Ruairí Quinn
Question:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with the President of Latvia during her recent visit here. [13116/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his proposed official visits abroad for the remainder of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13127/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the official foreign visits he will be taking during the remainder of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13138/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the way in which he intends to promote public awareness of the recently published report on the second phase of the work of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13420/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the President of Latvia. [13427/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the official visits abroad he plans to make over the coming months. [13432/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the findings of the second interim report of the National Forum on Europe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13572/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his meeting on 18 June 2002 with the President of Slovenia. [14448/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:9 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting in Dublin with the Spanish Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13139/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:10 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with other European Union Heads of Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13152/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:11 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached at his recent meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13228/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:12 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Spain. [13419/02]
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting in Dublin with the Prime Minister of Spain; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13616/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:14 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached in his meeting with political leaders on his visit to Sweden on 12 June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13680/02]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the matters discussed and conclusions reached in his meeting with political leaders on his visit to Finland on 12 June 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13681/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:16 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to Finland and Sweden. [13730/02]
Trevor Sargent
Question:17 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent visits to Sweden and Finland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13733/02]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:18 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his engagements outside the State on 19 June 2002. [14514/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:19 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Sweden. [14519/02]
Joe Higgins
Question:20 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with the Prime Minister of Finland. [14520/02]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive, together.
On 4 June I met the President of Latvia, Dr. Vike-Freiberga, during her State visit to Ireland. We noted the excellent bilateral relations which Ireland and Latvia enjoy and expressed the wish to see these develop even further.
I congratulated the President on the speed of political and economic progress in Latvia in recent years. I congratulated her, in particular, on the progress of Latvia's European Union accession negotiations. I pointed out that the Irish Government is strongly committed to the enlargement process and the ratification of the Nice treaty before the end of 2002 to allow enlargement to take place on schedule. I offered the President our advice and any practical assistance necessary towards facilitating a smooth integration process.
President Vike-Freiberga expressed her thanks for Ireland's continuing support in their accession negotiations. Latvia is facing an unprecedented rate of economic and political change while at the same time adjusting to independence. They are looking to Ireland as an example of what can be accomplished by a small country.
On 18 June I met the President of Slovenia, Milan Kucan. The principal purpose of the President's visit was to address the National Forum on Europe in Dublin Castle later that day. Slovenia has recently opened a resident embassy in Dublin and the President was accompanied by Ambassador Helena Zorko who presented her credentials to President McAleese during the visit. The President and I discussed the excellent bilateral relations between Ireland and Slovenia . I welcomed the establishment of the Slovenian Embassy in Dublin which would help enhance these relations.
I thanked the President for agreeing to share his views on enlargement with the National Forum on Europe. I congratulated him on Slovenia being one of the leading candidates in the accession negotiations and said we looked forward to welcoming Slovenia as a member in 2004.
The President and I also discussed the participation of the candidate countries in the convention on the future of Europe. I welcomed, in particular, the recent election of Slovenian parliamentarian, Mr. Peterle as the representative of the candidate countries on the Praesidium.
I met Prime Minister Aznar of Spain as part of his pre-Seville European Council tour of capitals on 7 June. I also travelled to Sweden and Finland on 12 June and to Italy and Austria on 19 June for bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Persson, Prime Minister Lipponen, Prime Minister Berlusconi and Chancellor Schuessel respectively. All of these meetings were highly productive. Not only were they excellent preparation for the Seville European Council, they were also highly positive in further developing bilateral relations in advance of Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the European Union in 2004. As the House is aware, this afternoon there will be a question and answer session regarding all aspects of the preparations for, and attendance at, the Seville European Council. This question and answer session is a signal of the Government's intention to foster greater debate within the Dáil on EU issues.
With regard to my travel plans for the rest of the year, I propose to attend the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in early September, the ASEM Summit from 22 to 24 September in Copenhagen, the informal European Council in Brussels on 24 and 25 October and the European Council in Copenhagen on 14 and 15 December. A wider travel programme that will take account of Ireland's forthcoming Presidency of the European Union in 2004 is being considered for next year.
The National Forum on Europe, which is an independent body, has taken extensive steps to promote public awareness of its work. I commend its chairman, Senator Maurice Hayes, for the role he has played in advancing the work of the forum and the thorough manner in which he has represented the views of the forum's participants in both of his reports to date.
I thank the Taoiseach for his comprehensive reply. I note he has put in considerable effort in meeting leaders of different European countries and visiting different European neutral capitals in order to promote Ireland's interest in securing a successful outcome, as he sees it, in a second referendum. Against that background, is he intent on losing the second referendum? Will he explain to the House the reason he denigrated Irish citizens who happen to have a different point of view to his own?
That matter does not arise on this question. As the Deputy is aware, many questions were ruled out of order because the issue of the Seville Summit will be debated later this afternoon.
I will repeat what I said. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to lose the referendum as a result of the comments he made in Seville? What explanation does he have for making them?
That matter does not arise at this time.
I disagree.
The Deputy may well disagree, but the Chair has ruled on the matter. As the Deputy is aware, the Chair ruled out questions related to the Seville Summit because the matter will be the subject of discussion later this afternoon.
This may be a taste of things to come.
Is there any reason for not publishing the referendum Bill until Thursday?
That matter does not arise.
I appreciate that. I would like to ask the Taoiseach about something that most definitely does arise. Did he tell any of the EU leaders or any of the many media people he met that, if the Irish people had not rejected Declar ation No. 20 of the Nice treaty, setting out EU enlargement—
I again draw the Deputy's attention to the point I made to Deputy Quinn. The Seville Summit will be the subject of discussion later in the House. The Chair has ruled that questions are not in order.
I have a question about the Spanish Prime Minister. May I ask it?
As the Chair has told Members that questions on this subject were ruled out of order, I ask the Deputy to move on to some other aspect of the 20 questions tabled.
In relation to Question No. 9, in his meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister, did the Taoiseach mention that the Irish people had not at any time rejected enlargement?
Again, the Deputy is—
Question No. 9 is one of the questions to which you refer.
On a point of order, perhaps it would be more orderly to move on to the next batch of questions since you are not going to allow either Deputy Sargent or I – and I suspect other colleagues – to ask supplementary questions.
There will be an opportunity later to raise those questions.
There will be a very limited opportunity later to have some Members of the House—
There will still be an opportunity and the orders with long-standing precedent—
With all due respect, I object to the ruling you are making. While I respect it, I object to it. You are unnecessarily curtailing debate.
That is not correct. The long-standing precedent in the House is that if something will be the subject of discussion later, questions are ruled out of order. Questions were submitted on the specific points the Deputy is making and ruled out of order because they anticipated the debate later this evening.
They may have been ruled out of order, but since when does that ruling extend to supplementary questions? On occasion we have had linked supplementary questions of a most elastic kind over which the Ceann Comhairle presided—
The Deputy cannot ask supplementary questions linked to questions ruled out of order.
I wish the Ceann Comhairle well if this is the kind of debate we are to have on the issue.
I am not sure why the Chair has ruled Question No. 9 out of order. In his reply the Taoiseach talked about the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Did he raise the matter of the Kyoto Protocol coming into force this year? He has referred to this as a priority in the "Ireland and the EU" report which he issued in April. Did he have any further discussions on the directive on emissions trading, which is planned to begin on a pilot basis for CO2 emissions by 2005? That will have more wide-ranging effects on Ireland than any question of enlargement. Has it been to the forefront of the Taoiseach's mind given that he may be distracted by other matters?
The Government's policy on the matter is outlined in the national climate strategy document which was recently published. I have had a number of brief discussions on the issue. As Deputy Sargent is aware, European countries are very anxious to make as much progress as possible at Johannesburg and adopt as unified an approach as they can. While there has been a breakdown in other areas, there is a committed effort by European leaders to make as much progress as possible. In recent months we signed up to the ratification process on the Kyoto Protocol. Between now and the Johannesburg Summit I will be lending Ireland's support to try to ensure it is a successful one.
Did the Taoiseach discuss Declaration No. 20 with the Prime Minister of Spain?
I said our ratification process had already been passed.
In what way does the Taoiseach intend to promote public awareness of the recently published report on the second phase of the work of the National Forum on Europe? In referring to the second phase of the work of the forum, did the Taoiseach recently say leaders from candidate countries had come to forum to take on the opponents of the Nice treaty and, to use his words, buried the "No" side?
That matter does not arise.
I am following the Chair's initial ruling and have been at pains to be in order. That is the reason I referred to Question No. 4, which relates to the Taoiseach's ways of promoting public awareness of the second phase of the work of the forum. I seek clarification from the Taoiseach on whether his remarks, in which he insulted the people who attended the forum and were opponents of the Nice treaty, form part of his strategy to publicise the treaty? Did he say leaders from applicant countries had left the "No" side speechless other than to go on whinging about their side of the argument? I will not ask him to clarify the riddle of how somebody can be speechless while whinging. Perhaps they are using sign language. In his inaugural address to the forum he said its purpose was to inform and enlighten.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Will the Taoiseach now say he did not mean that when he addressed the opening meeting of the forum?
That question is out of order.
I think I am in order. Will the Taoiseach say he saw the forum as a propaganda tool for the Government's side of the argument and that his words constituted an insult, not just to those arguing against the treaty but to those who voted against its ratification?
The National Forum for Europe is an independent body. It has taken extensive steps to promote public awareness of its work. I will do all I can to assist the chairman and all the members of the forum to ensure its work is highlighted. Deputy Higgins knows that I have said here on several occasions that I appreciate the work of everybody, including the "No" side in the forum. However, I do not appreciate the fact that people ignore the leaders and senior figures of other countries who come here and represent the case of their people and strongly articulate their views on why they want the Nice treaty passed.
Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that that happened because there was no one at the forum arguing to keep out any of the applicant countries and the discussion at the forum was about the substantive content of the Nice treaty which the "No" side argued was not necessary for enlargement? The Taoiseach's comments, therefore, were totally gratuitous and without foundation. The Taoiseach should clarify that.
I do not accept what the Deputy says. I do not want to get into an argument about the matter. When a leader or a prominent figure of another country comes to a forum here at our invitation and articulates to the best of his or her ability the position of his or her people and answers questions in a comprehensive way and with a democratic mandate, I do not accept that someone here should try to tell him or her what his or her country should believe. That argument does not hold. I said that at the weekend and I will say it in the future. If I am abroad, I will make the case for the Irish people to the best of my ability. I do not agree that someone here could suggest we know the case better. Deputy Higgins or others might believe they know the will of the people in other countries better than they do. He is entitled to that view, but I do not accept it.
This debate has arisen because the Taoiseach branded everyone who voted "No" a whinger. Given that the Taoiseach has now said he is prepared to assist the chairman and the forum with its work, will he consider withdrawing that remark in view of the fact that the many people who voted against the Nice treaty did not do so because of issues related to the treaty per se but because of difficulties with the interpretation and legal implementation of directives and regulations by the Government? Will the Taoiseach recognise that they voted against it because of legitimate concerns?
The Deputy is moving away from the question on the forum.
It arises from the Taoiseach's comment that he was prepared to assist the chairman and the forum in its work.
The President of the European Commission recently suggested that the Commission should be divided into two tiers with the top tier controlling all the major portfolios. Does the Taoiseach agree that if such a recommendation was put on the table it would be completely contrary to the spirit of all European Union treaties? Will he give the House and the country an assurance that if that happens, he will oppose it vehemently?
I advocated from the start that the National Forum for Europe address the legitimate concerns of the people. Research and political judgment have shown that the forum is engaged in that. Deputy Kenny will appreciate that I cannot withdraw a remark I did not make. I made absolutely no comment whatsoever about the "No" voters. In my remarks, as Deputy Higgins has correctly pointed out, as reported on the tape played back by RTE yesterday morning rather than what I was reported as having said in the morning newspapers, I was not at all disparaging about any "No" voter—
The Taoiseach must not have listened to the radio interview.
As I already explained to Deputy Higgins, my remarks were aimed at people who did not accept an argument made by leaders of other states and just ignored their comments. I do not withdraw that remark because that is my view.
In relation to Mr. Prodi's suggestions, they were not part of the summit and were not therefore out of order. He advanced them as a personal view upon the possible future direction of the European Union. To reiterate and agree with the point made by Deputy Kenny, the position on the make-up of the Commission or the titles of the Commission is set out in the treaties and there are none other than that. They are the ones I support.
Possibly one of the major events with serious implications for peace are reports that the US Central Intelligence Agency intends to assassinate President Saddam Hussein. Given the consequences of such an action, I ask the Taoiseach if, in the context of peace and stability in Europe and beyond, this matter was raised by the Heads of State at the summit in Seville?
The issue was not raised in any form. Needless to say, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, has set out our views on the Administration in Iraq many times, but there was no discussion in any form of the latest matters raised by the Deputy.
I ask the Taoiseach whether, in the course of his recent visit to Finland and Sweden, he discussed with the Prime Ministers of those respective countries the texts of the declarations on neutrality which were later produced at Seville? If so, why would the Taoiseach not place those texts before the Oireachtas?
That does not arise at this stage Deputy.
It certainly does—
No, it certainly does not.
It has nothing to with Seville but has everything to do with the Taoiseach's visit to Finland and Sweden to which my Questions Nos. 16 and 18 in my name refer. This is extremely important. Does the Taoiseach not agree that it is unacceptable that these declarations would be toured and touted around Europe—
That does not arise at this stage.
—when the representatives of the Irish people were left completely in the dark? It is important that we know here in the House—
It is, but there will be an opportunity later on Deputy.
That is on the content of Seville. I am talking about the visits to Finland and Sweden, and whether, in the course of those visits, the Taoiseach introduced to the Prime Ministers of those countries the texts of declarations that Members of this House were not afforded sight of? Is it the case, in fact, that the leader of one of the parties in this House did have sight of them and yet other parties were completely ignored? It is absolutely shameful that that would be the case, and I would like the Taoiseach to clarify the position for us.
I discussed the declarations in their draft form with the neutral countries in particular because these are matters of constitutional interest to them also. It was work in progress until we had signed off fully on the declarations, and it would have been inappropriate for me to be circulating draft regulations until I had completed my discussions. My purpose was to get the other 14 countries, the legal secretariat and the Commission to agree to these which was successfully achieved. I was actually urged in this House to ensure that I spoke to as many countries as I could, which I did. When presidencies visit this country to consult with us about preparatory work for any Council of Ministers meeting, as they have done over the past 30 years, they do not circulate their documentation, either to us or to their national parliaments.
Will the Taoiseach confirm if the texts were discussed with one political party but not others in the House? If so, will he outline the extent of the discourse with the party in question and indicate why there was such a discrepancy in the treatment of parties in the House?
I did as much as I could to put practically the whole declaration into the public domain, including to clearly show what I was doing and how I was doing it. I do not believe anybody was put at an advantage. Anybody listening to what I have had to say since my re-election would have known the content. I was not in any way unfair in my dealings on the matter.
Will the Taoiseach clarify the nature of his discussions with the President of Slovenia? What request did the president make to him as leader of the Government? What views did the president express on the position of Slovenia in the European Union? Was any request made to the Government on the Slovenian position? Did the Taoiseach give any response to Slovenia's request to join the Union? If so, was there any discussion on the best means by which the request could be accommodated?
The discussions with the President of Slovenia centred on the work done by Slovenia over the past years, including the preparatory work on which we have helped. As with many applicant countries, Irish officials provided help. The president outlined the work done and what Slovenia has achieved. We also discussed in detail the outstanding chapters for Slovenia, of which I understand there are four, and some of the issues pertinent to them. I understand the president made reference to some of them in his public statements.
Discussions also centred on our experience of aspects on which they wish to best handle their negotiations. We offered to exchange information on this, but it will be another matter if it is taken up. The experience gained from the work done by our officials with them has proved very useful. Over the coming months a number of issues will arise where they will need our assistance, which will be forthcoming.
The president outlined some concerns about progress Slovenia must make within a short time. This includes a heavy legislative agenda. While the output of the Dáil compares well to that of other national parliaments, the pressure on the applicant countries to reform their systems places extraordinary demands on their legislative programmes. I discussed that in detail with the president. His main concerns are to complete the work programme and ensuring that the legislation that has been enacted can be implemented at administrative level. We can help in that regard.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the Treaty of Nice with the president?
All the leaders I have met have pressed me strongly on that issue. Recently I have met and been in contact with all the leaders of the applicant countries. They all take the view that the treaty is necessary to enable enlargement to proceed. It is how the issue is portrayed in their countries and they need us to help them in this process. That is the message from them all, without exception.
I hope I will be in order this time.I have a question for the Taoiseach in respect of Questions Nos. 14 and 15 regarding the matters discussed and the conclusions reached in his meeting with political leaders on his visits to Sweden and Finland.
Did he discuss the Treaty of Nice or the declaration, which he had in draft form? Was he asked by the leaders of those two countries whether other aspects of concern expressed by so-called whingers, as the Taoiseach described them, about the democratic deficit and other perceptions of weakness in our relationship with the European Union were raised by them or alternatively alluded to or referred to by him?
Did he explain while visiting Helsinki or Stockholm that he was there not just to get their support for the draft declaration, but also to confirm with them that he was confident that the second referendum would be successful? Was he asked by them what steps, in addition to the draft declaration with which they were being presented, he intended to take and did he have a broad discussion with them about the prospects for a suc cessful outcome, as he sees it, to the Nice referendum?
"Yes" is the answer to the questions regarding both those meetings. In all the meetings I had broad discussions and outlined what happened last year in the referendum and what had happened since then. I think I gave a good outline of what has happened in the National Forum on Europe and indicated the procedures being taken to change our own examination of European matters. I explained what we wish to achieve in the declaration and went through some of the other arguments that have been thrown up by research and how we propose to address them.
To restate what I said earlier, I have already clarified for the House on two occasions where my remarks were directed and that they were not directed at individuals in society; they were at one particular point. I went through where I thought we had a job to convince, persuade and try to win over support for the issues of enlargement and the other important issues that are set out in the declaration. I also went on to discuss other issues that are on the agenda in Europe and talked about the issues ahead for the Danish Presidency, particularly issues regarding the European convention. A number of those issues are of enormous importance to the neutral and non-aligned countries. I think I had a good exchange of views with my colleagues on those issues and got an understanding and supportive view from these countries regarding what we are trying to achieve and they outlined to me their concerns. Perhaps on another day we will talk about the convention as there are many issues in it that are important and on which we can work together, particularly the neutral countries.
Did the leaders of Finland and Sweden ask the Taoiseach if the content of the draft declaration had been tested in terms of market research to see if, subject to it being accepted in Seville, it would meet with approval from the majority of the electorate in view of the fact that both of those countries are neutral?
No, they did not ask me those questions. Frankly, they were both very supportive of what we had achieved. They had their own debates and arguments about these issues and, as I pointed out and as has been pointed out generally, they see this as an advantage for them as well because it clarifies the position for them as much as anything else. However, all of them made it absolutely clear that they see—
That they see the Irish declaration as being an advantage to them?
Allow the Taoiseach to reply.
Of course, because it clarifies that there is nothing in the treaties that in any way affects the status of neutrality and that is of benefit to them. I subsequently heard Malta and others say that it is of benefit to them because it clarifies, beyond all doubt, that military neutrality is not affected anywhere in any of the treaties. That is of benefit to any non-aligned country and that is why they can support it.
In the context of Question No. 10, given the nature of international contact about comments made by heads of state and the background of the escalating violence in the Middle East and given the announcement yesterday by President Bush that his peace initiative depends on a Palestinian change of leadership, will the Taoiseach say if advance notice of this comment or statement was given to any of the heads of government in Europe and was there any discussion or any comment among the heads of government about this matter, or is this a unilateral statement by the American President?
There are two aspects to this. In the conclusions of the Seville Summit there was a very strong declaration on the Middle East which spells out the concerns of Europe. The first paragraph alone states:
The crisis in the Middle East has reached a dramatic turning point. Further escalation will render the situation uncontrollable. The parties on their own cannot find a solution. There is an urgent need for political action by the whole international community. The Quartet has a key role to play in starting a peace process.
There was considerable discussion, both among Foreign Ministers on the European Council and the heads of states, on that strong useful declaration.
On the second question, there was no warning or discussion. The matter raised by the American President was not anticipated and therefore comments were not anticipated at that stage.
Has there been any contact about reaction to that statement among the heads of government in Europe? Has there been any contact with any of the heads of government within the European Union following the announcement by President Bush?
No, but I reiterate what I have said in the House on many occasions, that I respect the right of the Palestinian people to pick their leader. I have made many supportive comments here about President Arafat and have met him many times. Picking a leader is a matter for the Palestinian people and not for anybody else. However, it is a matter for the President to give his assessment. He has people on the ground giving his assessment, but it has not changed my position.
Regarding Questions Nos. 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and others, given the BSE and foot and mouth disease problems in recent years, did the question of veterinary controls and food safety arise in any of the Taoiseach's discussions with heads of state or was it raised by anybody else? Has that question been taken into account in his discussions to date?
On Question No. 22, in which I ask about referendums the Government intends to hold in 2002, has the Government made a decision—
We have not reached Question No. 22. We are dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive.
I understood the Taoiseach would deal with all those questions together.
He is dealing with Questions Nos. 1 to 20, inclusive, at present.
The veterinary issue and the whole animal health issue has been discussed on many occasions. Last year it was a regular issue and it was probably discussed at all the Councils, but it was not discussed at this Council.
In response to my question as to what visits abroad the Taoiseach would make in the future, he stated that he would attend further EU Council meetings. Will he raise at the next EU Council meeting the incident whereby hundreds of Portuguese citizens, who are EU citizens, were prevented by the Spanish police from going to peacefully demonstrate in Seville, which has caused absolute consternation in Portugal?
What the Taoiseach might raise at future meetings does not arise at this point.
It arises in the sense that the Taoiseach laid out his plans for the upcoming months. I simply ask that the prevention of citizens from travelling within the European Union by the police to protest peacefully in a particular state be addressed. Unfortunately, this is a frequent occurrence. Will the Taoiseach give me an undertaking that he will raise the issue of the Portuguese incident? Does he agree that it makes a mockery of the claim that the European Union is the epitome of democracy and free travel—
The Deputy is making a statement.
—when this kind of absolute decision is made?
The Portuguese Government will take up the matter with the Spanish authorities. I did not receive any request to take it up on its behalf.
I am asking the Taoiseach to take it up as a citizen of the European Union.