Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 2024

I attended a meeting of the European Council on 27 June in Brussels which dealt with an extensive agenda. Leaders agreed a package on appointments to key EU institutions following the European Parliament elections and adopted the EU’s strategic agenda for the next five-year institutional cycle. We also took stock of EU enlargement, and agreed a roadmap for internal reforms to ready the Union for the challenges that lie ahead, including a European Union with more member states.

Leaders also discussed Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East, the EU’s security and defence, our competitiveness and a range of other issues, including Moldova, Georgia, the Black Sea region, migration and hybrid threats. In her contribution to today’s debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, will provide further detail on these discussions on migration, the EU’s internal reform agenda, Georgia, Moldova, the EU’s strategy for the Black Sea region and the Union’s response to hybrid threats. I will deal with some of the other issues.

Following intensive consultations between our initial discussions at the informal meeting of the European Council on 17 June and the meeting on 27 June, leaders agreed to nominate Ursula von der Leyen for a second term as President of the European Commission; to appoint former Portuguese Prime Minister, António Costa, as President of the European Council; and to nominate Estonian Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, to the position of High Representative and Vice President of the Commission for Foreign Affairs. The European Parliament will now play its role in the process, voting on the President of the Commission and deciding on its own President. I hope it will reach a positive outcome on both posts at its first plenary meeting next week. If she is endorsed by the Parliament, President von der Leyen will begin the task of assembling a new Commission, based on nominations submitted by member states. As the House is aware, the Government is nominating Deputy Michael McGrath, who will bring great skill and experience to the task. Following detailed hearings, likely in the autumn, the Parliament will vote to approve the Commission as a whole later this year.

The work of the European Council and the incoming Commission will be guided by the EU’s new strategic agenda, which was agreed by the European Council at its June meeting. The agenda covers the next five years and sets out our political direction and overarching priorities for the period ahead. It will inform the work that Ireland will carry out in its Presidency in the second half of 2026. The agenda is organised around three key themes, namely, a free and democratic Europe, a strong and secure Europe, and a prosperous and competitive Europe. The first section deals with protecting and promoting our fundamental values: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. As these values are increasingly contested around the world, it is important that we reiterate that they are, and will remain, the cornerstone of our European Union.

At Ireland's request, this commitment to values includes our steadfast support for the United Nations and, in particular, for the achievement of the sustainable development goals.

At a time when war has returned to the Continent of Europe, and when geopolitical tensions have increased, the commitment to a strong and secure Europe is especially relevant and welcome. We have seen how Russia's full-scale and illegal invasion of Ukraine has touched on so many aspects of life in Europe - from energy prices, to cybersecurity, to the need to offer shelter to those fleeing the war. It is important that we pay increased attention to the security and well-being of our people, as we are doing ourselves here in Ireland. We will continue to do so in a way that fully respects our policy of military neutrality.

Part of ensuring democracy and security in our neighbourhood is maintaining momentum and focus on the process of enlargement. I very much welcome the recent formal opening of negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova and I hope that it will be possible to achieve further progress towards membership with the countries of the western Balkans in the years ahead.

We are also committed to undertaking a process of internal reform - looking at our policies, our budgets and our institutional arrangements at an EU level - to make sure that they are fit for the challenges that lie ahead, including the need to maintain our effectiveness with a larger membership.

I also welcome the strategic agenda's recognition that the Single Market represents our greatest economic asset and that it is key to our continued shared prosperity. Completing and deepening it, as well as improving our internal and external competitiveness, will be vital tasks for the period ahead. Central to that effort will be making a success of the green and digital transitions and our journey to climate neutrality by 2050. I am pleased that the strategic agenda recognises the need for there to be a just and fair climate transition. We want the EU to be a green, data-driven, innovative and business-friendly powerhouse and we will continue to work with partners towards that goal. We will also work to ensure that all of our people can share the opportunities and feel the benefits of this new economic model.

Support for Ukraine continues to be a top priority for the EU. President Zelenskyy attended the first part of our meeting in person to brief us on recent developments. We expressed our deep concern about the recent escalation in hostilities and intensified attacks on civilians by Russia. I was horrified by Russia's attack this week on Kyiv, including on the children's hospital - Ukraine's largest children's medical facility. A country and leadership that can launch such attacks on civilian targets, causing such appalling suffering, has no regard for international law and clearly has no interest in peace. It is repugnant. It is a war crime. Russia must and will be held accountable. We must be clear: Putin has no interest in any credible diplomatic negotiations and his ambitions do not stop in Ukraine.

The European Council took stock of the various ways the EU is supporting Ukraine, welcoming in particular the signature of the EU's security guarantees for Ukraine, as well the first disbursement this summer of extraordinary revenue from Russia's frozen assets to benefit the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. Russia must be held accountable for the appalling damage it is causing. I fully support ongoing efforts to find further ways to use immobilised Russian assets to support Ukraine in co-ordination with international partners, including the G7.

I also welcome the EU's adoption on 24 June of a 14th package of sanctions against Russia, which further strengthens efforts to combat circumvention. We will continue to support measures to maintain pressure and to limit Russia's access to sensitive items and to battlefield goods. The European Council also discussed long-term military support for Ukraine, and reiterated the urgent need for air defence systems to protect Ukraine's population and critical energy infrastructure. Ireland fully supports the continued provision of EU military support to Ukraine under the European Peace Facility, EPF. In line with the commitments in the programme for Government, our funding of approximately €250 million to date under the EPF is directed exclusively towards non-lethal military assistance. I regret that agreement was not reached at the European Council on implementing the €5 billion Ukraine assistance fund that was agreed earlier this year. We called on the Council to agree urgently the release of the first tranche of this funding.

The situation in the Middle East again featured on the European Council's agenda. We welcomed the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 2735, which outlines a comprehensive three-phase ceasefire plan to end the conflict in Gaza. We also reiterated our call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages, and a significant and sustained increase in humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza. In February, Ireland and Spain sought a review of the EU-Israel association agreement to ensure compliance with the human rights obligations it contains. The Tánaiste and I have consistently raised this matter at successive meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council in his case, and the European Council in my case. Following the joint Spanish-Irish action, the High Representative Vice President is working to convene an ad hoc association Council meeting at which we have been clear that there cannot be business as usual.

Importantly, the European Council also stressed the obligation to implement the orders of the International Court of Justice, ICJ, including that of 24 May. These orders are legally binding. I welcome that the European Council was unambiguous in outlining the grave consequences of the ongoing ground operations in Rafah on the civilian population. Israel must immediately cease this operation and open the Rafah border crossing. The ICJ's orders are clear and the European Council unambiguously supports them.

In calling for safe, unhindered access to scaled-up humanitarian aid, leaders made clear that the services of the UN Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, are essential. We condemned any attempts to label a UN agency as a terrorist organisation and welcomed the agency's action plan.

We should also remember the situation in the rest of Palestine, in the West Bank and in east Jerusalem. The increase in settler violence and the construction of new settlements is deeply alarming. The European Council condemned the Israeli Government's decision to further expand illegal settlements and urged Israel to reverse the decision. EU leaders have invited the Council to take work forward on further restrictive measures against extremist settlers. There is now agreement on these sanctions at political level and I urge their swift implementation.

We need an urgent and comprehensive political track to finally end this brutal conflict. I welcome that the European Council has noted that a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood is a crucial component of that process. The European Council also clearly stated that any efforts to undermine the Palestinian Authority must end, and Israel must release any withheld clearance revenue. Israel must also take the necessary measures to ensure that correspondent banking services between Israeli and Palestinian banks remain in place. The EU will support the Palestinian Authority as it undertakes the necessary reforms and builds institutional capacities. It is essential that EU financial support is provided quickly. The European Council also discussed rising tensions between Israel and Hezbollah and its risk to wider regional security. We were united on the importance of de-escalating conflict along the Blue Line and the need for immediate engagement in diplomatic efforts by all parties.

I look forward to continuing discussions on many of these important issues with my fellow EU leaders and also with our wider European family, which will meet at the European Political Community in the UK on 18 July. This meeting will be among the first international engagements of the new British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, and will, I hope, open a new and more constructive era in relations between the UK and its European neighbours. When I spoke to the new British Prime Minister on Friday, in addition to congratulating him on his remarkable electoral achievement and saying that I look forward to working with him to deepen and strengthen our bilateral relations and to bring about a reset in Anglo-Irish relations, I expressed my strong commitment to a positive and deep relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. I look forward to continuing these discussions with the British Prime Minister in London on 17 July.

At the outset, I congratulate the New Popular Front, which was victorious in securing plurality in the recent French elections. In doing so, it did a great service for all of Europe in ensuring that Marine Le Pen and her cohort did not seize power.

The recent Russian escalation in Ukraine, and particularly the brutal strike on a children's hospital in Kyiv, remind us all of the cost of war and who, ultimately, pays that cost. Recent events in Ukraine reinforce the imperative upon us to continually examine how best and most effectively we in Ireland can continue to support efforts to support the Ukrainian people, especially through the provision of humanitarian aid. We must also continue to focus our energy and resources on these humanitarian efforts and on supporting initiatives to deliver peace. Russia remains in gross violation of international law and Vladimir Putin's regime must be held accountable for its ongoing breaches of the UN Charter.

Ireland, as a neutral state with an independent foreign policy, must be consistent in defending international law. Currently, the EU is not being consistent and neither is this Government. When Ursula von der Leyen stood alongside Benjamin Netanyahu and stated that Europe stands with Israel, at a time when Israel had publicly declared its intention to starve the people of Gaza of food, water and energy, she exposed a duplicity and double standard that undermined the European Union. The decision of this Government in supporting the reappointment of Ms von der Leyen to a second term as Commission President has, in turn, undermined our position as a defender of peace, human rights and international law. It was a shameful position. It was also a missed opportunity on the Government's part to force a rethink of the EU's failure to consistently stand against aggression. Ursula von der Leyen has yet to withdraw her unconditional support of Israel. A reasonable question to ask is just how many innocent Palestinians Israel must murder before she decides to do so. Palestinians continue to be slaughtered as the world watches.

The EU continues to sit on its hands and this is the approach the Government endorsed when it endorsed this Commission President. It appears, unfortunately, that the media do not seem to be watching what is happening in Gaza as closely as they were. The one solace is that people around the globe remain horrified by what they are seeing. The demand to end the genocide and begin a new dawn that includes a free Palestine is rising, if anything.

Sinn Féin's vision is one of Ireland playing a constructive role in the wider world, committed to diplomacy, humanitarianism, peace building and co-operation with other states on global challenges, including poverty, world hunger, climate change, conflict resolution and migration. Recognising neutrality as the cornerstone of Ireland's independent foreign policy, we are utterly opposed to the removal of the need for unanimity on matters of foreign, security and defence policy. This is because we value the legacy we have inherited as a result of Ireland's independent foreign policy. The legacy of Irish neutrality is our role in working on nuclear non-proliferation, our humanitarianism, our contribution to the drafting of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, peacekeeping and the proud record of our UN peacekeepers in Lebanon, Syria, Congo, Chad, South Sudan and elsewhere. This has been our contribution to making the world a better place.

Being proud of our neutrality means being proud of those who have served on UN peacekeeping missions. It means prioritising UN missions. Unfortunately, this is not the vision of the Government. As I mentioned, last week at the European Council the Taoiseach endorsed Ursula von der Leyen for a second term as President of the European Commission. As well as her disgraceful position in endorsing an impending genocide in Palestine, Ms von der Leyen has also been clear that she intends to lead a Commission which could have a significant impact on Irish foreign, security and defence policy. Last week one media outlet included the term "more military might" as a summation of Ms Von der Leyen's second-term pitch. The implementation of her call to introduce qualified majority voting on foreign policy would mark the death knell of Ireland's independent foreign policy as well as our neutrality.

While many of us have long feared the EU's drift towards ever-increasing militarisation and its implications for Irish neutrality, what is now clear is that the greatest threat to our neutrality comes not from Europe but from a Fianna Fáil Minister for Foreign Affairs, the same person who told us at the time of the Nice treaty and Lisbon treaty referendums that we had nothing to fear with regard to neutrality because the Government had secured legally binding guarantees. Let us remind ourselves what those legally binding guarantees were because they amounted to the triple-lock neutrality protection being codified in the protocol of the Lisbon treaty. Now the Tánaiste wants to remove this protection.

Having established a very elaborate four-day gathering of the great and the good among the advocates for militarisation, the Tánaiste might have been humbled by the recognition in the chairperson's report from the defence and security forum that, in fact, there is no public appetite for the further undermining of Irish neutrality, but not so. Remember that in 2009 the Tánaiste was the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Government that made the national declaration that Ireland will participate only in those projects or programmes that contribute to enhancing the capabilities required for participation in UN-mandated missions for peacekeeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations charter. That was the position endorsed by the Irish people when they voted for a second time on the Lisbon treaty. The Tánaiste has no mandate to remove this protection now.

We know, unfortunately, that the Tánaiste's manifesto pledges are worthless. He has stated he wants to remove the triple-lock neutrality protection but he refuses to state to which conflict from which they are currently precluded he intends to send Irish troops. He has not outlined the potential implications of the Irish Defence Forces being sent to conflict regions without a UN mandate or what it would mean for our reputation or our ability to play a positive and constructive role in advancing peace and conflict resolution. He has not explained at all how he can advocate enlisting into missions without a UN mandate while simultaneously withdrawing the Irish Defence Forces from assignments that do have this mandate, such as the UNDOF Golan Heights mission.

All of this is the backdrop that has led to so much cynicism regarding the Government enjoining an ever-increasing number of PESCO and EDA missions with virtually no Oireachtas oversight. This is why Sinn Féin opposes these proposals. We have a different vision. We will oppose the Tánaiste's trajectory. The dishonest approach he has deployed, which intends to kill Irish neutrality bit by bit, has gone on too long. On the other hand, we want Ireland to lead in a different way. We want to rebuild our Defence Forces so we can protect our neutrality, defend and monitor our skies and seas, and protect ourselves from modern threats, including cyberattacks and hybrid attacks. We want to give our Defence Forces the respect they deserve so they, along with our diplomatic corps, can continue to be missionaries of a small nation that makes a big difference for the better of those all over the world. We want Ireland to be a voice against oppression, poverty and war. We want Ireland to be an international champion for peace, disarmament and multilateralism. I fear we have taken a step back through our endorsement of Ursula von der Leyen for a second term.

I believe I have eight minutes although five minutes have appeared on the clock. It is going down by the second. Five minutes is not enough time to discuss a long agenda so I will touch on a few key issues. One of the most significant decisions of the Council was the appointment of the leaders of the European institutions for the next term. I share the views expressed on Ursula von der Leyen. Our newly elected MEP will not vote for her as President of the Commission. In her reply will the Minister of State indicate whether our concern about Ursula von der Leyen's declaration at the outset of the Gaza war was expressed to her? Does she understand the depth of feeling? Was it simply a matter of being something we must do because it will give us the greatest edge in negotiations? I am interested to hear this. I welcome the appointment of António Costa, a man I have met a few times. He is the former socialist Prime Minister of Portugal. I see his name is down as Antonia in the script circulated but he is a man. He will be a very balanced chair of the Council.

I am interested to hear the perspective of the Minister of State on the appointment of the Estonian Prime Minister, Kaja Kallas, as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. My only concern is that, in any discussion we have had at the European affairs committee and in bilateral discussions, the international affairs focus of the Baltics is entirely focused on eastern Europe and the threat posed by Putin. This is perfectly understandable but it is very important that the High Representative would have a broader view, particularly on the neighbourhood, what is happening in the Middle East, what is happening in Africa and the impact of climate change and migration. I hope these matters will be teased out with the newly appointed High Representative.

We have seen the shocking ongoing carnage and the savagery of an attack on the largest children's hospital in Ukraine. Seeing innocent children, who are battling for their own survival with cancer and other ailments, having to be carted out having had their hospital bombed is beyond shocking. I hope the process to support Ukraine will continue. There is a legal dispute with regard to the utilisation of those funds that are euphemistically "immobilised" at present. Decisions have been made on the disposal of the interest on these funds at least. I am interested to hear whether there has been any progress on using the funds themselves. Is it only the interest that can be deployed? One proposal is to use the capital asset to draw down a further loan for Ukraine, to be paid off on the interest of the immobilised assets. This would be very welcome.

I want to mention briefly the absolutely shocking deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia and Belarus. It is scandalous. It has echoes of the darkest hours of European history in the Second World War. I do not know what we can do to keep focus on it. Every day, week and month these children are deprived of their heritage they become more alienated from their homeland.

That is a shocking situation which has to be addressed.

In the minute I have left, I will deal with the Middle East and Gaza. The horrors in Gaza continue. The attack last night by the Israel Defense Forces on tented refugees in Khan Younis is beyond shocking. It is a daily litany. We are inured to it now, but we cannot be. I hope we will continue to put on whatever pressure we can. The language being used in the statement on the EU-Israel association agreement, that it was "raised" by Spain and Ireland and that the outgoing high representative is "working to convene an ad hoc association council meeting" is nebulous. We need to be clear that there is a consequence for Israel of its outrageous abuse of human rights and its now genocidal war on the Palestinian people.

I hope we will have a better forum to discuss European Council meetings than giving each of us five minutes to talk about them. It is not what was envisaged after the Lisbon treaty. We wanted proper debate before and after Council meetings to have democratic accountability. We still do not have it in this House.

The elections to the European Parliament have now concluded. Far-right and nationalist parties gained ground in those elections. Migration, the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, climate change and security and defence were all issues in the election campaign. In Germany, Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany, made big gains, as did Rassemblement National, National Rally, in France and Fratelli d'Italia, Brothers for Italy, in Italy. Despite these gains, it seems the outgoing centrist coalition has held and that it will be able to dominate the new parliament. As regards the key positions or so-called top jobs, Ursula von der Leyen from Germany, representing the European People's Party, EPP, grouping will be returned as European Commission President, subject to the agreement of the European Parliament. Kaja Kallas from Estonia, representing the liberal grouping, will be the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, again subject to the endorsement of the European Parliament. Antonio Costa from Portugal, representing the socialist grouping has been appointed President of the European Council. These appointments demonstrate how the various groupings and geographical considerations were taken into account to achieve consensus. Everyone must now get on with the work, given the many challenges facing the EU at this time.

We have heard much in the past few days about the reset of relations following the UK general election. Clearly, the election of Keir Starmer as UK Prime Minister presents a golden opportunity to reset relations between Ireland and Britain and between the EU and the UK. It will also have positive implications for the future of Northern Ireland. This follows the chaos after the Brexit vote in 2016, which was overseen by successive Conservative Governments. The new Prime Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary, Hilary Benn, have a comprehensive understanding of Irish issues. Both have visited Leinster House where they met many of us. The contacts made already between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister and between the Tánaiste and his counterparts give great grounds for optimism. The meeting between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister next week, on 17 July, will be significant. We really need to do more to facilitate meetings between Irish Ministers and British Ministers and their officials to be more proactive in resolving problems which arise between our two countries. I think in particular of the migration issue. That issue could have been seen to be coming in advance. Perhaps officials on the margins of European Council meetings in the past would have been able to resolve such a problem.

The British and Irish Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, which it is fair to say has not reached its full potential in recent years due to a lack of commitment on the British side. I hope the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will now be fully utilised, which would benefit all the people on these islands. We need to see the Windsor Framework fully implemented and more co-operation on trade and migration policy. The legacy Act has to be repealed, with a return to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement. In these circumstances, there would be no need to proceed with the inter-state case against the UK under the European Convention on Human Rights. As a young lawyer, new British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had a deep commitment to upholding human rights. I am sure that will manifest during his premiership. Funding for the Northern Ireland administration and specifically for the redevelopment of Casement Park are also matters of interest to the Irish Government.

The UK Labour Party Government is also committed to improving relations with the EU. This is in everyone's interest. If the objective of the British Government is to achieve increased economic growth, increased trade co-operation is an absolute necessity for it. The negotiation of a new veterinary and food agreement with the EU would a be a good starting point for improving these relations.

The relentless air strikes by Russia on Ukrainian cities continue unabated. The bombing of a children's hospital in Kyiv this week was horrendous and represents a new low in the war. The removal by Russia of more than 20,000 Ukrainian children from their families is also horrendous. These children must be returned home forthwith. The European Council rightly agreed to continue to provide aid and support to Ukraine and to open EU accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova. Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán continues to try to disrupt proceedings. He has tried to block the use of the windfall profits of immobilised Russian sovereign assets to provide military aid to Ukraine, but I hope he will not succeed. It is unfortunate that Viktor Orbán is Prime Minister as Hungary assumes the Presidency of the EU. He has promised to make Europe great again. Where have we heard a phrase like that before? Since taking over the Presidency on 1 July, he has already met Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin and President Xi of China. It needs to be stated clearly that he did not represent the EU at those meetings. Hungary's rule-of-law issues are well documented, as is Viktor Orbán's continued use of the veto to gain concessions. Orbán has also prioritised traded trade links with China and energy links with Russia so we are in for an interesting six months ahead, to say the least.

On the Israel-Hamas war and the terrible events that continue to take place in Gaza, I welcome the discussions which took place this week between the Tánaiste and his counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt and their continued commitment to achieving a ceasefire as soon as possible. I also welcome the discussions on efforts to restore a political pathway towards a lasting peace based on a two-state solution. This could be based on the Arab peace vision. Ireland continues to raise this issue and press for an immediate ceasefire and for a longer term solution to the conflict.

The European Council discussed the competitive agenda, the need to accelerate progress on capital markets union and the future of the Single Market, all of which are very important for the future economic success of the European Union. The strategic agenda is also important. We have had a good discussion and I look forward to the remainder of it.

Israel's horrific campaign of slaughter and destruction in the Gaza Strip shows no sign of easing. Yesterday, a school in Khan Yunis was bombed; five children were killed and many others. I visited that school when I was in the Gaza Strip. Last night, Al Jazeera released footage of the horrific attack. Kids and young men were out playing football and, all of a sudden, Israeli missiles rained down on them.

Last month, EU leaders signed into action the 14th package of sanctions against Russia. Despite all the documented murder and war crimes committed by apartheid Israel throughout Palestine, however, there has not been a single sanction. EU money continues to flow into Israel via trade agreements. How much death and destruction will it take for the EU to finally impose sanctions on Israel?

It is shameful the Irish Government is rallying behind Ursula von der Leyen for re-election as President of the European Commission. It would be equally shameful to see recently elected MEPs turn their backs on their commitment during the election to not support her. As President, von der Leyen has stood by the actions of apartheid Israel through thick and thin. It is utter hypocrisy for the Government to speak of standing by Palestine while supporting her re-election as President.

It is welcome in recent days that the election in Britain has brought a new Prime Minister. Hopefully we will see better relations between the European Union and Britain in the post-Brexit era. Brexit has had such an impact on this island, particularly the North. I represent a Border constituency, and we see the full impact Brexit and the divisive Tory Government have had. We look forward to that changing. The noise around a new relationship is welcome. I hope Ireland can play a part in brokering a new deal between Britain and Europe and putting us in a better position than we have been in up to now.

The North of Ireland was taken out of the European Union against its will. The vast majority of the people in the North wanted to remain part of the European Union. That needs to be recognised in any negotiations which take place.

The European project also has a major issue, as my colleague mentioned, when it comes to the devastating war being waged against the people of Gaza and the death of thousands of children and innocent people across the region. The European Union looks on it as something outside its remit. The European Union has contracts with Israel and a continued relationship with Israel, which is supporting the Israeli apartheid regime's bombing and destruction of Gaza and its people.

There is a stark contrast between that and what is happening in Ukraine. We saw terrible destruction in recent days when Putin's military bombed and killed innocent people in Ukraine, to which the European Union reacted in an entirely different manner. There has to be recognition that Europe has a role to play in bringing peace to everywhere there is conflict in the world and that it should not pick and choose conflicts or be on one side in one conflict and on the opposite side in another.

The Taoiseach and various Deputies stated that the Government continues to raise with European counterparts the horrendous situation in Gaza. There was a time at the start of the conflict when Ireland stood out because of our rhetoric and because the rhetoric of others was so poor. As the horrendous annihilation of the people of Gaza progresses, however, words without action become increasingly less meaningful.

UNWRA states that it has become excruciating to deliver supplies to Gaza and that deteriorating conditions will impact efforts to counter the high famine risk. The Lancet indicated earlier this week that 186,000 people have been killed since the beginning of the conflict or will likely die as a consequence of the annihilation by the Israeli state of the people of Gaza. Still, we continue to offer words. I appreciate the difficulty of the international context whereby so many are willing to bend down rather than stand up when it is difficult to do so, but saying that we are continuing to raise matters has little meaning.

Ursula von der Leyen has been mentioned several times in the past month and there have been efforts by senior Ministers, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach to convince Irish MEPs elected on a platform of not voting for her to come in under the cloak and vote for her anyway, despite promises made to the Irish people.

Often lost in the debate and not mentioned yet today is the fact that in May a case was taken to the International Criminal Court against Ursula von der Leyen for failure to prevent genocide. A legal brief was submitted to the prosecutor requesting the opening of an investigation against her for complicity in war crimes and genocide against the Palestinians. The evidence of the case is telling. The Taoiseach last week stated that it was not just Fine Gael politicians but all European leaders rallying around Ursula von der Leyen. He challenged us to offer arguments as to why they should not do so. There is any number of international organisations taking a case against her to the ICC precisely because then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, also head of Fine Gael at the time, and the Spanish Prime Minister both wrote to Ursula von der Leyen in May highlighting the conditions inflicted upon the people of Gaza by the State of Israel and questioning whether that was an infringement of the EU-Israel trade agreement.

According to international humanitarian law and the 1948 Genocide Convention, when you become aware of the potential for genocide, you are obligated to prevent it. I cannot for the life of me understand members of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. They have full knowledge the Taoiseach wrote to President von der Leyen about violations of trade agreements and the response received was nothing. What an insult to the Irish State that we could write to the President of the European Commission asking about violations of a trade agreement and receive no response. Then we say we will vote for her and encourage our members to vote for her anyway. I have more respect for our Republic than that. More than that, I have more respect for the people of Gaza who are being obliterated while the EU remains complicit in their destruction through provision of weapons and of cover through its inability to act on basic morality.

I find it difficult that each time we make post- or pre-EU Council statements we have to focus on this genocide. Why would we not? The EU was ostensibly built on a peace movement but we turn away and avert our gaze when we see genocide happening and still say we will vote for Ursula von der Leyen for President because it would be good for Ireland. That same President did not have the grace to respond to the Taoiseach when he laid those claims at her door, bringing us to the point where the International Criminal Court is investigating complicity in war crimes and using that as evidence. We are supposed to unsee that fact. It is an insult to our Republic. I hold us to a higher standard than that.

What happened the children's hospital in Ukraine recently is grotesque. We should seek to give solidarity to the people of Ukraine who came here for protection. We should not cut their entitlements and force them out onto the street as we are doing.

I thank the Minister of State for being here for this debate. I will not be using my full speaking time, but there are a few key points I would like to make. Strategic negotiations are getting under way, and I congratulate my colleague Deputy Michael McGrath, who is the Irish nominee for European Commissioner. A certain amount of negotiation will get under way on what role he will fill with the Commission. There is also a campaign to have Ursula von der Leyen re-elected as President of the Commission.

The strategic agenda which carries the European Union across the next five years is also very much up for discussion among senior politicians. In that context, it is really important to remember that we have many debates on the domestic front, in both the Dáil and Seanad, on farming, food production, food security and that needs to be front and centre of the Irish agenda over the next five years. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the population of this country is increasing, as is the world population. There are parts of this planet that never had food shortages before but that are currently experiencing them, and famine is coming quickly. Parts of the Mediterranean region are facing desertification the likes of which they have never seen before. It is becoming increasingly obvious that areas that were once arable and prime for food production are now becoming less so. In Ireland, we have our own challenges with global warming but it is manifesting itself here in a different way. We are getting more floods, freak weather events, fluctuating temperatures and so on, but Ireland is still a good place to grow things. It is a very green and arable country and the Irish position should be that we are not seeking to reduce the national herd or decrease food production but to increase such production and to play a major role across the European bloc. Things are moving very rapidly here. The last census was taken in 2020, and we have already seen a major increase in population in the intervening four years. It is going upwards. There is an expectation that there will be population of 10 million here very soon. As a country that trades within the European bloc and beyond, we need to be talking about food security, food poverty and the fact that parts of this world are facing an increased risk of famine. We can play a major role in that so rather than being backward and taking certain actions centrally from the European Commission, we should be taking a leadership role in that regard.

The next issue I want to speak about is the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, with Russia being the aggressor. While I welcome the fact that statements of condemnation were reiterated throughout the European Council meeting, it strikes me that not enough is being done by the European bloc as a whole to sanction Russia. It is very much becoming a war of attrition. There are many Russian assets tied up in this country and right throughout the European bloc. In the first eight or then weeks of the war, an aggressive approach was taken by the European Union. Now, however, the approach seems to be to fund the humanitarian response in Ukraine. There is less focus on sanctions and clamping down on Russian assets. Action that could be taken from this country relates to the fact that Ireland has a lead in terms of the registration of small jet aircraft. In terms of large ships, one will often see Nassau and the Bahamas mentioned. Most ships are registered to Caribbean countries but most aircraft registrations go through this country. It is important that where we have small, privately-owned Russian aircraft that we would sanction them, or at least look at that. Indeed, many European aircraft that were grounded in Russia as the war got underway are still grounded. They have been seized by the Russian state and something similar could or should be done, from an Irish and EU perspective.

Perhaps calculations are going on behind the scenes but it seems that not enough is being done around the possibility of a Donald Trump win in the US presidential election. That would result in a very different turn in terms of the Russia, Ukraine conflict. He certainly will not have the back of Ukraine from a humanitarian point of view and possibly even from a weapons and financing point of view, to ensure that it can actually hold its own and defend its sovereign boundaries that have been infringed repeatedly by the Russian aggressor. It will be a very different scenario if there is a Donald Trump presidency, and four years of that to follow. Security in eastern Europe within existing EU boundaries and in neighbouring Ukraine will be in for a very tumultuous period.

Finally, I will refer to the ongoing situation in Palestine. Despite what others have said, Ireland has taken a lead role in the European Union on this. I thank the Minister of State for speaking on it but much more can and should be done. In particular I would like to hear, when the Minister of State makes her closing statement, about what kind of response we are getting across the EU bloc to our insistence that there should be recognition of the Palestinian state. That is the right thing to do. To recognise the sovereignty of a Palestinian state is essential to having status for its people. Recognition of a Palestinian state is often badly and poorly misrepresented by Israeli political figures. It does not mean that one condones or supports the Hamas regime in any way. It recognises the right of the people of Gaza and Palestine to sovereignty and their right to exist as a nation. The sooner that Hamas is gone, the better for that nation because then it can get back to a more democratic process. Ireland has been leading the way in this regard and I would like to hear how that is being received across the European bloc.

I am the Sinn Féin spokesperson on fisheries and the marine, so I will focus my comments on that area. I raised a matter with the Taoiseach recently, namely the different approach taken by the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, when it comes to super sized factory ships operating in Irish waters. There was a recent whistleblower report in the Mail on Sunday and the story was repeated again last Sunday. I ask that departmental officials would have a look at this. Seafood factories in the likes of Killybegs that generated a huge number of jobs and significant wealth over the years face a very different type of oversight by the SFPA in comparison with these huge factory ships. There was a suspicion that on MVK Afrika, a huge factory ship, discards were being facilitated which is illegal under the common fisheries policy but it did not feel like a very strong approach was taken there in comparison to how a factory here in Ireland would be treated. I ask that this be looked at.

The other point I raise today relates to the pelagic industry. As the Minister of State knows, we built up a strong pelagic industry here, particularly in mackerel. Right now, Norway, the Faroe Islands and the UK have come together to do a deal that rewards practices that are not recognising the science. We need to have a look at that. There is a need for us to stand together and demand that Norway and the Faroe Islands fish fairly, the same as everybody else. Mackerel is a migratory species and it needs to be respected across all waters.

Before I start, I want to state my absolute condemnation of the Russian military attack on the hospital in Kyiv. Pictures from the scene showed young children on intravenous drips sitting outside the hospital as it was evacuated. It was absolutely horrific and the EU is absolutely right to sanction Russia. However, as I was reading the minutes of the European Council meeting in preparation for this debate, I could not help but see the hypocrisy when it comes to the Palestinian people. EU leaders welcomed the adoption of a fourteenth package of sanctions against Russia while not one sanction has been imposed on Israel. Israel has absolutely no respect for international law. It is inflicting a systemic and deliberate genocide on the Palestinian people for the whole world to see. Statistics were released recently which show that almost one quarter of the population of Gaza has been wiped out. If that is not systemic genocide, then I do not know what is and while the EU did mention its concern about what is happening in Gaza, that rings hollow. Empty words without sanctions are absolutely futile.

I am also calling on Fianna Fáil MEPs who campaigned on a promise of not voting for Ursula von der Leyen to be re-elected as President of the Commission to stick to their promise. They went the length and breadth of this country saying that they would not vote for Ursula von der Leyen, and they must stick to that. In her role as EU Commission President, her support for Israel and her inaction on behalf of the Palestinian people makes her complicit in the genocide we are seeing in Gaza.

The European Union should hang its head in shame for its failure to sanction Israel in respect of the genocidal massacre it has been carrying out in Gaza for the past nine months.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil should hang their heads in shame for supporting as the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who has continued to provide Israel with impunity and allow the flow of arms and continuing trade with the regime that is guilty of this genocidal attack and massacre, which continues as we speak. The European Union and Ursula von der Leyen have no moral credibility any more. By the way, it is not just People Before Profit saying this, although we have said it for a very long time, about von der Leyen and the double standards when it came to Palestine. As early as 20 October, more than 800 EU staff wrote a letter complaining about von der Leyen. They wrote in it that they did not recognise the values of the EU any longer, given the double standards that were being displayed, with the massacre, which is what they called it, of civilians in Gaza, as against the attitude towards the horrific invasion of Ukraine.

The International Peace Institute in Geneva, along with hundreds of NGOs, has made a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court about von der Leyen's complicity with genocide, and they have evidence to that effect. She rushed to Israel and stood beside Netanyahu days into the beginning of this massacre, at which point a few thousand Palestinians had been massacred - butchered. There have been consequences of the support that she gave. The European Union is continuing to allow the weapons that Israel uses to butcher those children, like the children in four schools in the past four days. Many of the weapons that did that are European weapons. Money is being made in the genocide that Israel is committing by European arms companies and European states. They are profiting from genocide. If that is not a reason to impose sanctions, and if that is not a reason for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to say, "I am sorry, President von der Leyen, but we cannot support you, given your role in this and your failure to act against it in the face of a genocide", I honestly do not know what is. If genocide, or a failure to act against it, or possibly even complicity in it, is not a reason to withdraw support for her, what possible reason could there ever be? It absolutely beggars belief.

We need to impose sanctions. We should not support Ursula von der Leyen in the face of the European Union's shameful, disgraceful complicity in this genocide and the impunity it has given to Israel, without which none of this would have happened. Everybody knew about apartheid, everybody knew about the siege of Gaza and everybody knew about the ethnic cleansing long before October of last year. They did nothing about it. They denied it. Even now, the Irish Government does not want to use the word "apartheid" because it has legal implications. If it is an apartheid regime, it has to be dismantled. That is why it does not want to use the word - because it would have the consequence of having to do to Israel what was done to apartheid South Africa, which is exactly what should happen. At a certain point, the world decided that could not stand. Have we not reached that point with Israel? Surely we have. It cannot stand when it is capable of this horror.

The last point I will make is about the reminiscence of genocide and the fact that a fascist party with its roots in the Nazi collaborators in France, who collaborated with the Nazis in a massacre of Jewish people in the 1930s, got 33% support in the first round of the French elections. That is a very serious warning too about where Europe is going. Thank God for the left mounting a united front - the popular front, which was the name of the united front of the left in the 1930s against the fascists - and putting forward a radical alternative programme to the French people and talking about wealth taxes, taxes on excess profits, investment in housing, freezing prices to deal with the cost-of-living crisis and an arms embargo against Israel. It won the election and drove the Front National back. Surely we should also take a lesson from that when we have the terrifying prospect of the rise of fascism in Europe.

I want to make a number of points about Europe. I will start by congratulating Michael McGrath and wishing him well in the task ahead at a time when Europe is being challenged and the direction of Europe is being questioned. That direction needs to be questioned, and we need at every turn to ensure that Ireland's interests are represented in every decision that is taken.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in respect of Ursula von der Leyen. The groupings that committed themselves to voting against her should do so because a commitment was made directly to the Irish electorate. The European Union has been far too weak in its condemnation of Israel and far too weak in intervening in some more meaningful way. The bombings we have seen of schools and hospitals and the killing of children and parents bring our minds back to previous wars, something we felt we would never see again. Now we have it daily, and we are part of a European Union that, in my opinion, does not do enough and gives far too much time to defending the position of Israel. I condemn all those involved in the war, regardless of what side they are on. There should be lots of room in a modern democracy, a modern world, for intervention, discussion and, particularly, peace.

The Irish position should be one of neutrality. There is lots of talk about the triple lock, and we should not move away from that. I support the view of the world that the name of Ireland equals peace throughout the world. It puts us in the centre of things in terms of our availability for negotiations and credibility in respect of our peacekeeping operations. Any movement away from that, I think, would be damaging to Ireland.

Why is Europe drifting away from the people it represents? I suggest that it is in the main led by bureaucracy and by officials. I suggest that the politicians who are elected there - we had an election recently - are simply not strong enough and maybe not interested enough in setting out the case for Ireland. I understand that we are part of a bigger unit in the European Union, but there is still space within that for challenges to come from those who are pro-Europe but want to make it better and not worse, less bureaucratic, and more centred to the citizen rather than moving away from the individuals in every state who are represented through the European Union.

The issues of the day have to be reflected on. The way in which this is done is such that COMs arrive here for transposition into Irish law without that much question from the Dáil. We get into the finance committee various COMs which affect the day-to-day workings of this country and we seem to just accept them. I am glad to say that the members of the finance committee challenge a lot of the COMs that come before us and are willing to put forward alternative arguments for something different in a constructive way, without being against the European Union but voicing our concerns, particularly about a recent communication to do with Ireland's funding of the arms industry in Europe. We wanted to know how far that was going. Would the money end up elsewhere? Could it be used for something to do with war and arms, and how much would be involved?

Finding detail on that with which to put forward a reasoned argument against the direction Europe was taking in that instance was extremely difficult. Particularly when you look at the number of directives and regulations coming before various committees, it just is not right. It sounds alarm bells for me. It suggests that elected members in Europe are being bypassed or are not giving sufficient scrutiny to what is eventually passed on to member states.

I think of the area of agriculture, where there is a great deal of change going on, particularly because of climate change and so on. The farmers of the European Union are not being understood fully. They are doing a great deal for climate and are having a very positive impact on the management of our countryside here in Ireland. Despite this, they are being forced from one project to another without the appropriate level of financing and support being given to them. I have not heard enough debate about that in Europe to convince me that the message regarding the whole agricultural sector in Ireland is being heard. I have not heard enough argument or debate about the production of food and the provision of food to the European Union and the rest of the world or about protecting Ireland's identity in all of that. That concerns me.

You can say what you want about the recent EU migration pact but it does represent a reduction in our sovereignty. It is a real concern. As politicians attending European institutions become more institutionalised, they tend to more readily accept what officials and civil servants hand them. We are there to challenge things in the interests of the Irish people and to make things better but I rarely see a strong advocate for protecting sovereignty, making things better and being part of Europe. I see the opposite. I see piles of paper, proposals and decisions coming here to be transposed into Irish law without that much consideration. I will give one example that affects this House. I speak about it constantly. I refer to the issue of politically exposed persons, PEPs. What has happened in that regard is just ridiculous. It shows how influential and dogmatic the European Union is and how much it is under the thumb of the G7. That is a real concern. How much are we in command of our own destiny as Europe? How much are we in command of Ireland's destiny within Europe? How much concern do we express about the direction of Europe?

The Covid pandemic affected all of Europe. We have not had a Covid inquiry here but we should have. We should be part of an overall investigation within the European Union. We have to learn from what happened during that pandemic, what went wrong and what went right and how we could make things better for the future. People are concerned. They are dying. A record number of deaths can be ascribed to the pandemic and I ask for action in that area.

We are meeting here today at a time when the torture of the people of Gaza and Palestine continues. At this moment in time, we really need to consider our role and what we can do on the international stage. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, continues to tell us that US military planes landing in Shannon Airport are not carrying weapons bound for Israel despite his acknowledgement that no serious checks are made on these planes. Since 7 October, 11 direct flights to and from Israel and 85 flights to distribution points in the Middle East have been recorded. This count underscores the frequency and scale of military transits via Shannon Airport.

Today, three peace activists were in court in Ennis as a result of having attempted to check these planes themselves. The matter has now been referred to the Circuit Court. The Government takes a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to this issue but we are talking about potential complicity in Israeli genocide. These peace activists are not happy with such an approach and neither am I. Like many of us in this House, they know that there are serious questions to be asked about the use of Shannon Airport during the Iraq war, when extraordinary rendition flights were landing there, and even today. These serious questions must be answered. The three activists, Áine Ní Thréinir, Aindriú de Buitléir agus Eimear Walshe, are being criminalised for protesting Ireland's complicity in genocide. They deserve our support and respect.

The time has come for full-blown sanctions on Israel, a murderous regime that has now killed as many as 185,000 people. If we cannot ask questions and get answers to those questions now, when can we?

As I said earlier, over the last eight months, Israel has lain absolute waste to Gaza. The official figure for civilian deaths is 37,396, which is a travesty, a tragedy, an absolute disgrace and a shame on the world. However, The Lancet has stated that the real figure could be 186,000 people. I assume that 70% of that figure could be women and children. That is what Israel has done. A number somewhere between those two figures have been killed. It is absolutely abominable. There is no defending it in any way, shape or form. That is why there is such anger in respect of Ursula von der Leyen and why she cannot be supported in any way, shape or form.

Earlier, I asked the Taoiseach whether there is any information about the formal response Dr. von der Leyen provided when this State and Spain looked for a review of the EU-Israel association agreement. I get that we do not necessarily have the allies we would like to have on this matter but we do need to push. There is not much point in having humanitarian conditions in agreements if we do not have the ability to review compliance with them. The State has taken some worthwhile steps such as the recognition of the State of Palestine. I would like to know what the promises regarding future engagement on Palestine the Tánaiste spoke about previously are. Some work has been done on divestment. Sinn Féin has introduced a Bill regarding divestment that provides that State money cannot be invested in companies that benefit from illegal settlements and the rest of the genocidal actions being carried out by the Israeli regime.

We have not had enough from the European Union or from any element of it. We need to voice our concerns at the European Council and at every other level. We must put pressure on the Americans and everybody else who can put some amount of pressure on the absolutely disgraceful Israeli regime.

The election of the President of the European Commission will take place shortly. Ursula von der Leyen is seeking a second term. Here in Ireland, she has received the backing of the Government of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party. What is happening in Fianna Fáil in this regard is incredible. To reference a game often played on social media, tell me you are a member of Fianna Fáil without telling me you are a member of Fianna Fáil. One of the ways this can be done in the political sense relates to support for Ursula von der Leyen. Fianna Fáil in government is supporting Ursula von der Leyen's campaign for the presidency and yet its MEPs oppose it. Fianna Fáil is seeking to occupy two separate political spaces and two polar opposite positions at the same time. It is speaking from both sides of its mouth on this issue and it is doing so without even blushing. Fianna Fáil's support for Ursula von der Leyen in government is not based on policy or ideology but on who gets the goodies and the nice jobs. This shows that Fianna Fáil is no longer a movement with an ideology. Instead, it is a vehicle for career progression. That is a very dangerous thing for a political party to be.

Do not get me wrong. There are good people in Fianna Fáil in relation to these issues but their voices are not strong enough in terms of the direction of Government policy on this. Interestingly, Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, a new MEP, has managed her first U-turn in the space of just a couple of weeks. On RTÉ's "Drivetime" recently, she was unable to confirm that she will adhere to her initial commitment to oppose Ursula von der Leyen for the position of president. This is incredible. Independents can always be trusted, or can they? Independent Ireland is Ireland's newest political party but it is learning fast from Fianna Fáil. Independent Ireland stood as an anti-establishment platform in the local and European elections but before the memories of the count stations subsided it joined the liberal Renew Europe group, which is home to Fianna Fáil, Eurofederalists and proponents of the EU defence union. That group also appears to be part of the stitch-up in the vote for Ursula von der Leyen as well.

It seems that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party and Independent Ireland have managed strategically to forget that Ursula von der Leyen significantly distorted the foreign policies of countries such as Ireland with regard to Israel's horrendous attacks on civilians in Gaza. Ursula von der Leyen strode the world stage, writing a blank cheque in relation to Israel's attack on the people of Gaza. The Government seemed to say that is in the past, but the bombs are falling on Gaza today. They are murdering children today. The legacy of Ursula von der Leyen's foreign policy is being experienced by innocent victims today. It is shocking that more than half of the representatives of this Chamber are going to support Ursula von der Leyen in the upcoming election. It is an incredible issue.

It seems that all four parties are also supportive of Ursula von der Leyen's plan for an EU defence union. There has been very little debate on the European defence union plan in this Chamber so far. What will the European defence union look like? Obviously, that depends on who you ask, but there are many proponents of Ursula von der Leyen and the European defence union who will say that such a defence union would have an EU defence council, a permanent command and control headquarters, new EU defence budgets, and a defence research programme paid for by member states, which would also be obliged to spend 2% of GDP on defence funding. EU member states will be obliged to spend 20% of this money on equipment identified by the EU armaments agency. I have no doubt that the ultimate objective of EU federalists is a permanent EU army established by the harmonisation and standardisation of European armed forces. The ultimate objective is that this new EU army will stride the global stage as a global actor, independent and separate from NATO. This is the stated policy of many people who are supportive of Ursula von der Leyen. It is an objective that is not hidden in terms of many supporters of Ursula von der Leyen. Indeed, she supports significant elements of this European defence union.

It is an incredible issue. It is the direction of travel of the EU at the moment. The groundwork is actually being undertaken here by the Government already. Over a year ago the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, said he was open to EU treaty change on foot of proposals to overhaul the working of the Union. That policy shift came after the Conference on the Future of Europe, which recommended that national vetoes on almost all areas of EU decision making, including military and security matters, should be abolished. It is incredible that the current Tánaiste said he supports the atomisation of our vetoes in key elements of the delivery of the European Union. The other bulwark against this EU defence union is the triple lock. Of course all of the Government parties have flip-flopped on the issue of the triple lock in recent times. All of the Government supports that reversal now.

The biggest threat to the EU is more EU. Until the Government realises that, it will not be able to challenge and strengthen the EU in the future. There is a creep towards Brussels swallowing up even more democratic powers from sovereign nation states. That is being pushed back against by citizens across the EU. Citizens know that self-determination is better. Decisions made close to the people they affect are better decisions because people can influence those decisions and can hold decision makers to account. The current direction of travel deletes the influence of citizens over the policies of the Government. Unfortunately, I believe Fine Gael is wedded to that policy of a Brussels power creep happening in the future. I believe it is going to cause major damage to this country as well.

Food security has become a dirty word. One of the cornerstones on which the EU was founded was food security. We have become too comfortable in our existence within the EU. Our ability to produce sustainable food is being sidelined. Migration is a hugely important subject. Many issues are being raised by migration to this country and into the EU. One of the principal reasons people are leaving countries is starvation. We have an ability to help to solve that for Africa and other poor countries in the world. However, it seems we are putting obstacles in the way of the production of food. I am not a climate change denier but sustainable food production has to be promoted and as it stands, that is not happening. We need to go back to basics, make food security one of our cornerstones and produce food, as we can, for many of the poorer parts of the world.

The EU passed restoration laws a couple of weeks ago. A significant amount of this country will be designated for restoration. It is said that up to 20% of our lands will be restored. We are told it will be a voluntary scheme. If it is voluntary, it has to be voluntary in all aspects of it. Principally, the owners of that land must have access to any scheme relating to that land. I would be afraid that designated land will be exempted from the single farm payment if people do not comply with restoration in that area. While the scheme would be voluntary in name, the owners of that land would be forced to go into restoration from a financial point of view whether they want to or not. That applies to upland areas as well as peatland areas. For restoration to work, the owners of that land and land owners in its vicinity have to be happy with the scheme.

There are many bogs in this country, the rewetting of which would have great benefits for battling climate change. However, adjacent land owners are not getting a guarantee that their land will not be affected. That guarantee has to be there. If you change the water table and rewet a large bog, it will be very hard to ensure that neighbouring land is not affected.

The value of land that is designated for restoration or is already designated for various schemes has to be restored. The value of land that has been designated has been decimated by 75% to 80%. In my county we have a significant amount of hen harrier land. If that land was sold today, it might get €1,500 per acre. If it was not designated, it would make between €7,000 and €8,000 an acre. I find it hard to understand why someone has not taken a legal case on this. In an urban setting, if a person's house was devalued by 75% to 80%, would it be allowed to happen? However, these are people with the poorest land in the country. The capital value of that land has been completely eroded. We have to restore that. The way to restore the capital value of that land is to put a scheme in place that will allow that land to make income.

When the hen harrier land was designated in Tipperary, for three to four years there was a very good scheme where landowners got compensation for being designated. However, after three or four years, that scheme lost its value, and so did the land.

We had good news this week on emissions, with the reduction in emissions in virtually all sectors. If we are going to continue that upward curve on emissions, property owners have to be properly compensated for actions that are forced on them. There is a lot of environmental and scientific evidence out there that these blanket bans on designated areas are not the best way to achieve the targets you want to achieve. In designated land, we have stopped renewable energy being produced. Wind energy generation is outlawed, and so are solar farms. These are the best areas in the country for doing this but we are not using the balance sheet and showing the benefits from producing more renewable energy.

We also have a blanket ban on forestry in that area. So far this year, we have planted approximately 600 or 700 ha for forestry in this country. Our target under the programme of Government is 8,000 ha per year. In the lifetime of this Government, we will not plant that much. Whoever is standing here in 25 or 30 years' time will ask what the hell we were at and why we did not plant any timber. We cannot plant on designated land, peatland or unenclosed land. Some of the powers that be think that productive land will be put into forestry. That is not going to happen. In my view, the complete balance sheet is not being looked at. The fact that in 30 or 35 years' time this forestry will replace concrete and steel products in construction is never being put into the calculations when we are talking about the benefits of a blanket ban.

I was listening to "Morning Ireland" while driving up to Dublin this morning. We have a new five-year programme in place for the hen harrier. They were hoping there would be buy-in from everyone for it, and it would have great benefits for society. If the landowner feels, and rightly feels, he is being prosecuted by designation, you are never going to have the goodwill of the landowner. Without the goodwill of the landowner, you will not get the benefits that you can acquire.

I appeal to the Minister of State - I have appealed for this on numerous occasions - that we listen to the environmental advice that is there, which states that these blanket bans are not achieving what some said they would. Numbers of hen harriers have dropped with the blanket ban. In the view of a significant number of environmental experts, different stages of afforestation would actually promote hen harrier and hen harrier habitats. As well as promoting hen harrier habitats, it will restore the value of the land and help us by reducing our emissions and producing timber that can be used to offset other industrial products like cement and steel.

I am glad to get the opportunity. First, I am very disappointed that Ursula von der Leyen has been endorsed by this Government for another term. This endorsement was led by our Tánaiste, even though each of the Fianna Fáil candidates who ran in the European elections promised the electorate that they would vote against her appointment for another term. What are they going to do now?

The farming community is constantly attacked and vilified, blamed for climate change and blamed for a lot of things that are totally untrue. For instance, von der Leyen aims to cut fertiliser use by 20% and the use of pesticides by 50%. A quarter of our total land area is to be farmed organically. This means an absolute cut in production by 2030.

Back in the 1970s, if a farmer was not farming at least one acre of the farm, the Land Commission would give the farmer a very short time to sell the farm. If the farmer did not sell it, the Land Commission would divide it among farmers who were farming. That is a big difference. At that time, farmers were encouraged and got grants to drain land and produce as much as they could out of it. The current approach is to encourage farmers to let it idle.

We have a very important role to play in food production and food security, and we need it because we are an island nation. What happens if we cannot produce for ourselves? Farmers, especially young farmers, are beginning to see they can have an easier life - maybe a four- or five-day week, which you do not have if you are milking cows. Many young farmers are opting to get out and that is a sad story because we have the natural ability to grow green grass better than any other country in the world. Farmers are now being threatened with this nature restoration law.

Then there is our neutrality, the very thing that is so important to the people of Ireland, which is being threatened. Each and every day that our representatives and the Government go over to Europe, that is what they are at - threatening our neutrality.

I, too, am also glad to be able to speak to this. The Taoiseach told us in his speech that he had met the new Prime Minister in England. It is very important to build up relations there but I have fierce concerns too about our neutrality, the Tánaiste's constant meddling with the triple lock, and his constantly saying that our neutrality is an outdated position.

I am also worried about food production, and us being seen as green, clean and producers of good, safe food. There is an attack on our farmers and we are not standing up for our farmers, or our people for that matter, in the EU. We saw today the NATO summit in America. Of course, the British Prime Minister is gone, and we are tagged along then as being part of that as well. We are a neutral country.

It is only because we are neutral that we do not have someone over at that summit. The Taoiseach was asked that question earlier but he was almost certain there was not. It probably would be different if there was not. We have to represent the people of Ireland who we are elected to represent. Governments are solemnly charged under the Constitution to represent our people and stand up for them. Any amount of blackguarding has gone on with climate change and the whole demonising of agriculture and our way of life, and the literal attack on our Irish culture, heritage and traditions. Then, of course, the inward migration continues apace with absolutely no consultation here at home.

I have asked this question many times. Do we, when we go to these summits, represent the people of Ireland? Are we just, "Yes sir, right sir, three bags full sir"? Are we nodding donkeys all the time, and taking everything we are told in terms of diktats from Europe? We saw the kickback there was in France. We did not have the same kickback here in Ireland, and I am surprised we did not, but nonetheless, people are growing anxious and annoyed that the European situation is not looking after us.

There is also the situation with President von der Leyen and supporting her again for her next term. People are aghast at that, and hundreds of them have contacted us. As I said, I have lobbied the MEPs I know. However, they are like Tadhg an dá thaobh. Some of them are voting for her and others are not, or they are trying to be with her and against her at the same time. That kind of shoneenism and unclear signalling is not fair or respectful to the Irish electorate.

It was shocking to see the European Council express its full solidarity and support for Israel and its people and reaffirm its full commitment to its security and regional stability, despite the fact that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, despite the fact that Israel shows complete disregard for international law and despite the fact that UN experts have said that Israel is carrying out a targeted starvation campaign in Gaza. How can the European Council continue to support this brutal Zionist regime while it carries out the completion destruction of a state and its people? The people of Gaza must look in disgust at the European Union and its so-called values of peace, human rights and human dignity. They must feel completely abandoned by the European Union and the international community.

They are right; they have been abandoned. It is an absolute disgrace. The European Union and America have no right to lecture anyone on human rights while they continue to facilitate this genocide. The EU and US continue to provide weapons and diplomatic cover to Israel while it illegally occupies Palestine. Despite shocking levels of bloodshed, violence and devastation, the European Council in its most recent meeting expressed its support for Israel and then, to add insult to injury, proposed Ursula von der Leyen to the European Parliament as a candidate for the President of the European Commission. She is a woman who is complicit in the genocide of the Palestinian people. When Israel initiated collective punishment against the people of Gaza and the Israeli defence minister stated, "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed", von der Leyen flew straight to his and Netanyahu's side in Israel. She does not represent the EU and she most certainly does not represent the people of Ireland. However, she represents Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. Their decision to support her is despicable. I believe the Irish people will not forget such a deplorable action.

First of all, I extend my best wishes to Simon Coveney, who has announced that he will not run in the next general election. The reason I am doing so in this debate is that I knew Simon as an MEP and subsequently when he chaired the European Agriculture and Fisheries Council during the CAP negotiations in 2014. That was certainly a critical time for the future of the CAP and while I did not agree with Simon on the share-out of basic payments to farmers, nonetheless, his influence was so powerful that in Brussels the model became known as the Irish model. Subsequently, he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade during Brexit. Looking at the negotiations and the entire Brexit process from Brussels, it was very obvious to me that his competence, grasp of detail and, in my opinion, his statesmanlike approach played a significant role in advancing Ireland's interests during the entire process, so I wish him well.

Coming back to the Council conclusions from 27 June, I can only give a brief commentary on the Council statement. I will home in on two issues. They are comments on Ukraine and on Gaza. I was personally very disappointed at the completely unbalanced commentary from the Council on Ukraine and Gaza. It was seriously unbalanced and, therefore, unjust. It started off by saying that it will support Ukraine and that it strongly condemns the recent escalation of hostilities by Russia. That is fine. It then rightly expresses its deep concern about the fate of Ukrainian children unlawfully deported to Belarus and Russia. All of that is fine, but then we come to its statements on Gaza and the Middle East. It states it, "reiterates its strongest condemnation of the brutal terrorist attacks conducted by Hamas ... against Israel". That is fine. It continues to state that the Council "expresses its full solidarity and support to Israel". It states, "In exercising its right to defend itself, Israel must fully comply with its obligations under international law".

There is absolutely no balance here. It never says that Israel has flouted international humanitarian law. It does not condemn the bombing of any one of the 29 hospitals in Gaza. It does not condemn the fact that 84% of health facilities have been destroyed. Its language around Israel is neutral. It talks about the things that are happening but it never associates them with Israel. You would think that somebody else was involved in the conflict in Gaza. Article 19 states it "deplores all loss of civilian life". It talks about casualties, children, and so on, and the fact that there is insufficient entry of aid into Gaza, but there is no mention of who is responsible. It says we need more aid in Gaza but it does not call on Israel to allow the aid in. I could continue. There is too much of it there. It is really unbalanced and I am disappointed with it.

I will put the same questions to the Minister of State. On the appointments, three people were decided on. Was the issue put directly to Ursula von der Leyen at the Council of how abhorrent we found her statements and her presence in Israel in the immediate aftermath? Was that put to her? Was any justification given for the Government to give its support to her nomination as President of the Commission? My second question on appointments relates to the new High Representative, Kaja Kallas. I raised the issue of the focus on Russia and the east because she was a Baltic prime minister. Was there an understanding that there will be a much broader look? My third question is about the capacity of the European Union to better dispose of the immobilised assets that the European Union has from Russia to ensure the reconstruction of Ukraine. What exactly is the state of play with regard to that?

I might answer some questions about Ursula von der Leyen more broadly, because it was the feature of many contributions. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, made clear his disappointment and the fact that her statements at that time, in the very beginning in October, did not reflect the Irish position and went too far. They did not represent the competence that she as President of the Commission had on foreign policy, which is a different question. He made that clear, both publicly and directly to her in meetings at that stage. I would say that since then the position in Europe has evolved and come towards the Irish position. The language in the April Council meeting was the Irish position and contained unanimous agreement in the text that there would be an immediate ceasefire. That was not the case in the months prior to that. The unhindered humanitarian access was reiterated in this Council meeting, in the language about the implementation of the International Court of Justice judgment. I might say to Deputy Harkin that it started out with the Council describing it as a recall of the judgment. The Irish position and the position of the Taoiseach, Deputy Harris, brought that language much further with regard to the implementation, with a direct call to Israel to allow that access to happen.

There was significant withholding of funding from UNRWA by the Commission, not by Ireland, which immediately committed additional funding at the relevant time to UNRWA as a core funder, which is what UNRWA had asked for. There has since been not just the release of that funding but an additional €68 million of funding by the Commission to UNRWA. At the most recent Council meeting, the nominated President-elect, Ursula von der Leyen, specifically made the point about the funding of the Palestinian Authority and the work that she was attempting to do to advance substitute funding for the Palestinian Authority in circumstances where I understand that 75% of the funding is provided by Israel and 10% by the EU, and the threat to that 75%. She was proactively trying to find solutions to that. That was part of the discussions at the European Council meeting. I appreciate that this debate has focused on those initial comments. I totally understand respect the Deputies' perspectives on that.

I heard Deputy Gannon say there is disrespect of the Irish position, that they did not write back to us and so on. I understand what he is saying, but it is not reflective of the scale of work done by Irish politicians and Ministers to bring that European position to the Irish one. Along with Spain, we have raised the trade agreement and the importance of how that is perceived and operates in the future. We operate consistently from a place of international law being the guiding principle of all things, which is why we are trying to keep trade in the EU competence, because it is not consistent with international law that we would enact the occupied territories Bill, for example. We are trying to do it at a European level because that is consistent with international law. We have not had a response and we are not satisfied with that. We raise it at every opportunity, including European Council and Foreign Affairs Council level, and I raise it at General Affairs Council level.

If the Deputy was sitting there also, he would have visibility of this. It is my job to relay that to him. That is the purpose of this debate. He is right; there is insufficient time to have a back and forth discussion where more detail can be provided on the matters raised.

Many Deputies raised this issue so I want to answer it as fully as I can. The Deputy is correct in respect of former Prime Minister Kallas. The neighbourhood question is important. This includes support for the African Union through the European Peace Facility, which I referenced here ten days ago, work regarding the Balkan area and neighbourhood issues more broadly. It is also important to reflect that the scale of the focus everywhere from Finland to Romania is on the eastern threat because of its scale and what is happening, such as the scale of cyberattacks and infringements on sea and air space by the Russian military. It reflects the scale of that risk not just to that flank but to us as well, which is reflected in our renewed work in a range of ways. I will take further questions rather than continuing.

A number of us spoke about an element of the anger regarding Ursula von der Leyen. Some of it goes back to the initial unconditional support for the Israeli regime. The absolute pounding of the Palestinian people was a genocidal action. There is no way to call it anything else. That was always on the cards, given the nature of that regime, Benjamin Netanyahu and all the others who-----

Fair enough. Of course there is a question. Is it correct that there has been no response with regard to Ireland looking for the EU-Israel agreement to be reviewed? If there has been a formal response, will the Minister of State provide some detail? What discussions were there about Georgia? In the past while, there has been almost a stopping of its journey to accession based on the foreign agent law. Deputy Howlin and I listened to what now looks like a pile of nonsense from representatives of the Georgian Government about what it would do in this regard. It seems ridiculous.

There has been no response on the trade agreement. As the Taoiseach said during questions to the Taoiseach, if it were the position of the European Council more broadly that there should be a response, we would get a response from Ursula von der Leyen. There are different positions. Ireland continues to advocate for its position. That is not a shared position. We raise it and try to bring others with us but it is not a shared position. If it were, we would get a response. We continue to raise it. I cannot put it any further than that.

Deputy Harkin's point about balance is important. Leaders spent about equivalent time on the two subjects at European Council meetings last week. It is also important in this debate that we reflect a similar balance in respect of what is happening in Ukraine and Gaza. I do not know where the figure of 25% came from; I thought it was 8%, as reflected in The Lancet, regarding civilian deaths in Gaza, all of which we condemn and are appalling. We also utterly condemn Hamas and its actions. It is also important to recognise the scale of death in Ukraine and of human rights abuses. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, told me that between 10,000 and 100,000 children have been taken away - stolen - from Ukraine. That figure was settled at approximately 20,000 at the summit in Switzerland. As Deputies said, these children have been stolen, taken away and removed from their families. It is important that this House devotes the same amount of time to that part of the human rights discussion as it does, properly, to Gaza. Listening to this debate, as I tried to carefully, I did not hear the same level of detail, discourse or articulation of details as in respect of Gaza. I call on the European Council to be more balanced in this regard. The Taoiseach has said he believes there is an inconsistency of approach and that the proper application of international law and humanitarian law is one of balance. It must also be the case in this House that we take a balanced approach in respect of the human rights abuses, which are equally offensive in Ukraine and Gaza.

We are concerned about Georgia and the foreign agent law and what that means. I understand the articulation by representatives of the Georgian Government or parliament. I met the foreign minister of Georgia in Luxembourg last week. He assured me Georgia is committed to Europe and European integration. I raised with him the foreign agent law and ancillary measures. I understand what the Deputy said regarding the convincing positions advanced by the representatives of Georgia. We utterly reject what they are saying. The evidence is that it is enacting legislation similar to that in Hungary in 2011, which is deliberately constraining of civil society. In this democracy, we have a fantastic and vibrant civil society, which we fund and try to promote and protect. It is quite the opposite in Georgia; it is very much against democratic interests. There is strong, albeit fractured, opposition to it. The law passed and the ancillary measures are a barrier to European accession, properly so, because Europe must focus on the rule of law and basic democratic principles. They are under threat in Hungary, in particular with the establishment of the national sovereignty office. They are also now under threat due to these actions by Georgia. If the foreign affairs committee, of which the Deputy is a member, wishes me to provide more information regarding the detail of some of the law and background to the dialogue, I am more than happy to do that.

Let me ask the question and then the Minister of State can have her say. The Minister of State said the European Union has perhaps moved a couple of baby steps towards the Irish position. She said we all focused on what Ursula von der Leyen said and did a year ago regarding Israel. That is not the case. Deputy Harkin mentioned what was said in the European Council summary today. At what point will Ireland make a stand and go independently? I am not finished my question yet.

What I am saying is that the overwhelming majority of contributions to this debate focused on Gaza. That is really important; all I am saying is there should be balance on both sides, as I said about the Council also. I already addressed Deputy Harkin's point. I counted the number of contributions. I am also looking for this balance. On the Irish position, we have actively divested through ISIF. Last April, we removed funding - Irish State money - from investments in the West Bank. We have gone ahead in every we can in this regard. If we are proponents of international law, which we are, and have legal advice that the occupied territories Bill is not consistent with the correct legal approach, we would be taking a step across our own legal advice and position of being rigorous about the application of international law generally if we were to pass the Bill. It would be contradictory and self-defeating. The correct competence is at a European level. We continue to advocate for that and do it within rule of law structures. That is the technical legal answer.

At the European Council and across Europe, to what extent is there development or growth of cohesiveness as opposed to divisiveness in the knowledge that if separatism is pursued by one or all member states, there will be no Union? While it might seem like a good idea at the time Europe's history will tell us very clearly that this particular policy was not well received in the past and had a huge cost across Europe. Are we working on the need to provide that cohesiveness as opposed to fragmentation? Are we alert to the dangers of fragmentation? Are we sufficiently alert to the fact that the UK left the European Union? For the UK, it was to solve all problems at the time and forever. However, it did not do so. Is it recognised across Europe that those are circumstances over which we do have some control at this stage? Will we continue to do so?

I thank the Deputy. This is what we are trying to do all the time, which is to work within a European structure. We are one of 27. Ireland has 14 MEPs out of 720. We advocate as strongly as we can but we must not overstate our position or relevance either. If we are one of a club we have to respect that we are one of a club and that we work within a consensus environment. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to show solidarity to our eastern partners as they showed solidarity to us during Brexit. We are trying to show solidarity with Italy and Greece in relation to migration as they have shown solidarity to us on different matters. To take a collective approach, which is always the best approach that can be taken in Europe, requires becoming interested in things that are not directly impacting us and requires us to do more to share in a generous and in a real way the challenges that we definitely share together.

One of those important challenges is in relation to security and defence. There was dialogue here today about a European defence union, which is not a formal proposal. What is on the cards is recognising the changed risk over the last three years to countries within the European Union including Ireland, and that there be a different way of looking at the financing, or more properly the organisation, of access to defence materials. In Ireland, we want to increase our spending in the Defence Forces from €1.2 billion to at least €1.5 billion. We want to do that through recruitment and through the purchase of materials to be used by members of our Defence Forces. I would rather that be done on a pan-European basis whereby we can benefit from economies of scale, access to supply chains, and better value to the taxpayer than doing it unilaterally. This is in the same way that we took the shared collective approach during Covid, which was referred to by Deputy McGuinness. That was a collective approach that benefited Ireland in terms of vaccines.

Deputy McGuinness and another Member mentioned a drifting away from a Europe that is becoming more bureaucratic and that our politicians were perhaps not strong enough to advance the Irish position. I would never be brave enough to say that to former MEP Deputy Marian Harkin, and I would never be brave enough to say that to MEP Frances Fitzgerald. The MEPs we elect are phenomenal advocates for Ireland. The people who work in Europe on our behalf in the Commission and in the permanent representation are there only to work to advance Ireland's interests. They try to do that in the alliances we have, whether it is the Nordic-Baltic group, in terms of how we approach the financing and the funding of Europe, or whether it is in the context of what we are going to have to think about on security and defence. I do not want to have to stand up here and talk about security and defence. That is not what I got into politics for, but the risk in Europe has changed and the response by Europe is proportionate to that.

There are planes flying in over Lithuania from Russia. There is weaponised migration. There are constant cyberattacks, and Ireland is subject to these also. We are supportive of the EU-NATO work on hybrid attacks and cyberattacks and defending against that. Contrary to Deputy Carthy's position on the Defence Forces being insular, we actually want them to be able to benefit and train in de-mining, cybersecurity and a range of different areas that are strategically in Ireland's interests. We have joined a tailored partnership with NATO specifically to protect our undersea cables. We have been in a partnership with NATO in relation to peace since 1999. These are not new concepts, but we are going to have to think about them differently. As the dialogue relating to the funding of equipment for our Defence Forces to use in the defence of our sovereign territory becomes more acute, that is the way in which I suggest we should approach the conversation rather than assuming it is some effort to join NATO, which it is not. We are not militarily aligned and we have no notion of becoming militarily aligned. We do, however, want a strong Defence Forces in Ireland. I would like them to be equipped in the best way possible but in the most cost-effective and efficient way of doing so. That is the conversation we need to be having on security and defence in Europe.

I thank Members for their contributions. The other issues that were on the extensive agenda of the European Council meeting on 27 June were the internal reform agenda, Georgia, Moldova, the EU's strategy for the Black Sea region and its response to hybrid threats.

On migration, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, provided leaders with a written update of developments since their previous discussion. This was on asylum and migration. Ireland was of the view that it should be addressed through a collective effort and this was the Government's fundamental guiding principle in asking this House that Ireland opt into the pact on migration. I believe it demonstrates the commitment to ensuring that asylum systems are fair, effective and efficient. It is a necessary improvement on the current protection system.

On Moldova, the European Council welcomed the first holding of the intergovernmental conferences with Moldova, as well as Ukraine and Montenegro. I participated at the Ukraine conference. The formal launch of accession negotiations with Moldova and Ukraine is recognition of the substantial progress those countries have made in implementing EU-related reforms. Ukraine in particular and other countries, including Moldova, have been demanded that they go through a rigorous process. They do not want to go through anything less than the proper standard that should be applied to them for European accession. That is very welcome.

It is also important that the EU is ready for future enlargement. There is a roadmap setting out future work on internal enlargement and the changes that need to be made. We do need to advance enlargement more broadly with the Balkan states and we look forward to receiving detailed pre-enlargement assessments prepared by the Commission next spring. When we talk about enlargement it must be clear that those aspiring to become member states do live up to the EU's democratic standards. In that regard, I yet again refer to Georgia, its law on transparency on foreign influence in May 2024 and the very negative impact that had in the context of Georgia moving towards European Union membership. Numerous Georgian NGOs have announced their intention not to comply with the law. This is making them vulnerable to penalties. The EU discussed response measures at our meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 June. It is a very serious development. Other worrying legislation has also been pushed through since the re-introduction of the foreign agents' law to parliament, including amendments to the Georgian tax code that would facilitate asset transfers from offshore tax havens. There are credible concerns that tax amendments are a way to head off western sanctions policy. There is a range of different issues of concern, including for the LGBT community. I probably cannot state this more strongly, and we could have an entire debate on this issue alone. To put it plainly, the law is not in line with EU values, it is incompatible with Georgia's EU membership aspirations, and it represents serious democratic backsliding. We condemn the increased intimidation of politicians, civil society activists and journalists in Georgia, as we do in Hungary and as we did in Poland until the newly elected Government came into office there and made efforts to try to reverse some of the decisions made over eight years by the regime that preceded it.

This represents a challenge to the European Union more broadly that we must think about more broadly as we look to enlargement. We place particular standards on countries coming into the European Union, and properly so, but we cannot have a two-tier Europe. Those countries coming in are being held to the rigorous standards we have set in respect of the rule of law and democratic processes.

That is my point. This must also be the question for Europe. The General Affairs Council has looked at how we deal with existing members. We have the Article 7 procedure with Hungary, for example. As politics moves to the right and towards a more fascist agenda across Europe, we must look at how we deal with existing member states.

I represented Ireland in the Article 7 hearings on Hungary. I addressed two particular matters. I did so in agreement with my counterparts to ensure that we would cover the best possible spread of issues. I addressed Ireland's concerns around the national sovereignty protection office, which I regard as simply a vehicle for intimidating businesses and a range of actors not complying with the current dominant hegemony and narrative in Hungary. I also addressed the extremely serious concerns about the deliberate campaign by the Hungarian Government to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. My colleague was forced to deny this on the floor of the General Affairs Council. I do not believe him, but it is important that Ireland is saying this very strongly and that we are constantly committed to the basic values of the European Union, which are the democratic principles, the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, the protection of minorities and the absolute consistency on the application of humanitarian law. I reiterate that Ireland strongly believes that this is important in the context of Russia and Ukraine and also when it comes to Israel and Gaza. I assure the Deputies that in every interaction the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have, we are genuinely and consistently advancing this position on behalf of Ireland at every opportunity. I am happy to update the House concerning the details in this regard.