Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill 2026: Committee and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-07-15 ============================================================ Helen McEntee (FG), Meath East I will come back on two points. In terms of our obligations, I am not saying one takes precedence over the other. The international court made it clear that there is a legal obligation on Europe to comply. However, under European treaties, we have legal obligations and international legal obligations within them. The Union has exclusive competence in external trade. For the reasons I have outlined, we have to comply with that. It is appropriate we comply with our international legal obligations under the International Court of Justice, but at the same time, within our international legal obligations as set out in the European treaties, which we also signed up to. It is clear that the exclusive competence for external trade rests with the Union. We have the public policy exemption in respect of goods. I have set this out. It is Article 24(2) of the 2015 regulation. There is no equivalent for services and, where there have been references to Articles 52 and 62, they are specific to the freedom of movement of persons, services and capital within the EU's Single Market, which is the internal market. We are talking about external services and trade more broadly. For this reason, we are taking a two-pronged approach. It is not that I am saying we have finished and this is all we want to do, that we are happy with being partially compliant and only going a certain way. I am saying clearly that, for all the reasons I have outlined, we are taking this two-pronged approach. It is not straightforward and it is not easy. I wish the EU were doing more. I echo the sentiments of Senator Ahearn that we all need to make sure we are engaging with our colleagues at a European level. That includes my party colleagues, among whom there are different views for different reasons, historical or otherwise. We must continue to advocate and have the difficult conversations. Even the countries that are clearly choosing a different path and voting in different ways all fully agree with us that what is happening is wrong, that it is not compliant with international law and that the ICJ ruling applies to every illegal settlement in the occupied territories. That is why it is frustrating being at the European Council where there is not full agreement. Although we all agree the settlements are illegal and that the actions by the Israeli Government are not appropriate and we all want to work towards a two-state solution - that is the objective of everyone in the European Parliament - we are not able to reach a consensus. We have to work and build a consensus. This will assist. There are countries that have not said so publicly but are looking to make progress on legislation and to see how we can move together on that. Spain has specifically introduced a targeted amendment to its consumer protection law to prohibit the advertisement in Spain of services provided in the illegal settlements. It is specific to one company in how it is being applied. We have to see whether it will go further, but it is specific to one company and one piece of legislation. When we talk about services more broadly, as I referenced previously, we are talking about a number of different sectors of services and global trade. There are 12 separate sectors and 150 sub-sectors and there is the World Trade Organization's agreement. There is far more than what was implemented in Spain. However, we want to be ambitious and at the same time compliant. --- 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/2026-07-15/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-27T06:52:16+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-07-15