Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for the detailed, comprehensive presentation. We are grateful for that but we are probably being grossly unfair to the officials by asking them to engage in crystal ball gazing because it is extremely difficult to figure out what is going on, never mind what will happen when one of the major protagonists does not know what it wishes to achieve. The British are unable to agree among themselves what they want. It is difficult. We can all be a bit flippant, but if one is playing a game and the other side does not know whether it is playing with the wind or against it, one cannot play.

The officials have set out what has going on at intergovernmental level, at departmental level and at EU level and nobody can claim that there is any ambiguity about our position, what we want and what is absolutely critical in terms of our red lines. The EU clearly knows what is required. It has been told often enough at various levels. Mr. Barnier has been here, as have various other people. They are clear in terms of there being no Border and various other matters, such as the common travel area. All of that has been laid out. We have debated that ad nauseam. It is no use talking to ourselves. We have to talk to those who will make decisions. We are not in a position that we can compel anybody to do anything. All we can do is make our arguments. That is the problem. As Deputy Cahill stated, we spoke to the British Labour Party spokesperson, Mr. Drew, MP. He is a very bright fellow who knows exactly what goes on and is obviously hopeful, and we are all optimistic, but there is a difference between optimism and realism and that is what this will boil down to.

Have the officials any views - this is probably an unfair question and they can toss it away if they like - on the prospect of a significant extension of the transition phase which would allow the UK to negotiate those future trade agreements which we want to achieve? When acting under pressure, sometimes a person is in a position where if he or she does not make concessions he or she looks to be the stubborn one. Time is important. In that context, I always go back to the Greenland example. It took it three years and it had damn all interconnection and only a few hundred agreements. We have many thousands of agreements with Britain and the EU. In my view, it does not make sense. If one wants to do it right, one would take seven to ten years. I see the transition phase as being desperately important. That will allow matters to continue with customs and free trade. That may not suit certain Brexiteers who gave no thought, certainly, to the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland dimension. I think they have admitted that or certainly they have been exposed in terms of their lack of knowledge of how important that is.

There must be concern about the possibility of a cheap food policy, to which my colleagues have alluded. The UK always had an objective of doing something. It may well be one of the stirring influences as to why it pursued this. We have heard about and studied the Brazilian forests that have been razed to permit agricultural animals to be fed in those areas and to bring in food so there is a double whammy there in terms of the carbon food print. One can add to that the long distance the food has to travel and other issues in terms of the phytosanitary and veterinary regulatory framework on the environment which is of critical importance. Indeed, as Deputy Martin Kenny alluded to, even the North-South dimension to that is critical.

In simple terms, we want no hard border on the island of Ireland and no obstacles on the east-west direction. Of course, it is in the interests of the farming and agricultural sector that on which we are focused that there is the maximum level of access between the EU and the UK.

I note the Department has been involved in identifying and seeking out potentially profitable markets and opportunities. The officials mentioned Indonesia. Are we making any progress in that regard in Malaysia and various other places? How successful has it been? Agreements have been reached and various other advances made with some of them. I suppose there are protocols to be put in place. Are we any nearer to making inroads in regard to that?

As Deputy Cahill stated, agricultural products and by-products attract significant tariffs under the WTO, far greater than any other products. The Deputy is right to start shivering when he hears the word "tariff" because it would be a significant punitive imposition.

I note the Brexit loan scheme was rolled out and evaluated by the Commission but, of course, its evaluation looked at the matter in terms of whether it constituted a state aid. It is time that some of those Commission officials, many of whom are faceless bureaucrats, cop on. They would want to start relaxing the rules a little. Here is a situation not of our making and if the people, through the Oireachtas, try to help out industries that are being threatened by this new market environment, there should be something there. Has any thought been given by the Department to the Mercosur threat in terms of a post-Brexit scenario and the impact that will have on trade policy in the future?