David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There is nothing new of substance in the Tánaiste's speech, which is disappointing. Obviously we all await the June summit and we want to see exactly what this real and substantial progress, which has been talked up and talked about for so long, would be. The Tánaiste knows that I and my party have supported the Government's approach and the European Union's approach to getting the best outcome for Ireland. In December we had a political agreement, the most notable part of which was the backstop. It was one of three options and I suppose it was the insurance policy that this State and the North would have in the absence of a better agreement - a free trade agreement or some agreement on customs and the Single Market between the European Union and the UK.

One of the difficulties was that the backstop arrangement was limited. We needed to build on the backstop but what we have seen is a different interpretation of what the backstop means by the British Government and a further different interpretation by the hard Brexiteers. When we last discussed the matter, the Tánaiste said that the Government would take its cue from the British Prime Minister and not from the hard Brexiteers, which is fair enough. However, it is very difficult to know who is in charge at the moment and exactly what the British Government's position is. British Ministers say they support the substance and the principles of December's agreement, but they have not put anything on the table on how they will bring that about. They talk about "a" backstop, but not "the" backstop. The backstop, in the December agreement, states it is maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now and into the future would support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement. It goes on to state that the territory of the North of Ireland, excluding the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, shall be considered to be part of the customs territory of the Union. It continues to state that a list of what issues will be subject to the customs union will be annexed to the agreement. The difficulty is that not all areas of trade will be covered as part of this customs territory. What has not been agreed is that the North will remain fully in the customs union and Single Market. Even if the backstop were translated into a legal agreement with which we would be comfortable, it would still not mean the North remaining in the customs union and Single Market. If that does not happen, we will have a hardening of the border and a difficulty. We needed to build on the December agreement, but what we have had since is more backsliding.

Earlier this week the Taoiseach indicated there was new thinking from the British Prime Minister. We went from having in December a backstop, which was a bulletproof cast-iron guarantee. We have had months of trying to understand and unravel what that means, getting some alignment and agreement between what the British Government, the Irish Government and the EU understand that to mean. There has been no agreement on the legal text so that we can see exactly what that would mean in practice. That now seems to be parked and there is new thinking and new ideas. We have no idea as to what that new thinking will be, other than some vague reference to a customs partnership and an extension to the transition period where the UK in its entirety would stay in the customs union and Single Market for a bit longer. Under no circumstance should we trade in the insurance policy that is the backstop for some sort of temporary solution being proposed by the British Government.

For all of the talk and all the support we have given the Government, there is still no agreement as we stand here today. There is still no sense of what it will mean for people living on the island of Ireland post Brexit. Even with the backstop, there is no sense of what that means because there are different interpretations. We are trying to put the best interpretation on it because we want the best possible result.

There is a real focus and urgency and a real importance attached to the June summit. If the Tánaiste has a chance to come back in, he should give the House some sense of what is meant by substantial progress. Is it substantial progress on the backstop or is it substantial progress on the so-called new thinking on which we have no detail so far?

The Tánaiste can understand our frustration. I would like to take the Tánaiste up on his offer to have a formal meeting with him and his officials in order that he can apprise us on what he means by substantial progress in advance of the June summit.

See this speech in context