Richard Boyd Barrett: Green Deal Not Radical Enough, Condemns Mercosur

Well, there was talk in Europe, as you referred to, of radical action on climate, but really the signs are that it's just talk. The Green New Deal is good on aspiration, but very short on detail, and in any event they couldn't actually get everybody to sign up to it, because Poland has opt out. And actually, when I say it's good on aspiration, carbon neutrality by 2050 is not a bad aspiration, but if we were very serious about things, we'd be aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030, and taking much more radical measures than are being proposed, and be a hell of a lot more specific in those measures. And of course, the COP talks didn't really achieve much at all. But then you go behind the rhetoric for Europe, and the picture is not so good at all. The Mercosur deal, to me, exposes completely any commitment on the part of Europe to addressing the climate emergency, because at the same time you're talking about an environmentally sustainable economic model, you then are trying to negotiate a deal with the Bolsonaro regime to import huge amounts of chief beef from Latin America based on the cutting down of rainforests, the lungs of the earth. Here in this country, the government similarly talks about climate action, but presses ahead with a liquid natural gas terminal, fails in its targets on afforestation, and refuses to ban the extraction of fossil fuels. So, is it a case of lots of rhetoric, but not so much action, Taoiseach? In relation to the European Green Deal, I'm very supportive of it, and very encouraged that President von der Leyen and the new Commission have decided to take a lead on this. When she was nominated by the European Council as Commission President, she said she would do so, and I think she's already really showing her sincerity in that regard. The objective is, of course, to transform Europe into the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and the approach and the way she's framed it, and the Commission has framed it, I think is a very good one. Less in the vein of a climate apocalypse, but more in terms of the opportunities that can be gained for the European Union in being leaders in climate action, whether it's creating new jobs, new businesses, green growth, new technology, innovation. All of those things, new wealth in particular. But I do think it's really just an initial document, and now needs to be built on and funded to, and I think the EIB in particular has a role here, and indicates that the EIB may be able to lend up to a trillion euros towards climate action projects in the decades ahead. They, of course, have to be commercially viable ones, though, so that the money can be returned to the EIB. In terms of the Mercosur political agreement, I think it's worth pointing out that the political agreement on Mercosur has an environmental clause, which requires that Latin American countries honour their commitments when it comes to climate change. If they don't, the deal is off, and I think that's significant, because previous trade deals don't include environmental clauses of that nature, and may become a model for the future in that regard. On Israel and Palestine, I'm strongly supportive of the Palestinian statehood, and we're strong advocates of the welfare of Palestinians, and we do that in international fora, whether it's the UN or the EU, or in bilateral meetings, and we'll continue to do so. That's well recognised by the Palestinian Authority, and also by other Arab countries. When it comes to products made in the settlements, we intervened to support the labelling case, which now ensures that products that are made in the settlements are labelled as thus, thus allowing people and businesses to boycott them. However, an outright ban on imports, in our view, would be contrary to European law, as trade is the sole competency of the European Union. We, of course, absolutely condemn any human rights abuses in Bahrain, or any other country where they occur. In terms of the WTO, international trade requires agreed rules for countries to trade with each other under a common set of principles, and WTO is at the core of that system. For it to function properly, it must have a mechanism to resolve disputes. That's why it's very regrettable that the United States decided to block the appointment of new judges to the appellate body, because without them, it cannot function. At last week's European Council, we expressed support for the European Commission's effort to set up an alternative arbitration panel, interim arrangements, with third countries other than the US, while actively pursuing a permanent solution. So, essentially, a workaround, except for disputes that involve the US, and we're committed to finding an agreed solution down the impasse. Thank you.