Gerard Craughwell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sorry that I was not present for the witnesses' oral presentation. I was away on Oireachtas business at the time.

I have been watching the witnesses' progress ever since they appeared before our committee. There is no doubt about the amount of work they have done and I commend them on it. They have done an exceptional amount of detailed work. I know Mr. Sheridan spends his time watching social media and takes any chance he gets to push forward the agenda.

There are a few things in the document with which I take issue. I am a democrat. I live in a democratic society. In the democratic society in which I live, there are four provinces. At no stage will we ever allow a province to break with the rest of the country because it votes against something. Regardless of whether we like it - and many of us do not like it - Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the UK took a decision to leave the EU so we cannot use phrases like "opinions are not being respected" because the same would apply to Scotland, Wales or the Isle of Man. I do not accept that and I do not accept that the witnesses have been disenfranchised at this point. In respect of the argument made by the witnesses, particularly Mr. Sheridan who has made these arguments very well any time I have listened to him, the Good Friday Agreement is the solution to our problem. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' view on this. In their document, they rightly point out that 1.8 million citizens in Northern Ireland can apply for and are entitled to be provided with Irish passports. That makes them different to their counterparts in any other part of the UK and or the EU. What we are effectively saying is that 1.8 million European citizens are being denied the right to participate fully in the European Union. This is where the Good Friday Agreement kicks in. We cannot have bilateral negotiations with the UK despite our several hundred years of history but we can talk under the auspices of the Good Friday Agreement. We can have arrangements under the auspices of the Good Friday Agreement which we could bring forward to the EU and request that it rubber-stamp them for all intents and purposes. I met Michel Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt and various other people when I was in Brussels. I do not care what anybody says, there is a huge willingness to find a solution to the problems of Ireland. We cannot have a situation post Brexit whereby beef is being sold on the world market as "northern" or "southern" Irish beef, with two different standards applying. In such circumstances, I completely accept what the witnesses are saying to the effect that the Border must be somewhere in the Irish Sea. There must be free travel across our 270 or 280-odd roads. We must be able to move trucks up and down and transport milk. Milk is going to Roscommon and then goes back to Belfast when it has been processed. Sheep are coming from Northern Ireland to be killed. I was going to say "executed" but "killed" is the word. The meat is processed and sent back. Bacon from the South goes to Northern Ireland. When I look at my Ulster fry, which I will be looking at tomorrow morning, I am never quite sure where any of it comes from. Our economies are totally interlinked.

There is a problem with having the Border somewhere in the Irish Sea. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' solution in this regard. While the nationalist community and the citizens of the Republic would have very little difficulty with that, it is my view that we would have to deal very sensitively with our unionist brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland who see themselves as British. What right have I or anybody else to tell them they are not British?

I thought the witnesses were a bit hard on the UFU. I think it is walking a delicate political pathway in respect of trying to hold on to what it has. In respect of the €2.3 billion in financial aid between 2014 and 2020 mentioned by the witnesses, it is my firm belief that the British Government will not honour its commitments to 2020. It is also my firm belief that as soon as the negotiations begin, the British Government will take all funding off the table because it is its view that the UK is leaving. I am putting a scenario to the witnesses that we should go forward as the economic island of Ireland, about which Mr. Sheridan spoke about a few moments ago. However, that would mean that the European aid provided to the farming community in the South would be matched by the British Exchequer in Northern Ireland. In other words, there would no difference in the supports available to the farming community because I think it drives most economies in this country. If a farmer is getting subvention for cattle in the South, an equal subvention must come from Westminster for farmers in Northern Ireland so that farmers are playing on the same pitch and with the same supports and problems. Standards on the island of Ireland would have to be maintained to the EU standard, or higher if the British come in with a higher standard. I would be terribly afraid of what Mr. Sheridan spoke about, namely, the importation of cheap beef, bleached chicken and lamb from New Zealand, although I am not knocking its standards. I would be afraid of those things. We must hold the standard and in holding that standard, we must be sure that the farming communities on both sides of the Border have the same supports.

I would dearly like us to steer away from the notion that we have disenfranchised people in Northern Ireland in some way or that their views are not being respected. Unfortunately, when people live in a democracy, they do not always get what they want and certainly Northern Ireland did not get what it wanted from Brexit. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' views on that.