I welcome the ambassador before the joint committee and also the forthcoming Swedish Presidency about which there is a sense of positive anticipation. Obviously, each Presidency of the European Union differs as the member state concerned brings with it its own particular strengths and experience. In the case of Sweden, its highly progressive track record in addressing climate change, environmental protection and sustainable development is very welcome.

I welcome the ambassador’s indication that one priority of the Swedish Presidency will be the revision of the Lisbon strategy. It is the case that Sweden takes over the Presidency at a time when the economic and financial landscape of Europe and globally has been completely and fundamentally transformed. Were we beginning the process of putting together the contents of the Lisbon treaty in the light of recent developments, I wonder what new or different elements would be contained therein. Certainly, however, the Lisbon strategy requires revision. I hope and, from the documentation I have read, believe the Swedish Presidency’s priorities include the issues of climate change, energy security and economic recovery.

Although these three themes and policy areas are inextricably bound together, I will begin with the issue of climate change. While it has been mentioned by other speakers, there is much concern that the European Union made a commitment to unilateral cuts in emissions of 20% in the Copenhagen discussions last December, which figure will rise to 30%, were other international powers to agree to raise their respective bars. Unfortunately, much of the emerging scientific evidence suggests setting a target of cuts in emissions of 40% would be much more appropriate than one of 30%. Consequently, it is to be hoped that with the Swedish Presidency guiding in the final stretch the negotiations for the Copenhagen conference, an agreement on cuts of 30%, rather than 20%, will be secured. If the latter figure is agreed on, all should be aware that it constitutes 50% of what should be agreed to. To date, the European Union has provided outstanding global leadership in this area and I hope we will go no lower than a reduction of 30% and will manage to bring the rest of international community with us. While I do not underestimate the challenge and acknowledge it will be difficult, I hope the Swedish Presidency can achieve this objective.

As for economic recovery and energy security, unfortunately, the economic recovery plans produced thus far by the European Union appear to be more a collection of national recovery plans than anything that is genuinely European-wide. It is for this reason that the European Green Party has called for a EU-wide stimulus package known as the “Green New Deal”. Under this package, €500 billion would be made available from private and public sources to stimulate badly needed job creation initiatives across the European Union. Many of these initiatives will involve infrastructural projects such as a Europe-wide electricity grid and a widely discussed and extremely ambitious offshore wind project which would stretch from the North Sea to the Iberian Peninsula. Projects of this nature could stimulate job creation and assist the European Union in moving much more significantly in the direction of achieving energy security and, ultimately, energy independence.

It is to be hoped that the Swedish Presidency can make some strides in this direction. It appears the political will to consider a genuine Europe-wide response to a stimulus programme does not yet exist. I hope that during the six months of the Swedish presidency significant moves can be made.

There were references to the area of trade. Like other speakers, I wish to highlight some of the concerns that exist in respect of the EU’s trade policy and some of the negotiations that are under way at present. The Swedish presidency will probably be aware of many of the well-documented concerns regarding the economic partnership agreements being negotiated with the African Caribbean Pacific, ACP, countries. Although the EU claims to be committed to flexibility, to date it has refused to address all the contentious issues raised by these countries. There are many concerns in respect of the imbalances that will occur in regional economies if these individual bilateral trade agreements are signed with some countries and not with others. It is to be hoped that the European Union will revisit some of these issues and demonstrate much greater flexibility in respect of them.

There are also concerns regarding current trade negotiations with Colombia. Obviously Colombia’s track record in the area of human rights violations is a matter of extreme concern. I hope this matter will be reconsidered and that the fast-track approach being taken in the context of completing the negotiations will be slowed. I also hope the issue of human rights violations and the potential impact of the free trade agreement on marginalised groups within Colombia might be subjected to closer scrutiny.

Another issue that has been repeatedly raised at meetings of this committee is the Euro-Mediterranean trade agreement, which includes the EU-Israel association agreement. I am concerned about the failure of the EU to implement the clause which deals with human rights violations in respect of Israel. It is the view of some members of the committee that the clause to which I refer in the EU-Israel association agreement was completely breached by Israel in the recent attack on Gaza and that the EU should suspend the agreement. As already stated, this is the view of only some members of the committee but the Swedish Presidency should give further consideration to the matter. Any proposal to upgrade the trade relationship between the EU and Israel should be halted until these matters are dealt with.

The final issue to which I wish to refer is that which relates to crime and justice. I welcome the fact that the Swedish presidency intends to prioritise this matter. However, while there is general concern among citizens that the EU requires much greater competence in dealing with matters such as cross-border criminality, human trafficking, drug trafficking and international terrorism, there is also a view that there must be a facility for much greater transparency and oversight in respect of what is being agreed in the area of crime and justice at European level. Perhaps Ambassador Ljungdahl Excellency might clarify for the committee the measures the Swedish presidency might propose to help citizen confidence in the process and greater parliamentary oversight in respect of what is being agreed at European level in this policy area.

Filed under:
Joint Committee on European Affairs by Deirdre