Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

While we respect the vote of the electorate in Britain, and rightly so, one cannot help being struck by the total lack of awareness and lack of preparation before Brexit on so many of the implications of Brexit. One is also struck by the way in which Brexit was reduced to just two issues: the money that Britain would save and the migrant issue. We now know of the massive implications for Ireland, for Irish-British relations and also for Northern Ireland. These implications cover a wide range of issues from agriculture, the agrifood business, transport, tourism, energy, the environment, culture and so on.

Ireland and the EU recognise that Brexit will impact significantly on our relations with Britain but I wonder if the British Government is really grasping that. There has been a lot of lip service paid. We know the old cliché of talking the talk but not walking the walk. On Northern Ireland, Brexit is very definitely gambling with the Good Friday Agreement, in spite of the assurances given. It is vital that what has been achieved in the Good Friday Agreement, imperfect as it is, is not jeopardised or undermined.

There will be consequences, unintended or otherwise, and I make the point again of the possible implications for identify and culture. These may, in the long run, be more significant and potentially dangerous than specific economic consequences. It is in an atmosphere of uncertainty that direct confrontation can happen.

We are hearing a lot of assurances that there will not be a return to the hard border. Those words are very welcome but what exactly will happen in reality? It seems that the suggestion of a transition period of at least two years is being considered. The farm groups are looking for five years and others are suggesting ten years. Prime Minister May said that Ireland has unique issues to consider and that protecting the Good Friday Agreement and the common travel area are of importance to Britain. The Prime Minister spoke of Britain's responsibilities to the island of Ireland, North and South. The words of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, this week match that. The words are there but the detail for realising those matters is still lacking. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has called for detailed implementation proposals and we are at that stage now. The real danger is that what is good for Ireland may not be compatible with what is good for the EU. There is a real danger that Ireland may be caught in the crossfire between Britain and the EU. Human nature being what it is, when one member leaves a club the other members will not be happy and they will certainly not give the member who leaves the same privileges and benefits of the members who are still in the club.

There is a need for support for Ireland as Brexit has the most impact on our economy. We must protect those jobs in businesses that are most affected. There is an example in Germany after reunification.

I shall now turn to the environment. Britain will not be bound by some of the key elements of the EU environment directives and there could be implications relating to the conservation of our shared natural heritage. I attended a retailers against smuggling event today and there was much concern, from attendees from North and South, that Brexit will create a bigger market for smuggling of cigarettes, loose tobacco and alcohol. Retailers conducted a survey that showed 51% of the Border retailers in the Republic of Ireland believe that ensuring there is no growth in price differentials between alcohol and tobacco sold in Northern Ireland and the South after Brexit is the primary way to prevent smuggling. They had staggering figures on the loss of revenue due to smuggling.

Britain has contributed considerably to the EU monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction. Their expertise has been particularly welcomed in the areas of research on the social and health response around drugs and drug addiction. One must wonder about this sort of membership and contribution continuing.

I acknowledge Britain's big contribution to overseas development aid - €13.3 billion - and the fact that Britain is one of five EU countries that has reached the 0.7% contribution. There could be that shortfall to consider. There is a danger that Britain could divert its overseas development aid to countries where Britain has a particular interest, rather than to the countries of most need. We are seeing an increase in its aid no longer being untied in the way ours is.

There are challenging times in this long goodbye as Britain leaves the EU but it is also a time of opportunity. There has been an over dependence by our markets on the British market; we know the figures for beef and dairy products. I acknowledge the work of the Departments, the embassies and our ambassadors in trying to develop new markets. At a committee on the issue we were told that if 1% of the firms relocated to Ireland it would mean 6,000 new jobs.

See this speech in context