Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:1. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach to report on the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. [2797/24]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Paul Murphy
Question:2. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. [2800/24]
Bríd Smith
Question:3. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Taoiseach to report on the meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos. [2804/24]
Mick Barry
Question:4. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [2898/24]
Seán Haughey
Question:5. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [3809/24]
Mary Lou McDonald
Question:6. Deputy Mary Lou McDonald asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [5100/24]
Mick Barry
Question:7. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach to report on his attendance at the World Economic Forum in Davos. [5335/24]
Marc Ó Cathasaigh
Question:8. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Taoiseach to report on his engagements at the World Economic Forum. [6210/24]
Tógfaidh mé Ceisteanna Uimh. 1 go 8, go huile, le chéile.
My programme included engagements with businesses with investments or interests in Ireland. I spoke at a dinner hosted by IDA Ireland, which was attended by business leaders from the manufacturing, chemical, technology and finance sectors. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, also attended. I met with senior representatives of multinational companies with a significant imprint in Ireland. These meetings are typically an important opportunity for company executives to update me on progress with their operations in Ireland and their future development plans. I participated in a panel discussion on the hard power of artificial intelligence, which reflected on the opportunities and challenges of AI, especially in the areas of diplomacy and defence. Developments on artificial intelligence were a focus of discussions throughout the meeting, with many policymakers and business leaders conscious of the need to balance the risks and opportunities of the technology and to regulate in a way that protects the public interest while encouraging innovation. This balanced approach chimes with the approach the Government is taking.
I also attended a foreign policy-focused event organised by The Washington Post, which was attended by other European and global leaders and heads of prominent international organisations. During my visit, I had the opportunity to meet with political leaders, including Prime Minister Recean of Moldova, to whom I reaffirmed Ireland's continued backing for Moldova’s EU membership aspirations, and newly elected President Thangam of Singapore. I also met with the chair of Open Society Foundations to discuss our shared commitment to freedom of expression and the challenges facing it in today’s difficult geopolitical environment.
I have a fundamental problem with the World Economic Forum as a gathering where the world's most profitable and richest companies and billionaires rub shoulders with politicians from around the world, primarily to pursue their own interests rather than the wider interests of society.
One thing of interest I notice was that Hines, the wealth and asset management company and owner of a very significant amount of property in this country, was present in Davos this year. That is very telling. The biggest residential development in the country, the Cherrywood development in my own area, is owned by Hines, although it has flipped some of the property and made a lot of profit. It got the land from NAMA at a discount but very modest houses there are going for between €600,000 and €700,000 and rents are running at €2,500 to €3,000 a month. This is totally unaffordable for the vast majority of people. Is that the net result of these kinds of forums? Investors like Hines make an absolute fortune from real estate and residential development in this country but deliver housing that is absolutely unaffordable for the vast majority of working people and rents that are completely unaffordable. In the case of the Cherrywood development, we still do not know how much affordable housing is to be given to us in exchange for the LIHAF funding. There is still wrangling over how much affordable housing we are going to get and whether it will actually be affordable, that is, what the prices will be. Will the Taoiseach comment on that? This wealth and asset management company, Hines, has €95 billion worth of assets around the world. These are the sorts of people who are controlling our housing sector and the consequence of this is utterly unaffordable housing and rents. Does that not say something about the priorities of these corporations that swan around with politicians at the World Economic Forum in Davos?
The World Economic Forum is at the centre of all sorts of far-right conspiracy theories these days. These theories suggest that the forum rules the world. I do not believe the World Economic Forum rules the world or that there is a conspiracy here. In fact, it is simply capitalism. Capitalism operates by the governments of the world responding to the needs, interests, concerns and wishes of the ruling classes in the world, that is, the multimillionaires and billionaires. Events like the World Economic Forum at Davos are where those interests are transferred. There are meetings where these billionaires who control the world's economy say what they would like to happen and, largely speaking, politicians like the Taoiseach take that on and try to implement it.
There are some things that fuel the conspiracy theories. People who come up to me who have been impacted by some of these far-right conspiracies say that climate change could not be real because otherwise the governments and elites of the world would not be behaving in the way they are. The inaction of the world's leaders leads to that conspiracy theory. The fact that one in ten attendees at the World Economic Forum flew in, a large proportion of whom flew in on private jets spewing out huge amounts of carbon emissions, fuels this idea. People think that if climate change is as real as they say it is, and it is, then why are these people behaving in this manner?
The other thing that fuels the conspiracy theories is massive inequality and the illogical nature of a world that sees the richest five people doubling their wealth over the last five or six years while the poorest 5 billion get poorer and, in this country, the richest two people having the same wealth as the bottom 50%. That fuels those conspiracy theories because people cannot understand how we can have a system that allows this to happen.
The World Economic Forum has its critics, as we have just heard. Heads of corporations, NGOs and experts of all kinds fly in and mix with global leaders to pontificate about global issues. It can all seem a bit removed from the ordinary citizen. However, having listened to the Taoiseach's response, I can certainly see the benefits of a forum of this kind. By all accounts, the Taoiseach used the opportunity to engage with other leaders on the appalling situation in Gaza and to press for a humanitarian ceasefire and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. We now see another disaster unfolding in Rafah. EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, has rightly suggested the ceasing of weapons sales to Israel by the US and other countries. I ask the Taoiseach to use whatever influence he has, particularly with the US Administration, to stop Israel's offensive on the 1.5 million civilians in Rafah and to try to bring about a humanitarian ceasefire.
It is reported today that, along with the Spanish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach has written to the President of the European Commission to express his concerns in this regard. I heard the response he gave to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle about this earlier but I would be interested to hear more about the letter, whether the Taoiseach received a response and what he actually said to Ursula von der Leyen.
A long-term strategy for climate, nature and energy was one of the key themes of the World Economic Forum. This brought the gap between rhetoric and action into public view again. Every single report published in the last year from the EPA, the SEAI or Wind Energy Ireland follows a worrying trend. They predict that Ireland is to blow right through our 2030 targets and miss the momentous opportunity to become energy secure and independent. Based on current trends and full implementation of planned climate policies and measures, the EPA projects that Ireland will only achieve a 29% reduction by 2030 rather than the 51% reduction enshrined in the climate Act. Similarly, according to a December report commissioned by Wind Energy Ireland, 95% of industry experts believe that Ireland has zero hope of delivering its energy transition at the pace and scale needed. At the close of last year, the SEAI warned that Ireland's energy emissions were not falling fast enough to stay within the Government's own carbon budget.
Even the Government's own progress reports indicate they are not doing a good enough job. They show an implementation rate of just 67%. Is it any wonder that the latest climate observatory report from the Central Bank argued that not only is Ireland performing badly we are performing worse than the majority of other EU states. Irish emissions per capita are 23% higher than the EU average and 47% higher than Britain. Moreover, Ireland has one of the lowest proportions of renewables usage amongst EU states. Despite being one of the most effective measures in the fight against climate change the roll-out of renewables here is embarrassingly slow. What is this Government going to do to address the concerns of key stakeholders concerning our 2030 targets? What effort is the Department of the Taoiseach making to improve Ireland's performance for our own targets and by way of comparison to EU partners?
I thank Deputies for their questions. As was said earlier there are lots of conspiracy theories about Davos and the World Economic Forum, and particularly online. No big decisions are made there. In fact no decisions are made at all. If that was the case I would stay for the whole thing. As it happens I had to leave early and arrive late. I arrived late because the Chinese Prime Minister was visiting Ireland, and I had to leave early because I wanted to get to an event in Galway. I can guarantee that if the far right were correct I would not have arrived late and left early; I would have been there for the whole thing to sit in some secret room and make all these decisions they believe we make. I am a bit disappointed to hear Deputy Paul Murphy in some ways almost fuelling some of those theories by arguing that he almost understands why people believe these conspiracy theories. It is the far right and the far left working together again, which is not all that unusual.
With regard to what happens there, it is a gathering of political, business and NGO leaders, along with academics and experts. It is worth attending. It is run very efficiently. There are 30-minute meeting slots, which start on time and end on time. They stick to the agenda. To organise those kinds of meetings with the people who attend - perhaps ten meetings in one day - would take weeks to organise. It is a gathering where a lot of people attend and where one can fit in a lot of meetings and get work done that otherwise would take a lot of time to organise. There are also roundtable discussions and dinners.
I did not meet Hines at Davos or any asset management companies. I am not sure if they requested to meet me or not. The letter written to President von der Leyen was published this morning but we do not have a response yet. In fairness, it was only officially submitted this morning. President von der Leyen will need a bit of time to respond to it. I spoke with her by phone earlier in the week to discuss a number of different matters and I alerted her to the fact that Prime Minister Sánchez and I were writing this letter. I thought it was important she hear that from me and not from the media.
Deputy McDonald asked questions around climate. We are making progress and progress is now accelerating. Emissions from Ireland are falling and while they are not falling fast enough they are falling. We are seeing a real improvement in the amount of renewable energy we are producing. We have a target of 80% renewable electricity by 2030. I think we will meet that target. If we miss it I do not think we will miss it by much. People were very sceptical about electric vehicles a few years ago when then Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, produced his climate action plan on behalf of the Government at the time but we are now in line to meet those targets, which is really encouraging. We also retrofit about 35,000 homes every year. Again that is in line or exceeding our targets for retrofit. We are also seeing emissions fall from agriculture. I thank and recognise farmers for that fact. The new forestry programme will be helpful too.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Paul Murphy
Question:9. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on his meeting with the Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [2809/24]
Seán Haughey
Question:10. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent engagement with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [3810/24]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Question:11. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent engagement with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [3957/24]
Peadar Tóibín
Question:12. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Taoiseach to report on his meeting with the Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [3972/24]
Mick Barry
Question:13. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent engagement with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [4127/24]
Marc Ó Cathasaigh
Question:14. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Taoiseach to report on his recent engagement with Chinese Premier Li Qiang. [6211/24]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:15. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach to report on his meeting with the President of China. [6660/24]
I proposes to take Questions Nos. 9 to 15, inclusive, together.
I welcomed Premier Li Qiang to Ireland on 17 January for a working visit which marked 45 years of diplomatic relations between Ireland and China. In addition to our bilateral meeting, there was a working lunch that included several Chinese ministers, the Governor of the Central Bank of China, the Tánaiste and the Ministers, Deputies Ryan, Foley, McConalogue and Coveney.
I had a productive meeting with Premier Li and his delegation. We agreed there is more we can do economically, including boosting trade. Importantly, the Premier confirmed that the pause on beef exports to China had been lifted. This was very welcome news for farmers and food producers around the country. It is testament to the very hard work that they do in ensuring that Irish food is of the highest quality.
Premier Li confirmed China’s decision to extend a visa exemption to Irish passport holders wishing to travel to China for 15 days or less. This is very good news for tourists, business people and those visiting friends or relatives, who no longer need to apply for a visa to go to China provided they are only there for 15 days or less.
We discussed global issues, including the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. I was very clear that our relationship must be based on values and mutual interests. I expressed our strong commitment to a rules-based international order, based on the UN Charter and respect for fundamental rights.
As we do in all our engagements with the Chinese Government, I raised human rights with Premier Li, including our concerns around the human rights situation in Xinjiang and in Hong Kong, and in the other special autonomous regions. I also mentioned the specific case of Jimmy Lai. I welcomed the resumption of the EU-China human rights dialogue to discuss these and other issues, including Tibet and the situation regarding human rights defenders.
Overall, it was a very good and useful meeting, underlining the need for us to engage with China as a very important actor in the world if we are to deal effectively with the global challenges we all face.
The Chinese regime is a repressive and authoritarian regime. It is a country with very few democratic rights. I was struck by the decision to close all access for the public to the Phoenix Park to facilitate this meeting. It was not just to facilitate the meeting, because one could have had lots of people in the Phoenix Park and the meeting could have gone ahead, but to facilitate the meeting happening without expressions of protest about what is happening in China. Was that a request of the Chinese administration that this would happen? How did that occur?
What was the response of the Premier to the points raised by the Taoiseach on the repression within China? In particular I want to raise the situation of the Uyghur people. At the height of the repression of the Uyghur people, which is a denial of culture, a denial and discrimination against language and a definite denial of any question of self-determination, there were maybe up to 1 million Uyghur people in prison or in some form of detention without any trial. The repression seems to continue. A report just last year from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that since 2017 the Chinese Government had committed grave rights violations against millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic people in Xinjiang. The report found that these abuses were so systematic and widespread that they "may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity". Did the Taoiseach put points like that to the Premier and what was the response?
The People's Republic of China is a major economic global power. As such, it has considerable influence in geopolitical matters. It is, therefore, in a strong position to help resolve many of the world's problems. It is right that we enhance and develop good relations with that country. It is in our interest to do so. Meetings such as the Taoiseach's meeting with the Premier of the State Council are important. Although the EU has a sensible de-risk policy regarding China it is in everyone's interest for the EU to have good relations with China as well.
At a press conference issued at the time of the Premier's visit reference was made to a forthcoming meeting of the UN Human Rights Council universal periodic review. As we know, there are concerns about human rights issues in China. My question is whether the Taoiseach was in a position to raise these well-known human rights matters with the Premier. The Taoiseach has said that he did. As Deputy Paul Murphy also asked, I would be interested to know what was the Premier's response.
We are all very interested in the response Premier Li gave regarding China's well documented human rights issues. China is a huge geopolitical player. What questions did the Taoiseach put to the Chinese about their engagements on a worldwide basis, not only in regard to ongoing conflicts but also the Chinese engagement across parts of Europe and right across Africa, particularly as those engagements relate to scarce resources?
I had hoped to get in during the previous group of questions with a question on the tech sector. We have had an element of job losses, with more to come at PayPal. The Government needs to keep an eye on the packages employees get. There are some worries in that regard.
As we are talking about issues on a global scale, we all know what the situation is in Gaza and we all welcome the letter the Taoiseach wrote alongside Pedro Sánchez. Was it the case that they could not get more people to be a party or signatory to that letter? The Taoiseach brought up the issue of the EU-Israel trade association agreement and whether we have looked into the situation legally. Is there an absolute requirement for unanimity on any decision relating to the agreement? We are talking about the Israelis being absolutely in breach of humanitarian conditions. If there are conditions within the agreement, logic would say there has to be a means of enacting those requirements.
The Chinese regime is a brutal, totalitarian regime. It has engaged in across-the-board suppression of any dissent and wholesale persecution of certain groups. The Uyghurs were mentioned. In fact, it has been suggested that the Uyghurs are victims of a possible genocide and certainly victims of a really brutal suppression of an entire national and ethnic group. Did the Taoiseach raise that issue with the Chinese Premier?
I do not know much about the philosophy of Falun Gong adherents, and I doubt I would share much of that philosophy, but I know they are a persecuted group. People from that group who live in my area come into my office regularly and did so again recently to report what is happening. I wrote to the Tánaiste about it a while ago. Their relatives were grabbed and arrested because they are supporters of Falun Gong. That happens very regularly, with horrific accounts of the treatment of people who subscribe to that particular group. There is also the absolutely brutal suppression of democracy in Hong Kong. Anybody who articulates any dissent or opposition to the regime will suffer pretty brutal consequences. Did the Taoiseach raise those issues with the Chinese Premier?
The inconsistency of European Governments, including our own, on the principles of human rights is stark. We are very quick to jump up and down about the lack of respect for human rights of certain regimes but we say less about others, perhaps because we see it as in our economic interest to do so. China is one such regime, the United States is another and, for many years, Israel has been another. The list goes on and includes Saudi Arabia, etc. I would like to know what human rights issues the Taoiseach raised and what kind of response he got from the Chinese Premier.
Decisions on security matters, including road closures such as, for example, in the Phoenix Park, are not made by me. They are security matters, they are dealt with by the Garda and the Defence Forces and they must, of course, remain confidential.
At my meeting with the Chinese Premier, I raised our concerns about the treatment of the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. Premier Li disputed the veracity of those concerns and invited me to visit the region to see with my own eyes what the situation is there. I urged China to implement the recommendations of the recent UN report issued by Michelle Bachelet on the situation and to engage proactively with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
I also raised our concerns with regard to the human rights situation in the other special autonomous regions of Tibet and Hong Kong but we did not discuss any particular religious groups, including Falun Gong. I stressed our ongoing concerns about the national security law in Hong Kong and the clampdown there on media freedoms. We welcomed the resumption of the EU-China human rights dialogue to discuss issues including Tibet and the situation regarding human rights defenders. In June last year, the European Council set out its approach to China, shared by all EU states, which makes clear our desire to engage with the Chinese Government. The EU wants to see a balanced, reciprocal and mutually beneficial relationship with China, with a level playing field for our businesses. I am particularly pleased to see co-operation mechanisms between the EU and China advanced. It is important that China and the EU have strong and productive engagements on critical issues like climate, digital development and the sustainable development goals. It is equally important that we engage with China guided by values and interests. We welcome that the dialogue has continued.
I also reaffirmed Ireland's long-standing adherence to the One China policy and our recognition of the People's Republic of China as the legitimate Government of China. We emphasised our view that any change to the current status quo should only happen through peaceful and democratic means and that while we uphold the One China policy, we seek to maintain economic, cultural and interpersonal ties with Taiwan.
Deputy Ó Murchú referred to the tech sector. I join him in expressing my regret at the bad news about the jobs at PayPal that will be lost in his constituency. It is important that workers get a decent redundancy package. That is normally the case when a large successful company lays off staff. Certainly, the Government will be there to make sure they get any social welfare entitlements they may need, as well as advice around job search, alternative jobs and careers, and perhaps help with going back to education, gaining a new skill or setting up their own enterprise. I know people who lost jobs in the tech sector previously who went on to set up their own businesses and have done extremely well. I wish the workers the best in that regard.
The Deputy also raised the letter to President von der Leyen. We invited other countries to co-sign the letter. They declined for their own reasons and that has to remain confidential for reasons of diplomatic confidentiality. My understanding is that any decision to formally suspend the agreement would require a unanimous decision because foreign policy matters are subject to unanimity in the EU and do not fall under qualified majority voting. I would be up for that being changed. I would like to see the EU adopt common foreign policies by qualified majority voting. We would need to have a reasoned debate about that in this House and among the general public because while we would be on the winning side of most votes, we would not always be. We would have to bear in mind that this would leave us in a situation sometimes where we would be bound by foreign policy positions we do not support. That happens in other fields of EU competence but not as yet on foreign policy. We would need a proper debate about it if we were ever to go down that line.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:16. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach to report on his visit to the western Balkans. [2796/24]
Paul Murphy
Question:17. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach to report on his visit to the western Balkans. [2799/24]
Ruairí Ó Murchú
Question:18. Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú asked the Taoiseach to report on his visit to the western Balkans. [3958/24]
Seán Haughey
Question:19. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach to report on his visit to the western Balkans. [4171/24]
Marc Ó Cathasaigh
Question:20. Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his visit to the western Balkans. [6212/24]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 to 20, inclusive, together.
I visited the western Balkans from 10 to 12 January 2024. My visit to Kosovo was an opportunity, in particular, to thank the Irish members of the Defence Forces serving with the Kosovo Force, KFOR, and the Irish people serving with the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX, for the vital work they do in contributing to peace and security in that country. My visit to three western Balkans countries, namely, Kosovo, Montenegro and North Macedonia, was also an opportunity to reiterate Ireland's long-standing and strong wish to see the countries of the western Balkans join the European Union as soon as they are ready.
Ireland has long endorsed their journey towards membership, and we will continue to do so.
As I said in my meetings with leaders in all three countries, enlargement is, and must remain, merit-based. Undertaking the reforms and legal preparations necessary for membership is challenging, as it should be. However, the prize at the end of a difficult path is membership of the European Union which, as this country knows well, can be transformative in economic and social terms. I urged all leaders I met to continue to take the steps necessary. I also said that Ireland is their friend, and will continue to make the case that once a country is ready for membership, it should be allowed to join. There should be no requirement to wait until others are ready, or for internal reforms within the EU. We should not put up unnecessary or additional barriers.
In Pristina, I met the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Albin Kurti, and the President, Vjosa Osmani-Sadriu. Both briefed me on efforts to de-escalate tensions between Kosovars and ethnic Serbs in the northern part of the country. I urged them to continue to do all they could to advance this and to engage in the EU-facilitated Belgrade-Pristina dialogue aimed at normalising relations between Kosovo and Serbia.
There is great interest in Kosovo in how Ireland engages with our global diaspora. As a country that has experienced considerable emigration, Kosovo was interested to know how it can maintain and strengthen relations with Kosovars around the world. I offered to share any lessons from our national experience that might be useful.
In Podgorica, I met the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Milojko Spajić. and the President, Jakov Milatović. Montenegro is further advanced in preparations for EU membership than others, and both leaders were keen to ensure that it should be able to join once ready. We also discussed ways to deepen our bilateral relations, especially in the economic sphere.
My visit to Skopje, the capital of North Macedonia, was the first to that country by a serving Irish Taoiseach. I met Prime Minister Dimitar Kovačevski and President Stevo Pendarovski. North Macedonia has faced challenges in its efforts to advance its case for EU membership, including agreeing to change the name of the country and agreeing to amend its constitution to reflect the presence of a Bulgarian minority in the country. They are, therefore, naturally keen to ensure that no new or further obstacles, other than those required of all applicants, are placed in their path.
The countries the Taoiseach visited are very much on the front line of what I will call the escalating new Cold War tensions between the expanded NATO and Putin and his bloc, as it were. It is worth noting that the Balkans is the crossroads of competing empires. Because of that, it was the place where the First World War began, and historically it has been so. These empires are banging up against each other with competing priorities, objectives and interests, and it has resulted in some pretty horrific conflicts. It is worth bearing in mind that historical context when we look at what is a very worrying situation. We all know Putin's invasion of Ukraine was an absolute disgrace. It was illegal, criminal, brutal and imperialist-driven. Equally, the expansion of NATO has not exactly helped matters, particularly when after the fall of the Soviet Union it was strongly urged by people like Gorbachev that it would not be a good idea, and that it would lead to conflict. Indeed, it has certainly contributed to it
At his meetings, did the Taoiseach discuss NATO, the new Cold War and the dangerous tensions that are emerging? It is in the context of a new tailored arrangement between Ireland and NATO that has just been announced, which means we are going to be in a new formal co-operation arrangement with NATO. Is that not a really egregious breach of our neutrality? It is an arrangement with an alliance that is now even more discredited because its leading members, the United States Britain and Germany, are all up their necks in complicity with the Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people. They have really showed their moral bankruptcy and their true colours. If Putin is a nasty imperialist, is it not the case that equally, the dominant powers in NATO have shown themselves to be morally bankrupt, driven by self-interest and willing to support and tolerate some of the most horrific crimes? It should be all the more reason for us to keep a million miles away from NATO.
It has been reported that on the Taoiseach's visit to the western Balkans, the issue of regional security was discussed. I wonder whether the issue with NATO came up, and whether the issue of Ireland's new individual tailored partnership programme, a new agreement with NATO, came up. Does the Taoiseach think it is appropriate that the Irish Government is able to sign Ireland up when it is a country that remains, formally speaking, neutral? The Taoiseach is forced to say Ireland is neutral and there is no intention to get rid of Ireland's neutrality. Is it appropriate that a government is able to sign Ireland up to a new agreement which involves more co-operation with NATO and where the list of areas of co-operation is confidential? The public does not see it and we do not see it. The Government can do all of that without bringing it here to a vote of the Dáil. Is it appropriate that the Government can continue on its campaign of chipping away at what is left of neutrality and getting Ireland closer and closer to NATO?
In that context, what is the plan in terms of legislation to get rid of the triple lock? When does the Government plan to bring it forward? I think it should be brought forward as a proposal for a referendum because I think the people should decide. It would, in reality, be the end of what is left of neutrality because it means that any future Irish Government could send troops abroad on imperialist US-led adventures in the Middle East or anywhere else. I think the public should decide. What is the plan and when is the Government going to come forward with that legislation?
We are talking about the western Balkans and accession to the European Union. I have no doubt that when the Taoiseach spoke with the leaders of North Macedonia and Montenegro in particular, he got that element of annoyance - probably more than annoyance - that they have because the whole conversation on accession has not been real for the last while. We all accept that some of that was down to the European Union. The likes of France or whatever came to the conclusion that there were huge rule of law issues. We all know the issue in relation to Hungary. It was decided that those issues needed to be settled, as they do, before wider accession would be looked at. I think that is where the conversation really was.
In fairness, the Ukrainian crisis has changed all that. When we look right across that particular area, we can see there is game play by Russia. The fact is that we have to offer people an alternative from a geopolitical point of view. That is the positive side of the European Union. We have seen a lot of the negative lately. I would like to know what conversations the Taoiseach had with leaders on the necessary moves they have to make in dealing with the rule of law issues. Did he have conversations in relation how we can facilitate them in delivering on the Copenhagen criteria?
I agree with a lot of the commentary. If we are talking about rule of law issues, the Western world has let itself down incredibly badly in relation to Gaza. As much as the language of the US has improved, we know that as we face possible further devastation in Rafah, proper pressure needs to be put on Israel. The only way to do that is for the powers that be to use their voice and, beyond that, for the powers that really be, that provide Israel with weapons, to stop doing so.
The Taoiseach's recent to the western Balkans, and specifically Kosovo, Montenegro and North Macedonia, was welcome. He also visited the Irish peacekeeping troops posted in Kosovo. Ireland has a proud tradition of UN peacekeeping. No doubt, the Taoiseach conveyed the deep appreciation of all of us to the Defence Forces personnel station stationed there for the important duties that they are undertaking.
As the Taoiseach knows, a number of countries in the western Balkans have aspirations to join the EU. The declaration issued last December, following the EU-western Balkans summit, acknowledged these aspirations and outlined the future steps to be taken in this regard. Ireland favours enlargement in principle.
We see it as beneficial to the individual countries and to the EU as a whole. It is clear that some of these countries are doing better than others with regard to meeting the necessary criteria, which are the so-called Copenhagen criteria. What is the view at European Council level concerning the western Balkans and enlargement? Does the Taoiseach think progress on this matter has stalled? We are told there is a rise of the far right across Europe and perhaps a pushback on enlargement. Does the Taoiseach think we should wait to admit all the countries collectively or should they be admitted on a case-by-case basis? I think the Taoiseach said in his response that they can be admitted on a case-by-case basis. Would he think that is the view across the EU at European Council level?
I thank Deputies for their remarks. I do not think Deputy Boyd Barrett meant to say it but, just in case I misheard him, I do not think we should in any way equate the expansion of NATO to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That is part of the Russian narrative and a Russian speaking point, to blame NATO expansion or use it as an excuse for what it has done in Ukraine. I would hope that none of us agree with that speaking point or viewpoint or accept that it is-----
I am saying it is not a good thing.
That is a different thing. I am glad that is clear because it is a Russian speaking point. Aside from the historical lectures that one gets from Russia, one of its speaking points is that the expansion of NATO forced them to invade Ukraine-----
It did not force them.
-----in order to prevent it from joining NATO, which would be its choice, not Russia's, in my view. Whether we agree with NATO expansion or not, I think it is up to individual countries and their democratically elected governments to decide whether they want to join. It should not be decided in Russia or other places.
We of course discussed NATO in our conversations. All three are members. We are not. Most of the countries that I meet in Europe are interested to know why we are not members and how we would defend ourselves in the event of a serious attack. It is fair to say that Montenegro and Macedonia feel more secure, although they are really concerned about Russian interference in their countries and democracies. Kosovo is a little bit less secure because the situation with Serbia is much more tense.
The individually tailored partnership programme, ITPP, was not specifically discussed in any of my meetings. I would have said to them that we are part of the Partnership for Peace, PfP, and have been since 1999. PfP has a separate identity and is based on individual bilateral relationships between NATO and each of the PfP countries. We have no plans to join NATO. However, access to NATO training and standards through participation in PfP has been of benefit to the Defence Forces, particularly when on service with the UN and EU, where they can be interoperable. It is a tailored framework for co-operation and is completely voluntary in nature. I should say that the White Paper on Defence states that Ireland will continue to participate in NATO's PfP with a view to ensuring the Defence Forces have the necessary interoperable capabilities to participate in modern and demanding peacekeeping operations alongside other EU military forces.
I do not agree that an end to the triple lock would be an end to our neutrality. Our neutrality goes back to the 1940s. The triple lock has only been around for maybe 20 or 30 years. It was done in response to some conspiracy theories about a European referendum. I do not believe the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should have a veto at all and I do not believe that any one of them should be able to veto decisions by a sovereign Irish Government to take part in a peacekeeping operation. That is why I would like to see it removed. We do not have any date for that to be done. I do not know if it will be done in the period of this Dáil.
Deputies Ó Murchú and Haughey both asked about accession and enlargement. It is ten years since any country joined the European Union. The last one was Croatia. It is now in the eurozone. I do not think that anyone regrets the fact that Croatia is a member. I would like to see countries join as soon as they are ready. I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. Not everyone on the European Council agrees that. They would like to see it as a bigger package or an enlargement of the many, linked to institutional reforms. I and the Government have a different view. Let us not forget that we were part of the first enlargement. We joined with Britain and Denmark. I would not like us to be told that we had to wait for somebody else. That would not have been fair. It is important that the one or two countries that are most ready should be allowed to join soon because if that does not happen, people will lose faith in those countries that they will ever be allowed in, then people in the countries that are further back and less ready, rather than turning to pro-European forces, pro-European parties and democratic parties, might turn to the extremes. That is a real fear that I have. It is noteworthy that Montenegro and Kosovo have already adopted the euro even though they are not in the European Union.
Is féidir teacht ar Cheisteanna Scríofa ar
www.oireachtas.ie
.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Cuireadh an Dáil ar fionraí ar 1.55 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 2.55 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 1.55 p.m. and resumed at 2.55 p.m.