Vol. 978 No. 5
38. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on the status of Anglo-Irish relations; the efforts being made to maintain and protect relations, particularly in the context of Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3978/19]
What are the Tánaiste's views on the current status of Anglo-Irish relations and the efforts being made to maintain and protect those relations, particularly in the context and with the backdrop of Brexit?
I thank the Deputy for this question. I have quite a detailed answer that I could read into the record of the House but I will just respond directly to the question.
These are challenging times for Anglo-Irish relations. The good relationships that have been built up, particularly over the past 20 years, need to be used now to find sensible ways forward for the sake of Northern Ireland in finding a way to create a context by which devolved government can function again and be re-established. To do this, we are using the elements of the Good Friday Agreement that are relevant not only for east-west relations but also for interaction on North-South co-operation. As the Deputy will be aware, we have had a number of meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which have been good. Through this forum we will have another meeting in a couple of months which will confirm new relationship structures between Britain and Ireland for a post-Brexit environment. We will also plan for at least an annual meeting of both Governments led by the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister but involving many other Ministers as well. The kind of structural relationship that France and Germany or Spain and Portugal have, for example, is one we want to see in the future to build on other structures that exist through the Good Friday Agreement. We must recognise, however, that Ministers will unfortunately not meet one another regularly in Brussels or Luxembourg and work together on EU projects in the future in the way that they have done over the past 45 years or so.
The personal relationships are good. My relationships with key partners such as Karen Bradley, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or David Lidington, who is effectively the equivalent of a deputy Prime Minister in the UK, are good and we speak regularly. I will meet Ms Bradley again this week to discuss Northern Ireland. It is important to say that while decisions being made this evening in Westminster, of course, impact on Ireland and Irish people on this island, North and South, the personal relationships between the British and Irish Governments remain strong, and they need to be so to find a way through a difficult Brexit process.
We all know that Brexit has added an unwelcome dimension to our relations with the UK and brought our relationship into sharp focus as co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, our largest trading partner and our nearest neighbour. I refer to the common travel area and all that flows from it regarding cross-Border matters and the rights of citizens on both sides of the Border. The Tánaiste alluded to the fact that as members of the European Union, we had an opportunity to work with the UK on various projects and we became allies. This laid the foundation for the building of the peace process at a crucial point in time. It is fair to say, though - and my party leader has pointed this out previously - that the Government took the eye off the ball regarding Ireland-UK relations and exposed us when it came to Brexit. Has the Tánaiste considered any new structures? Could he give us a little more detail in this regard? My party has suggested a model similar to the Nordic Council of Ministers in terms of structures for dialogue between the Governments in a post-Brexit scenario. The Minister alluded to the fact that a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference meeting is due in the coming months. Should it not take place as soon as possible? Since it last met in November, what actions, if any, have flowed from it? I recognise that Brexit is all-consuming at present but I ask the Tánaiste to deal with those questions.
I ask Members to watch the clock. I know this is an important topic.
I strongly refute the accusation that the eye was taken off the ball. The British-Irish relationship in recent years has been strong and positive and has allowed us to find a way forward on some complicated issues linked to Brexit in the context of the negotiations that took place. These resulted in a sensible, pragmatic and legally sound way of dealing with the complication of the Border question in the context of an insurance mechanism that became known as the backstop and of an Irish protocol, to which the British Government signed up fully as part of the withdrawal agreement, protecting the common travel area. The follow-up bilateral discussions about that common travel area in terms of legislation that will need to be passed in Westminster and in the Dáil are testament to how close the relationship is between Britain and Ireland. This is despite the fact that the British Parliament has not yet ratified the agreements to which its own government signed up a number of months ago and the fact that, unfortunately, the need for the reassurance mechanism that it is for so many people has not been the focus of the debate on the backstop in Westminster. Instead, it has been painted as something that it is not. This is unfortunate but not a reflection of the relationships between the two governments.
I call Deputy Collins for a final supplementary question. Other Members are waiting to be called.
In the context of the post-Brexit relationship we are trying to tease out, the Tánaiste alluded to the perceived new structures in a macro sense. He said the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister would meet annually. Can he give us more detail as to what the Government envisages will be the new relationship rather than the two heads meeting once a year?
That is a fair question. It is envisaged that the meeting would be much more than a summit between the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister. They happen every now and again anyway. Instead, we would have agreement on an annual meeting between the governments, to include not only the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach but probably six or seven other Ministers on both sides in order that there would be a build-up and a proper preparation period for that meeting each year. We would look at areas on which Britain and Ireland need to co-operate, not just Northern Ireland, which is, of course, important, but also economic development, tourism, development aid policy, security issues and many other areas on which, as two neighbouring islands, we need to work together. There is an appetite on both sides to formalise a proposal that has been discussed and agreed in principle. It will need sign-off at prime ministerial level in the UK and by the Taoiseach here. We are talking about a meeting, probably during the summer months, that would last a day or so and involve a series of different sectoral discussions led by Ministers but also with the gravitas of having both the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in attendance.
39. Deputy David Cullinane asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the mechanisms in place to avoid a hard Border in the event of a no-deal Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4374/19]
I am asking this question on behalf of Deputy Cullinane who is in Westminster today where, once again, we see a day of uncertainty and political chaos. I hope that has nothing to do with Deputy Cullinane.
Considering recent developments and the comments of the Taoiseach and the European Commissioner regarding a hard border in Ireland, this question was tabled to ascertain what mechanisms are being put in place to avoid a hard border in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The Government has said consistently that we will not accept a hard border between the two jurisdictions on this island. The EU and UK both accept that avoiding a hard border is essential. I also know that is the position of the great majority of Members in this House.
Throughout the negotiations, it has been a priority to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and to ensure that there will be no hard border on the island of Ireland under any circumstances. Only the withdrawal agreement, with its backstop provisions, provides the essential legal guarantee that we looked for. However, if the withdrawal agreement does not enter into force, Ireland will have legal responsibilities, and an economic interest, in terms of ensuring the protection of the Single Market and customs union. The UK will have its own responsibilities, including with regard to the WTO.
As co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement, Ireland and the UK have solemn and binding obligations to ensure peace and stability in Northern Ireland. As such, if the UK leaves without an agreement in place and the European Union and Ireland are on one side and the UK is on the other, we will all have to work intensively together to ensure that we deliver on our shared goal of avoiding the return of a hard border. We are absolutely committed to doing that, even in those difficult circumstances.
The President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, is also fully committed to this objective and he provided further reassurances on this in a telephone call to the Taoiseach on 24 January. This position is fully shared by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, and our fellow EU 27 member states. As the Commission spokesperson stated on 23 January:
The EU is determined to do all it can, deal or no deal, to avoid the need for a border and to protect peace in Northern Ireland. The EU is fully behind Ireland and has expressed, on numerous occasions, full solidarity with Ireland. That has not changed.
We have a way of doing this; it is called "the backstop". It was designed around British red lines and with Britain. It was not an offer given to Britain. The debates we hear often in Britain now seem to suggest the UK had nothing to do with this and that it was somehow offered to it. This was a solution Britain bought into, through its Government, and endorsed.
Last week the Taoiseach talked to journalists about the possibility of troops being sent to the Border. He then went on to clarify the statement, saying that he was talking about British troops. That is of little comfort and we are going backwards instead of forwards.
Part of the challenge we have as an opposition party, and what does not help us and our understanding of this is that the Government has, to date, refused to clarify what measures it will put in place to ensure there is no hardening of the Border in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Minister said again that the Government will not accept a hard border. Are there measures the Government can pursue to avoid a hard border? Such measures would have the full support of the House. Sinn Féin's difficulty is that it wants to support positive measures but it does not know what positive measures the Government is putting forward, although I realise negotiations are ongoing. That is part of the difficulty we have.
Ireland will not accept a hard border, and the Minister said the EU will not accept one either, but part of the difficulty we face is that if there is no agreement, there will be a hard border. The EU will want to protect its borders. It will be about compliance, standards, country of origin and so on. What are we proposing or putting on the table in the event of a no-deal Brexit and a hard border?
Ireland is clear on how it sees mechanisms working to prevent hard border infrastructure. They revolve around regulatory alignment in areas that are specific and are required to prevent the need for Border infrastructure. That is how the backstop works. It is essentially the fall-back position to which the British Government repeatedly committed, if it could not find other solutions through a future relationship discussion or through bespoke solutions offered to Ireland. The fall-back position would be regulatory alignment in the areas necessary to prevent Border infrastructure and to protect an all-island economy which is also very much part of protecting the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement. Borders are not mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement but the absence of physical Border infrastructure has been such a strong reinforcement to the creation of normality, commerce and peace, that it is self-evident.
The Government's view is that, deal or no deal, there is an obligation on the British and Irish Governments to work together, and on the EU to support that process, and to find a way of avoiding Border infrastructure through regulatory alignment.
My question related to a no-deal scenario where the backstop will not apply. The Irish Government either defies the EU or the Good Friday Agreement. There are already structures there which apply to relationships with Britain. The difficulty has been that, in many cases, the British Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, has not tied into those structures.
There was a poll on "Claire Byrne Live" on RTÉ last night that showed 80% of people in the South would vote for a united Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit. That solution would mean no border and we would still be within the EU. There would be positivity around that. The Government needs to speed up preparations for a Border poll which, if successful, would eliminate the Border. The Minister is on the record as saying that is not the way forward but it is a legitimate way to move forward. It is in the Good Friday Agreement. There is potential there to move forward with this poll. Would the Minister accept that in the event of no agreement and a hard border, this is a way to move things forward?
My previous answer referred to a no-deal scenario if the formal backstop and the withdrawal agreement and the Irish protocol linked to that were not ratified. Even in that scenario, there is an obligation on the British Government to work with Ireland and the EU. We cannot do this bilaterally. It has to involve the EU because this involves protecting the EU's customs union and Single Market. We cannot have a back door without checks. We have to ensure that we find a legally sound and sensible mechanism which prevents the need for physical Border infrastructure whether there is a deal or not. The only credible way to do that is through regulatory alignment, North and South, on the island of Ireland.
There will be a big obligation on the British Government to follow through on the commitments it signed up to in the withdrawal agreement, on which it is not now following through, but also on the commitments it made in December 2017 in the political declaration it made to people on this island.
The Irish Government is concerned about everybody in Northern Ireland, nationalist and unionist, who is stressed and concerned about what the future holds. We have to find a way forward that can protect the status quo as best we can. Having a constitutional debate on the future of Ireland right now, even bearing in mind the legitimate concerns of nationalists and unionists, makes the overall debate much more complicated.
It has taken us 18 minutes to do two questions so I appeal to all, including the Minister, to watch the clock. Deputy Lisa Chambers has 30 seconds to introduce her question.
40. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of planning for all Brexit scenarios including a no-deal Brexit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3979/19]
I ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of planning for all Brexit scenarios, including a no-deal Brexit. We are only a few short weeks away from the Brexit deadline of 29 March and the prospect of a no-deal Brexit remains worryingly high.
I thank the Deputy for the question. As she knows, we both have a lot of work to do in this regard, as has every party in this House in terms of working together to ensure Ireland is as prepared as it can be for a no-deal Brexit should it happen.
Our work across Government has identified key issues arising in each Brexit scenario, including, in particular, a central-case scenario and a no-deal scenario. The central case scenario assumes the ratification of the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, as well as a transition period and a future relationship between the EU and the UK based on a free trade agreement.
Since July 2018, the Government has made a number of key decisions on Brexit preparedness including on staffing, ICT and infrastructure at ports and airports. At its meeting on 11 December, the Government agreed that, while work on Brexit preparedness for the central-case scenario should continue, in light of ongoing political uncertainties and the Brexit deadline of 29 March, greater immediate priority must now be given to preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Following this, the Government published its Brexit contingency plan on 19 December 2018, which set out detailed sectoral analyses - 20 different sectors were examined - and approaches to mitigating the impacts of a no-deal Brexit. Ireland's action plan is consistent with, and complementary to, the approach being taken at EU 27 level to prepare for the UK's withdrawal. On 15 January, further discussions at Cabinet took this work forward in the important areas of transport connectivity and medicines, with memos brought to Government by the Ministers, Deputy Ross and Deputy Harris.
A number of the actions identified in a no-deal scenario will still be required even in a central-case scenario but with a longer timeframe for implementation. While ratification of the withdrawal agreement is still the Government's preferred outcome, last week the Government published the general scheme of the proposed primary legislative measures required in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We published the heads of the omnibus Bill, which has 17 parts. We will also introduce 28 secondary statutory instruments to protect Irish citizens at home and in the UK.
We absolutely want to see a deal reached. My party and I have always co-operated to ensure the best outcome for Ireland. We have been critical of the Government's preparedness. With regard to the €300 million Brexit loan scheme, 40% of which was supposed to be ring-fenced for the agrifood sector, just one in five eligible loans for that sector have been approved, a measly €3.8 million or just 1% of the total €300 million.
The Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Doherty, still has not published her analysis of the impact of Brexit on reciprocal arrangements and social insurance schemes. Why has it not been published?
We still have no solutions as to how we will cope with delays at Dover.
With regard to the heads of Bill that have been published, why, when other countries such as France and Germany have published legislation, have we only been given the heads of a Bill and not a full Bill? Given we could provide feedback on it, would it not be prudent and in the country's interest to publish the full Bill? While the Tánaiste says preparations have been stepped up, there is evidence to suggest the contrary.
With respect, the Deputy knows the answer to some of those questions but she is asking them anyway.
What is that?
With regard to the legislation, we have sat down and discussed it.
I have consistently asked for the full Bill. We still do not have it.
That is because the full Bill is not ready yet. It will be published-----
That is not good enough.
It will be published on 22 February. That has been very clear since we began discussing this issue at the start of January. Let us not try to create problems or crises where they do not exist. We have enough challenges to deal with in Brexit without trying to create new ones. We agreed - I hope, anyway - how the House might co-operate to get emergency legislation through if we need to. That set of legislation is more comprehensive than any other country has been planning for. My understanding is the legislation the French Parliament was considering was to give essentially emergency powers to a Minister to be able to act in an emergency. We have gone way beyond that. We have effectively produced 17 heads of Bill from nine Departments. We will publish a full Bill on 22 February and we will ready to go with a schedule to get it through this House if we need to get it done and put in place.
Let us be very clear, the questions I asked have not been answered. I have never accepted that 22 February is an acceptable date for publication. I have always said to the Tánaiste I felt it was very late in the day and we wanted to see the full Bill. My position has remained unchanged.
In terms of our own preparations, can the Tánaiste clarify the Taoiseach's comments in Davos about Army personnel on the Border? Can the Tánaiste clarify whether anybody spoke to the Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces before those comments were made? The questions being asked are reasonable. To suggest there is full agreement on the strategy is not fair or an accurate reflection of what has been said. We have met regularly but I have always said I felt it was very late in the day to publish a full Bill on 22 February given other member states published their legislation a long time ago. We are the most affected member state.
The Tánaiste has not addressed the criticisms regarding the take-up of Brexit supports, which are low. Just 3% of Enterprise Ireland firms have taken up the Be Prepared grant. According to AIB, in quarter 3 last year, only 5% of SMEs had a Brexit plan. They are fair criticisms and the Tánaiste has not answered the questions. The answers have not been provided.
With regard to the legislation we produced, no other country in the European Union, that I am aware of, has legislation to the level of detail we are proposing. The Deputy might let me know if there is but I am not aware of it.
Germany, France and the Netherlands.
They have legislation but nothing like what we are proposing. None of them has the common travel area arrangements we are putting in place. The reason we did not sign confirmation of memorandums of understanding and common travel area arrangements in December was we did not want to be seen to be sorting out Irish citizens while we were still negotiating as a collective. The Deputy knows that. We have discussed it.
I appreciate the co-operation of all parties in the House on this issue. It is not party-political. It is not a Government versus Opposition arrangement in terms of some of the emergency stuff we may have to do together. There are clear reasons the earliest we could have published the detail of detailed legislation of the scale we are proposing is 22 February. Most people who have been following this understand that.
With regard to what the Taoiseach said in Davos, which is a fair question, if one listens to the interview, he was asked to describe what a hard border would look like and he described it. It essentially reminded people of what things were like more than two decades ago.
I saw it live. He was asked by the interviewer what that road would look like after Brexit.
He was asked-----
We are out of time. The Tánaiste will have to find another way to answer the question.
The Taoiseach's description is the very reason why we are not going back there.
41. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the status of negotiations with the United Kingdom relating to the preservation of the benefits of the common travel area in terms of residency, right to work, access to public services and the right to vote; if the necessary preparations will be in place by the end of March 2019; if Irish citizens resident in the UK need to take action before the end of March 2019; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4371/19]
What is the status of negotiations with the United Kingdom relating to the preservation of the benefits of the common travel area in terms of residency, right to work, access to public services and the right to vote? Will necessary preparations be in place by the March deadline? Do Irish citizens in the UK need to take any action prior to that?
The common travel area is a long-standing arrangement between Ireland and the UK which means Irish citizens can move freely to live, work and study in the UK on the same basis as UK citizens and vice versa. Both the Irish and British Governments have committed to the maintenance of the common travel area and the associated rights and entitlements of Irish and British citizens under this long-standing reciprocal arrangement in any circumstances.
I updated the Government on the common travel area at its meeting on 15 January 2019. Considerable progress has been achieved bilaterally in discussions with the UK over the past year involving several Departments in what has been a whole-of-Government exercise.
Ireland’s shared aim with the UK throughout has been to ensure the necessary arrangements are made in both countries so the common travel area can continue to function effectively after the UK leaves the EU. The bilateral work undertaken reaffirms the existing common travel area arrangements between Ireland and the UK and recognises the shared commitment of both to protect the associated reciprocal rights and privileges as a legitimate and fundamental public policy. It reaffirms the status that Irish and British citizens enjoy in each other's state, including the associated reciprocal rights and privileges covering free movement, the right to reside, the right to work without special permission as well as access to healthcare, social security, education at all levels and the right to vote in local and national parliamentary elections on the same basis as citizens of the other jurisdiction.
Neither Irish citizens in the UK nor British citizens in Ireland are required to take any action to protect their status and rights associated with the common travel area. After the UK leaves the EU, both Irish citizens in the UK and British citizens in Ireland will continue to enjoy these rights. Both the Irish and British Governments have committed to undertake all the work necessary, including through legislative provision, to ensure that the common travel area rights and privileges are protected. Bilateral arrangements as appropriate to each area of the common travel area will be concluded in due course and at the appropriate time. Some of that means legislation, both primary and secondary, but most of it is policy co-ordination.
I am grateful for the number of briefings we have had from the Tánaiste. The understanding I had was that a high-level memorandum of understanding between Ireland and the UK existed and was just waiting to be signed at the appropriate time. When will that signing happen? Due to the fact that this is of fundamental importance to the 800,000 Irish citizens in the UK and for the many tens of thousands of its citizens in Ireland, when will we get a chance to see it to ensure that what has been set out will be achieved? We need to scrutinise that. It is a reasonable request that we would have sight of it. When will it be signed and when will we see it?
This has essentially already been agreed at official level.
This is the Parliament.
I hear the question. Some formal signings are required particularly relating to social security. That is due to happen in the coming days. Earlier, I outlined why that was not signed earlier.
That was before Christmas.
Yes. We are now coming to a point where not signing them means that we simply do not have time to be able to complete the follow-up legislation in order to be ready for 29 March, should that be necessary to protect our citizens' pensions, social welfare payments and so on. We hope to be able to do that in the coming days.
I do not have an exact date for the memorandum of understanding, but as soon as we finalise it, we will ensure we share it with Opposition parties.
As the Tánaiste knows, the common travel area has existed since the 1920s. It has never been codified in law, so the specific entitlements have never been set out and, therefore, could never be tested. It is a cause of concern that we will now have to do that for the first time. It is a reassurance that it will be a support for people, but it might have implications. For example, Dagmar Schiek, professor of European law at Queen's University, has asked fundamental questions about the rights of the spouses of Irish nationals, etc. These are things we need to set out. It is no longer an agreement; this will be a formal document that can be tested in the courts.
We need to see it and test it to ensure that, as the Tánaiste has said, it reaffirms all existing rights and entitlements. Will it be a document that can expand into the future to accommodate additional rights that might accrue to Irish citizens in the way that in the past the common travel area broadened over the decades?
That is a very reasonable set of questions. There was a choice to be made here as to whether we would put in place a formal legal treaty on the common travel area on a bilateral basis between Britain and Ireland or whether we would do it through this memorandum of understanding, which would have some legislative element to it. I understand we chose the memorandum of understanding mechanism to have the flexibility to deal with the kinds of potential issues the Deputy has raised. I am not suggesting they relate to spouses. As a result of the fact that the common travel area was in some ways quite a loose arrangement, we did not have a single item of legislation which addressed it in total; it went across multiple items of legislation. It built up as an understanding between the two countries over decades.
It effectively meant joint citizenship.
It kind of did. It was at least a recognition of each other's citizenship in our countries. When we joined the European Union, the Single Market and the customs union, much of that formality was never needed because it was overtaken by EU membership. The absence of the UK's EU membership obviously exposes some of that, which is why the memorandum of understanding is needed. There has been much discussion on the detail of that, including discussion with the EU, in order to ensure people are satisfied with it. When we are ready to publish that, we will share it with Opposition parties straight away. However, it is not in a condition to be published just yet.
42. Deputy Lisa Chambers asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if Foreign Ministers other than the Polish Foreign Minister have raised the possibility of or requested that conditions be attached to the backstop other than what is already stated in the withdrawal agreement; if they have sought to alter or raised the possibility of altering the backstop; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3980/19]
Other than the Polish Foreign Minister, have any EU Foreign Ministers raised the possibility or requested that conditions be attached to the backstop other than what is already stated in the withdrawal agreement? Have any of them sought or raised the possibility of altering the backstop in any way? I ask the Tánaiste to make a statement.
I am glad the Deputy has raised this matter. It was unfortunate that last week the Polish Foreign Minister decided to publicly to make the statement he did. I think he was trying to be helpful, but I do not think what he said was helpful. He came to Dublin in December. He had just come from London. At the time, as a way of trying to break the deadlock, he raised this idea that we should consider applying a time limit to the backstop. I informed him I did not think it would work and that Ireland could not accept it because once a backstop has a time limit, it is no longer a backstop unless there is a clear plan after the agreed period that prevents border infrastructure. He accepted my view in December, but last week he made the proposal again.
No other Foreign Minister to whom I have spoken or met has suggested anything similar. In fact, quite the opposite happened after he spoke. There was a line-up of EU Foreign Ministers essentially who backed Ireland's position. The Polish Government also did so and distanced itself from its Foreign Minister's suggestions.
The EU has shown remarkable solidarity with us, which has been very welcome. We need that solidarity, particularly at this critical time. It is important that the other member states remain firmly behind Ireland and its position.
The amendment tabled by Tory MPs today in the British House of Commons seeking to change the backstop and seeking alternative solutions is of great concern. It is even worse to see the British Prime Minister backing that amendment but not stating what might be that alternative solution. Obviously if there is an alternative solution that does exactly what the backstop does and is better, we will be all ears. However, as yet we have not seen that alternative solution. After her team negotiated the current backstop, it is deeply regrettable to see the British Prime Minister now seek to abandon the backstop or undermine it significantly and state today that she intends to go back to Brussels to reopen the withdrawal agreement. What is the Government's response to that?
The Government's response is to allow Westminster have a debate and take votes this evening. We will need to assess where we stand after those votes. This is a ratification process or it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, there are attempts by some - we do not know if it will get a majority - to reopen the negotiations as opposed to concluding the ratification process. For us, that is not helpful. We need to wait and see what the British Parliament votes for or does not vote for this evening before we can make an informed response to that.
It is difficult to see where we go from here. The EU deputy chief negotiator, Sabine Weyand, said that the UK had significant input into shaping the backstop and it was its preference for the whole of the UK to remain in the customs union rather than having a specific arrangement for Northern Ireland. It is deeply challenging when those who negotiated the backstop are now seeking to undermine it and amend it in some way without evening proposing what that amendment might be.
Ms Weyand also clearly stated that there is no negotiation between the EU and the UK, and that the negotiation is finished. However, for some reason this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the UK. The British are still very much beating the drum that the negotiation can be reopened, that the withdrawal agreement can be renegotiated in some way and that the backstop can be altered or that conditions could be attached or in some way time limited. I would be deeply concerned if the Graham Brady amendment were to be supported and voted through. The Irish Government is still very much behind that agreement and we would love to see it passed. However, if that amendment is passed, it would leave the withdrawal agreement as negotiated in a very precarious position.
From our perspective, the onus is now on the Irish Government to outline what happens next, in the event that the position of the UK Government is that it wants to reopen the issue of the backstop. Where do we go from here?
We should not try to pre-empt decisions of the British Parliament. We will know later on today and will hopefully have a clearer picture of what the majority in the British Parliament is seeking. We have an idea of what the majority does not want but we do not yet know what a majority is willing to support. Seven or eight amendments will be taken in Westminster this evening. Let us wait and see. This is a debate for the British Parliament to manage but obviously the Government and the Prime Minister have a big input into it. We must wait to see the combined effect of the votes this evening before responding.
