Speeches

Mr President, data is at the heart of the Irish economic success story. We are home to 16 of the 20 largest tech companies, the top three enterprise software companies. We have 82 data centres from companies such as Facebook, Amazon and Apple located in the country. Crucially and most importantly, three quarters of all subsea cables in the northern hemisphere pass through or near Irish waters with massive flows of data through them. Therefore, I welcome the Commission statement last week on subsea cables, and I am calling on my government to engage to ensure that they protect our strategic and economic interests to ensure that these cables are safe and protected from nefarious third countries. In January 2022, we all remember when Russian warships were moored off the coast of Ireland, pretending not to be scoping out the cables and looking for weaknesses. For Ireland, it will mean properly working with and collaborating with the military and cyber authorities in other western Member States and our friends in the United Kingdom and the United States. And the Irish Government must also invest strategically in the Irish navy, enhancing its capacity with regard to additional ships and radar as well. A failure to do so will undermine our capacity to protect these cables and data flowing through them, and our economic prosperity.

Madam President, there’s calls in this house for funding to be suspended from UNRWA, and there is proof that maybe up to five people were some way complicit with the attacks on 7 October. Yet, the Israeli Defence Forces and its government are in Gaza at the moment, pillaging and plundering and murdering people, according to the International Court of Justice, according to international law and according to humanitarian law and just a basic human decency. And yet we have people in this House calling for funding to be cut from UNRWA, which is supporting and maintaining the lives of ordinary citizens in Gaza. And at the same time, we have a trade association with Israel with favourable conditions and nobody – nobody – is questioning whether or not we should maintain that link. It is shameful that this House cannot even condemn what is happening! And then we go along and with spite call for the withdrawal of funding from UNRWA. We sincerely owe an awful lot more to the people of Gaza. And I hope that everybody in this Chamber will support the reintroduction of funding to UNRWA, so that children and those that are most vulnerable in Gaza at the moment have their basic access to humanitarian aid.

Mr President, I welcome this report and I think that geographical indications are a critically important component in recognising the diverse quality of food production across Europe in terms of its culture, its heritage and its general traditions – and it is of a high quality. And I do welcome the recommendations around the consolidation of rules, ensuring the integrity of assessing and awarding, and making sure that PDOs and PGIs have a standard that is benchmarked internationally as well and sets the highest standards from the point of view of protection. So, I very much welcome this. From an Irish perspective, clearly, food production in the agri-food sector is critically important and I do urge that we increase the number and the uptake of GIs in Ireland itself from the point of view of the quality of food and drink we produce. And I would encourage everybody involved in the sector to look at making applications to protect and vindicate our traditional food production systems in Ireland, and to ensure that they have access to the European market – and also globally as well – and that they can be vindicated in the event of there being breaches or flagrant abuse of GIs or plagiarism.

Mr President, this proposed regulation on standard essential patents has become fairly controversial and divisive over the last few weeks. Let’s strip it back to what the objectives of such a proposal should be: one, establishing a framework that will ultimately benefit the consumer, either by lowering the cost of these technologies, increasing the availability of technologies, or simply improving the technologies; and two, fostering innovation. And we have to ask ourselves in the area of fostering innovation with regard to the EU, there are severe regulatory obstacles and EU bureaucracy, and we cannot allow this to become the international or public perception of the European Union. We need to be known as a place where innovation can thrive and deliver on these commitments. Is it against this backdrop that we need to assess the set proposal? Does it strike the right balance between consumer interests and industrial interests? Will it foster innovation? Will it ease the process of establishing a patent or licensing a patent? I would encourage my colleagues not to get entrenched in the position of one company or another, but to take a step back and assess the proposal on the basis of what is in the best interests of the EU market.

Mr President, I welcome the report and the discussions on the same. Obviously, price stability is critically important and it is your major mandate in the ECB. But I do want to put on the record the serious challenges that we have in the Irish economy with regard to lending to small and medium-sized businesses. I have raised this with your predecessor, I’ve raised it with you, I’ve raised it with the Commission. We have two pillar banks lending in Ireland and over the last number of years we have seen a steady decline in credit to small and medium-sized businesses – at a time when our economy is expanding dramatically. So there is an inherent dysfunction at the heart of the Irish banking system, whereby Irish banks make more money by depositing funds in the ECB overnight rather than lending to the real economy. So it is a significant challenge and we do need to ensure that we take measures to attract competition into the Irish economy – that ensures a capital markets union, a banking union. But we do need to see greater transparency on why we do not have proper functioning banking systems in Ireland lending to the small and medium-sized business sector.

Madam President, the starting premise of this regulation is that NGT plants are plants that could be obtained by conventional breeding methods. So, we should embrace the science and trust science when it comes to stating what NGTs are. They are not genetically modified organisms, as has been consistently portrayed here in this House, where there’s been no honest engagement in this whole process right throughout. We have huge opportunity here, not just for farmers, but right across the globe in terms of food security – and that is a significant challenge in many parts of the world. So, the world is round, it is not flat, and we should use the science to underpin it. With that in mind, this gives us huge opportunities in the areas of drought resistance, a reduction on inputs like fertilisers and pesticides. This is an opportunity to ensure that we can enhance biodiversity, and increase food security, and allow farmers to embrace technologies that are proven for centuries in terms of selective breeding. It’s just that we can do it quicker now with modern technologies. This is a regulation I believe should be supported, and is something that will be good for farmers and for food security and biodiversity.

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... to ensure that we have sustainable ecosystems for fishers is a critically important aspect of policy. But at the same time, off the west coast of Ireland, as I speak in this Chamber, factory fishing ships are scooping up fish and massive quantities of the west coast of Ireland, in Irish waters. And the solution that has been offered to ensure that we have a viable Irish fishing industry is to decommission Irish trawlers. So, at the same time, when we’re talking about resilient fisheries, we have to ensure that there’s fairness in how we allocate the fruits of the sea, and the Irish quota has been drastically reduced. And the idea that we can explain to Irish fishers that it’s fair for third countries to send massive trawlers into Irish waters and fish, and we are offering Irish fishermen the only way out, and that is by decommissioning Irish boats, is shameful. There must be a full review, Commissioner, of the fisheries policy; otherwise, we won’t have any fishers, never mind sustainable fisheries.

Mr President, overall, the EU was very supportive of Ireland during the Brexit negotiations and the Irish people appreciate what the EU did for us. However, on the issue of fisheries, Commissioner, Ireland lost out heavily. By 2025, Irish fishers will have been forced to accept a 15% cut in quotas – approximately 50 million per annum. This is a huge blow to our fishing industry, much of which is concentrated in a small number of towns and villages. We have seen jobs being lost in our fishing co-ops, and a large number of boats are being decommissioned. So in any upcoming review of the common fisheries policy, Ireland needs to see additional quota being allocated to us. It is only right and fair. Irish fishers are heavily limited in the amount of fish that they can catch in Irish waters. They see factory ships from other Member States – or worse, from third countries – entering rich Irish fishing waters and catching multiples of what they are allowed to catch. We need fairness in how quotas are allocated, and we need common sense when it comes to sharing or transferring quota between Member States.

Madam President, farmers and farming in general are critical elements of the strong, vibrant rural communities across all of Europe. In my own country, farming activities sustain villages and small towns, they provide incomes for families and support local businesses. Without farming, we would have no food security across Europe. So it annoys the hell out of me when I hear lazy commentary from some politicians dismissing the importance of farming and ignoring the valuable role farmers play in our economy and society. For the last 20 years, governments and the Commission have asked farmers to transform how they work their farms. Each and every day, the farmers have done what they have been asked to do. However, there are some politicians and bureaucrats who think that farmers should incur all the cost of this change. That’s wrong because some farmers have to be able to make a decent living so they can look after their families, service their debts, and invest in the local economy and their future. I’m glad that this debate is taking place on the issue of fair incomes for farmers, but we do need to do an awful lot more to ensure that we have vibrancy, that we have sustainability, that we have intergenerational transfer of family farms. We only have to look at the age profile to show that it is not an attractive profession at the present moment, and we have a lot of work to do to ensure sustainability in agriculture and fair prices for farmers for their work and their effort.

Mr President, by default, I’m an optimist. But at times we also have to be realistic. The European economy has faced many challenges over the last five years. Unfortunately, we are going to face many more over the next number of years. To reach our 2050 climate neutrality goals it is estimated that we will have to spend an additional EUR 360 billion per annum. Our populations are getting older, and many Member States are ill-prepared for the challenges and the cost that this will bring. It is estimated by 2050, most people will outlive their retirement savings by between 8 and 20 years. Meanwhile, the Commission warned this week that, whilst energy prices are stabilising, they will not return to pre-pandemic levels in the foreseeable future. This is all against the backdrop of the fact that 18 Member States currently have debt-to-GDP ratios of above 60%, or are running budget deficits of over 3%, or both – and we are going to deactivate the emergency escape clause this spring. It is clear to me, and to many experts, that we cannot return to the rigidity of the existing economic governance framework. We need a flexible, tailored framework that allows our Union to face the many challenges, while ensuring fiscal responsibility, debt consolidation, and encouraging investment and growth. This has been a difficult file to negotiate. The various political ideologies underpinning our different economic theories go to the heart of all our political groups. Therefore, I want to thank my fellow negotiators, and my colleagues in the Renew Group, for showing pragmatism and common sense. I also want to urge everybody in this House to support the mandate to go to trilogue. It would be grossly irresponsible, even reckless, if we were to delay or prevaricate this very serious issue any further. So I urge all to support the mandate. I am genuinely disappointed that the Greens will not support moving to trilogue. This Parliament must be at the negotiating table to represent citizens in negotiating the review of the economic governance framework with the Council. We owe that to everybody that’s dependent on the euro and the stability of that currency.

Madam President, we must continue to condemn Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Israel claims to be a democratic country acting in self-defence, but at this stage, 24 000 Palestinians lie dead in Gaza. We have done nothing to condemn what is happening there. We can’t even agree to a ceasefire in this particular Chamber. We can’t even get humanitarian aid to those that are suffering. There is now potential famine, hunger, disease, no access to basic medications. And we still cannot condemn Israel’s actions of massive proportions against the civilian population of Gaza. Let us be very clear: what happened on 7 October was appalling. But what has been happening to the Palestinian people for decades is appalling and is a crime against humanity. Again, the European Union and the Member States have never, ever held Israel to account in its breach of the Oslo Accords, its breach of establishing a two-state solution and its breach of ensuring that ... (The President cut off the speaker)

Mr President, the US-EU relationship is the most enduring relationship in modern history in terms of shared values, politically, economically and even culturally at this stage. And of course there’s going to be challenges from time to time. I do very much welcome the Trade and Technology Council, for example, that will allow discussions around issues of common interest, but also at times when we are competitive in the areas of global trade, technology issues as well. So while we have that special relationship, it is clearly important that we have a vehicle in place to discuss challenges that from time to time will crop up. On the issue of global trade I certainly believe that we need a rules-based order, and we need to have international organisations to oversee those rules. So while America is a partner, at times we also have to say that if you are in a rules-based order and they are rules, well then they must be adhered to, and you must accept the adjudication of those organisations that oversee it internationally. I’d also like to see Europe and the United States assert itself in a way to discuss and embrace our discussions with China, rather than always being adversarial, I think, longer term, and I welcome those discussions in recent times between the United States and China. But we must do more in Europe as well.

Mr President, (start of speech off mic) ... an immediate ceasefire and we need hostage release. But let us be very clear: the root cause of this is the fact that the Palestinians do not have their own homeland. We have had the Madrid Conference of 1991, the Oslo Accords, Camp David in 2000, and yet we have the continual flouting of international law by Israel. Mr Borrell, we have consistently called for the need to ensure that international law is upheld. And long before the brutality of 7 October by Hamas, Israel was systematically dismantling what was left of the West Bank, and it has continually done so. And we have done nothing as a Union or as Member States that make up this union to hold Israel, which professes to be a democratic state, to account in international law. Long before the slaughter of the Israelis by Hamas, they had been flouting international law and systematically dismantling the West Bank. And we have shamefully sat idly by while that is happening. So we need a two-state solution. But this time round, we need to ensure that we uphold our side of the agreement.

Madam President, Commissioner, you said at the outset of your speech that democracy is the ‘individual right to be heard’. Of course, we speak about individuals, constituents, constituencies and Member States. But it’s equally important that we ensure that individual Member States’ right to be heard is protected as well. In this particular report, I just want to bring some concerns to your attention: that ‘whereas the Union-wide constituency, in combination with the lead candidate system, could foster the European public debate and empower European political parties’. Then it goes on to say that the ‘system has led to disappointment among many voters and reduced trust in the process; whereas such a disappointment must be avoided at the next European elections’. I can safely say, Commissioner, that I’ve never had major discussions with constituents who are disappointed about the fact that the lead candidate system is not in place – being quite truthful. I believe that if we want to protect democracy, we should encourage citizens to be more proactive in the actual process of parliamentary democracy themselves, in making sure it’s easier for them to vote, and having good, robust political debate. But I believe that tinkering or threatening to change the Treaties, without having proper due diligence done on the impact that could have on small countries, could diminish the European Union and the democracy of same as well.

Madam President, I have sat here many times and discussed a system of own resources, and each time I have to repeat myself. I am firstly supportive of the EU having own resources. The NextGenerationEU fund was an innovative and essential initiative from the Commission and I strongly supported it. It mobilised over EUR 800 billion to support the EU’s recovery from COVID. But the deterioration of the economic situation in the EU has meant that borrowing costs have rocketed and we need to find a way to repay them. All that being said, after reading the report again, I find that I have no choice but to vote against it. Despite all the well-known sensitivities around corporation tax, despite the huge efforts and engagement by Ireland and other Member States in signing up to the OECD Pillar I and Pillar II agreements, the Commission is once again trying to introduce a corporate tax without the ability to have proper negotiations and assess the impacts. I recognise that there is and should be, a discussion on whether the elements of Pillar I and Pillar II should be contributed to the EU budget, but by proposing to introduce temporary own resources based on residual profits of the largest multinational enterprises, the Commission is risking undermining any future debate on a permanent solution. The Commission has framed this own resource as a temporary statistical own resource, but it is effectively a precursor to BEFIT. Commissioner, I cannot support such a proposal without allowing Pillar I and Pillar II to be properly implemented in the EU Member States, so that we can have a full assessment on its impact.

Mr President, almost one third of Irish farm holders are over 65 years of age, Commissioner. It is an ageing demographic across the entirety of the European Union. If we are to guarantee intergenerational transfer, we have to ensure that we have the right policies to underpin it – that’s both at national level and also at European level. So we need to ensure that there is access to land, both in terms of lease and purchase. The lack of affordability to land access is a critical issue. We also need to ensure that we have vibrant rural communities at the heart of our policies, so that family farms will feel part of a vibrancy throughout the Union. At the moment, many of our policies are deterring farmers from transferring to the next generation. We need to ensure that there’s a positive aspect and a positive view put by the European Union on farming itself. We have to ensure that farmers are respected and valued, and that means remuneration for their efforts, their investment and for their produce. To date, unfortunately, many of the policies are undermining that concept and risking the potential in terms of food security and food supply. As was said previously, we should value our farmers. We should certainly value food security and food supply. So I insist that any policies in future are intergenerationally supportive.

Mr President, the green transition and the digital reformation are key opportunities for our innovation in the European Union. Of course, we have been complacent in the past in terms of funding towards innovation, even starting through education, science, technology, engineering and maths in the STEM area, but also in terms of investment in our academic third-level colleges. Any cursory look at the international league tables of universities shows that Europe is not doing well when it comes to the comparable index between the United States, the UK – and Asia now as well. So, we have a lot of work to do on ensuring our academic research, which is the bedrock of ensuring that we have innovation and creativity in Europe as well. The issue of seed capital, start-up funding and angel investors is something that’s still not in the culture of people in Europe. We do have to bring forward policies in terms of taxation at Member State level and at European level to incentivise and encourage, to ensure that there is capital available for startups, so they can fund a transition from small startup to medium, and scaling up. That clearly is an area where we have failed in Europe. If you look, in recent years, most of the major companies that were startups started either in the east coast or the west coast of the United States, or now in Asia. Very few actually started in the European Union and were able to scale up and remain in the European Union. So, we have a lot of work to do in those particular areas. But the green transition and the digital agenda gives us an opportunity to catch up with, and get ahead of, the rest of the world.

Madam President, this topical debate comes at a very apt point in time. We have seen over the last 11 days that the European Union is failing to live up to its ambitions of being a relevant, political, powerful geopolitical player. Last week’s diplomatic disaster by President von der Leyen and Commissioner Várhelyi demonstrated how ineffective the EU can be on the global stage. They made the Union look weak and ineffective, they embarrassed us by going on solo runs and ignoring long-standing rules and separation of powers. I had hoped that the Union would play a more active role as an honest broker in the Middle East. Sadly, the events of the last couple of weeks have undermined that. If we are truly to be a global geopolitical player, we also have to define ourselves. We had a Conference on the Future of Europe that would require fundamental treaty change, something that I believe we would have to think very long and hard about if we want to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting on certain key areas. But there is one thing that sits at the heart of Europe today that undermines the very essence of what we are trying to achieve as well in terms of support for Ukraine, and that is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. There has been no criticism of the fact that he has been playing footloose and fancy-free with the lives of Ukrainian citizens by supporting President Putin. He has not hidden his support for him, which has been very public in recent times, yet we have done nothing to address this particular issue, Mr. Borrell. Prime Minister Orbán will be the President of the Council from July next year. It is shameful.

Mr President, many more of us interact with our financial service providers, banks, or insurers online. In some instances, we are forced to because branches are closing, there is less personal contact and, in other instances, we are offered more innovative products by new online-only providers. Regardless of the reason, it is essential that consumers have the same protections online as they have offline. I strongly welcome and support the amendments to this directive to ensure that the consumer protections around contracts concluded at a distance are brought into the digital age and cannot be circumvented. Most important are the rules ensuring that all consumers have a 14-day right of withdrawal if they change their minds. However, in future, I think we as a legislator are going to have to be more ambitious. We need to seriously look at the right of cancellation. Nowadays, we can conclude a contract online in a matter of a few clicks and providing some basic information. But very often, it’s a different story when it comes to the cancellation of a subscription. Just as this directive has done for the 14-day withdrawal period, we need to ensure that the ability to cancel is made clear and not a process hidden in a labyrinth of the provider’s websites. So we need clarity at the start of a contract as to how you go about cancelling a contract, because I do find that it is more difficult to cancel than it is to subscribe to very often.

I accept your right and entitlement to cuddle up to whoever you want to in bed, and I expect you to accept that entitlement and right for anybody else in this European Union as well, when they are doing no harm, are consenting adults and are engaged in no illegal activity, something that you consistently try to imply. It is shameful. I respect your rights; respect their rights as well.

Mr President, this is a very welcome and timely debate, because fundamental rights, and basic rights, and the rights of the individual, are under attack in the European Union. Since decriminalisation of homosexuality in Ireland in 1993, the civil partnership in 2010, marriage equality and the passing of the Gender Recognition Act in 2015, Ireland has been transformed as a place for LGBTQI+ communities. But it is under attack. And it is under attack from the right. And there is no point in us denying the realities in this chamber. Every time that I see an attack on fundamental rights at this moment, it primarily comes from the right. If you can’t find in the gay community an enemy, you’ll find a migrant. You’ll find a person of different skin colour, of different religion. But primarily you cannot allow people to be who they are. It is time that you just let us be what we want to be. There is no need to be persecuting people who are different to you, because we have history in Europe when it comes to people viewing people differently and of lesser status. Think long and hard before you go down the road of persecuting people from the gay community. It leads to terrible things. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Madam President, the European Union is a very sophisticated trading economy. It trades globally and is a powerhouse when it comes to economics around the world. Of course, there are changing patterns in global trade: there’s geopolitical changes with regard to the fallout from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, China becoming a global powerhouse, India, and many others. But I just want to reference the Mercosur agreement itself. As I stand here, we are trying to convince small farmers across the entirety of the European Union to reduce stock numbers. And at the same time, I hear some Members in this House encouraging us to go ahead with the Mercosur trade agreement, which effectively would incentivise the destruction of rainforests across the Amazonian basin and primarily benefit massive agri business in Brazil – to destroy rainforests, to plant soya, to produce beef to bring to the European Union. And at the same time, as a democratically elected Member, I have to convince farmers in Ireland and elsewhere that they must destock to save the planet. Fair trade should mean fair trade and the obligations should be on all parties involved in trade deals.

Madam President, I welcome the debate. I wish the Council could respond to the demands of the European Parliament, and also to the proposals put forward by the Commission with regard to the withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty. Let us be under no illusions. This was negotiated in 1994. A lot has changed subsequently in terms of our requirements to defossilise, to decarbonise and to ensure that we have an energy sector that is renewable and that is not contributing to further global warming and the escalation of global temperatures. I would urge the Council, the Commission as well, to use whatever levers they can to influence the timely withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty and to say that it is against everything that the European Union is trying to do in terms of the Green Deal and in trying to transition to where we want to get to. So, an orderly unwinding from the Energy Charter Treaty, and to ensure that there is no claims to Member States in the times ahead with regard to ‘sunset clauses’. We do need an orderly transition and withdrawal, and it is up to the Council to agree to it, and to the Commission to continually probe them and encourage them.

Mr President, I’d like to congratulate everybody involved in this file and particularly the chief rapporteur, Paul Tang. I would just say at the outset, we need to have integrity in our green bond system, and I think the European Union should become the global capital of sustainable finance. Of course, this particular taxonomy got off to a very fractious start, when there was great debate about nuclear and gas and whether or not they should be included or not. Eventually it has settled, and we now have a situation where I believe that, as time evolves and as confidence grows in European green bonds, we will see the capital markets functioning properly, where companies and public authorities will be able to use finance in large-scale investments to ensure that there is sustainability in climate change obligations. I would also like the Commissioner to propose that, as time goes on, we will become flexible in the area of issuance of green bonds and that agriculture and forestry and fisheries and other areas will be included at some stage into the future to ensure that those particular entities can transition as well, because they will play a very meaningful role in sustainability and environmental standards in the years ahead.

Madam President, home ownership is a key component of a stable society. In Ireland, we have struggled to enable this reality for years. The private sector is struggling to build homes at sustainable prices for would-be homeowners. Central to this failure is the high cost of borrowing for builders and developers. Irish banks are highly reluctant to lend and are effectively saving schemes now in Ireland, hoarding deposits. Developers and builders are forced to secure credit on international private equity markets. Interest rates costs in excess of 10-12% are being added to the price of a property, making them too expensive for ordinary workers and families. We need a new model of funding housing development in Ireland. The current model just simply is not working. It might seem unusual for a liberal to say this, but it is time that the state got more actively involved in the housing market. It is a societal necessity to house our citizens. If we do not, we risk causing a major fracture in Irish society between those that can afford to buy and those that cannot. The aspiration of home ownership must not be lost. It must become a reality again for future generations of Irish people. And from a European perspective, Commissioner, we have to ensure that when we adjudicate on the macroeconomic framework governance structures that we do take into account that there is a housing crisis across the entirety of the European Union. And with that in mind, we have to be able to assess the cost of housing differently to other areas in terms of financial constraints. So, when we are reviewing the macro-financial economic framework, we must take into account the impact on the provision of housing when we are doing that adjudication.