Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner and colleagues, first of all, I think we need to be careful in our funding, both the EU and the Member States, that we focus on localisation. There are existing voluntary groups in Khartoum and throughout Sudan, such as resistance committees and established service committees, which are doing extraordinarily well in very, very difficult circumstances, and I think we need to make sure that humanitarian funding is actually accessible to local organisations. Secondly, we have already demonstrated by our actions that we have determined that Sudan is not a safe place because of the evacuations of expats. In other words, we have demonstrated that there should be a way for people to seek refuge from Sudan. But there are, of course, no legal and safe pathways for anybody to leave the country. And I hope that this will be a matter for the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which takes place this weekend. It is currently not on the agenda, and I would urge the Commission to try to address this. There are a number of things that we can do. Obviously, humanitarian funding is one thing, and we have had so many debates about Heading 6 and we need to address that very urgently. We also have to remember that the Frontex has been in discussion with RSF about the externalisation of our migration policy and that is something that is come home to roost. We have also awareness that RSF has received spyware from European companies, an Irish-registered company exported from Cyprus and with approval from Greece. So one thing we have to insist on, not to allow the status quo to return. We have to insist on making sure that we do everything we can to restore civilian authorities: the least the people of Sudan deserve.

Mr President, this month, the Russian Federation has the presidency of the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is surely an extraordinary indictment of the UN that its main body, the Security Council, charged with this cherished objective, is led by an alleged war criminal. That is why the ICC arrest warrant is so important. Putin now stands accused of operating and directing a large-scale, systematic network of camps and facilities holding thousands of Ukrainian children in Russian territory. And while it might seem a long shot that their warrant will be executed and that an arrest will follow, as soon as the warrant was issued, the world became a significantly smaller place for Vladimir Putin. And it may be our best hope that a future leader of Russia will extradite Putin in return for relief from sanctions and isolation, and that Putin will be held accountable for his crimes.

Madam President, my own country is one of a diminishing number of EU Member States that are non-aligned, and this is a popular position. However, we’re not ignorant of the vast challenges that the European Union faces, and indeed the Irish Government will host a consultative forum on Ireland’s international security policy. Bearing in mind cyber threats to Ireland, we host 40% of EU data in Ireland. Seventy per cent of Atlantic undersea internet cables pass through Irish waters. I think it’s important to underline as well that despite our non-alignment, we have contributed considerably to CSDP in the past and will continue to do so into the future, including Operation IRINI on the implementation of the arms embargo on Libya. And another way we contribute to CSDP is our involvement with EU battlegroups. We have participated in the training and readiness of eight such battlegroups in the past, despite their limitations, and the government approved Ireland’s participation in the German-led battlegroup that will be on standby from 2025. And in this regard, particularly in relation to Rapid Deployment Capacity, I think it would be important that the EU respects the constitutional traditions and the traditional security policy of Ireland and non-aligned Member States.

Madam President, like a number of colleagues here in the hemicycle, I was a Member of the European Parliament delegation to the EU Election Observation Mission in Iraq in 2021. And while it is true that the roots of democracy in Iraq are shallow, they are certainly growing. There was a very low turnout, which showed the high level of frustration among the young people, especially those that protested after 2019. But 25 % of MPs are female, thanks to affirmative action in the Iraqi Constitution. But an issue that cannot be ignored by the European Union is that sometimes the interests of individual Member States conflict with those of the European Union and unfortunately, this is the case in Iraq, where Team Europe is merely an aspiration. Iraq deserves our support. Iraq needs our support, but it needs and deserves a united EU voice.

Mr President, Commissioner, minister and colleagues, one of the central arguments that is ventilated by the far right is that NGO boats create a pull factor. So these debates can be very ideological and they can be very partisan. So let’s look at the facts. Researchers in the European University Institute in Florence in Italy looked at data going back to 2014 to examine this very question, and they concluded, and I quote, ‘No relationship exists between the presence of NGOs at sea and the number of migrants leaving Libyan shores’. In fact, the only thing that changes when NGO boats are not present is that fatalities increase. So, for me, in situations like that, sometimes we shouldn’t look at the secondary consequences of something. Sometimes it is intrinsically the right thing to do. And as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think it’s controversial to say that it is intrinsically right to save lives at sea.

Mr President, like everybody else, I very much welcome the Fit for 55 package. It truly demonstrates the way in which the European institutions have listened to the voices of its citizens as expressed in the ballot box in the European Parliament elections in 2019. The people wanted ambition, they wanted verifiable targets and they wanted accountability. And that has been delivered. While the primary purpose, of course, of the Fit for 55 package is to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, it also reinforces European democracy by providing a clear link between the will of the people and transposing that into concrete legislation that we will vote on in the European Parliament this week. I would also like to say that it is a concrete, practical application of the Sustainable Development Goals. These are not just theoretical and conceptual frameworks. The Sustainable Development Goals contain objectives and targets that can be achieved through our legislation. The Social Climate Fund is a perfect example of this, as well as the carbon border adjustment mechanism.

President Metsola, President Michel, President von der Leyen and colleagues, today’s ceremony is very, very welcome. Sometimes we under-sell the EU’s role in sustaining peace in Northern Ireland – a role I would argue is even more significant than that of the United States. The peace in Northern Ireland is, in my view, one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. It was the EU that provided the financial support through structural funds and the PEACE programme. It was the EU and its single market that made borders less relevant. It was the EU that provided the context and arena for closer relations that otherwise would have been impossible. In May 2007, Ian Paisley, a former MEP, contacted the Irish Government to request that José Manuel Barroso would come to Belfast to be in attendance at Paisley’s first official meeting with Martin McGuinness. The presence of the EU was visually important to what otherwise would have been an awkward moment for Paisley. And it was the EU that provided the symbolism of peace-building. As the 1952 Coal and Steel Treaty aimed at ‘building a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflict’, SDLP MEP and Nobel Prize-winner, John Hume, used this language as a framework to ensure that the EU would play a role – much to the irritation of the UK Government. However, ultimately the greatest credit goes to the people of Northern Ireland. Now, after an era of peace, 25 years later, the tantalising prize of prosperity awaits. For the next generation, the EU must continue to play a role and, in my view, support reform of the Good Friday Agreement. Presently, the cost of staying out of the Northern Ireland Executive is too low, and for too long bad behaviour has been rewarded. While the Brexit negotiations have been agonising – and in this respect, I’d like to pay tribute to both Michel Barnier and Maroš Šefčovič for all of their perseverance – the Good Friday Agreement and the EU’s role in it can only be properly honoured by staying the course and maintaining support for a speedy return of the Northern Ireland Executive and the dawn of a new era in Northern Ireland.

Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for organising this debate. This is an important matter. When I had the role of Minister for Children in the Irish government, I spent a lot of time on this topic. In 2010, on behalf of the Irish Government, I converted the Hague Convention into Irish law. A lot of people were happy when this happened. According to many families, adoption was an important means of protecting at-risk children. I welcome this Commission proposal, because if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in each country. It is a necessary step towards fulfilling the rights of the child, ending discrimination and achieving freedom of movement in the European Union. I would encourage everyone to be careful to avoid a conflict of laws between this proposal and the Hague Convention. Finally, there is more to do. The European Union must prioritise international cooperation, in order to end child trafficking forever.

Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues. First of all, congratulations to Commissioner Šefčovič and his team and to all of the interlocutors on achieving the Windsor Framework. It’s a great breakthrough. I think the next stage is patience, unfortunately, and more patience. We’ve demonstrated – well, you’ve demonstrated – towering patience, I have to say, in the face of very difficult interlocutors from time to time. But we need more patience so that the political participants in Northern Ireland can take the time to have the discussions necessary in order to fully understand and clarify the implications of this new framework that is going to create a constitutional architecture in Northern Ireland that is new. So I think we should demonstrate patience – that’s really important. There is only one Windsor Framework, but there’s already a number of interpretations of the Windsor Framework. So one of the things that I will be doing in the next few months is to bring MLAs to Brussels and Strasbourg, under the heading of common understandings, so that we can proceed from a position of strength to create a prosperous future for Northern Ireland.

Mr President, Mr Borrell, the override clause would degrade any claim Israel might have on being a liberal democracy. I applaud the people of Israel for calling out this legislation, but the new government has asserted Jewish people’s ‘exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the land of Israel’. And vandalising the delicately constructed separation of powers is a precondition for expansion of settlements and ultimately annexation. Not only should we call out this injustice, but we should back up our words by action. A case in point is the forthcoming due diligence legislation. Airbnb generates profits from rental of properties in illegal settlements in the West Bank. A meaningful human rights due diligence would prevent this type of commercial activity in the occupied territories under the present circumstances. So I support the thousands of protesting Israelis, I support the right of Palestinians to self-determination and the two—state solution.

Mr President, I’m proud to say that on 8 March the Irish Government confirmed that a referendum on gender equality will be held in November this year. This announcement follows the recommendations made by the Citizens’ Assembly on Gender Equality – an excellent example of participative democracy. The proposals will be to amend the Constitution on gender equality, the definition of family and the ‘place of women in the home’. This outdated language on women’s place in our society holds no place today. I strongly welcome a referendum on gender equality in Ireland to bring us in line with our European counterparts and to ensure that our Constitution reflects the reality of today and the future we aspire to. Removing this discriminatory language will prevent the perpetuation of stereotypical attitudes towards the role of women in our society and demonstrate that Ireland is taking its role seriously in working towards true equality between men and women.

Mr President, policy coherence for development is the concept that binds the Sustainable Development Goals to other EU policies, and it is wonderful that Team Europe contributes 43% of all overseas aid globally. But do other policies throw a hammer into delicately constructed development gains in our partner countries? If we ignore the transformational benefits of migration by building barriers to safe routes, we are not being coherent. If we block sharing of intellectual property that would allow vaccines to be manufactured in our development partners, we are not being coherent. And if our trade policies fail to sufficiently recognise the need for development, we are not being coherent. I warmly welcome this report, but warn that we are falling very far short of our aspirations.

Madam President, if I can raise a matter of great importance, my voting terminal isn’t working. So if you would have a technician. Sorry to interrupt.

Madam President, since this issue became more prominent a few years back, a number of things have changed, quite rightly. The green and digital transition has become central to European policy, but also the geopolitical situation has become starkly more challenging, as many speakers have referred to, our Russia dependence, our China dependence ... So this is not just a moving target, but also a target that is moving away. For that reason, I very much welcome the comments that you made at the beginning, Commissioner. You highlighted the importance of labour rights and environmental standards. And I think it would be a terrible shame if we repeat some of the mistakes of the fossil fuel extraction over the last 100 years. How ironic it would be that the green transition itself turns out to fail some of the targets and objectives of the Sustainable Development Goals. To remind you those SDGs, decent work, reduced inequality and responsible production, and all of the sustainable goals that go with that. I would also finish by reminding that the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive will play a key role in this instrument in the future.

Madam President, I am a member of the Development Committee here in the European Parliament, and I want to recall Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states that the primary objective of our development cooperation policy is the eradication of poverty. The Council conclusions make reference to the use of NDICI—Global Europe funding for migration purposes. It is possible that it is a secondary objective of development cooperation. It is possible. But what was astonishing about these Council conclusions is that it doesn’t make that other argument. It’s fine to talk about returns, it’s fine to talk about safe countries of origin, but there’s nothing about illegal pushbacks, there’s nothing about the horrible conditions in Libyan detention centres, there’s nothing about restoring search and rescue, and there’s nothing about condemning Fortress Europe and the building of walls. It’s fine to have these points that vindicate the far right, but you also have to have the other narrative, which is about a humanitarian European migration policy.

Madam President, I also want to express my condolences to the people of Syria and Türkiye. I have to take issue with the MEPs who have characterised the slow response as being attributed to the sanctions. Repeating the Assad narrative, effectively. Yes, there has been a slow response, yes, we need to have a debate about sanctions, but the two issues are not connected. If there is a slow response, it's because there are too few border crossings and they've been blocked by Russia and China at the bidding of Assad. If the response has been slow it’s because the Assad Government has deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure without stopping for a decade, deliberately, this is not an indiscriminate bombing. This is directed at bakeries, at health facilities, at hospitals and at schools. And it's hardly surprising, therefore, that the earthquake has had such a devastating effect. And NGOs are really struggling. Bab al-Hawa has been blocked by virtue of the earthquake. All of the roads are blocked as a result of the earthquake, and I have to say a particular word of condolences to an agency I used to work for, Gold, who lost 28 staff over the last week. But they I know they will redouble their efforts to try and provide the greatest relief possible.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I spoke in the January plenary imploring NGOs to stay the course and to fight the ban on female staff working in NGOs in Afghanistan. NGOs were right to suspend programmes, and in many cases, of course, they had no choice. Now there is some progress, and I commend Martin Griffiths and Amina Mohammed of the UN for taking the time to visit Afghanistan. Clearly they have extracted some concessions. It’s also clear that the Taliban is not homogenous and that there are agreements being made at local levels and that they have extracted guidelines from the Taliban to allow exemptions for female workers. Humanitarian principles, however, should be applied, and principled aid means female workers and practical aid means female workers. I would also commend the idea of humanitarian visas for Afghanistan, but would also suggest there is no reason why we should not apply the Temporary Protection Directive to those who are now almost inevitably fleeing Afghanistan.

Mr President, I just want to make one point. Many of the speakers this morning have characterised this initiative as a foreign policy instrument, but it is based on the use of funds that are intended for development policy. And I think that’s the big misunderstanding here. This is based on EFSD+ and the use of NDICI Global Europe funding, over which there are very clear regulatory controls, supervisory controls and oversight by the European Parliament. It has characteristics of a foreign policy instrument, but it is funded from development policy and we have to be very careful to make sure that it continues to pursue the objectives of development policy.

Mr President, more than a year has passed since its announcement, and no one is really sure what the real purpose of Global Gateway is. Is it an attempt to rival Belt and Road? Is it a development cooperation initiative, as many insist it is, or is it simply an investment strategy for European business? Perhaps it’s none of those things. Perhaps it’s all of those things. We should be brave enough to go beyond traditional policies and methods when necessary, but to what end? At its most basic, a policy is a statement of intent, but instead of intentions or indeed an overarching goal, Global Gateway has five key areas of partnership based on six principles as outlined earlier. Other than the goal of mobilising EUR 300 billion, there are no clear targets, no indicators: Global Gateway simply has no clear purpose. And in our efforts to be more geopolitical and competitive, I think we have lost sight of one of the most fundamental principles – the reason we have Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the first place. I’m referring to the eradication of poverty, the very purpose of development cooperation, and indeed the first of the Sustainable Development Goals. I do not see this – the SDG 1 or Article 208 – articulated anywhere in this project, which I believe is a tragic oversight. At best, it is a lost opportunity to give the Global Gateway a clear and strategic purpose, which would surely dovetail with other objectives, such as creating jobs, boosting education, connectivity and creating investments. But Global Gateway has a potentially more sinister problem, which is summarised in one word, namely the lack of accountability. Ironically, given that democratic partnership is among the six principles of Global Gateway, there is no dedicated mechanism to scrutinise the implementation or indeed the articulation of projects. Yes, there is a business advisory group, but there’s no CSO advisory group quite ironically. My intention is not to criticise just for the sake of it. It is in the interest of all of us that Global Gateway is a success. So let us make this something we are proud to defend.

Mr President, Commissioner and colleagues, one of the central arguments, I think, that’s been ventilated by the ECR and ID is that search and rescue carried out by NGOs is a pull factor for irregular population movement, and this is sadly also repeated by Frontex, who say that this has been done unintentionally. However, research has been done which demonstrates this is not true, based on data going back to 2014, carried out in the European University Institute. The research found, and I quote, ‘no relationship between the presence of NGOs at sea and the number of migrants leaving Libyan shores’. The same holds true in the eastern Mediterranean, in Spain and in Morocco, where there was a 50% increase in population movement despite the absence of NGO boats. In fact, the only thing that changed when NGOs were not present was that the fatality rate increased. I think what we should do in this Parliament is revisit the resolution of Mr Lopez Aquila, and to wipe from the record of this Parliament and this mandate that shameful vote in 2019.

Mr President, I want to take this opportunity to raise the very tragic decision by the Taliban to ban female staff from working for local and international NGOs in Afghanistan. This is the decision taken on 24 December. It has had obviously tragic consequences, especially for female staff who were the only breadwinners in their households. It’s had very ridiculous consequences; for example, men giving breastfeeding classes to men in Kandahar, according to some reports. But ultimately, of course, it is a tragic breach of international human rights law. And now NGOs are faced with a terrible dilemma. Do they continue to muddle on? Do they continue to provide services, or do they take a stand? And this is a country where two thirds of people rely on aid. So it’s not an easy decision. So I just want to take this opportunity to commend the EU representation in Kabul for staying the course, to call on Martin Griffiths and David Bennett and Richard Bennett and all the local and international NGOs working in Kabul to stay the course and to take on the Taliban on this key issue.

Mr President, Commissioner, I just wish to make one point. Freedom House has pointed out that democracy has been in decline across the world for the last 17 years consecutively. And it doesn’t happen dramatically, like we saw last Friday; it happens incrementally. We’ve seen over the last month – it’s easy to forget – we had a sophisticated cyberattack on this Parliament just last month. It’s easy to forget that. It’s easy to forget about Predator and Pegasus spyware and how that’s attacking journalists and MEPs. And the only way we know about these things is because of investigative work being done by journalists. And we had a European Court of Justice ruling earlier this month which undermined the registers of beneficial owners of companies, the very tool that journalists are using to shine a light into the dark corners of the corporate world in Europe. Even in my own country, in my own Member State, we have a Russian Embassy which is widely recognised as a listening post for the entirety of Europe. There are 28 registered diplomats in the Russian Embassy in Dublin for a tiny country, almost the exact same as in the UK. So we have to stop being naive about this. We have to stop allowing a permissive environment for foreign interference in our democracy. If it’s worth having, it’s worth defending.

Madam President, since the European Parliament issued its report on Pegasus last month, many people are stunned at the depth of the scandal. Since then, there have been two further reports on Predator software, published by Lighthouse Reports and the New York Times. Most Irish people were shocked to learn that an Irish holding company, Thalestris, was responsible for surveillance spyware used against MEPs and journalists and, incredibly, sold to the successor of the Janjaweed in Sudan, which committed so many war crimes. This latest information was contained in a report in the Currency, an Irish online publisher. Thalestris should be investigated by both the Irish Revenue and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, and I would also encourage the Irish Parliament to investigate links between Ireland and the surveillance spyware industry. Ireland should not become a haven for companies involved in violations of human rights around the world and the provision of corporate services to those companies. Sadly, the Irish Government has shared very little information with the European Parliament inquiry and has continued to assert national security when asked if it uses this spyware.

Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, I listened to your speech and I was struck by how you characterised the achievement of loss and damage. And it is an enormous achievement because one felt immediately afterwards that it wasn’t presented in that way by the Commission, that somehow or another the G77 position was challenged and maybe there was a better way to do it than loss and damage. And I listened to the distinction you draw between 1992 and today and different developing countries, and all of those are very legitimate. But this is an enormous achievement – what has been done at COP27 – because for the first time it recognises those who pollute more, those who possess more must do more, and that if you break it, which we did, you fix it, which we should, and that is now locked into the principle of how we’re going to approach this issue. It’s about climate justice, something that my compatriot Mary Robinson has spoken so passionately about over the years. And it’s an achievement because we have a credibility problem in the European Union. I’ve just come back from Marrakech, where I had discussions with my African liberal colleagues over two days, and they are struck by the fact that we’re opening coal mines, you’ve mentioned it yourself, Commissioner, they are struck by the fact that we’re pricing them out of the LNG market, that we have allowed for loopholes in relation to gas exploration, and they are challenging us to be real partners on this issue. And I sincerely believe that we have to get over the credibility issue that is really challenging the European Union. And I will say, finally, that I think you are correct in saying that we have made a solid achievement here, but we also cannot gaslight G77 countries with the positions that they rightfully took.

Mr President, I think one of the major problems in this space is that almost nobody in international development understands finance, and very few people in international finance understand development. So there’s a major knowledge gap, there’s a cultural gap, I would say. And we have to work very hard to address the scepticism. I think people have mentioned already the European Court of Auditors’ assessment of EFSD+, which was very negative, and academic papers that were presented to the Development Committee, which were very negative on EFSD+. So I welcome the focus of this resolution, but I really think we need to have a debate on global gateway, because it’s central to everything we’re doing around the financial architecture for development. It is supposedly a bolt—on to NDICI, and yet it has none of the safeguards of NDICI in terms of transparency and parliamentary oversight. And we were also presented, when we had a public consultation on the European financial architecture for development, was that either we set up a European development bank or we expanded the mandate of the existing ones. And EBRD has failed to expand its mandate to sub-Saharan Africa. I understand the reasons why, but it needs to happen at its next annual meeting in 2023.