Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Eleven months on from the Brexit referendum, all the evidence confirms that Ireland is faced with a long-term and profound economic, social and cultural challenge. Deep and potentially irreparable damage is threatened as a result of a decision which came at the end of a campaign distinguished for the level of bitter cynicism displayed by one of the campaigns and its media cheerleaders. As far back as May 2013, Fianna Fáil started talking about what Ireland's approach to Brexit should be. In a series of detailed speeches and documents, as well as public meetings and during last year's general election, we have treated this issue as a core priority. Deputies Donnelly, Haughey and Darragh O'Brien have been involved in extensive consultations. Other spokespeople such as Deputies Niall Collins and McConalogue have organised events to focus on specific aspects of the challenges posed by Brexit. In all of our work, we have been constructive and have proposed specific actions. We will continue with this approach and remain absolutely committed to Ireland's future within a strong European Union.

The reality is that there was no evidence of the Government seriously engaging with Brexit until after last year's referendum. This document confirms the basic picture that catch-up is being played in many areas. Most seriously, detailed analysis and practical solutions concerning economic disruption are entirely missing. Four years after the spectre of Brexit was first proposed and 11 months after it became a reality, the level of detail, the identified resources and the specific plans of action contained in this document are just not good enough.

Where Ireland is best prepared is in respect of those issues which play to our developed strengths within the European Union, the chief one being our engagement with major negotiations and negotiators. Within the Department of the Taoiseach and in Iveagh House, our key bilateral embassies and our permanent representation in Brussels, we have deep experience and expertise in negotiating international treaties, including European Union treaties. The progress which has been achieved so far is entirely focused on achieving a general appreciation of the fact that Ireland has unique concerns, particularly in respect of the Good Friday Agreement and the common travel area. The evidence in this document is that all other work is either underdeveloped or, for some reason, is not being discussed in public or in private briefings.

Although there are 64 pages in the document, few contain specific statements of policy. Most of the document is simply a repetition of the findings of other work or a reprinting of items such as the Taoiseach's recent Institute of International and European Affairs speech. The document confirms that basic economic work was not begun until after the referendum. It states in a number of sections that detailed work on the likely impact of Brexit on different sectors was only commissioned after last June. It is a great pity that the Government has chosen to repeat its ongoing tactic of trying to present marginal or long-established actions as being part of an urgent response. The overall document is devalued by the casual exaggerations and over-claiming to be found in nearly every section. Action plan syndrome is alive and well. The sum total of the specific items in the section on Brexit mitigation efforts amounts to a lot of talk and almost no funding. To claim on page 11 that political engagement has remained strong is more than a stretch. As we saw last week, meaningful consultation is not something that the Government does. Equally, the claim on page 19 that the North-South Ministerial Council has been playing an active role is ridiculous given the fact that it last met in November and the Northern Executive is in suspension.

As we have said before, we welcome the very positive attitude to Ireland shown by our European Union partners. While we view the behaviour of the British Government as, at best, erratic, the evidence is that it does appreciate the importance of its relationship with Ireland, albeit while insisting on the damaging approach of not supporting special status for Northern Ireland. The negotiating guidelines agreed at the recent summit mark the end of the beginning of the process. In concrete terms, Ireland has secured general statements of support. What we do not know is what that means in practice. We do not know what exactly is meant by a soft border or the significance of flexibility being limited by compliance with the existing European Union legal order and regulations. Other than one ESRI report, which was significantly based on British studies of the possible impact of Brexit, we have no clear idea of the exact economic impacts of Brexit on different sectors or on the economy as a whole. For example, no information is available on the modelling of a situation in which the United Kingdom leaves both the single market and the customs union while agreeing a Canada-like free trade agreement and with Ireland having some flexibility to reduce the costs of cross-Border trade. How can we realistically be expected to propose or consider specific actions to mitigate the damage of Brexit without there being detailed information on exactly what that damage is likely to be?

We believe there are four broad dimensions to be addressed in the next 18 months. These relate to Northern Ireland, east-west relations, economic adjustment and the future of the European Union. In respect of Northern Ireland, we welcome the formal acknowledgement in the proposed negotiating directives pertaining to the continued EU citizenship rights of persons in Northern Ireland and the commitment to protecting the Good Friday Agreement.

This is a matter which we raised early in the discussion last year and are glad to see it addressed.

We also welcome the progress, limited but still notable, in respect to the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland. We maintain that the issue is not whether the United Kingdom remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights but rather whether these rights are justiciable within courts in Northern Ireland. The Government should correct the document on this point. We do not welcome the failure to even raise the possibility of special economic status for the areas worst affected by the introduction of new customs and regulatory boundaries. My colleagues will address this in greater detail.

As I outlined in recent speeches in London and Dublin, Brexit requires an entirely new approach to east-west relations. At present, our contacts and co-ordination are primarily at EU level. Unless we create mechanisms for the required ongoing contacts, a damaging drift is inevitable. Irrespective of what is agreed on the common travel area in these negotiations, it would be unsustainable in the long term unless we have means of updating it. Essentially, there should be some institutional framework between Britain and Ireland post Brexit. Unfortunately, the document has little to say on this point. In addition, the impact of Brexit on our exporters is not limited to the land Border. A specific strategy for these businesses to help them to manage disruption is required urgently.

On the broader issue of economic disruption, there is no alternative to helping business to diversify and innovate. While 17% of exports go to the UK, a total of 55% of traditional manufactured goods go there. This represents the lifeblood of business in large parts of our country. Even if there is a transitional period, these businesses need help now to deal with the disruption that is already under way and to plan for the future. This is not a matter of a few million euro and a couple of ministerial launches. It requires a comprehensive and ambitious programme covering areas such as retraining, research support, market development, funding and expert advice. We should remember that we have many companies with zero experience of dealing with customs or multiple regulatory regimes. Frankly, we are surprised that the Government document does not include any new proposals but simply repeats the complacent messages of the past year. Having said that, we welcome that the Government has, for the first time, indicated that extra assistance will be required from the European Union if Ireland is to get through the Brexit disruption. My colleagues will address this and other issues in greater depth during the remainder of the debate.

This document confirms that progress in respect of EU negotiation guidelines has not been matched by the required level of urgency and ambition in other areas. Basic information is not available and, therefore, detailed proposals can neither be developed nor assessed. Ireland has core strengths that have been built up over decades. However, these will not be enough to avoid a dramatic disruption. We need co-ordinated and genuinely ambitious policies to help businesses and communities. The task for our Government is to move from general statements to specific proposals. Too much time has already been wasted.

See this speech in context