I welcome the opportunity to speak on the statements following the meeting of the European Council in December. I thank the Taoiseach for outlining some of the matters that were discussed. Ukraine, the Middle East and EU enlargement were referenced. It is only a matter weeks since the European Council meeting and yet the entire world has changed in those few weeks. I might touch on some of the international developments, but the issue in Greenland is one we have to approach with great consideration here in Ireland. In many ways, the way the European Union responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine set a standard for our commitment to sovereignty, integrity and respect of borders and foreign countries. That happened because of agreement across Europe. That is also why it did not happen in relation to Gaza, as there was not agreement across Europe, although there was agreement in regard to those occupied territories in the West Bank and sanctions that were imposed there. That agreement across Europe is probably the point I am touching on and, in that respect, we need to consider the heightened rhetoric from the United States and how that is impacting the idea that it would take control of Greenland. We should be careful not to get sucked into a spiral of commentary around an issue or try to inflate it. I hope the talks today between the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers will result in a de-escalation. In that context, the primary concerns I have heard in the media have been in regard to NATO and how that will impact NATO. From an Irish perspective as a non-NATO country, however, our concerns lie in the potential repercussions for Ireland and the wider EU. Ireland is a neutral country, and while we are aligned to Denmark through the EU - not in a military way but in terms of our economic ties - we do not have a role in the NATO question. However, another challenge will come before us both in Ireland and the EU, which is that if there was an infringement in Greenland of any size, Denmark would very likely and, I would say, correctly seek from its EU partners the same sanctions that were imposed on Russia. That is a big question - if we, alongside our other EU partners, would be ready to impose sanctions on the United States. We imposed those in regard to Russia and the question is what seismic impact sanctions on US individuals and US companies or the US Government itself might have. As I say, this is alarming territory to be in and I do not want to add hyperbole to it, but if Denmark proposes that at the table, two things could happen: our relationship with the United States could be incredibly damaged or our relationship with the European Union could be incredibly damaged. Ireland has to be very conscious of that. I urge the United States to de-escalate the harmful rhetoric that is taking place because it is destructive. I do not see what benefit it brings to the people on either side of the Atlantic. It will have an impact on the common person in terms of people's jobs, trade and so on. It is hard for Irish people not to look at Greenland from the post-colonial position that we take. Greenland is obviously a self-governing entity within the Kingdom of Denmark. Interestingly, in reading up on it, I did not realise that it had actually left the European Communities. It was the first entity to leave the European Communities over fishing rights in 1985. Ultimately, it had a vote in 1982. In leaving the European community, it does not have the same protections, but it operates within as an overseas territory. Even that phrase and regarding something as an overseas territory are uncomfortable for an Irish person. Ultimately, the people of Greenland have the right to dictate their future, but they should be able to rely on the support of the European Union. In many ways, it is a tiny entity and a tiny enclave, but it sits in a very important part of the world. We have to be very conscious of how a small number of fewer than 100,000 people might have a massive impact on trade and jobs for millions of people across Europe and the United States. I have not had too many telephone calls to my constituency office about Venezuela or Greenland, but these are the topics that arise at an international level and when they start to have an impact, that is when the rubber hits the road. On Venezuela, there is no doubt that Venezuela lacked a democratically elected president under Maduro and it was an incredibly repressive regime. There is no doubt that there were huge constitutional tensions and elections and also that the Venezuelan-led transition from peace to democracy in the country has to be respected by whoever has control of Venezuela. That should be the Venezuelan people, I will say. The idea that Donald Trump can dictate that Marco Rubio or anybody else will run Venezuela is concerning, but it places on whoever is responsible for administering the country the responsibility to put in place a peaceful transition. Whether that is the remainder of the Maduro regime, some sort of United States influence or the opposition, we need a peaceful transition in that country. Maduro was a bad application of an important principle, and that important principle is that international law should exist. While it is uncomfortable to maybe lean on that principle in the defence of a man whom many of us disagreed with, and many of us disagreed with how he how he operated, the international principle remains. I note Bulgaria's joining of the eurozone to become the 21st member state. It is incredibly important as we go forward with the eurozone that we continue to have the principal economic restrictions on membership and activity. I remember in first year in my economics course learning about asymmetric shocks in an optimum currency area and whether there was such a thing as an optimum currency area. We saw how Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain had a massive impact on the eurozone. As we continue to expand and if there are opportunities to expand, we also need to continue to monitor how additional countries joining the eurozone might have a larger impact in terms of the risk or the optimum currency area. However, it is a positive thing to see further European integration. While we look around the world at all of the different levels of chaos, I suppose there might be frustration in the European Union at the lack of decision-making and progress, but the stability it provides, including across the European Continent in different governments, is welcome in a time of incredible change.

Sentiment score: 0.12