Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I did not hear the remarks of Secretary Davis. I note the judgment of the European Court of Justice today in respect of Singapore. That means that the EU-Singapore free trade agreement is a mixed agreement and there are elements which are of national competence and require national ratification. The same applies to the CETA agreement with Canada, which is a mixed agreement and will require national ratification in due course. In that case, we favour provisional ratification in order to ensure the deal works which is the best way of demonstrating the practical benefits for consumers and SMEs.

Deputy Martin is correct when he said we have to have the details sooner. It means that all parliaments will have to have international trade committees so that they are not left without adequate information as negotiations on trade deals proceed. This matter has been raised in the House. Deputies have said they do not know what is in an agreement, despite the fact that the information might be on a website or have been published in book form. Such agreements can be very complicated, as the Deputy knows. If there has to be ratification by all of the parliaments, that will probably delay the process but may have a benefit in that parliaments would be informed on a rolling basis of what is being discussed so that their international free trade committees or whatever else would be very well-informed about the process.

We have dealt in considerable detail with our counterparts in London and Belfast in respect of the Border issues. Deputy Martin is aware that the three issues are the Border, modalities and liabilities about whatever contractual obligations the United Kingdom has from joining the European Union and rights and reciprocal rights for people who live in European countries. Since 1922, we have dealt on a bilateral basis with Britain via the common travel area, which does not involve just travel but also residency, the right to work and social protection and benefits. The British Government has agreed with what we have said, namely that there is no return to the Border of the past.

We still do not know what the future structure of trade will be or what is being proposed by the United Kingdom with the European Union. That is where the complexities will lie. We will not get to that issue until there is substantial progress on the first three priorities I outlined. We have a political imprimaturin respect of the Border. It is how we make that work after that which is the issue. There must be no return to what was there before. How can we do that when we still do not know whether there will be tariffs or a collapse at the end of 2019, which I hope there will not be, when the first phase of the withdrawal has finished?

See this speech in context