Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Brexit, which is undoubtedly the biggest challenge our country has faced in decades and will face for years to come. It threatens to weaken our economy, damage trade between Ireland and the UK and test diplomatic relations. It is currently on a path which could lead to the stripping of rights from EU citizens living in Northern Ireland. The possible reintroduction of a border on this island looms over all of us and to date, we still have no progress or possible solution to that issue, which would be utterly disastrous for our country. A border is not just a barrier to trade. It represents division and is unacceptable in any form - hard, soft or anything in between - regardless of how advanced the technology is. It harks back to the days of violence on this island. It is imperative that it is at all times stressed to Mrs. May and her Government that a border is a border, no matter which way one spins it, and the people of this country will not accept it.

In December, it was announced with much fanfare that the Government had secured a backstop. This was touted as a big win for Ireland at that time. It is clear now that the backstop was oversold and the Government's interpretation of that backstop was, and still is, at variance with that of its UK counterpart. In fact, Theresa May utterly rejected the wording put before her in March. Here we are almost six months on approaching the June Council meeting and the backstop is still being discussed. It is fine for everyone to agree that there can be no border on the island of Ireland but it is a very different thing to actually put that into practice and devise a solution to the conundrum in which we find ourselves where we all agree yet no one agrees. Next, the UK presented what it viewed as two possible solutions in respect of this issue. The first is a customs partnership, which we know will not work and which Boris Johnson, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, termed "crazy". The second is maximum facilitation, max fac, an idea I am happy to call crazy on the record because that is what it is. It is totally unworkable for us. It is a border using technology that does not exist to create a situation that is not replicated anywhere in the world. It is fairy-tale customs. These were the two options being presented.

When the penny finally dropped that the UK still had no solution, Mrs. May came up with a third option, namely, max fac plus delay, which is essentially an admission that she cannot solve the border issue right now so she is going to kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with it when she has departed. If the intention behind this option is to delay the introduction of a technological border until the technology becomes available, then we should absolutely reject it because a border will never be acceptable - not now, not ever. What might happen if this delay occurs? What will happen in six, seven or ten years time when the Irish Government has changed, when the UK Government is different, when Michel Barnier may have retired, when Guy Verhofstadt is gone and when the make-up of the entire negotiating team is very different? If we do not resolve the issue now, thereby allowing the can to be kicked down the road, we are the only ones who will be disadvantaged. It is Ireland that will suffer. If we see a situation where Jacob Rees-Mogg and his 60 Brexiteers in the European Research Group - a group that is essentially looking for a hard Brexit - suddenly start welcoming this third option because they think this is a good idea, alarm bells should sound across this island and loudly within the halls of Government Buildings, particularly as we know that the ultimate goal of this group is to break all ties with the EU. The members of the group in question could not care less what happens to Ireland or to the Irish Border. They have made that crystal clear.

I was in Brussels this week and I engaged in a series of meetings to discuss Brexit and the negotiations. I met with Emer Deane, Ireland's permanent representative, and her team. I was extremely impressed with our team. We are very fortunate and lucky to have such a strong team advocating for us in Brussels. Yes, they are doing extraordinary work but they were in agreement that time is tight. They are certainly focusing on the June Council meeting and the October's meeting but there is concern across the board that we still do not have a solution to the border issue and are still very much up in the air about whether we will have a withdrawal treaty at all.

I also met with Nina Obermaier and members of the Article 50 task force. The message was very clear. I asked her directly about Mrs. May's third option and the suggestion that the UK could remain in the customs union for an extended period. Ms Obermaier made it very clear that the UK cannot and will not remain with the customs union as we know it because the customs union is for member states only. She was also very clear that the intention was that the backstop would only apply to Northern Ireland and that if there was no other solution, Northern Ireland - not the UK in its entirety, would remain in the customs union and the Single Market. It is difficult to see how that position will somehow marry with the position being put forward by the UK because they are entirely different and right now, they do not match. I also asked what the situation would be if come next March, we do not have a withdrawal treaty, which we must accept is a possibility. If we do not have a withdrawal treaty, it means we do not have a transition period. That means that next March, we are heading towards a cliff edge. What happens to trucks that want to go from the port in Dublin to mainland Europe via England? How will that work? Again, Ms Obermaier was clear that this is not part of the task force's mandate. That is not part of its work. It is not discussing that. The task force's focus is on maintaining the integrity of the Single Market. Issues relating to trade and crossing the UK to get to mainland Europe are matters for the future trading arrangements.

See this speech in context