Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, I will have to go to the Dáil for Question Time.

First, we should remember one thing: Brexit was not our idea. We did not invent it but there are consequences for us. The presumption on the basis of all the information so far is that it will be a stark, hardline Brexit. The expert opinion we have to go on is that the former Prime Ministers, John Major and Tony Blair, have both come out in recent times and explained the ill-thought-out nature of the decision in the first instance. That is all in the ether now. We will have to do the best we can from what we have, but I would be wary of bilaterals, particularly at this stage, because we could very well talk ourselves out completely and find ourselves in a position along the lines suggested by a certain columnist in The Timesof London in the past few days. That is not a place we want to be and it certainly would not be a strong position from which to negotiate. We should operate on the basis of the worst-case scenario, do what must be done and recognise that we are negotiating from inside the European Union. The lines have already been discussed by various people here. We should do our utmost to keep a single market on the island of Ireland. To those who say this cannot be done, I say it is in the interests of those on both sides of the Border that it be done. Again, I emphasise that we did not cause the problem in the first instance, so let us put the pressure on somebody else instead of being put under pressure to deal with this.

Freedom of movement will be gone if we have a hard Border. It is as simple as that. The hard Border is removed if the island of Ireland is treated as a single entity; likewise the common travel area and the customs union. All of this creates an absolute, distinct line. It is not a line in the sand; it is a Border that will have to be observed. Then we will be on the other side of the discussion table, talking to ourselves, in one sense, among the people on this island, but also talking as members of the European Union.

If we move away from that premise and start talking about bilateral trade agreements in the interim, we will not be in the European Union or, worse still, we will have a new European Union which will mean nothing and we will then have a reversion to the old system of having bilateral trade agreements for everything across the Union. All of the things to which we have become accustomed for nearly 50 years would go by the wayside and matters would be determined by the larger countries which always benefit most from bilateral trade agreements. That has always been the case. A certain newly elected person on the international stage said a good deal was one when he won in a bilateral. I presume that is what he meant.

There is much to play for. Brexit will have major implications, but we cannot do anything until we see what unfolds. However, to be ready we will need to raise the bar considerably. We need to be unabashed in the way we present our case. Our right to present it rests entirely on the fact that we did not precipitate this situation. What will unfold for Northern Ireland and us on this side of the island will not be of our making. It is in our interests to stand solidly in support of and protect our colleagues in Northern Ireland, into the details of which I will not go now. What will come remains to be seen. The North-South dimension is of common interest in the area of health and others.

My colleague, Deputy Kate O'Connell, asked why information on procedures was not available. The Chairman knows my view on that issue. One cannot have two masters. We have two entities, the Department of Health and the HSE. I have to ask myself all the time to which of them I should refer for the information required. We know that the information Deputy Kate O'Connell rightly said should be available at the touch of a button is not available. It is hidden somewhere in the HSE. However, it will not the HSE but the Department of Health that will be involved in negotiating Brexit. I never understood why we went down the road of having to debate with two organisations, of having a two-pronged attack against ourselves.

There is a grave danger that we will find ourselves involved in itsy bitsy negotiations, with bilateral trade agreements, concessions and the establishment of small territory ground rules which will not necessarily be to our advantage in the context of Brexit. It must be recognised that the best outcome for us is the retention of what we have, warts and all, namely, access to markets in the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. Brexit will have major implications that were not thought out. I anticipated that there would be a Brexit. There have been some developments globally in the past year or two that were against the run of play and for which there does not appear to be a logical explanation and we may see more. Logic does not enter into it. However, we are in the business of survival. We have to do what is necessary to ensure that, as a nation and a country, we will survive to the best of our ability.