Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Part of the difficulty with the conversation about the divergent views of the British political establishment is that it is going in different directions and no one seems to know what is happening or how to deal with the situation.

The simplest way forward would be if the UK stayed in the Single Market and the customs union. The British Irish Chamber of Commerce has called for a new customs arrangement. Is that to try to sell it to those who are blatantly opposed to being involved in the whole European project? Is this some way to try to move them along the road? Clearly, there is no agreement. The Brexiteers want to leave the Single Market and customs union and that creates major problems for those of us in Ireland. Our party has been involved in the referendum against Brexit.

The chamber deals with this to some extent in the paper and states that the organisation has repeatedly stated its concern for the island of Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement due to Brexit. Given that the majority of people in the North of Ireland voted to remain in the EU – the figure was 56% - does the chamber believe this vote must be respected? Does the chamber believe a deal should be done to grant some sort of special arrangement - we use the term "special status" - to remain in the EU? Does the chamber have a view on that?

The representatives of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce have said that the Good Friday Agreement should be protected. Do they agree that it should be protected in full? I am asking because they have also said that there needs to be an alternative model to the European Court of Justice for dispute settlement.

The right of Irish and British citizens to redress currently in the European courts is underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement. Having such rights dealt with only at British court level would be in direct violation of that underpinning.

The trade dispute mechanism and other EU trade deals, such as TTIP and CETA, are private so-called investor-state dispute settlement models. They allow and facilitate private companies to sue governments. They are nothing compared to the scope and power of the European Court of Justice and protections under EU law. The removal of the ability of citizens to get redress at the European Court of Justice violates the terms and essence of the Good Friday Agreement. Anyway, perhaps I have read incorrectly what the chamber seems to be suggesting.

Do the chamber representatives agree that we should try to protect the enabling legislation, including the UK's Northern Ireland Act 1998, which put the Good Friday Agreement into domestic law within the EU legal framework, rather than trying to create a bespoke or different legal framework purely for private companies?

The chamber document also states that Britain should be able to set its own migration policy. Under the Good Friday Agreement, citizens of the North of Ireland are Irish citizens and British citizens. The same applies to those born in the North or those who have had permanent residence there for more than five years. If the British Government drastically changes this migration policy – as some among the political establishment are suggesting – and removes the right of these people to remain and work in the North, it amounts to a violation of the Good Friday Agreement. That would deeply affect the economy and the social fabric of many communities there. Is that a matter of concern for the chamber and its members?

There is another difficult part of this equation. The British are leaving, but they are not saying what they want. It is reasonable for us to ask what they want. They are not very clear in articulating exactly what they want. I believe the current arrangement, including the customs union and the Single Market, would be the best deal for Ireland. The chamber seems to be moving away from that position. Is the chamber simply dealing with the reality by saying that the UK will pull out and that is simply part of the viewpoint coming from Britain? Is this seen as a way of softening the complete separation that some Brexiteers are proposing?