Address to Seanad Éireann by Members of the European Parliament Seanad Éireann — 2026-05-27 ============================================================ Sharon Keogan (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel I thank the MEPs for coming before us. I want to direct my remarks in particular to those representatives here who are members of the Government parties and those who sit with the EPP and Renew groups because those groups form a central part of the governing coalition at EU level. Last week in this Chamber we debated the Canada trade deal, known as CETA, and its worrying provisions, especially the inclusion of investor-state dispute mechanisms that allow cases between foreign firms and the Irish Government be arbitrated by bodies outside our national courts. That raises serious questions about sovereignty. Not long before that we debated the application of the EU migration pact, which likewise has implications for our sovereign control over migration policy, infrastructure and resources. I do not want to rehearse all the details of those debates again but what strikes me is the pattern. Again and again, the EU moves forward with legislation packages and trade agreements that are not in Ireland's national interest. To their credit, Irish MEPs sometimes diverge from those European political groups when it comes to the final vote. We saw that dynamic clearly in the more recent legislation, although I note that in the case of CETA in 2017, Irish MEPs largely followed their party group lines in support of the agreement, even as concerns were raised domestically. Regardless, even when divergence does occur, we still end up here, in this House, dealing with the consequences of decisions that have already effectively been made. I want to ask a more fundamental question. What action do the MEPs present take before the vote? What have they done in the group meetings, in the committee stages, and in the negotiations that take place long before anything reaches the plenary floor, particularly for the Mercosur trade deal and the migration pact? I ask because we all know that the vote is not the decisive moment. The real shaping of these measures happens months and even years in advance. If that is the case and the direction of travel within these groups consistently produces outcomes that are misaligned with Ireland's national interest, then I think it is fair to ask why remain within those structures without fundamentally changing their course? I will turn to the Mercosur deal. I ask each of the MEPs, very directly, what is their position? Do they believe this deal should be rejected outright or do they believe it can somehow be salvaged through amendments and safeguards? I want to be clear about my own position. It seems to me that the deal is in its nature damaging to Ireland's economy, particularly to our agricultural sector. It is simply not feasible that Irish cattle farmers could fairly compete with South American mega-ranches. We were told that safeguards and monitoring mechanisms will address these issues but I find that difficult to accept. Many of the countries involved in the agreement face serious governance and enforcement challenges. Many of these countries tied to or involved directly in the deal have serious issues of corruption and some struggle to maintain state control over their own territories. To imagine that a provision or legal safeguard signed into a deal will suddenly make it workable seems absurd to me. We see a similar issue, albeit at a smaller scale, with the updated EU-Mexico trade agreement. It is often presented as a more balanced deal and I accept that it is not Mercosur, but it is still part of a wider trend of a cumulative opening of EU markets to agricultural imports from outside the Union. Even if each individual agreement is relatively modest, the combined effect is not. It increases competitive pressure on Irish producers particularly in sectors like beef and dairy, which are already under strain. I also want to raise the Commission's ongoing push to move away from unanimity voting and national vetoes in the Council. This is not a technical adjustment; it is a fundamental change to how sovereignty functions within the Union. I ask the MEPs present for their views on that. Do they support the removal of vetoes in areas that clearly touch on the national competence and economic interest? Finally, on a broader point and directed particularly to the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael representatives, what is their position on Ireland's absence from the recent meeting of the so-called "frugal" or net-contributor member states? At a time when budgetary pressures, fiscal rules and allocation of resources are being actively discussed, is it not a dereliction of duty for Ireland not to be present at the table? My concern is not with any one measure in isolation but a broader trajectory. It is a trajectory where, step by step, decisions are taken that reshape our economy, our sovereignty and our policy space, often without sufficient alignment to Ireland's long-term interest. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-05-27/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:00+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-05-27