Vol. 964 No. 3
1. Deputy Darragh O'Brien asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the actions that have been taken by his Department to support Irish emigrants who wish to return here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3696/18]
Estimates by the Central Statistics Office, CSO, suggest that between April 2016 and April 2017, more than 27,000 Irish emigrants have returned to Ireland. That is very welcome news. However, many are encountering severe difficulties and hurdles when they return, in particular with their dealings with financial institutions. What specific actions are being taken by the Tánaiste and his Department to support Irish emigrants who wish to return to Ireland and will he outline what progress is being made?
I thank Deputy Darragh O'Brien for his question. This is essentially responding to a good news story to make sure that when people come home, they make the transition in as positive a way as possible. The Government is committed to working to facilitate Irish people living abroad who wish to return to live and work in Ireland. We are working to ensure that moving or returning to Ireland is as easy as possible for them. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, through the emigrant support programme, provides significant funding and support to organisations, including the Crosscare Migrant Project and Safe Home Ireland, which work with citizens who wish to return to Ireland. Over the past decade, more than €4 million has been allocated to Irish-based organisations working with returning emigrants and funding for these organisations this year is in line with recent years.
The Minister of State with responsibility for the diaspora, Deputy Cannon, chairs the interdepartmental committee, IDC, on the Irish abroad, which works to ensure that the Government works in a joined-up way to realise the objectives of Ireland's diaspora policy. That includes addressing issues affecting the Irish abroad and those seeking to return. The role of the Minister of State as chair of the IDC is to raise areas of concern to Irish people abroad with Departments with responsibility for those areas. Work is continuing in a number of Departments to address practical issues that have been raised by the interdepartmental committee. To build on the work of the committee in addressing such barriers, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has commissioned an economic report on barriers to return. The report will be completed in the coming weeks and will inform Government policy and actions on difficulties it finds.
In addition to addressing potential barriers, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is always looking for new and innovative ways to assist Irish people abroad and those returning. To support returning emigrants in a practical way, the Department has established Back for Business, a mentoring programme for returning emigrants to help them set up business in Ireland and contribute fully to local communities and economies across the country. This pilot programme is currently under way and will be reviewed on completion. I know there are some other practical issues regarding driving licences, for example, and we are seeking to come up with solutions to address those issues.
I hope the Minister does not mind me saying that the response is pretty vague. It really misses the fundamental point I am trying to make. The vast majority of the 27,400 people who returned have serious difficulties getting car insurance, for example. They are rated on the basis that their previous driving experience in places such as Canada is not taken into account and their previous driving record in Ireland, including no-claims bonus, is all set aside. I am asking the Minister about practical steps being taken by the Department, for example, whether it has met with Insurance Ireland to ask why premia are being loaded for returning emigrants.
Second, most returning emigrants are now told there is a postponement period of 12 months within which they will get no health cover after they return to this country and most of them cannot transfer their health cover to Ireland. Practical measures are required such as talking to companies such as the VHI.
I put it to the Minister that he needs to meet the Irish Banking Federation because people applying for a mortgage are now asked by Bank of Ireland, for example, to provide a P60 for the previous year's earnings. Banks will not accept foreign revenue documents from returned emigrants who were in Canada, the United States or other countries. Those are practical measures that could be taken.
I do not disagree. There is a whole series of examples of areas where we need to provide a more seamless transition than is currently available for people who are coming home. That is why we have commissioned an economic report on which we are spending approximately €75,000. It will be ready in the coming weeks. The report will itemise the kind of things on which Deputy Darragh O'Brien has provided examples and anecdotal evidence in terms of issues on which intervention is required. My Department, and the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, in particular, will play a co-ordinating role between Departments to ensure we can make intervention where appropriate in various sectors and areas.
I will be happy to report the progress on that when we get that economic report back.
I thank the Minister for that. There are practical measures available. I am aware of the report on challenges faced by returning Irish emigrants. The economic report the Minister has mentioned will be published in the next few weeks. I am asking for a commitment that the matter will be debated here in the House. I will explain why. Significant numbers are returning and that is great and fantastic. I have travelled to a number of our embassies, though not as many as has the Minister in his role. They are meeting people who are inquiring about what happens when one comes back to Ireland. How does one get a mortgage? What is the situation concerning insurance premiums? They are concerned with all of these things.
There are practical measures open to the Government. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, could meet the Irish Banking Federation and ask why its members insist on these terms for people who have earnings records in other countries or why they insist on P60s. The Government could ask Insurance Ireland why its members set aside previous driving records in Ireland and do not take into account driving or claims records in England, Europe, Canada or the United States. It makes no sense. Some of these industries are simply gouging returning Irish emigrants because they know they can make money off their backs. We need to fix it and measures can be taken.
I welcome the response and the commitment via the report. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that, if it is not discussed in plenary session in the Dáil, he will bring the report to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence, so that we can agree the measures that need to be taken urgently.
I have no problem with doing that. It is just a question of scheduling the time to do it. On emigration, I think there is pretty much cross-party support for trying to encourage people to come home. There are job opportunities for them here across multiple sectors, which is a really good thing. The population in Ireland is growing by about 50,000 a year. Probably close to half of that is accounted for by Irish people coming home. We want the message to be sent right across the world that we want those who wish to come home and contribute to a growing Irish economy to do so. That is a big talent pool. I would be happy to bring forward the report once we have it. Either the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, or I could do so. Actually, it might be better to do this in committee. I would be happy to do it here-----
-----but we will end up having statements. If we discussed it in committee we could have a proper back-and-forth and get into the detail of some of the recommendations. I think that would be useful.
2. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the measures his Department is undertaking to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts post Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3697/18]
The question is to seek an update from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from the Minister on the measures that are being taken to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts in the context of Brexit.
I thank the Deputy for giving me an opportunity to give an update in this area. The Government is determined to ensure that the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts is fully protected and respected in the context of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. As co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement, the Government has a responsibility to protect the agreement and the gains of the peace process.
The Government’s programme of engagement with EU partners over the past 18 months and more has ensured that Ireland’s unique issues and concerns have been fully understood by the EU 27 and have been reflected in the EU negotiating guidelines and directives for the Article 50 process. The guiding principles on Ireland and Northern Ireland were published by the European Commission Article 50 task force in September and form the basis for the EU’s engagement with the UK on the shared objectives of protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and protecting the gains of the peace process.
The negotiations over recent months saw a good political understanding develop on all sides involved in the negotiations of what is required to achieve this objective, which is shared between Ireland, the EU and the UK. In the joint report of the EU and UK negotiators on 8 December, the UK reiterated its commitment to protecting the Good Friday Agreement, including the effective operation of the institutions and bodies of the agreement. The joint report reaffirmed that North-South co-operation is a central part of the Good Friday Agreement and the UK committed to protecting and supporting continued North-South and east-west co-operation across the full range of frameworks of co-operation, including the operation of the North-South bodies. The EU and UK also recognised the birthright of all of the people of Northern Ireland to choose between Irish or British citizenship or to have both and that the people of Northern Ireland who are Irish citizens will continue to enjoy rights as EU citizens, including when they reside in Northern Ireland. That is complicated and I note the Deputy has raised some issues in this regard previously, including questions on court jurisdictions and so on. We will have to try to work through those issues.
In regard to the Good Friday Agreement provisions on fundamental rights and equality, the UK committed in the joint report to ensuring that no diminution of rights is caused by its departure from the EU, including in the area of protection against discrimination enshrined in EU law.
In regard to peace funding linked to the Agreement, there is also a commitment to continue that into the future.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In addition, the EU and UK also both committed to honour their commitments to PEACE and INTERREG funding under the current multi-annual financial framework and to examine favourably possibilities for future support.
The phase 2 discussions on the Ireland-specific issues will continue in a distinct strand of the Article 50 negotiations on the detailed arrangements required. The Government will continue to pursue an outcome to the Article 50 process that protects our headline priorities and Ireland’s fundamental interests, including to ensure protection of and respect for the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts.
Michel Barnier, the EU chief Brexit negotiator, said at a parliamentary committee in Madrid on Tuesday that Ireland remains a source of uncertainty in the Brexit talks. As the Minister will know, the joint report and the communiqué that was agreed between Britain and the European Union was described in Europe as a "gentleman's agreement". It has been called a "backstop" agreement in this State.
The difficulty is in the interpretation of protecting the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. The focus seems to be almost exclusively on trade. What the Government and the Minister need to understand is that the Good Friday Agreement was about more than trade. Trade was only one small part of it. It was also about people's social rights, political rights and rights to equality. A lot of that was underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement. I have two questions for the Minister. Can he commit to citizens in the North continuing to have access to the European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice post-Brexit? Furthermore, can he commit to citizens in the North having political representation in the European Parliament, which should also be the right of any Irish citizen and any European citizen? That will be a test of whether we are truly going to vindicate the rights of Irish citizens and European citizens in the North.
First, I personally cannot guarantee anything in these negotiations. My job is to make sure that the agreements in writing between the EU task force and the UK negotiating team take account of Irish issues and Irish concerns. That is what we have been doing to date. However, we have only played the first half of the match. We ensured that everything possible in that first half was achieved. I think there is an understanding in the British Government of the importance of providing reassurance to people in Northern Ireland on issues that go beyond economics.
The text that was agreed on 8 December was not solely focused on economics. It was very strong in regard to citizens' rights, human rights concerns and making sure there was no diminution of rights in the context of fears regarding discrimination. It is a very strong text on those concerns. I had a meeting this week with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which met here together in a joint committee. We spent quite some time talking about concerns that need to be the focus of negotiations in phase 2 on future and transitional arrangements governing the future EU-UK relationship. I can assure the Deputy that these are issues that are live. We are aware of the concerns. However, I am not sure it is reasonable to start demanding absolutes at this stage, in the middle of the negotiations. What we have in the text is significant progress and we need to see that through in phase 2.
I do not raise these issues to be critical of the Minister or the Government. I raise them because they are central and important to citizens in the North and because they underpin the Good Friday Agreement. My point is the Minister is right when he states we need to ensure that Irish citizens who live in the North should continue to enjoy the same rights they currently enjoy as EU citizens. At present, they have access to the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. The reasonable question asked by those citizens in the North, who are European citizens, is whether they will continue to do so. At present, they have representation in the European Parliament. It is reasonable to ask whether they will continue to do so.
Whatever the outcome of certain demands, it is reasonable for an Irish Government to put these issues on the table. I heard the Taoiseach today talk about a "Norway-plus" solution for Britain, saying that he wanted the best outcome for Britain and the European Union, that is, the closet possible relationship. What he said is that as there is no solution and no precedent here, anything is on the table. The same can be said of the North. We want special status for the North within the European Union. Why would the Irish Government not take the same approach, whereby everything is on the table and everything is possible?
If the Minister truly wants to vindicate the rights of citizens in the North and to protect the Good Friday Agreement, and all its parts, then those citizens who live in the North cannot have the rights on one hand yet not be able to exercise and vindicate them in the place they live, which just happens to be the North. That is a genuine concern of ours. We will work with the Irish Government and do our best to ensure that we get these type of issues over the line. I am not looking for absolute outcomes because we cannot guarantee them. However, we can expect an Irish Government to make not demands but common sense, practical proposals that will impact on citizens living in the North.
I do not want to stop anybody having their say. However, both the Minister and the Deputy ran over time. I ask Members to stick to time in the last minute. When they run over, a question from another Deputy is not going to be answered down the line. I know there are very important issues to be raised, so please try to stick to the time.
This is a challenging process. The EU generally negotiates on the basis of precedent, laws and regulations and treaties because it is a collection of countries. That is the sensible way to proceed. We have made the case that Ireland is uniquely exposed in a whole series of ways to Brexit. I refer to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement, and also a protection, trading and citizens' rights perspective and all of the other things that we have raised. We are raising the kind of things that Deputy Cullinane is raising today. We will continue to do that.
When the Taoiseach talks about a Norway-plus model what he is essentially advocating for is the closest possible relationship between Britain and the European Union-----
That is what we want too.
-----with Britain outside of the European Union, recognising that is the commitment that they have made. That is what I advocate for too. Norway is much closer to the European Union-----
I thank the Minister.
-----from a trading perspective than for example Canada is. That is why a Norway-plus model, where the European Union could be generous to Britain in terms of trying to facilitate genuine concerns, and where Britain signals the intent of wanting-----
I thank the Minister.
-----to remain close to the European Union, Single Market and Customs Union, is where we would like the British negotiating team to go.
We support that.
I thank the Minister. We move on to Question No. 3 from Deputy Donnelly, who has 30 seconds.
3. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the Government's priorities for phase two of the Brexit negotiations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3506/18]
My question is about the Government's priorities for phase two. We have had the December agreement. We are moving into phase two on Brexit. At stake this year are Irish jobs and Irish trade and our future relations with the UK. Implementation of the December agreement is critical in ensuring that there is no future border for Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil has worked closely with the Government on the international aspects of Brexit. We disagree strongly with the Government on the domestic response. We think that has been extremely poor to date.
What are the Minister's and the Government's priorities for Brexit this year?
I do not agree with all of the comment but they are very much fair questions. First, we are focusing on the negotiations themselves, as we did before Christmas, to make sure an Irish perspective is understood and incorporated into the various different things happening.
Next Monday, in the General Affairs Council, there will be a proposal in relation to transition arrangements. We want to make sure that the full EU acquis applies for the full transition period. In Britain it is referred to as an implementation period but it is the same thing. In particularly sensitive areas, like fishing for example, we want to ensure that the full EU acquis applies in terms of protecting our interests but also protecting EU interests. A transition period is a period that allows both British and EU interests to respond to, prepare for and finalise the preparations for new realities in terms of the future relationship. That is very current.
In relation to the withdrawal agreement, I think we can expect a draft withdrawal agreement coming from the EU side by the middle of February. Again, a key thing for Ireland is that all of the commitments we had in writing in December are reinforced in that withdrawal agreement so that we can have, as it has been described in EU language, no backsliding from previous commitments. That is a real focus for our negotiating team. Moving towards the future relationship itself, Britain has choices to make in terms of the signals that it wants to give to the EU negotiating team in respect of what they want to negotiate. Do they want a classic free trade agreement? Do they want a Norway-style arrangement with some flexibilities? Do they want to be part of some customs union partnership, to use British language, in the future or do they not?
These signals and these decisions in regard to future direction for Britain will determine how the EU negotiating team can respond to try to facilitate that. I will be in London shortly to advocate for the kind of things-----
I thank the Minister.
-----that the Taoiseach the has been advocating for today. In relation to the domestic agenda, perhaps I will come back and give the Deputy an answer later.
I thank the Minister for his co-operation.
I thank the Minister for that. I will stick to the international response now. If the Minister wants to come back on what his priorities are domestically, we can go into that.
A few things. Deputy O'Brien and myself were in Westminster last week. We met various Government Ministers and cross-party MPs. We put the December agreement to all of them. We said our understanding, the Government understanding, briefed directly from the Taoiseach, is that it is full alignment North-South. It means, essentially, that nothing can be done in the Northern Ireland economy that would lead to future border controls. I asked three separate Under Secretaries if that was also their agreement. They would not agree to that: they hedged. Does the Minister accept that the British Government has a different view as to just how solid and categoric the December agreement is? Will the Minister expand on Norway-plus? We all understand what the Norway model is within the European Free Trade Association, EFTA. When the Taoiseach and the Minister talk about Norway-plus, will the Minister explain what the plus is?
I thank the Chair for his patience. On the Common Fisheries Policy, which the Minister knows well from his previous role as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the British Ministers reiterated, when we were in London last week, that the UK will be taking back control of its territorial waters. It will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy. This is an existential threat to our fishing industry. What is the Irish Government doing, specifically in respect of the Common Fisheries Policy? Is the Government looking to renegotiate the basic formula to give Ireland a fair share if indeed the UK does look to take back its territorial waters?
There is a lot there. I am not going to be able to answer all of it. I would happily answer in some detail if Deputy Donnelly wants to talk to me about it later.
Our understanding, and I think anybody's understanding reading the words that were agreed and put down in black and white regarding "maintaining full alignment with the rules of the Customs Union and Single Market" is clear. It is clear to me what that means, "in order to maintain North-South co-operation and the all-island economy". The EU task force is clear what that means. We have checked that. If others want to make commentary seeking to recategorise what that means, that is a matter for themselves. However, as far as the EU negotiating team is concerned, it is negotiating on our understanding of this and we need to ensure that is part of the withdrawal agreement. I heard some concerning commentary in front of a committee in London yesterday. I will have an opportunity today to meet some of the members of that committee who are in Ireland. I think that will be a useful discussion.
I thank the Minister.
In regard to what I mean by Norway-plus, at the moment, as people will probably know, Norway is not part of an extended customs union. That means that there is a border and border checks between Norway and the EU. If Britain chose to effectively become an extension of the Single Market, we would like to see the option for it also to be in a customs union partnership. That would be a Norway-plus model that would require no border checks, because then the UK would be part of the same customs union, unlike Norway.
That is what I mean when I refer to a Norway-plus model.
This is difficult for Britain – I absolutely accept that. It is complicated for Britain to be simply an extension of the Single Market but not involved in setting the rules of the market in the EU institutions. It is something that needs a great deal of consideration.
I am being flexible because of the importance of the issue, but I appeal to the Minister and the Deputy to adhere to the one-minute rule. If they do not, I will have to cut them short.
The Department will address any further questions in the meantime.
I did not want to interrupt the Minister. Deputy Donnelly has the final minute.
My understanding is that the Minister does not get to respond, but I will make some points. The Common Fisheries Policy is really urgent. It was reiterated to us in Westminster last week that the UK intends taking it. I was in Greencastle, County Donegal, on Monday talking to people from a fishing co-operative. There are things we can be doing. If the UK insists on taking back its territorial waters, we need to open up a conversation about renegotiation back to the position in 1972 and explain how things have fundamentally changed for us.
My position and that of Fianna Fáil on the domestic front is that little is being done but a great deal can be done. The Government lists websites, access to funds and so on. However, I have spoken to fishermen, farmers and SME owners throughout the country. I have asked whether they are being helped in a substantial way in terms of access to credit, relaxation of state-aid rules, feasibility studies for new EU markets, changes to supply chains and pricing strategies. I have asked them whether they are getting a comprehensive response from the State and its various agencies to help them not only mitigate the risks of Brexit but to actually use it as a nudge to become bigger, better, stronger and trade more. The answer I have received from people throughout the country from every sector is "No". They acknowledge that there is a website and that there is a new fund available which offers lower-cost credit. However, they maintain that they are not getting a comprehensive national response.
The Taoiseach responded to Deputy Micheál Martin and myself in reply to a parliamentary question confirming that the Brexit Cabinet committee has not met since September. It seems that we are desperately in need of and missing an all-of-Government response. I hope that is something we can work on providing this year.
At recently as this morning, we had a Brexit stakeholder meeting for an hour and a half or so at which all these interests were represented. We are trying to prepare small and medium-sized businesses as well as larger businesses throughout the country for the potential impact of Brexit. All the State agencies are geared up to do that. People will see us do it in a far more visible way in the coming months with significant seminars and roadshows. The idea is to bring companies in, essentially to tutor them and talk to them about the potential impact of Brexit. The State has a responsibility to do that.
Many of the things Deputy Donnelly has talked about are happening. We are making funding available, looking at the options for state-aid rules and reaching out through the State agencies to many of the companies concerned. I accept, however, that more work remains to be done in this area and that we need to intensify those efforts as Brexit gets closer. That will happen.
4. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to outline the steps he will take to support a peaceful settlement in Palestine. [3849/18]
Following his recent visit to the Middle East, I am keen to hear the Minister's latest thinking on what Ireland can do to support the peace process in Palestine and the resolution of what is an intolerable situation. The peace process has effectively stalled. If anything, it is in reverse, particularly with the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem. There is no sign that the process that had been engaged in for the past 25 years is working any longer. How do we help to break the deadlock? What can we do to try to foster a change in the current and intolerable situation?
It is a fair question. Deputy Eamon Ryan will receive a copy of my written answer but I wish to take this opportunity to respond to him directly.
I have spent a good deal of time on this issue since moving into this brief. It is something I am personally interested in. I have been to Israel and Palestine twice in the space of less than six months. I have met the Israeli Prime Minister three times and I have met Palestinian leaders more frequently than that. As recently as last week, I met President Abbas in Brussels. We have been speaking directly to the US of its ambitions for a new peace initiative. We have tried to make clear that the EU as a whole, including Ireland, needs to see certain things in that new initiative if we are going to be able to support it.
There is considerable political dialogue and engagement. I absolutely accept that when someone is looking from the outside in, it looks like this is going backwards rather than forwards. The decision in respect of the recognition of Jerusalem before Christmas has made it far more difficult and complicated. Palestinians have responded negatively to the move, understandably so, as have people from many other countries throughout the Arab world and elsewhere, including the European Union.
I sense Deputy Eamon Ryan is asking whether we should change our focus now from political engagement with all sides to some sort of protest position and a more aggressive approach. I do not think now is the right time to do that. I have explained to all parties why that is the case. Now is a time for politicians and governments to undertake tough talking in meetings as opposed to isolating themselves by gestures. Such gestures may be good from a solidarity perspective, but I am unsure whether they would advance the political process. Ultimately, that is what we need. If we are clearly getting nowhere with dialogue, obviously we will have to review that in a few months' time.
I would always stand for political engagement, although that can include the use of protest and the European Union changing its position to take a far more critical approach, especially in respect of what the US Government and the Israeli Government are doing. It seems that the Israeli Government is happy enough with this stalled negotiation process.
I am interested in what the Minister said to the effect that behind the scenes there may be some hope of engagement despite the reversals with regard to the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem. I have one question in that regard. Did the Minister hear anything in his talks with President Abbas or others about a fundamental shift towards seeking a one-state rather than a two-state solution? If citizenship was applied, there would be almost a balance between Arab and others Jewish communities within a combined single state. During an Oireachtas visit to the Middle East early last year, I heard the view that maybe we need to recalibrate the overall approach because the current system is not working. The current system seems to suit Israel because those involved in Israel have control, including security control and control of populations in every way. It is not working for the Palestinian people. Is that big thinking about how we might shift our approach taking place within the European Union or in the Minister's talks?
We have had that debate. I wish to state clearly that in our judgment a two-state solution is the best outcome. That is our position, the position of the Palestinian leadership and the position of the US Government as well, as outlined by the US Vice President this week. There is a view that a one-state solution would not inspire the kind of hope that many Palestinian communities want and need.
I am absolutely committed to a two-state solution still. However, there are many things we need to raise concerns about in the meantime. The continuation of the expansion of illegal settlements in occupied territory in the West Bank is making a two-state solution more difficult to negotiate. It is making trust between the parties more difficult to reinforce. We need to encourage the reconciliation process between Fatah and Hamas to ensure that at some stage in the not-too-distant future the Palestinian Authority can take control and governance, including security control in Gaza. That would make it far easier for the international community to engage in Gaza, where there is extraordinary humanitarian pressure at the moment.
We are going to be announcing some projects for Gaza and increasing the resources we provide to Palestinians in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, in respect of the UN Relief and Welfare Agency, UNWRA, this is a really serious issue, not just for Gaza and the West Bank but also for Palestinian refugees generally in Jordan and Lebanon. The potential threat to UNWRA funding is a destabilising political issue in respect of which there needs to be much more certainty. I think my views on that have been stated quite forcefully.
If we are going to continue with the same approach, where is the progress in terms of dealing with the spread of settlements or the treatment of Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza? The current system is not working. The situation is in reverse. At what point do we switch to protesting and taking other measures? How can there be any confidence that the current approach is working? There are nothing but downsides for the Palestinian people. There are no gains; the situation is deadlocked. At some point Europe will surely have to change its position, if it is trying to unlock the intolerable current situation?
Before the announcement in Jerusalem, there actually was quite a lot of hope. The European Union was waiting for a new US initiative. When I was at the UN General Assembly in New York, I met Dr. Riyad al-Maliki, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Palestine. There was a sense of positivity that they were waiting for a new initiative that the Palestinians would be able to support. There were the beginnings of some momentum there, particularly given the very close relationship between the current US Administration and the Israeli Government. Such closeness can actually deliver change, in my view, in a very positive way. It was the announcement on Jerusalem which set the whole process back in respect of trust between Palestinians and the ability of the US - on its own - to bring forward an initiative. That is why they are now saying they recognise, of course, that the US needs to be involved in a new initiative but they need other countries involved also to ensure the kind of balance they are seeking.
