Thomas Byrne
Meath East · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“We are very proud of the work they do in what are often very dangerous circumstances. Let us be 100% clear: our troops will only ever do peacekeeping, peace enforcement or conflict prevention in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and, of course, as with every action of this Government, in accordance with the Constitution.”
“To be clear on what our troops will be doing, they will be doing peacekeeping, peace enforcement and conflict prevention. That is what the law says; not what the Deputy imagines it to be. We are bound by our Constitution and international law. The legislation changes nothing in that regard.”
“We are bound by international law. We are bound by international law since our Constitution came into force and we continue to be bound by international law and always will be, no matter what happens to this legislation. International law governs what we do as a Government.”
“I propose to take Questions Nos. 125, 140, 157 and 185 together. I am taking this question on behalf of the Minister. A commitment to reform what is known as the triple lock was set out in the programme for Government.”
“-----in accordance with UN principles and, of course, in accordance with our own Constitution, which commits us to peace and friendly relations among nations. The triple lock is a statutory mechanism.”
“Switzerland, the classical neutral country that is not even a member of the European Union and will never join the European Union, it is so neutral and independent, accepts UN, EU and OSCE mandates. I understand the situation is similar in Austria, which is another neutral country. By the way, it is also similar in Germany.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,013 lines we hold for Thomas Byrne, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 21.
“I have been a Member of this House and have huge respect for it, but that is just the way it is. The Dáil has this say because it is a directly elected House. That is why it has the power of the purse string in this particular context. However, the Seanad still has the right to annul if it does not like the fact that we designate an agreement. If we are talking about climate change, the question here is on the impact of this legislation on our climate obligations. It is a separate debate from what has been coming from much of the Opposition.”
“The text is highly relevant because I am quoting from documentation and from what we are voting on. I cannot just come in here and not read from text. We have to be very precise about what we are voting on. I am sorry that the Seanad does not have a vote on agreements that involve a charge on the State. That is the way the Constitution is written - for good reason actually because the Dáil holds the purse strings. That is just the way it is but the Seanad has a role because it has the power of annulment. There is a power of annulment in our Bill if we were to designate other agreements. That is there and it does give the Seanad a role and the Seanad can speak about trade agreements. I will happily come in and defend trade agreements at any point if the leaders ask me to do so. However, we cannot change the Constitution.”
“I have been criticised for reading from text but our laws are text. I have to read from text to make my points. I cannot make things up. I have to read what is written down in black and white. I am speaking on behalf of the Government.”
“In particular, the parties' rights and obligations under chapter 8 investment of the agreement should be interpreted in a manner that supports the ability of the parties to give effect to their respective commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by adopting and maintaining measures designed and applied to mitigate or combat climate change or address its present or future consequences. The matter has been covered in an extremely detailed fashion in the agreements already but, again, the more I read out, the less some Members believe what is actually written down in front of us. That is the unfortunate reality. I respect what everybody saying but I cannot agree to accept amendment No. 14.”
“The parties reaffirmed their right to regulate within their territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives to protect the environment as set out in Article 8.9(1) of the agreement, including by taking measures to mitigate or combat climate change or to address its present or future consequences. When interpreting the provisions of chapter 8 investment of the agreement, the tribunal shall give due consideration to the commitments of the parties under multilateral environment agreements, including the Paris Agreement.”
“In 2022, the Commission identified policy priorities and key action points which further enhance the effectiveness of the engagement-based approach to trade and sustainable development, grounded in the international framework and standards with stronger implementation and enforcement. In particular, this enhanced approach includes the use of trade sanctions for breaches of core trade and sustainable development provisions. In addition to these environmental protections already contained in modern EU trade agreements, including CETA, in March of this year the CETA joint committee adopted the CETA interpretation on investment to clarify elements of investment provisions under CETA, notably investment and climate change.”
“These multilateral agreements and conventions have become the global framework for international co-operation and action on sustainable development and serve as a compass for sustainable development commitments in EU trade agreements as well. All modern EU trade agreements already include trade and sustainable development chapters. These require parties to make continuous and sustained efforts towards the effective implementation of multilateral environmental agreements that they have ratified, including the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
“The detailed and prescriptive approach specified in amendment No. 13 would make the process for making orders pursuant to this legislation closer to and in some cases more onerous even than new primary legislation. Therefore, I cannot agree to the amendment. Regarding amendment No. 14, as explained previously, the provisions of the order-making power have been drafted in close consultation with the Office of the Attorney General. Sustainable development policies and objectives have been mainstreamed into all EU policies in accordance with the UN 2030 agenda and its 17 sustainable development goals, the Paris Agreement on climate change and other multilateral agreements for the protection of the environment and labour standards.”
“It has already been determined that this would be the case in relation to CETA and the EU agreement with Chile, which are two agreements that are listed in the Bill. We expect that other similar agreements are also likely to require Dáil motions and thus provide further opportunity for scrutiny, including at the relevant committee. With the help of the Attorney General, the Government has carefully considered the Supreme Court's findings and this legislation sets out our response, including what are standard negative resolution provisions. The Government is of the view that this approach achieves the correct balance of legislative efficiency and parliamentary scrutiny. Secondary legislation must be consistent with and based on legislation adopted by the Oireachtas. If not, it can be overturned by the courts.”
“In the context of any further international agreements, which include investment dispute resolution provisions, orders pursuant to the new section 25A will be made as part of the standard steps required prior to ratification of such agreements. Pursuant to the new section 25A(6), any order made under the new legislation must be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and each House will have an opportunity to pass a resolution annulling the order. The Seanad has a role there. If such a resolution annulling the order was passed by either by either the Dáil or the Seanad within 21 days, the order would be annulled. If the relevant agreement involves the charge on public funds, a Dáil motion would separately be required before ratification.”
“When Ireland intends to enter into a new international agreement, including agreements pertaining to investor dispute resolution provisions, an assessment is made as to whether any steps, including legislative steps, are required in order for Ireland to be in a position to give effect to the international obligations contained in that agreement. Where such steps are identified, they are taken before the ratification proceeds. This process is separate from the constitutional requirement for Dáil approval of international agreements that give rise to a charge on public funds. Ultimately, CETA will not come into force unless and until the Dáil approves it.”
“I do not think I need to clarify this but when I spoke about it being too late I meant that if I agreed with the Opposition it would be too late to do what it wants to do. We would have done that earlier. I did not mean it was too late in the context of this legislation. Amendment No. 13 proposes to delete the order-making powers, as drafted, and introducing a new onerous system for making orders, including replacing the negative resolution requirements with a positive resolution requirement. Senators have raised questions about the order-making power. It might be of help to clarify the process that would be in place in relation to the ratification of international agreements, which this Bill does not do by the way, after the legislation enters into force.”
“The Bill sets out the response, including the specification of the grounds on which awards may not be enforced in subsection (3). We looked to the Supreme Court, which is what one would expect a competent Government and Attorney General to do. We took the advice of the Attorney General and officials. We considered previous references to constitutional order in Irish case law, as well as addressing the enforcement of judgments of Irish courts. Amendment No. 10 seeks to extend and expand on what has been carefully considered in order to produce a proper Bill. The Bill has been drafted to ensure compliance not just with the Constitution, but also the international obligations which Ireland will assume on ratification of the relevant agreements. Therefore, I cannot agree to this amendment.”
“When we have done it in European Union treaties, it has been a massive benefit to Ireland to have common rules around the Single Market so that our companies can trade around Europe. Due to the protections in this trade agreement, our companies can trade with Canada and create jobs. Our companies can go to Canada with assurance, protection and the knowledge that they will not be treated arbitrarily. That is needed. It does not affect the right of any province, government or municipality of Canada to bring in its own rules and regulations. Irish companies going to Canada know that. The amendment proposes to assign an extremely broad discretion to the High Court regarding the enforcement of relevant awards. The Government has carefully considered the Supreme Court's findings in the Costello case.”
“What is envisaged is that where something that happens, which is in breach of CETA, such as deciding to seize the property only of Canadian companies, that would be modified. That is the modification we are talking about. We are not talking about what the Senator referred to, namely, that we would not be able to modify our laws under our right to regulate, which is part of who we are as a sovereign nation. The Senator is conflating one thing with another. That is causing some confusion. There is no risk to the right to regulate. This is something that we can do. In fact, a huge amount of the right to regulate has been allocated to the European Union institutions and the European Union treaties and I do not hear a complaint about that because it works really well. We are not giving any right to regulate away in this particular operation.”
“The Senator said it is a new thing, there is too much risk and we do not know how it will work. The same could be said for every new thing. What do we do when we are introducing anything? We draft legislation. We cross the t's and dot the i's. We draft, create and craft the legislation to ensure it suits the needs that the Parliament wants to address. That is exactly what has been done with CETA. I have repeatedly stated here that the right to regulate is not impacted. The Senator quoted from Article 8.39(3), but the provision is in keeping with the trend of limiting available remedies for investors. It is in line with the goal to preserve the regulatory space of states.”
“I respect Trócaire and Comhlámh. I still cannot understand why they would seek to insert themselves into this particular debate, which is between the EU and Canada, two of the most prosperous entities in the world. We have acknowledged that there were problems with the old system of ISDS and there problems in the Third World, which those organisations are right to highlight. To parlay that experience into an agreement between two capable actors on the world stage is not correct.”
“Whether one likes international investment and trade or not - I am a big supporter but I know not everybody is - undoubtedly they have provided prosperity to people in a way they did not enjoy in the seventies. This land of milk and honey - it was a different country then. We are far more prosperous by any measure now. In fact, we are building more houses than at any time since then. We keep saying it. The Opposition keeps saying that is not correct and contradicting the written evidence in so many documents, including the very foundational treaty itself. I cannot put the matter any further.”
“I do not know how much more I can say to counteract the worries, fears and, I would say, the scaremongering from some - not all - that keep being put forward in this debate. We can debate this as long as the Seanad wants - it has 90 days under the Constitution to make its mind up, I suppose. This could not be clearer. What we are concerned about is the enforcement of awards. Nobody in the public policy space, on this side, wants our right to regulate to be chilled. We are not here on behalf of companies that are going to sue the State for billions of quid. We have specifically provided that cannot be allowed to happen. We are here for our voters, our citizens and our people.”
“We have debated these things at length. I am in the Seanad's hands on that. I keep looking back to documents, comments and statements. I looked at a statement issued by the EU and Canada following the fifth meeting of the CETA joint committee. A joint committee was established. To be honest, the Opposition could have written this themselves: ...the Joint Committee adopted the CETA 'Interpretation on Investment', to clarify elements of investment provisions under CETA, notably “fair and equitable treatment”, “indirect expropriation”, and “investment and climate change,” and ensuring the Parties can regulate to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as in the framework of climate, energy, and health policies. I keep saying it. Honestly, you could have written it yourselves.”
“As previously stated, the Government, with the help of the Attorney General, the legal advisers of the Department and my officials, whom I thank for their work, has carefully considered the Supreme Court's findings in the Costello case. I have said this repeatedly. Those findings encompass specific references to the constitutional order of the State. The Bill sets out the response to the Supreme Court judgment, including the specification of the grounds on which an award is not enforceable. We believe amendment No. 8 is unclear, unnecessary and somewhat duplicative as well. Our provision in the Bill closely follows the guidance of the Supreme Court. The procedure in relation to the new section 25A will follow the original, parent Act and the relevant rules of court. For these reasons, I am unable to agree to amendment No. 8.”
“I am representing the Government and we do not feel chilled about this in any way whatsoever, because the text is in black and white. I cannot put it any clearer. We keep hearing about cases from a different system, a different era. Mexico was referred to. Such an agreement would probably be ratified using this procedure here. I cannot put my case any further. We do not envisage any impact on the right to regulate. I have quoted at length from the agreement on that.”
“Let us be honest: every time we sign up to an international agreement – the EU is the most famous example of them all – we share a little bit of our sovereignty. That was the issue in our Supreme Court. Why do we share sovereignty? We do so because we all get huge benefits from it. We become part of something bigger and our people benefit. If I agreed with the Senator – I do not, although I respect her arguments – I would absolutely not be doing now what she proposes because it would be too late. We have gone through the procedures. Luckily, we have dealt with the procedures in the negotiation of CETA. In the various documents that have arisen from that, we have dealt very comprehensively with the rights to legislate and regulate.”
“I would not be waiting until we had a trade agreement. There are rules for investors, which are to protect Irish companies also, and there are lengthy procedures for dealing with them. In those procedures, we did not forget to refer to the right to regulate. Every t is crossed and every i is dotted as best we can. I would not be doing it-----”
“I am more than happy to. If there were a problem with the right to regulate in the way the Senator has described, although I am saying there is not, I would not be dealing with it here because it would be way too late. You need to deal with it in CETA. The argument I am making is that, on the basis of the very text of CETA, the interpretive statement made and the decisions of the European Court of Justice and, indeed, the Supreme Court, nobody saw an issue with the right to regulate. This is because of the language used. If I agreed with the Senator that there were a chilling effect on regulation, I absolutely would not be addressing it here. I would have addressed it a few years ago when CETA was being negotiated, or I would not have proposed the ratification of CETA to the Oireachtas.”
“Diplomatic property is immune from any court proceeding anywhere in the world so there is no question of any of our lovely embassies or residences being seized in any circumstances, unless the country was to breach the Vienna Convention. That will not arise. Enforcement could only be pursued in different jurisdictions to obtain full satisfaction of an award and not double-payment of an award. We cannot agree to amendment No. 6.”
“They must also waive their rights to initiate any claim or proceeding before a tribunal or court under domestic or international law with respect to a measure alleged to constitute a breach referred to in the claim. This is one of the many improvements of the new ICS compared with the old system. At the separate stage of enforcement, it may be the case that enforcement of the award is pursued in different jurisdictions - that can happen in all sorts of cases and not just under trade agreements - if the state against which the award has been made has assets in those jurisdictions. The Villa Spada, which has been referenced a number of times, would be protected under the Vienna Convention.”
“6, I note that although the proposed amendment states "For the avoidance of doubt", it does not appear to reflect the current legal position in the Bill or the current law. As drafted, the amendment is unclear and refers to awards that were sought in a foreign jurisdiction or from an international body. The amendment may be designed to address forum shopping and this was identified as an issue in the previous system but the newer investor court system agreements have been designed to prevent forum shopping, subject to specific exceptions. If the investor decides to initiate proceedings under the ICS of the applicable agreement, they must withdraw or continue any existing proceedings before a tribunal or court under domestic or international law with respect to a measure alleged to constitute a breach referred to in the claim.”
“5, I recall that, as set out in the joint interpretive instrument, CETA includes commitment to co-operate on trade-related environmental issues of concern, such as climate change. In CETA, the EU, its member states and Canada have further agreed not to lower levels of environmental protection in order to encourage trader investment. We have agreed to work hard on the environment together and it is no surprise because we are like-minded countries. In the event, there is no question of the State not meeting its obligations under the agreements referenced in this amendment and the amendment is completely unnecessary. Therefore, I cannot accept amendments Nos. 4 and 5. On amendment No.”
“In any future case under an ICS - all of these ISDS cases are not relevant because this is a new system with new procedures and new ways of doing things - relevant arguments will be raised at consultation, mediation, tribunal and appeal stages in relation to the right to regulate, if it were to arise, which is way before we come to the provisions of this legislation, which is about the enforcement stage of an award. It is hard to see how these cases arise but let us pick a hypothetical case. It has already gone through all of that and all that is happening here in the legislation is the enforcement of the award. We are saying that the provisions of CETA are such that an award could not be made in any event that would affect our right to regulate. On amendment No.”
“In fact, he said he did not want to be overly prescriptive because the courts have powers too. Amendment No. 4 will introduce a new provision regarding the right to regulate in the public interest but I have outlined this is already contained within the agreement. It would not arise at the enforcement stage because it is already there before you get to an award. That is already there and it is not necessary to do this. The agreements affirm that the parties preserve their right to regulate for public policy purposes. They clarify that measures that negatively affect an investor's expectations of profits are not sufficient.”
“Ms Justice Baker said that CETA also makes provisions for a claim by a disappointed investor under a general rubric of legitimate expectation. The parameters and limitations of the claim are broadly similar to those in Irish law. The Government is not anticipating taking steps and we are not feeling chilled in our wish to legislate. The Seanad should not feel chilled in its desire to legislate either. Many of these things are certainly not worrisome to the people. I have already spoke about the Costello case; that is why we are here. The Bill sets out the response. The drafting, which amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seek to change here, has been very carefully considered. We have looked at the Supreme Court case. We have gone with what Mr. Justice Hogan is saying. We do not want to be overly prescriptive.”
“Furthermore, Article 8.9.2 of CETA specifies that the mere fact that a party regulates, including through a modification to its laws, in a manner that negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor's expectations, including its expectations of profits, does not amount to a breach of an obligation under this section. There was an added emphasis to this. If such regulation does not amount to a breach of an obligation, there is no compensation that goes with it. The Supreme Court justices, in the Costello judgment, referenced the similarities between CETA and Irish law in this context. The Chief Justice said the standard of fair and equitable treatment is recognisable and normally amounts to matters which would undermine the validity and lawfulness of a measure as a matter of Irish law.”
“However, the Government is clear that a mere exercise of the right to regulation in a given sector affecting all investments, regardless of origin, is not the frustration of a legitimate expectation by unfair or inequitable treatment. Indeed, in March of this year, the CETA joint committee specified that under Article 8.10.4, representations made to an investor may only be taken into account to the extent that they are relevant as a factor in determining a breach of fair and equitable treatment set out in Article 8.10.2.”
“In pursuit of its mandate, the IDA promotes Ireland's value proposition and provides client companies with financial supports through its grant programme as well as non-financial supports, which are very important. This is in addition to property solutions and the advance factories we all used to call for all the time and that still exist. The IDA does not commit to grant funding until all necessary approvals have been obtained and a grant agreement is in place. The reference in Article 8.10.4 to legitimate expectations only protects expectations that are frustrated by a breach to the obligation of fair and equitable treatment, leading to the results set out in Article 8.10.2.”
“There has been some suggestion that the IDA would put us in a position of liability if it said too much to a company coming into the country, but nothing could be further from the truth. IDA Ireland is Ireland's inward investment promotion agency and it does a fantastic job to attract and retain foreign direct investment, which means jobs in every constituency and county in this country. Our attractiveness to investment is based on a value proposition that includes access to the EU and those global markets that the EU adds to by negotiating trade agreements, a strong talent base - our people are brilliant, hopeful for their future and working hard - and a decades-long track record as a location to successfully implement complex investments.”
“However, if there is an added element - and we would want this for Irish companies - for example, abusive treatment, manifest arbitrariness, targeted discrimination or some equivalent behaviour, then it is that added element that could bring a claim within the scope of the agreement's protections and, thus, potentially result in liability. In such cases where a violation has been found and an award has been granted, the tribunal order cannot order a change to a measure giving rise to the award, but the respondent party could choose to do so. That is in the interest of protecting the parties and their rights. A lot has been said about inward investment to this country and attracting companies.”
“The system is already set up in such a way that this is a block at the very start of the process. The legislation we are dealing with here is the enforcement of an award. My contention is that such an award would not come if it interfered with the State's right to regulate. The reality is the right to regulate would have to be considered by the investor court before an award is made. The right to regulate in the public interest is protected in these agreements. These provisions mean that the mere fact that the interests of an investor are adversely affected by measures taken to regulate in the public interest does not amount to a breach in the agreement.”
“I cannot go around picking out paragraphs, clauses of judgments or dissenting judgments. We have to take the decision as a whole and that is what we have done with this legislation, as any reasonable person would see. We have heard much about the right to regulate and I have addressed it many times. It is not that the issue of the right to regulate comes in at the enforcement of the award stage, which is what we are talking about here. With the detailed provisions in CETA, the interpretive instrument and even the European Court decision, there is so much law on the right to regulate. It is incredible. There is so much law on the side of what I am saying. It is very strong. However, those provisions are not taking into account at the enforcement stage. Rather, they are taking into account in the ICS, which is even a step before.”
“The decision handed down by the Supreme Court in the Costello case identified constitutional concerns that prevented the ratification of CETA, and that is Irish law. We accept what the Supreme Court has said; everybody in this House accepts that. However, we have heard in some of the debate people picking and choosing between the bits they like and do not like. The Government has no option but to take the decision of the court very seriously and to work, as we wanted to and as we committed to in the programme for Government, to implement and ratify the CETA trade agreement. We can only do that if we follow the suggested advice in the Costello case in the Supreme Court. That is the place where the Government is coming from, which is a reasonable one. We want to implement this, and the Supreme Court offers us a pathway.”
“Irish companies benefit from these provisions abroad and that is important to recognise. The Government is working to make the Irish economy more competitive and more resilient to economic shocks. We are working to protect, preserve and sustain our hard-won economic progress in the years ahead, and I reject any suggestions that because of this Bill, we will have another "citizens' assembly" on O'Connell Street like in 1916, which I think is an exact quote from the Senator. That is just the height of exaggeration.”
“I am one who stands up for civil society; I was on "The Tonight Show" one night against one of our right-wing politicians who was telling me about all these NGOs. I know all the work they do - good work around the world - and I am not one to throw at NGOs, but I have to say that I do not understand where Trócaire is coming from intervening in this debate on Ireland and Canada. It is entitled to. This is a democracy and I value its input, but I cannot understand it. It keeps referring to the ISDS system, which is the old system, and does not refer to the changes. I do not understand Trócaire's role in this debate. It has a role and is entitled to have one, and civil society is something I value, but I am also entitled to push back and say I do not think it is correct. Certainly, that should be said on the record.”
“Dexcom. There are many examples in Galway, but also in all our of constituencies. These did not land on us too frequently before we joined the European Union. Yes, there were examples - there were pioneers who invested in this country and Irish pioneers who invested abroad - but with trade agreements, that is always easier to do now. On the subject of the investment dispute resolution, I have said it time and again that this is a brand new system. This is the investor court system, where many of the concerns raised here today about the ISDS system have been addressed because people recognised them and changed the system, but I do not hear that acknowledgement from the Opposition. Senator Higgins spoke about civil society.”
“However, the fact of the matter is the free market economy, with all its flaws, is what has provided wealth to unprecedented numbers of people. If we look back to the 1970s when we really did not have any trade agreements, and when we look at the type of accommodation my parents lived in when they were young, we are a world away from that and from our pre-trade days. When I look at the Acting Chairperson's area in Galway East and the impact of some international trade there, I often cite the Valeo factory in Tuam, which has approximately 1,000 people working there. It is part of the global motor industry, serving every market except, I think, China. Every single market in the world is done from Tuam, and it can only do that because we are part of the European Union, which negotiates trade agreements-----”
“I am conscious of claims made that we should not be concerned with ratifying CETA, as the parts that provide for trading are provisionally applied. Provisional application is an important mechanism that allows companies and consumers to benefit from a trade agreement at an early stage, but if the agreement is not ratified or if anyone rejects it, it falls, as do the trade parts; those benefits to the Irish economy fall. We saw the global reaction - I will not say "panic" - when President Trump imposed tariffs. We all knew of the impact that could have on our economy, our jobs and our tax receipts. When we are opening for trade, we should also be conscious of that. I am also conscious there are political differences, and that some people do not believe in the free market economy.”
“In Ireland, we can demonstrate unequivocally that free trade has benefited this country and we should be always sending a signal that we are open to investment from business, because that has what has generated wealth in this country. It is a time of global turbulence. It is an important signal for Ireland to seek to ratify trade agreements with Canada, Chile and Mexico, which provide Irish companies and exporters with new opportunities to expand and grow trade overseas. It is not only about investment here. It is about those Irish companies going abroad as well. Our trade and investment relationship with Canada is deep and growing, with over €12 billion in trade. I am convinced this will continue fantastically well.”
“The EU-Canada trade agreement has been scrutinised rigorously, including as part of this legislation, but at length in other forums too, including in the Oireachtas, over the past ten years. Free trade benefits the Irish economy, and while it has been said, flippantly in some ways, that we all agree with free trade, that is actually not the case at the global international level at present. Free trade is under significant pressure. The economic system that has delivered massive investment and massive tax receipts into this country is under severe pressure because there are people out there who do not want free trade. There is quite a train of thought in the US, not only at the presidential level, that does not agree with free trade.”
“At the outset, I will briefly return to first principles, because they are not as obvious as some make out, and the reasons behind this legislation. The Arbitration (Amendment) Bill seeks to put Ireland, a country which so greatly benefits from international trade, into a position where we can ratify the range of EU trade and investment agreements that we massively benefit from as an EU member state. It is not the case of international capital taking money from Ireland. If you look at our tax returns, it is the case of international capital investing money in Ireland, which can be seen in our tax returns and in some of the stories that were published this week. Ireland massively benefits from this and it is very much in our national interest to support trade agreements.”
“Last week, Operation Irini, which is an EU-led mission, lost its UN mandate. Our service members had to leave on that day, but the mission continues. Everyone else stayed but our people had to leave. That is what the triple lock has done. That is all we are trying to change in relation to that.”
“In relation to UNIFIL in particular, there are soldiers in it from all over the world. There were some deaths at the weekend. I pay tribute to them as well. That mission, which is a United Nations-run mission, will end. As far as I can tell, there is no other European Union country that needs a UN mandate to send their troops on peacekeeping missions. I have spoken to Switzerland and its troops can go on other missions, not just UN missions, for example. They deal with their neutrality in a different way from us. They do not need a UN mandate. If there were to be discussions in the future about a peacekeeping mission continuing in Lebanon, perhaps at the invitation of the Lebanese Government, most countries would be able to at least consider taking part, but we would not even be able to be part of the discussions.”