines from it, you say we acted together in responding decisively in support of a Europe of freedom, prosperity and peace. Never in my lifetime have I seen Europe so less interested in peace. We’ve fuelled and promoted a war. We have refused to promote dialogue and diplomacy at the expense of so many citizens in Europe, who are looking at about a 17% increase in food prices and, in some cases, a 50% increase in energy prices. You say we will continue to defend and promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law and effective multilateralism. You’re killing multilateralism, allowing the US to divide you from China. You say that we will continue our efforts to protect children affected by armed conflict. What in God’s name are you doing with the thousand children that have been killed in Gaza by the Israelis? You’re protecting the Israelis and you’re promoting their apartheid system.

Mr President, a year ago, after German people thought the EU sanctions hurt Germany more than Russia, this sentiment can only be stronger now, as Russia’s economy overtook Germany’s in August. The Russian sanctions triggered persistent inflation across the EU, higher interest rates, a fall in real wages for workers, a cost of living crisis and the cost of energy crisis. Climate goals were trashed as EU countries fired up coal power stations. Germany’s economy entered recession. EUR 742 billion have been spent on energy subsidies, creating unprecedented market fragmentation as richer, more subsidy-capable countries draw investment away from others. The NATO proxy war has seen Europe sacrificed for US interests. European industry has the pleasure of paying multiples more for US LNG than their competitors in the US. The sanctions have backfired and no one in power is admitting it. What’s worse, we’re about to put the final nail in the coffin as we gear up to cut off China and de-risk because the US told us to do so. In all of this, one thing is certainly clear: the EU is at the opposite of a meritocracy.

Madam President, when powerful countries refuse to show respect for international law, the less powerful suffer the consequences. According to UN figures, 545 children were killed in Ukraine in 500 days of war. Reports coming from Gaza now say that over 1000 children have been killed in 10 days by the apartheid State of Israel. Over 1000 children in 10 days. And our EU Commission President and the President of Parliament went to Israel to give their support to the Israeli onslaught against the Palestinians, an onslaught that has taken the shape of a genocide against innocent civilians trapped in an open-air prison called Gaza. The list of Israel’s war crimes grows by the minute: a complete siege, incitement to genocide, forced expulsion, collective punishment, and disproportionate aerial bombardment of the civilian population, civilian structures, hospitals and humanitarian workers. By offering unqualified support for this grossly disproportionate colonial brutality, the EU leaders and politicians have made themselves complicit in Israeli war crimes. Does the EU care about the human rights of the Palestinians?

Madam President, I find this report a little bit schizophrenic. It makes all sorts of contradictory accusations against China. And in many points throughout the text, it echoes the hysterical, deeply unhelpful anti-Chinese rhetoric. Yes, the last six paragraphs of the report are good – 34 to 40. Here, the report rightly encourages collaboration with China at a global level to tackle illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It welcomes and praises China’s efforts to tackle overfishing and its 14th five-year plan for fisheries development. It welcomes the draft reform of China’s fisheries law. The reality is that China aims to reduce its fleet and total catch. It aims to stabilise its catch from its distant water fleet, and China has ended its fishing fuel subsidy last year. China’s fishing fleet and its effect on global fisheries are enormous. But we need policies that are designed to change the behaviour of all major distant water fleet nations, not just China.

Madam President, we do need to modernise the EU fleet in order to tackle overfishing and to ensure the long—term health of our marine ecosystems and the long—term prosperity of our fishing communities. However, the fishing industry, and especially small—scale fisheries, need to be properly supported to make these changes. This is most true for Ireland. Ireland was proportionally massively more impacted by the Brexit agreement than any other Member State. Electronic tracking systems, the digitised recording of catches and increased traceability along the supply chains are, of course, necessary changes, but these changes cannot put any more fishermen and women out of work in Ireland. In Castletownbere in County Cork, the fishing fleet consists of 45 boats. 15 of these will be decommissioned this year. The Common Fisheries Policy needs to be urgently amended to address the hugely disproportionate impact of Brexit on the Irish fishing industry, and to give a fair share of the fishing rights to the fish that are born and bred in Irish waters to Ireland.

Madam President, I oppose the Strategic Technologies for Europe Platform. It will divert resources from existing EU funds that are desperately needed to finance public services and the green and just transitions. This is a plan to scrape funds from existing EU budgets. It does not propose new funds. Instead, it will plunder three crucial EU funding instruments for climate action and rural development: the Recovery and Resilience Facility, the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. Bizarrely, large companies will be eligible for the funds. These companies will have the access their own private finance. Using scarce EU funds for financing large corporations is a bad use of these funds. Most importantly, this platform will allocate an additional 1.5 billion to the European Defence Fund. Decades of neoliberal capitalism in the EU has seen the gutting of public services and rampant inequality. These policies have contributed to crisis in housing, healthcare and the environment. Yet the EU’s priority is defence spending, not making peace, not looking after their own citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, the 50 billion Ukraine facility is a rushed, inadequate mechanism tailor-made for corruption and embezzlement of EU funds on a massive scale. There are simply not enough measures in the proposal to mitigate the threats posed by the rampant high-level corruption in Ukraine. Ukraine is, to quote Jean-Claude Juncker, ‘corrupt at all levels of society’. Read any European Court of Auditors report on Ukraine and find similar conclusions. They document a complete lack of value for money in terms of reforms, and any progress achieved with EU funds is constantly under threat. In their opinion on the facility, they say the proposal fails to demonstrate how the risks will be mitigated. Oligarchs and vested interests across Ukraine are the root cause of corruption and obstacle to economic development in the country. The facility has no provision to exclude companies under oligarch influence from receiving support. We are constructing a colonial debt trap for Ukraine, facilitating more destruction as we continue to fuel the war and further theft of lands and assets by Western capital. I’m in favour of helping Ukraine, but you’re not going to help them with more debt. Two thirds of the money is debt. You’re going to kill them with that. How are they going to pay it back? They won’t pay it back in the next 50 years. But what it will mean is that we’re colonising the place. It is bad enough we have Western companies now that have bought up more land at a fire-sale price than the Russians have taken on the east side. What is wrong with us? We’re going to take their land and we’re going to take their workers for cheap labour for western European countries. We’re going to pauperise the place. We’re creating a bleak future for the people of Ukraine.

Mr President, the case of Moldova and Georgia has brought into stark relief just how politicised the accession process is. It was clear Georgia was making better progress on alignment with acquis. Moldova was granted candidate status though, ahead of Georgia, not on merit, but because the Government of Moldova was perceived to be anti-Russia enough. You have the accession negotiations starting at the end of 2023. They have fulfilled just three of the nine recommendations. The massive deregulation of the economy is celebrated. It’s bad enough the hoops that accession candidates are put through, their economies further opened up to predatory Western financial capital, but the JAMR reads like we’re driving full speed ahead without the usual checks and safeguards against corruption and so on, because they are a geostrategic investment. You are playing political games with these countries and it could ignite further destabilisation in the region. We are not doing this region any favours at the moment.

Mr President, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is a humanitarian disaster that we just watched unfold. For over nine months, Azerbaijan blockaded the corridor connecting the region with mainland Armenia. Over 100 000 Karabakh Armenians were cut off from basic goods and services, gas and electricity in a clear effort to ethnically cleanse them from the area. The international community abandoned them – the US, the EU, Russia, everyone. Why? Because of a vested interest in not falling out with Azerbaijan. Israel and Azerbaijan trade weapons and oil. The US partners with them against Iran. President von der Leyen was in Baku in July last year, showing the world that some authoritarian regimes make great business partners. Since Russia cemented an alliance with Azerbaijan two days before the invasion of Ukraine, they have next to nothing to offer in support of their traditional ally, Armenia. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh are victims of geopolitical tensions connected to the war in Ukraine. It’s all the more reason why we should try and bring this war to an end and stop further destabilising the region.

Mr President, the new level four treatment of wastewater requirement will mean treatment services will have to screen out micro-pollutants for the first time, including pollution from pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries. These new requirements will require water services in many Member States to dramatically improve their service provision, none more so than in Ireland. Irish Water operates over 1 000 wastewater treatment plants in Ireland, yet 180 of these plants are still only providing level one treatment. In Ireland, there are still 32 towns and villages discharging raw sewage untreated into the sea and rivers. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, just 51% of wastewater was treated according to the existing EU standards last year. Water infrastructure in Ireland has suffered from massive underfunding for decades. The cost burden shouldn’t be on households. It should be a human right. The Irish people have emphatically rejected water charges before now. What we do need is adequate public investment in our water infrastructure and the referendum in Ireland to make sure water remains in public ownership.

Mr President, Commissioner, you said that if we don’t provide good facilities, we’re going to struggle to attract drivers to the industry. And you’re right. At the moment, the average age of lorry drivers in Europe is 47. Young people are not attracted to the industry and one of the main reasons is because the facilities are so poor. I mean, you’ve only to drive around Europe yourself. I mean, apart from France, facilities are so poor across most of Europe. Likewise, I mean the lack of safe space and good facilities is one of the reasons as well why there are so few women involved. In Ireland only 2% of heavy goods vehicles drivers are women. Now, in the last 30 years, we have built an awful lot of motorway in Europe, in Ireland, with the help of EU money. How come they were allowed to build motorways with EU money without putting in proper rest areas? Because they’re almost non-existent in Ireland. It’s crazy. And I’m just wondering, going forward, should people get planning permission to build a motorway without providing the facilities?

Madam President, the Mercosur agreement prioritises profits for transnational companies and investors while lowering social and environmental standards for workers, farmers and citizens. The text of the Green Deal claims that European farmers are key to managing the green transition, that the farm to fork strategy will strengthen farmers efforts to tackle climate change and preserve biodiversity. It talks of ensuring a decent living for farmers and their families. Yet, the latest analysis by the United States Department of Agriculture forecasted more beef being produced in and exported from Mercosur countries, while the farm to fork strategy in the EU contributes to a sustained decline in EU beef output. The EU will have a deficit of supply relative to consumption, and that slack will be picked up by South American countries if the Mercosur deal goes through. The Mercosur deal is incompatible with the European Green Deal, and it will be a disaster for farmers right across Europe. And it’ll do bugger all for farmers on the Mercosur side as well.

Madam President, the Energy Charter Treaty is a relic of a fossil-fuel past beyond reform and not compatible with the Paris Agreement. It enables corporations to sue countries that make policy decisions that affect the corporations profits, even if those policy decisions are necessary to tackle climate breakdown. In June this year, Lansdowne Oil & Gas started proceedings against the Irish Government under the treaty for not granting it further development license for oil and gas exploration off the south coast of Ireland. It is estimated that the value of fossil-fuel infrastructure protected by the investor state dispute settlement mechanism in the treaty is worth EUR 344 billion across the EU, UK and Switzerland. The EU has wasted enough time engaging in the reform process. It was going nowhere and the Commission has finally made the right decision to withdraw from it. It is essential now that the Commission and Member States work together to challenge the treaty’s sunset clause.

Madam President, pollinators are on the verge of collapse, and scientists are telling us this is largely due to intensive agriculture and pesticide use. On the one hand, the Commission proposed the Nature Restoration Law, the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Regulation, and the new Pollinators Initiative. On the other hand, it proposes to extend the glyphosate approval. This is madness. Both the WHO and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. The glyphosate authorisation system has been repeatedly exposed as being deeply flawed. It has been shown to be massively dependent on industry studies and to ignore independent, peer-reviewed science. This is yet another example of the EU promoting the corporate interests of big business at the expense of its citizens. Taking guidance from industry-funded studies is like listening to the arms industry telling us that it’s a good idea to pump more arms into Ukraine.

Mr President, the purpose of the green bonds should be to speed up decarbonisation. Only companies that have detailed credible emissions reduction targets and plans and environmental strategies covering all their activities should benefit from the EU green bond label. The amendments we passed in the Environment Committee significantly improved the Commission’s proposal. These changes required that all bond issuers have climate transition plans and specifically excluded the use of offsets in these plans. But these amendments were watered down in the plenary vote and the trilogue negotiations. The risk now is that the regulation will enable polluting companies to continue to pollute, as long as the proceeds from the bond sale are used for activities covered by the taxonomy regulation. Europe’s banks have helped fossil fuel companies raise more than EUR 1 trillion from global bond markets since the Paris Agreement in 2016. The Green Bond Regulation will help tackle greenwashing by banks. It’s definitely a start, but banks need to stop supporting fossil fuel companies.

In your response, Commissioner, you say that you are committed to the international rules-based system. And I suppose my question to you is that given that the international rules-based order is something that Western powers have come to invent over the last while, rather than referring to the UN charter, which is really the international system, and that the rules-based international order is a system that’s actually designed to protect US hegemony. And do you not think, I mean, China insists that it adheres by the UN Charter, it respects the sovereignty of other nations and hasn’t bombed a country in 40 years. The Americans who we call our partner haven’t gone a year since 45 without bombing anybody. What are we committed to, Commissioner?

Commissioner, we have a lot of reports and legislation designed to disrupt EU-China relations. We have the ‘economic coercion by third countries’ instrument, which will ensure the EU engages in reckless tit-for-tat restrictive measures with China and other rivals to US hegemony. We have the report on China’s influence on critical infrastructure in the EU, full of overblown rhetoric about the Chinese military’s aims to take over the world. The EU-China relations text is currently going through AFET. It throws all kinds of unfounded accusations and threats of China, while simultaneously maintaining that we need to work closely on global challenges like climate change. Is this not the crux of the matter? The EU, under pressure from the US, is cooking up reasons to disengage from China precisely at a time when we need increased cooperation to fight runaway climate disaster. Do we want to sacrifice the sustainable future of life on earth for the hegemony of US imperialism? Or do we choose international cooperation and the survival of humanity? Commissioner, which is in the best interest of the EU?

Madam President, this act has been touted as a measure to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU. Yet every European civil liberties group worth its salt is up in arms about a number of measures in the text that put media pluralism and independent media in the firing line. For example, Article 17, which will create a two-tier media system in the online world. Very large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, will be entrusted with media content moderation powers based on a system of self-declaration of media outlets that both privileges legacy media groups and allows for those groups to publish false stories that may remain on the site for long enough that the disinformation has spread already and done its damage before it is taken down through a mediation process. Article 17 is a dangerous provision that’s tailor made for abuse, as is Article 4, which proposes to empower governments and others to use spyware against journalists. This is madness. Vote against Articles 4 and 17.

Madam President, in June, EU Member States had already committed 72 billion in support for Ukraine. On top of that, we have the 50 billion Ukraine facility and the proposed 20 billion Ukraine assistance fund for military equipment. All going to plan, by December the EU will have committed 142 billion – 100 billion from the budget – to keeping the war going, its fallout and the reconstruction. Not to mention the cost of inflation from promoting the same war. The EU’s decades of neoliberal capitalism have seen public services decimated, inequality rise and public spending lowered. These policies have contributed to a crisis in housing, healthcare, transport, labour conditions, cost of living and the environment. Yet the EU’s priorities are security and defence. We need a housing and infrastructure revolution, but instead we’re maxing out the budget on handouts to the defence sector and incentives for disaster capitalists. You can’t keep serving the elites at the expense of the people. Reconstruction of Ukraine will cost more than a trillion. How much of that are the EU taxpayers going to pay?

Madam President, in our 2022 State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen announced that she plans to update the EU’s legislative framework on anti-corruption. It is long overdue because unfortunately it appears that many Member States do not have the appetite to hold institutions to account for their corrupt deeds. In Ireland, NAMA, the National Asset Management Agency, has long been a basket case. Established in 2009 with the help of the EU Commission exemption to the normal EU State aid rules, NAMA was extended again in 2019 thanks to another extension from the Commission. Unfortunately, NAMA is an example of why the EU Commission needs to go over the heads of Member States and introduce more robust corruption laws. As recently as last month, it emerged that NAMA sold multi-million euro loans at 97.5% discount to a debtor’s brother. And still the authorities in Ireland refuse to hold NAMA to account. Is there any chance that the EU might do so? NAMA has been the biggest financial scandal in the history of the Irish state, and our authorities do not want to know.

Madam President, I point to a report published last year called ‘Travelling in a Woman’s Shoes’. Safety is women’s primary concern when using public transport in Ireland. 55 % of women avoid using public transport at night due to safety worries. Safety and security is an even bigger issue for women in low-income groups and for ethnic minorities. These are also the groups that rely most on public transport. More than 25 % of women in Dublin and almost 20 % of women nationally reported being verbally harassed or made to feel uncomfortable on public transport. Transport needs of men and women are different, and recognising these differences is fundamental to providing more equitable and sustainable mobility services. It makes no sense from a justice perspective, a business perspective or a financial perspective to be ignoring literally half the population when we’re trying to create services that we want the entire population to use.

Madam President, I’m sure Commissioner Schmit would be very disappointed if we didn’t have an opinion on the issue. Intelligent road transport systems. It sounds like it makes sense – the idea of reducing traffic congestion, reducing emissions, shorter travel times while improving safety on roads. That all sounds good, so is to be welcomed. If it is going to be that good, it’d be good to have it on all the roads. In Ireland, you’re far more likely to have a bad accident on our bad roads than on the motorways. Most of our accidents happen off the motorways, so I don’t know whether it’s feasible to expand it to all the roads or not. I don’t know. My colleague mentioned about the collection of data. I actually don’t worry about the collection of data at all on this because I’m pretty convinced that all data has been collected already anyway. There are so many different operators out there collecting it. So an extra one won’t make a whole lot of difference. But anyways, let’s hope it works and we welcome it, believe it or not.

Madam President, a few years ago, the US was considered unreliable. Its tariffs and sanctions were hurting the EU. The US economic war on Iran cost EU industries more than EUR 24 billion between 2018 and 2020 alone. That’s not to mention the tens of thousands of Iranian civilians that were killed as well by the US sanctions. This law barely mentions the US attacks on the EU’s industry. Instead, it frames the US targets as our targets and sets us up to have a sanctions regime just as arbitrary, brutal and murderous as that of the US. The impact of the war on the European economy has not even been fully played out yet, and we’re busy coming up with new ways to commit economic suicide. The proposed law is designed to sow division and halt international cooperation when we have never needed it so badly. It won’t do anything for the EU economy and do nothing about keeping the planet safe for human habitation. If you care about the EU’s future, don’t vote for this.

Madam President, the new occupational exposure limit for asbestos across the EU will now be 50 times lower than the current exposure limit, and that’s certainly to be welcomed. The scope of the directive will extend to all workers potentially exposed to asbestos. Now it’s good that new minimum training requirements and new protection measures for workers have been adopted and that asbestos removal companies will have to be certified and obtain permits. However, the implementation period is far too long, especially given the renovation wave that’s scheduled at the moment. A lot of the renovation wave will already be finished before the lower, safer limit comes into effect. With 90 000 people dying due to asbestos-related cancer every year in the EU, it is crucial now that Member States be as ambitious as possible and as soon as possible and don’t just adhere to the implementation deadlines in the directive.

Mr President, one in four Europeans are currently living in a precarious financial situation. This means people skipping meals when they’re hungry and not turning on the heat when they’re cold. If you think it’s bad in your Member State, spare a thought for the workers in Ireland. Ireland is the most expensive country in the EU for household expenditure on goods and services, with prices 46% above the EU average. In terms of gross market income, Ireland is the most unequal country in the EU. Ireland’s top 20% of earners earn 15 times more than the bottom 20%, according to Eurostat data. We are repeatedly told by governments and the mainstream media that pay rises lead to more inflation. But there is no law that says pay rises need to be passed on to consumers in the form of price rises. Price increases so that profits can be maintained. Prices increase so that capital increases. Inflation is a function of unequal power relations and is the very essence of capitalism.