Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 May 2018

Vol. 969 No. 6

UK Withdrawal from the European Union: Statements

It has been acknowledged in this House, and more widely, in recent weeks that we are at a critical phase of the Brexit negotiations. Ireland’s view, and that of our European Union partners, is that significant further progress needs to be made on the outstanding withdrawal issues, notably the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, before the June European Council.

This is a message that I have conveyed on several occasions to UK counterparts in recent weeks and it was reiterated at the highest level by the Taoiseach when he met with Prime Minister May last week. However, before addressing the current state of play in the negotiations in more detail, I would like to take a wider view of where we stand.

One year ago this week, on 22 May 2017, the EU adopted its detailed negotiating directives providing a mandate for Michel Barnier and his task force to commence negotiations with the UK.

Ireland warmly welcomed the directives. The robust reflection of Ireland’s unique concerns and priorities in the EU’s negotiating position spoke to the intensive programme of engagement undertaken by the Government to secure the understanding and support of our EU partners. This solidarity was, I recall, captured very succinctly by Michel Barnier in his address to this Chamber earlier that same month, when he said: "Ireland’s interests will be the European Union's interests". At that time, negotiations between the EU and the UK had not yet formally begun. There was strident opposition on the part of the UK to the EU’s proposed sequencing of the negotiations.

There were also very significant differences in principle between the EU and UK positions on critical issues such as citizens’ rights and the financial settlement. No such differences in principle existed between the EU and UK sides with regard to the shared objective of protecting the gains of the peace process and safeguarding in full the Good Friday Agreement. It was equally clear, however, that there was a very long road to travel in order to elaborate flexible and imaginative solutions with the aim of avoiding a hard border, while of course respecting the integrity of the Union legal order.

We have come a very long way since then. Over the past 12 months, under the able stewardship of Michel Barnier and his team, the negotiations have developed in a manner that has vindicated the EU’s strategic approach. The phased approach, dealing with withdrawal issues first, has been instrumental in delivering the outcomes we now see reflected in the draft withdrawal agreement.

It is very welcome that agreement has already been reached in principle at the level of negotiators on the key issues of the financial settlement and citizens’ rights. Also of particular importance to Ireland is the agreement reached in principle on a transition period. This status quo transition up to 31 December 2020 will be of critical importance in providing some certainty and clarity for businesses and citizens in terms of what the situation will be the day after the UK formally leaves the EU on 29 March 2019. This was a priority which both I and the Government raised at a very early stage of the negotiations. I believe it was the former Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, who was first to advocate for it.

Of central importance to this country is the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the withdrawal agreement and addresses issues unique to the island of Ireland.

I welcome that agreement has already been reached that Ireland and the UK can continue to make arrangements to ensure the maintenance of the common travel area, which allows, and will continue to allow, free movement of Irish and UK citizens between Ireland and the UK. It goes way beyond simply free movement but is a virtual recognition of citizenship in each other's countries.

As I have informed this House in recent weeks, negotiations to close the remaining gaps in the draft withdrawal agreement are ongoing, including detailed discussions between the EU and the UK on issues relating to Ireland and Northern Ireland. These negotiations continue this week.

The UK has accepted that a legally operative version of the backstop for the Border will be included in the withdrawal agreement, in line with paragraph 49 of the joint progress report agreed last December, and that all the issues identified in the draft protocol reflect the issues that must be addressed. These were important steps forward. Real and substantive progress is now needed in terms of building on the progress already made on agreeing the protocol ahead of the June European Council.

Over the past six months, the situation with regard to the future framework for relations has also been developing, albeit slowly. In the guidelines adopted by the European Council last March, the EU set out in more detail its overarching approach and priorities for the future EU-UK relationship. It reaffirms the Union’s determination to have as close as possible a partnership with the United Kingdom in the future, a position Ireland has consistently advocated for given our very important economic relationship with the UK. While the UK’s current "red lines" may prohibit that future relationship being as close as we would like, the guidelines, importantly, state that the EU will revisit its position should the UK’s approach evolve over time.

This openness to adapt on the EU’s part is particularly important and welcome in the context of the ongoing debate in the UK at present with regard to customs.

A customs arrangement between the EU and UK would be a step in the right direction in the context of achieving our mutual objective of the closest possible relationship in the future and workable proposals from the UK will be given due consideration by the EU.

I also welcome that, as things stand at present, the EU’s position takes account of a number of significant Irish concerns, which my officials and I have consistently underscored in our contacts with the EU task force and our EU partners generally. They set out an ambition for a balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging free trade arrangement with the aim of covering all sectors and seeking to maintain zero tariffs and zero quotas. Ireland has a greater interest than any other EU member state in such an outcome. Important sectors for Ireland are also prioritised, including agriculture, fisheries and aviation.

Against this backdrop, the current phase of negotiations is about maintaining the necessary momentum to carry all of this over the line by the end of October.

Because the EU has been clear that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and following my discussions with Michel Barnier and with my EU counterparts at the General Affairs Council last week, I can assure the House that the EU remains resolute on this.

Michel Barnier has explained in very clear terms that a development of the UK position on customs, while useful within the context of the wider EU-UK relationship, would not in any way remove the need for a backstop on avoiding a hard border. As we speak now, the backstop as reflected in the draft protocol, which centres on a shared regularly space, is the only solution on the table.

To be clear on one point, such a solution does not in any way threaten the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement through the principle of consent. It is simply a logical and legal outworking of what was agreed in December and reaffirmed by Prime Minister May in March. These are practical solutions for solving a very challenging and political problem, namely, how to avoid a hard border in order to protect the Good Friday Agreement and the gains of the peace process.

Of course, it is not just about the Border. This is also about protecting other central and equally important elements of the Good Friday Agreement, most notably North-South co-operation and the rights of individuals and their rights as EU citizens. There was a clear consensus among the EU 27 in Brussels last week that at this stage of the process, the UK must engage in a more detailed and realistic way on the draft text of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland with a view to delivering on the clear commitments it made in December and again in March. As I said earlier, this is a message that the Taoiseach and I have conveyed clearly to the UK side in recent weeks.

In the interim, intensive work continues here at home on preparing people, businesses and the economy for Brexit. The exact implications of Brexit depend on the outcome of negotiations on the future relationship between the EU and UK but we need to prepare for all scenarios. This is why the Government is engaged in comprehensive contingency planning, which is at an advanced stage. I would point in particular to over 30 research papers produced across Government and also the support measures put in place by the Government in budget 2018, as well as the longer-term economic strategies aimed at getting Ireland Brexit ready.

I welcome these statements, which come at a critical time in the negotiations and as the Government continues its intensive work on Brexit planning. Support in this House for our work is vital and, therefore, I remain committed to keeping Members fully informed as this detailed and complex process develops over the coming months. I hope and think that the Brexit spokespersons from Opposition parties know that I am available to talk to them on and off the record with regard to making sure everybody is kept fully briefed, particularly between now and the end of June as we move through a very sensitive but very important phase of the negotiations.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Brexit, which is undoubtedly the biggest challenge our country has faced in decades and will face for years to come. It threatens to weaken our economy, damage trade between Ireland and the UK and test diplomatic relations. It is currently on a path which could lead to the stripping of rights from EU citizens living in Northern Ireland. The possible reintroduction of a border on this island looms over all of us and to date, we still have no progress or possible solution to that issue, which would be utterly disastrous for our country. A border is not just a barrier to trade. It represents division and is unacceptable in any form - hard, soft or anything in between - regardless of how advanced the technology is. It harks back to the days of violence on this island. It is imperative that it is at all times stressed to Mrs. May and her Government that a border is a border, no matter which way one spins it, and the people of this country will not accept it.

In December, it was announced with much fanfare that the Government had secured a backstop. This was touted as a big win for Ireland at that time. It is clear now that the backstop was oversold and the Government's interpretation of that backstop was, and still is, at variance with that of its UK counterpart. In fact, Theresa May utterly rejected the wording put before her in March. Here we are almost six months on approaching the June Council meeting and the backstop is still being discussed. It is fine for everyone to agree that there can be no border on the island of Ireland but it is a very different thing to actually put that into practice and devise a solution to the conundrum in which we find ourselves where we all agree yet no one agrees. Next, the UK presented what it viewed as two possible solutions in respect of this issue. The first is a customs partnership, which we know will not work and which Boris Johnson, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, termed "crazy". The second is maximum facilitation, max fac, an idea I am happy to call crazy on the record because that is what it is. It is totally unworkable for us. It is a border using technology that does not exist to create a situation that is not replicated anywhere in the world. It is fairy-tale customs. These were the two options being presented.

When the penny finally dropped that the UK still had no solution, Mrs. May came up with a third option, namely, max fac plus delay, which is essentially an admission that she cannot solve the border issue right now so she is going to kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it when she has departed. If the intention behind this option is to delay the introduction of a technological border until the technology becomes available, then we should absolutely reject it because a border will never be acceptable - not now, not ever. What might happen if this delay occurs? What will happen in six, seven or ten years time when the Irish Government has changed, when the UK Government is different, when Michel Barnier may have retired, when Guy Verhofstadt is gone and when the make-up of the entire negotiating team is very different? If we do not resolve the issue now, thereby allowing the can to be kicked down the road, we are the only ones who will be disadvantaged. It is Ireland that will suffer. If we see a situation where Jacob Rees-Mogg and his 60 Brexiteers in the European Research Group - a group that is essentially looking for a hard Brexit - suddenly start welcoming this third option because they think this is a good idea, alarm bells should sound across this island and loudly within the halls of Government Buildings, particularly as we know that the ultimate goal of this group is to break all ties with the EU. The members of the group in question could not care less what happens to Ireland or to the Irish Border. They have made that crystal clear.

I was in Brussels this week and I engaged in a series of meetings to discuss Brexit and the negotiations. I met with Emer Deane, Ireland's permanent representative, and her team. I was extremely impressed with our team. We are very fortunate and lucky to have such a strong team advocating for us in Brussels. Yes, they are doing extraordinary work but they were in agreement that time is tight. They are certainly focusing on the June Council meeting and the October's meeting but there is concern across the board that we still do not have a solution to the border issue and are still very much up in the air about whether we will have a withdrawal treaty at all.

I also met with Nina Obermaier and members of the Article 50 task force. The message was very clear. I asked her directly about Mrs. May's third option and the suggestion that the UK could remain in the customs union for an extended period. Ms Obermaier made it very clear that the UK cannot and will not remain with the customs union as we know it because the customs union is for member states only. She was also very clear that the intention was that the backstop would only apply to Northern Ireland and that if there was no other solution, Northern Ireland - not the UK in its entirety, would remain in the customs union and the Single Market. It is difficult to see how that position will somehow marry with the position being put forward by the UK because they are entirely different and right now, they do not match. I also asked what the situation would be if come next March, we do not have a withdrawal treaty, which we must accept is a possibility. If we do not have a withdrawal treaty, it means we do not have a transition period. That means that next March, we are heading towards a cliff edge. What happens to trucks that want to go from the port in Dublin to mainland Europe via England? How will that work? Again, Ms Obermaier was clear that this is not part of the task force's mandate. That is not part of its work. It is not discussing that. The task force's focus is on maintaining the integrity of the Single Market. Issues relating to trade and crossing the UK to get to mainland Europe are matters for the future trading arrangements.

We have made progress on that issue.

It was very worrying that she was unable to tell me whether the task force knew how it was going to work but what she did say was that we must accept that trade will be very different and that things will not persist or remain as they are. However, she could not say how that was going to look. She was very clear that her job was to maintain the integrity of the Single Market and that what is being put forward by the UK right now is not workable in its current format.

While we support the Government in its work to achieve the best possible outcome for Ireland, as I said to the Tánaiste previously, that support is conditional. Fianna Fáil and I are very concerned regarding domestic preparedness for the possibility of a hard Brexit next March. We must do more to prepare for that. I am out of time and would like to say more but I am sure there will be other opportunities.

I am often reminded - as, I am sure, are many other Irish people - of Joe Dolan's song "Make Me An Island", with its lyrics:

Shut me off, cut me off, make me an island, I'm yours

Take me away from the world, take me away from the girls."

Another line says, "But I'm tired, uninspired and I've wiped my slate clean." Theresa May may have wiped the slate clean with regard to paying the bill but I would prefer to think that it is fairy-tale economics. The story starts with "Once upon a time." Mrs. May sold this fairy-tale vision of a post-Brexit Britain to her subjects - a Britain that was going to be fully in charge of its own destiny, a Britain that would not have to listen to any authority other than its own and a Britain that would not have to abide by any of the rules coming at it from the EU. However, unlike most fairy tales, this story does not come with a happy-ever-after ending.

The caption in a recent cartoon in an British newspaper read "The Customs Union and the Single Market is not dead - the British are hoping it’s asleep." With 309 days to go, the authority of the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, will come under scrutiny next month when the Brexit legislation comes back before Parliament in advance of the EU summit. Her position may be untenable if she cannot control the opposing views within her own party.

She needs to be very clear on the customs issue before the summit at the end of June. The days of indecision and vague declarations are over and for the Tánaiste the buck stops at the backstop and we need to hold fast on that being contextualised legally.

The British Parliament will now have to decide which of the amendments coming from the House of Lords will stay and which will go. Anti-Brexit peers voted for the UK to stay in the Single Market and in the customs union. They removed the exit date of 29 March 2019. The EU must be in agreement with this legislation also. It wants clarity on the exit date and cannot let Britain dictate the terms.

The Times in England has reported that the UK will ask Brussels for a second transition period that would cover trade, customs and industrial goods and last until 2023, to prevent a hard border in Ireland. This may suit the British Prime Minister as she pushes the hard decisions further out.

The EU, including Ireland, is fed up with vagueness where no hard decisions are made, as am I. The EU has made it clear it is all or nothing. We want to see progress on the important issues at the June summit. Fianna Fáil sees all of this fudge by the British as an attempt to push out the difficult decisions that need to be faced. We will not accept the Irish proverb "Mair, a chapaill, agus gheobhaidh tú féar" or live horse, and you will eat grass, while Britain still insists on having that proverbial cake and eating it.

I am happy that the EU is demanding progress on the Irish issue. We are all still anxiously awaiting the UK’s proposals. On this issue, it is clear to me that the British are making preparations for a hard border. Recently the sale of a former police station near the Irish Border at Warrenpoint has been halted because of Brexit. This would serve a useful customs purpose in the Port of Warrenpoint.

I fully agree with Dr. Katy Hayward from Queen’s University Belfast that any plans to introduce customs technology on the currently invisible border between North and South would be dangerous on all sorts of terms. It would represent the reopening of a gaping wound. The negative effects of Brexit are already evident in the North, with the creation of a new divide. The peace process is very fragile. Twenty years on from the Good Friday Agreement, the persistence of sectarianism is still very visible. This fairy tale gets worse.

Go raibh maith agat.

I am under time pressure. In a post-Brexit situation, even today the Central Bank has referred to up to 10% additional cost - over €100 million a week - as the effect on our economy. I could go on. I support the Tánaiste's efforts to ensure we will get the best outcome in this situation.

There is nothing new of substance in the Tánaiste's speech, which is disappointing. Obviously we all await the June summit and we want to see exactly what this real and substantial progress, which has been talked up and talked about for so long, would be. The Tánaiste knows that I and my party have supported the Government's approach and the European Union's approach to getting the best outcome for Ireland. In December we had a political agreement, the most notable part of which was the backstop. It was one of three options and I suppose it was the insurance policy that this State and the North would have in the absence of a better agreement - a free trade agreement or some agreement on customs and the Single Market between the European Union and the UK.

One of the difficulties was that the backstop arrangement was limited. We needed to build on the backstop but what we have seen is a different interpretation of what the backstop means by the British Government and a further different interpretation by the hard Brexiteers. When we last discussed the matter, the Tánaiste said that the Government would take its cue from the British Prime Minister and not from the hard Brexiteers, which is fair enough. However, it is very difficult to know who is in charge at the moment and exactly what the British Government's position is. British Ministers say they support the substance and the principles of December's agreement, but they have not put anything on the table on how they will bring that about. They talk about "a" backstop, but not "the" backstop. The backstop, in the December agreement, states it is maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now and into the future would support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement. It goes on to state that the territory of the North of Ireland, excluding the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, shall be considered to be part of the customs territory of the Union. It continues to state that a list of what issues will be subject to the customs union will be annexed to the agreement. The difficulty is that not all areas of trade will be covered as part of this customs territory. What has not been agreed is that the North will remain fully in the customs union and Single Market. Even if the backstop were translated into a legal agreement with which we would be comfortable, it would still not mean the North remaining in the customs union and Single Market. If that does not happen, we will have a hardening of the border and a difficulty. We needed to build on the December agreement, but what we have had since is more backsliding.

Earlier this week the Taoiseach indicated there was new thinking from the British Prime Minister. We went from having in December a backstop, which was a bulletproof cast-iron guarantee. We have had months of trying to understand and unravel what that means, getting some alignment and agreement between what the British Government, the Irish Government and the EU understand that to mean. There has been no agreement on the legal text so that we can see exactly what that would mean in practice. That now seems to be parked and there is new thinking and new ideas. We have no idea as to what that new thinking will be, other than some vague reference to a customs partnership and an extension to the transition period where the UK in its entirety would stay in the customs union and Single Market for a bit longer. Under no circumstance should we trade in the insurance policy that is the backstop for some sort of temporary solution being proposed by the British Government.

For all of the talk and all the support we have given the Government, there is still no agreement as we stand here today. There is still no sense of what it will mean for people living on the island of Ireland post Brexit. Even with the backstop, there is no sense of what that means because there are different interpretations. We are trying to put the best interpretation on it because we want the best possible result.

There is a real focus and urgency and a real importance attached to the June summit. If the Tánaiste has a chance to come back in, he should give the House some sense of what is meant by substantial progress. Is it substantial progress on the backstop or is it substantial progress on the so-called new thinking on which we have no detail so far?

The Tánaiste can understand our frustration. I would like to take the Tánaiste up on his offer to have a formal meeting with him and his officials in order that he can apprise us on what he means by substantial progress in advance of the June summit.

We are just a month from the second anniversary of the British decision to leave the European Union. Despite the consistent interventions of political parties, businesses, academics, and civic engagement groups from north and south of the Border, it is a damning indictment of the current British Tory Government and its partners in the DUP that we are no closer to even an interim arrangement regarding the Border post Brexit, let alone to resolving permanently the issue of the Border on our island.

It is now getting very close to decision time for all parties to this process, the Irish Government, the other European Union member states and the British Government. It is incredulous that at this point in the negotiations, the British Government would introduce a third option for address of the Border in the context of Brexit.

I have a deep fear this is a further tactic by this deeply divided Tory Government to attempt to buy further time. They have played and are playing a hard and fast game with the Good Friday peace agreement which is both dangerous and deeply damaging, and could result in the erosion of confidence and trust. The fact remains there is only one solution to this problem that has been created by the British referendum. There can be no border on the island of Ireland post-Brexit - no hard border, no soft border, not any border. My constituents in Cavan and Monaghan do not want a border any more than the majority of citizens in the Six Counties who voted to remain the European Union in the British referendum. This figure has since increased to 60% in recent polls.

Just two days ago, Karen Bradley, the British Secretary of State, again announced that the North will leave the EU customs union. If we in the House cannot yet interpret or explain how a border can be prevented without the North remaining in the customs union, then how are the ordinary citizens who will be most affected by it supposed to do so? With 60% of citizens in the North in favour of remaining in the EU, we are going to have to start moving towards consensus politics to resolve this, and accept the will of the people. Consent, of course, is the bedrock on which the Good Friday Agreement was planned, constructed, launched and built upon since.

Just this week my party, Sinn Féin, along with the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party, signed a letter of consensus, again calling for no hard border and for the North to remain in the customs union. These four parties together secured 49 of the 90 seats in the last Assembly election so the question, quite naturally, is fair to pose: for how long more can we neglect the will of the people?

The withdrawal agreement, we are told, needs to be agreed and adopted by October. Time, therefore, is not on our side, so what do we want? There can be no diminishing of the rights of Irish citizens provided by membership of EU, wherever on the island of Ireland they live. The Good Friday Agreement must be protected in every single aspect and in all of its parts. The people on both sides of the Border have worked long and hard on peace building and reconciliation and do not want it wrecked by a reckless and divided Tory Government, which appears blind to the consequences resulting from the fallout from Brexit. The people will not accept this and neither must we, as those entrusted to represent them, the Members of this Dáil of all parties and of a variety of independent collectives. We must act with a firm resolve - I believe that is the clear message we need to come from these statements today. We must act with a firm resolve and we must act together in the interest of this island and of all its people.

It is almost two years since the people of Britain made their momentous decision to exit the European Union. In a debate in the Dáil some months afterwards, I made the prediction that they would not be disentangled from the EU framework for at least five or six years. It is beginning to look like a gross underestimate if one factors in recent discussions pertaining to the likely transition arrangements.

It is against this background that we have heard quite a lot recently about how the rules-based international order is threatened - threatened by aggressive military posturing by Russia and China; threatened by unilateral dismissal of international treaties, not least by US President Trump; but also threatened by the UK decision to withdraw from the European Union. The rules-based international order is, quite simply, a shared commitment by all countries to act in accordance with agreed rules. These are rules that evolve over time, such as international law, regional security arrangements and trade agreements.

Membership of the European Union requires adherence to the membership rules in order to reap the extensive benefits of membership in terms of trade, security and higher social and environmental standards. By leaving the European Union, the UK has signalled that it no longer wants to obey these commonly-agreed rules. It does not want to be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or be restricted by trade deals struck by EU negotiators, yet it wants to preserve the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU market. It remains to be seen if the UK is committed to maintaining European social and environmental standards or whether Brexit will be an excuse to unwind hard-won rights and protections for workers and citizens.

This is the "have your cake and eat it" scenario that has been rejected, again and again, by Michel Barnier, negotiating on behalf of the EU. It has been rejected by the European Commission and by member states, including Ireland. However, talk of cakes is too frivolous for such a serious threat to Ireland and to the very basis of co-operation between European member states. So far, two UK proposals have been rejected. First, the maximum facilitation model relies excessively on technology, not least that hundreds of cameras would need to be placed on or near the Border to monitor the movement of goods vehicles, which is unacceptable and, in any event, clearly unworkable. Second, the customs partnership model is yet another attempt by the UK to be effectively inside the customs union area while also negotiating additional trade deals outside of it. Again, this is clearly unacceptable.

Let us be clear. Both of these proposals are attempts to do the impossible, which is to preserve the benefits of international co-operation without agreeing to a realistic set of international rules. Instead, the UK has proposed fewer rules, with weak or non-existent arbitration and little or no commitment to pay towards the upkeep of the European rules-based system from which it wishes to profit economically. The fundamental contradiction in this position is obvious to all.

Last week, Downing Street finally promised to publish a White Paper before the June summit, with another proposal. This appears to suggest that, in the absence of an agreed alternative, all of the UK will "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which support north-south co-operation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement". This version of the backstop is initially seductive. It seems to be a plausible solution to our immediate concerns about the Border on this island and about barriers to trade between Ireland and Britain. However, is this just another version of the already rejected customs partnership or is the UK willing to remain within all of the rules and obligations that come with membership of the customs union, including the role of the European Court of Justice and annual payments to the EU? If it is just another attempt to retain access to the customs area while negotiating trade deals outside of it, then it is not going to be acceptable. If it means remaining genuinely inside the rules-based customs union, with all this implies, is it politically achievable within the UK?

There is clearly political pressure within the UK Cabinet to make this a temporary arrangement, not a sustainable option. There is also likely to be a legal impediment to the UK putting detail on future trade arrangements within the text of its exit agreement. Everything keeps coming back to the international rule of law. When we reach the June summit, the time is up for any further fudging of issues, prevarication or attempts to get a free pass into European free trade arrangements. The Government must ensure that the UK is prepared to sign up to a legally-binding set of rules which outline in no uncertain terms how the Irish Border will remain open and frictionless. A proposed UK-wide backstop that is not politically stable, and potentially not legally possible, is just not acceptable. It does not provide sufficient security for Irish jobs and it does not give us the sustainable solution that is needed for the Border. The Government must take a firm stand at this June summit.

The UK is a trading nation. It imports goods, not least food products from Ireland, and it exports services. We have been told, again and again, that the UK wants frictionless free trade with the EU, but trade between countries requires shared rules and mechanisms to enforce those rules and to arbitrate between businesses and between national governments. The UK is highly reliant on exporting complex services, not least financial services.

The World Trade Organization does not provide a sufficient set of rules to oversee this kind of trade. The UK is either a member of the European rules-based order or it is not. If the UK wants to trade across the European Union, it must agree to follow all the rules that come with access to that market. The European Economic Area provides access to the Single Market for countries that remain outside the political union. The EU's customs partnership with Turkey provides a template for trade in goods.

We must also be clear with the British Government that it cannot use Ireland's concerns as leverage to get it a customs partnership which we have already determined is unworkable and not in our interests. Prime Minister May has spoken on several occasions recently in defence of a rules-based international order. The great irony is that the UK's exit from the European Union is a leading example of the breakdown in rules-based co-operation between countries. It has unleashed an ideology that is totally out of step with a hard-won European and global rules-based regulated approach to trade. After endless months of fudge, bluster and threat, the time has arrived for clarity. Ireland must insist that clarity is provided before we move a step further. Nothing less will suffice.

I am sharing time with Deputy Brendan Smith.

We are very fond of the saying "We are where we are". It is a good saying about accepting reality. We accept the reality of the vote in the UK on Brexit. Another reality, however, is that Northern Ireland did not vote to leave the EU; it voted to remain. Despite of all the work, the endless hours and resources going into the negotiations, we do not know what the reality of Brexit will be for Ireland or Northern Ireland. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement which hears many presentations from and meets individuals and organisations living and operating in the North, those in the so-called Border counties and from organisations whose work covers all 32 counties. At our most recent meetings, we heard presentations from two academics which were particularly challenging and stimulating.

One of the positive points they made was that many British MPs were not alive at the time of the Good Friday Agreement and are engaging with and learning about that agreement for the first time. They also mentioned statements by the Prime Minister on upholding the agreement. I asked about the degree to which Ireland depend on the EU to remain firm and strong on the Irish issues as it is now, particularly if one goes on the basis of what Michel Barnier is saying and doing. I expressed a fear that when it comes to a final resolution between the EU and the UK, Ireland could be caught in the crossfire, especially in the context of business and finance. Recent statistics on foreign direct investment into the UK are disturbing. The reply I received to my question was to the effect that the language of the EU is getting stronger on Ireland. We took great solace from that. Those are positive points.

The UK withdrawal, however, has the potential to disrupt the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and undermine the peace that Irish people have, with few exceptions, enjoyed for over 20 years. To paraphrase one of the academics' points, the nature and effect of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement will depend on how the processes of withdrawal and transition are managed, on arrangements for future relations between the EU and the UK and on how the parties to the Agreement work on responding to those issues and changes. The relationship between Britain and Ireland is also of great importance. That means real engagement and communication.

The Border cannot be a dividing line between the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties. Many of us know what it was like to have a Border and many more know what it is like without one. There is no doubt about which is the better option. There has been agreement on free movement and avoiding a hardening of the Border but I am not sure that Britain is on the same page in respect of what it actually means and what it will take to avoid a hardening of the Border. In spite of Teresa May's recent speech consistently putting the Good Friday Agreement at the heart of the UK's approach it is not clear how this will be done. A broad position paper was released last August and there has been some rhetoric about commitments and North-South co-operation, an all-island economy and avoiding a hard border but it is short on realistic details and on how that can be achieved, whereas the EU at the very least has set out the minimum requirement for the UK to deliver on this. We know about the backstop in the case that it will not be wonderful or satisfactory and we hope that will not happen. It appears to some that what is envisaged for Ireland is a selective and lean version of the internal market. If that is so, that protocol will fall far short of what political and business people have been calling for, namely, to have Northern Ireland remain in the Internal Market.

In a letter of 26 August 2016, Arlene Foster and the late Martin McGuinness set out the ideal outcome and stated that there should be no friction on cross-Border trade and services, continued integration of EU skilled and unskilled workers and that all-Ireland energy and agriculture regimes should be protected. The underlying assumption was that there would be minimal change in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit but that appears to be less and less of a reality. There is a divide between those who want Northern Ireland to be granted some form of special status and those who will not hear of it. There is also the reality that there is no Government in Northern Ireland. There are questions over the use of public money, the Conservative Party is dependent on the Democratic Unionist Party, DUP, and there is infighting and disagreement within the Conservative and Labour parties. There is a middle ground in Northern Ireland and 47% of those who occupy it say they are neither unionist nor nationalist.

This day last week was the 44th anniversary of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Many of us were on Talbot Street on the day. The campaigners and relatives are still waiting for the truth despite all the Dáil motions and parliamentary questions. I fear that following the UK withdrawal those legacy issues will be further down the list of priorities.

In recent weeks, we have seen further proof that many of the British politicians who argue most passionately and vociferously for Brexit, indeed for a hard Brexit, have no idea at all about what that will mean for the people of Northern Ireland or for the Good Friday Agreement. In the week when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement referendum, it is worth noting that the most recent survey shows that people in the North now more passionately oppose Brexit than they did even at the 2016 referendum. This week the British Minister of State for Immigration told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that she has not even read the Good Friday Agreement. She was there specifically to discuss Brexit and talk about what her Department was doing on Brexit in the context of Northern Ireland. This is astounding stuff but it is only one small example.

The former Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Paterson, a Conservative MP, and the Sammy Wilson, MP, of the DUP published a jointly written article in last Monday's Daily Telegraph in which they argue that re-establishing the Border will not be an issue. Without any recourse to facts or reality they accuse political leaders on this island and anti-Brexiteers in Britain of exploiting fantasies about the Irish Border. They base this on their extraordinary discovery that "There is a border: it hasn't gone away." Yes, of course there is a Border. It is there because there are two jurisdictions on this island. There are separate legal, criminal justice and healthcare systems. There are separate political and governmental administrations. Did this news seriously come as a shock to a DUP MP and a former Northern Ireland Secretary? Yes, there is a Border but it is as soft a border as possible. There are no checkpoints, there is no border infrastructure and there are no military installations. It is no longer a border that is patrolled on both sides with a heavy customs, police and armed military presence.

While Mr. Wilson and Mr. Paterson may not understand the difference between the two situations, I can assure them that I and my constituents do. We know it based on experience. We know what was there before and we know that we do not wish to travel one single step back towards that horrible and tragic past. We know that the Chief Constable of the PSNI has warned of his fears and concerns at the prospect of any return to a harder border. We know that the Good Friday Agreement was concerned with breaking down borders and that it did that by creating the political conditions that allowed both the removal of the border infrastructure on the ground and diminishing the border attitudes in people's minds. The communities on both sides of the Border, where I live, no longer live with their backs to each other, as my colleague, Deputy Breathnach has often said.

People now live their lives together across the Border and not in separate silos on either side of it. That progress took time. It took decades of hard work and trust-building. In their excellent presentation to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, Professor David Phinnemore and Dr. Katy Hayward of Queen's University Belfast pointed out that much of the history of the European Union entails devising innovative solutions to cross-border problems.

Brexit attempts to undo this progress and set the clock back on this island. Both Professor Phinnemore and Dr. Hayward said that the success of the Good Friday Agreement has centred on viewing the Irish Border, and Northern Ireland more broadly, as a point of contact between Britain and Ireland and not a dividing line between them. Therein lies the path to finding a way through the Brexit dilemma Britain has foisted upon us. I refer to the British Government and the political establishment at Westminster. That establishment includes the British Labour Party, which has become a passive enabler of Brexit, although I welcome Mr. Corbyn's long overdue visit to Northern Ireland today. We need to impress upon them that the Irish Border and Northern Ireland could and should become the positive point of contact - the interface - not just between Britain and Ireland but between Britain and the European Union. If the happens, then perhaps the people that I represent can have some hope of safeguarding and ensuring the hard won progress of the last two decades.

I will address the remarks of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on the horrible atrocities in Dublin and Monaghan on 17 May 1974. It is appalling that the British Government has failed to respond to the three unanimous requests from this House in 2008, 2011 and 2016. We asked the British Government to give an eminent international legal person access to all papers and files pertaining to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. While visiting Westminster last week, I had the opportunity to raise this matter with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Karen Bradley. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan, Deputy Crowe, a few others and I have been constant advocates on this issue, along with other constituency colleagues. We ask the Minister of State to impress upon the Government the need to ensure that this particular issue is kept to the forefront of the agenda in all discussions between the two Governments. The British Government's total dismissal of the unanimous views of our Parliament on the awful atrocity in 1974 is appalling and reprehensible.

I am sharing with Deputy Róisín Shortall.

We have a chance to think big with these Brexit debates. I want to take that opportunity. This morning, I was watching a YouTube video of an interview that the BBC did last night with Mr. Steve Bannon. It was a fascinating 25-minute video in which he set out the case for economic nationalism and trumpeted the Trump regime as having delivered higher rates of employment to the black and Mexican communities than has ever been the case in the history of the United States. Mr. Bannon also set out how that economic nationalism was a response - which it is - to the crash of 2008 and the sense of the unfairness regarding globalisation. I refer to this weird inversion that has occurred whereby the Republican Party in the US now represents - if we are to believe Mr. Bannon - the working class and the Democrats represent the cosmopolitan elite.

On Brexit, similarly, the Tories are getting their votes in working class areas whereas the Labour Party is getting its votes in cosmopolitan Islington and so on. If we delve down there is an absolute fallacy in Steve Bannon's rhetoric. In the United States in the past year, wages grew by 2.6% while corporate profits rose by 26% - ten times higher. There is a fundamental injustice in the world of globalisation. We have seen it in the last 25 or 30 years. The share of wealth that has gone to labour has been too low and that needs to change. The share that has gone to retained earnings and to capital is too high and that also needs to change.

I do not believe, however, that economic nationalism - and a retreat to nationalism - is the solution to that problem. It is because of that type of thinking that we find ourselves engaged in this debate on Brexit. That thinking is happening behind the scenes and it is creating the environment for this crisis. Meanwhile, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Boris Johnson, is in Peru. He practically has one of those feathered jungle hats on and he is lauding the possibility of a free trade agreement. Is the Ceann Comhairle disagreeing with my disparaging comments about the British Foreign Secretary?

I just remarked that he hardly needs a jungle hat.

I am sorry. No, he does not. He is a bit like President Trump. He has hair that would qualify as a hat on occasion.

That is another request from this Parliament.

The weird fallacy is that the Brexiteers are looking after the working class; they are the economic nationalists and they will make Britain great again by going into the form of globalised trading that has caused the problem. There is a subterfuge happening in those arguments both in Britain and America. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, and the Tánaiste and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, have been very useful in these Brexit events. I am not sure whose analysis it was - it may have been that of Patricia King - but there is a view that the problem we are seeing in the emerging Brexit deal, including in the draft withdrawal agreement, is that it is weakest in protecting workers' rights and environmental rights. I do not know if the Minister of State would agree but that seems to be one of the problems that has been identified.

I fear the British will not agree to any deal and will crash out of the EU as a result. Even if they get their "extend and pretend" arrangement, which seems now to be their latest withdrawal from their red-line positions, they still have to get over the hurdle of agreeing governance mechanisms in any withdrawal agreement. The European Court of Justice clearly must have a central position in any such agreement. I fear that Mr. Johnson and his 30 or 50 hard Brexiteer colleagues in the Tory Party will not accept that and Britain will crash out rather than swallow the final bitter pill of what, for them, will be a very weak Brexit withdrawal agreement.

We have to place ourselves in that context. To a certain extent, whatever we stand up for in the context of any arrangement should not just relate to the nature of any deal relating to our Border. We have to stand up to the ultimate fallacy that the response to the inequities and unfairness to which globalisation gives rise lies in a retreat to a nationalism. What we must do is change the system of globalisation in order to ensure that it is fairer and that it ensures that there will be shared workers' rights across the world and that environmental standards will be upheld. We do not want chlorinated chicken shipped in from the United States, Peru or wherever as a response to the inequities of globalisation. That is where I think Brexit is going and that is the fundamental weakness in it.

Politically, where do we stand? We are one of the countries that probably benefits the most from globalisation because we are one of the most globalised, most trading and most open countries in the context of international investment, especially from the United States. We are in a particularly important and difficult position. Our position should be based on that wider perspective. We should be setting really high standards for a new globalisation to answer Mr. Bannon, Mr. Johnson and company.

When we had statements in the House last November, I asked the Tánaiste for his assessment of the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit and the contingency plans that were being put in place in the event of that happening. Six months have passed and it has to be said that we have no further clarity on what the UK will propose as its alternative solution to the so called backstop agreement from December. It is now almost two years since the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. There is still no clarity at this stage on the status of the Border. That is, quite frankly, farcical. I do not blame the Tánaiste for this situation. It seems, however, that the entire process is being held at the mercy of infighting between the deluded and the disillusioned in the Conservative Party.

I note that the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, met Prime Minister May in Sofia last week and that the talks harked to some new thinking on the part of the British Government regarding the customs arrangement for Northern Ireland.

If this new thinking mirrors the reports that were highlighted in some quarters of the English press last week, we may be even less further on in negotiations than we realised previously. According to reports in The Telegraph last week, there is now a grudging acceptance within the hardline Brexit faction of the Conservative Party that the UK may need to remain in the customs union beyond 2020 but this is only to allow the technology that would allow for a barrier-free border to be refined, the so-called "max fac" approach. The other alternative apparently being considered is a customs partnership whereby the UK would act as the EU's tax collector. The fact that the UK cabinet is still even entertaining the idea that these solutions are workable should be ringing alarm bells for the Government and for Brussels. Both of these solutions have already been dismissed and the Government and the EU need to emphasise this point emphatically to London and that the December 2017 backstop agreement is the only game in town.

The three objectives set out by Prime Minister May are a clear example of the "having one's cake and eating it" attitude that has dominated the UK's approach to these negotiations from the outset. The objectives are: Britain should have its own trade policy with the rest of the world independent of the collective deals that other EU states enjoy; despite this Britain should have frictionless trade with the EU; and there are no borders between the UK and Ireland. These aims are not only incompatible with leaving the Single Market and customs union but they are also internally inconsistent. How can the UK hope to maintain frictionless trade within the EU with an open border with Ireland? How can the UK hope to retain this frictionless trade without paying into the EU budgets? Why would the UK believe that the EU should allow a former member unfettered access to the Internal Market while simultaneously negotiating preferential trade deals with non-member states?

The transition period is expected to end in December 2020. While, technically, it may be possible to extend this, why would the Irish Government agree to this if we are simply being strung along, as the Conservative Party would argue, over decisions we have already stated are unacceptable? A sense of unreality seems to permeate the UK's approach to these talks. I would strongly urge the Government to make it clear that the time for prevarication is over. We can no longer wait for a plan. I note that after the meeting in Bulgaria, the Taoiseach expected the UK would table a new customs proposal in two weeks. We can only hope we are not still discussing it in another six months but my fear is that we will be.

Before I call the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, we have sufficient time to hear contributions from Deputies Eugene Murphy and Bernard Durkan if the House is agreeable?

How much time do we have?

A few minutes each.

I thank the other Members of the House and the Minister of State for agreeing to give us a few minutes to speak on this issue.

Fianna Fáil is concerned that the issue of the Border remains far from resolved. We were told in December that the agreement reached on the Border was "bullet proof" and "cast-iron", but it and the backstop, nevertheless, remain the biggest hurdles in the negotiations. We were told by the Tánaiste, I am sure in good faith, that issues would be resolved by the June European Council but it now looks like there will be no progress until at least October. The solutions put forward by the UK so far are unworkable and, as a party, we will not countenance any sort of Border, technological or otherwise.

Fianna Fáil has repeatedly called for Northern Ireland to be designated as a special economic zone. It would help mitigate some of the worst effects of Brexit if that happened. Fianna Fáil is broadly supportive of the Government's stance on Brexit. However, we have a genuine concern that there is a level of complacency in our approach to preparing for Brexit domestically.

Given the infighting within the UK Tory Government, we cannot take anything for granted and we must be prepared for all scenarios, as the Minister of State will be aware. An AIB survey showed that only 6% of small and medium enterprises in the Republic have a formal plan to deal with Brexit. This is a matter of serious concern to me and to the people in my part of the country. There are a great number of small businesses, including many agrifood businesses mainly selling into England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They are fearful about what will happen in terms of Brexit and that if there is a change with respect to the Border, it will create serious difficulties.

Fianna Fáil very much welcomes and acknowledges the solidarity shown to us by other EU member states and the EU negotiation team led by Michel Barnier on the Border issue. However, significant challenges remain to be overcome and serious risks remain. There is no room for complacency in this regard.

While we are broadly supportive of the Government's international response to Brexit, we are concerned that Ireland may be losing traction on the Border. It is therefore imperative that the Government pushes for and secures sufficient progress on this by the next European Council in June. Ireland's unique circumstances must remain central in the negotiations ahead. We cannot let the Border issue slip down the agenda. The phase 1 agreement reached in December was sold to us by the Government as "bullet proof" and "cast-iron" but the reality, as the Minister of State is aware, is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and there is no agreement yet between the EU and UK on the issue of the Irish Border.

Regarding the domestic scene, the message needs to go out that whatever the outcome of Brexit will be, there will be changes to our trading relationship and although we do not know the extent of those changes, this reality must be faced. On 29 March 2019, the UK will become a third country and will no longer be a member of the European Union. While a transition agreement has been agreed, in principle, it is dependent on the withdrawal agreement being reached in 2018. That time is short and this transition period is due to end on 30 December 2020. Change is coming down the tracks and we need to prepare.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle, the Minister of State and colleagues for allowing us say a few words on this important issue. We should not panic. We need to be absolutely assured that the EU is conducting its negotiations in the proper fashion because the EU's future is at stake. The bottom line is that if this goes wrong, and it will not, the entire European Union will crumble within five or seven years. We should recognise that.

The UK authorities know full well that this was not about a minor border issue or anything else. This is a wider issue that they have in mind. They have spoken about the benefits of bilateral arrangements. We all know that the small country comes off worst in such bilateral arrangements. That has always been the case. People will want to go back to the good old days, and perhaps they are deluding themselves, but there is another issue. We want to be careful not to assume that we are losing ground because we cannot lose ground. The European Union negotiators have in their sights what is needed, and they know what is needed. They know that to move one iota from that will result in a serious problem not only for this country, the island of Ireland and the peace agreement but for the EU itself. It will be only a matter of time before various other countries decide to pick away at the bricks and eventually we will have nothing. However, that will not happen, nor should it happen.

I will give examples to support that theory. For the past 20 years on this island of Ireland we have had a single market and no Border. We have not had friction of any description and we have worked well together as an island community. It is essential that we continue in that vein. It is essential that our Government represents the views of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, including the commercial side, the business sector and the agricultural sector. That is of huge importance to both communities on this island.

We hear rumours every day about negotiations being dragged out over a number of years. That will not happen because it cannot happen. If it were to happen we would have a gradual erosion, which would eventually end up whichever way the UK authorities want it to happen in the end.

Regarding the question of contingency plans to make preparations in the event of something happening, we need to be very careful about those things. The UK authorities would like to see border posts put in place just in case. However, they would then become a reality. They would like to see various provisions made now in the event of something happening. That would then become the agreement at a later stage and we would not be able to renegotiate it.

I congratulate the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Government and the members of the Opposition on the level of solidarity they have shown in respect of this issue. It is an imperative to which we must adhere. It is important for this country, North and South, it is important for the European Union and it is important for this Parliament.

I will conclude by saying this: we need to proceed as we are doing and continue from where we started. We need to ensure that the European Union continues on its current path. I congratulate Mr. Michel Barnier and his fellow negotiators on the level of knowledge they have shown so far and on the interest they have taken in this island nation. Of course, they realise full well the nature of the ultimate objective.

The Good Friday Agreement is the finest agreement ever achieved on this island, economically, politically and socially. The EU is the biggest single peace agreement that the Continent of Europe has experienced in 1,000 years. We should never forget that. We are intrinsically linked to the European Union and its future. If the UK decides it wants to go away from that and become a third country, an international power like in the old days, that is fine. However, the rules must apply. There are rules that are not helpful to third countries. We know that and the British know it too. I will simply say that there are people in the UK who have campaigned vigorously over the past 20 years to undermine the European Union. I refer to Nigel Farage and others. Some people who are totally opposed to the European Union have got to positions of power and authority in the UK. We hope they realise that what they are doing is not in the interests of either the UK or Europe.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some closing remarks. I will start by agreeing with Deputy Lisa Chambers in that we are very lucky to have such a wonderful team working with us and on our behalf at the Irish Embassy in Brussels. We also have great people at all of our embassies throughout the remainder of the EU and across the various Departments here. Like all of us in this House, those to whom I refer are under no illusion regarding the challenges we face with Brexit and they are working towards the best possible outcome for Ireland.

As the Tánaiste stated earlier, the Government is continuing to engage intensively with the EU task force and our EU partners with a view to achieving the necessary progress in advance of the June European Council meeting. However, it is important for our EU partners to hear such a clear expression of Ireland's priorities from across the whole political spectrum. In that context, I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions. The overwhelming sense of concern shared by everyone in Ireland regarding the challenges posed by Brexit, allied with the exceptionally high and growing support for Ireland's membership of the EU, has certainly struck a chord with many of our EU partners. This reflects the fact that a key pillar of the Government's response to Brexit has been to underline a firm commitment to the EU membership and to work together with our EU 27 partners to build a very positive future for the European Union. In that regard, I very much welcome the opportunity that I had two weeks ago - on the occasion of Europe Day - to address this House and the Seanad on Ireland's wider EU priorities. I also welcome the citizens' dialogue on the future of Europe, which has enabled the Government, the people of this country and Deputies to engage with people of all ages and from all sectors in order to hear their views about the Union and its future direction.

I attended the General Affairs Council last week with the Tánaiste and I fully echo his reflections from earlier this afternoon. Michel Barnier and our fellow EU member states remain fully behind the principles that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and that negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full. That is certainly reflected in my own engagement with European colleagues from France, Sweden, Estonia and recently Greece and Latvia. To answer Deputy Cullinane's question on what we want to see from the June meeting of the European Council, I note that the EU, Ireland and all of us are very firmly of the view that significant progress is needed on the outstanding issues relating to the withdrawal agreement in advance of the meeting. While we can discuss the future arrangement and while we wish to hear discussions on it, the withdrawal agreement is first and foremost in our minds. This not only includes the draft protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, it also deals with other issues that are of fundamental importance, namely, the overall governance of the withdrawal agreement.

There has been a very strong message of support for the approach being taken by Michel Barnier and the task force. There is a very clear recognition on the part of the EU partners that, regardless of any evolving proposals in the context of a wider future relationship agreement, a workable version of the backstop must be included in the withdrawal agreement. The Tánaiste has said that the UK has agreed that a backstop solution for the Border will and must form part of the legal text of the withdrawal agreement. The issues identified in the draft protocol, as proposed by the EU, will be addressed in delivering a legally sound solution to the Border.

The UK has not yet officially put forward any alternative proposals. Although since meeting with Prime Minister May last week we have heard some more detailed proposals, we need to see these put forward in a satisfactory way. It is vital at this stage of the process that the UK engages in more detailed and realistic ways in the draft text of the protocol on Northern Ireland, particularly in dealing with the backstop.

I will be travelling with the Taoiseach to the European Council in June, which will return, in particular, to the remaining withdrawal issues, including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, with a view to assessing whether satisfactory progress has been made or, if not, what consequences it will have for the overall negotiations given the timeframe we find ourselves facing. This Government looks forward to further engagement with this House in advance of and after that meeting. I certainly look forward to the continuing support of all of the Members of this House. We all strive for the best outcome for the people of Ireland and for those we represent. That means avoiding a border on the island of Ireland, protecting the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement and ensuring as little disruption as possible to the lives of our citizens and to the trade and business on this entire island.

Top
Share