Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

It is either that or I do my impression of Deputy Catherine Murphy.

I am happy to debate this critical issue. We are coming back to it again and again, and rightly so, because it is very important. I spend a lot of time giving out to the Government, which is a valid thing for an Opposition to do, but I wanted to compliment it on taking the correct approach this summer. It was right, in its negotiating stance, to say it was up to the British Government to come forward with proposals to deal with the Irish Border issue, and that it was not for us to try to get them out of the incredible dilemma they created in this regard. I still think that was the correct approach because Brexit is creating such difficulties that it behoves those who instigated it to come forward with a workable solution.

The contribution in this House from Mr. Guy Verhofstadt, European Parliament rapporteur on Brexit, was a welcome intervention. He took a reasonably strong line and stated that the European Parliament would look to implement the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts in whatever Brexit deal emerges. I recall him saying that, in order to minimise the damage for Northern Ireland, it would have to stay in some type of Single Market or customs union arrangement. He later said he did not want to determine what the mechanisms would be but that is what he said and if that is carried through in the European Parliament's final approach it would be very welcome as it gives us some security about it.

I was very concerned at the earlier statements of the chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in this House who said a border is a border. He said free movement could be arranged but for trade in goods and services the European Union would take the position that there has to be a border. This led me to be concerned that we would be left with both Britain and Europe facilitating a border against the wishes of the Irish people on, I believe, both sides of the Border.

I watched Theresa May's speech in Florence with interest. It was welcome to hear her talk of the move towards a two-year transition and paying European contributions in that time, as well as her recognition of the European Court of Justice and regulatory systems. However, we are still scratching our heads about this process. The fundamental obstacle is that Britain still wants to have its cake and eat it. Mrs. May did not put forward any real, practical tangible answer to the question of how the UK can leave the European Union, the Single Market and customs union yet trade as it does today. The British do not have an answer to that question. They want both, and the ones to whom I have spoken seem to believe Europe will concede on trade because trade will trump politics. They do not seem to understand that, in this instance, politics will trump trade and this is understandable from a European perspective. How could we agree to them wandering off without being subject to any regulations or common agreements and agreeing to a trade deal because we want to sell beef or BMWs to them? I do not hear any politician, on either the Labour or Conservative side, putting forward a proposition which addresses this issue. I am sure, in the end, there will be some fudging of the wording where, in effect, membership of the customs union continues but dressed up in a different language. They will broadly accept the European regulatory approach but will coat it for their home audience in something different.

I am now joined by my colleague, Deputy Catherine Murphy, and I will happily cede to her in a few minutes' time.

It is important for us to maintain a close relationship at this very difficult time. I am with Sadiq Khan, the Lord Mayor of London, in saying they should vote again but I have looked at the most recent opinion polls and, when asked if they will be better off post-Brexit than staying in the European Union, the people of the UK are still split 50-50. Some 47% think they will be better off after Brexit so the chance of a second vote is slim. I could be missing something and perhaps they will get some benefit from the freedom to trade but I do not think so. In such circumstances, it is very important for us to maintain good and close relationships and there are three or four key areas where this can happen, regardless of what happens in the negotiations around trade, the customs union and the Single Market. The first is in energy, where we have imperative needs to maintain an integrated approach with Britain. They also have these needs, not just in regard to ourselves but to all the rest of north-west continental Europe, because they are now as dependent as we are on imported Norwegian, Russian, Nigerian and other gas supplies. Like us, they are beginning to realise the future is going to be renewable electricity. It will be offshore and it makes no sense at all for Britain to develop that on an isolated basis. It makes sense to develop further interconnection to Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Germany to enable a low-cost, effective, secure, balanced, variable and renewable power supply, because this is where the power system is going.

I see the development of cables as connections and those connections will manage the north-western Europe variable, regional, balanced power market. On the other side of this balancing system is the demand management side, which will increasingly be managed by digital services. This will cover the way we run our electrical car fleets, the electric heating systems in the home and how our industry and data centres work. We will all turn our power on and off in a flexible balanced space and efficiency is the key to everything.

Managing it will be all about digital rules and the second physical connection, in addition to the electricity cables, will be fibre-optic cables connecting us to Britain and the rest of the Continent. It is only the European Union that can effectively stand up to global corporations such as Google, Facebook and others by setting the regulatory rules around the digital economy so that the public can have confidence in it. This is the second area, which is not part of the customs union but at which we must look in order to maintain a common approach. Britain happened to follow the European rules in this area because it is not big enough to do it on its own.

Last but not least is food. It is a real concern that one quarter of our product exports is in the form of beef and we are very over-reliant on sales of beef to the UK. One of the things that will protect us are high environmental standards, the European standards on which we will insist. If one was to ask the British people tomorrow whether they wanted chlorinated chicken from the United States, they would say "No". If they were asked if they wanted beef up to the eyeballs in steroids, they would say "No". These are, therefore, the areas in respect of which we can get agreement and a common regulatory approach that will help us continue to work together, regardless of whatever else falls apart.

See this speech in context