Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is almost two years since the people of Britain made their momentous decision to exit the European Union. In a debate in the Dáil some months afterwards, I made the prediction that they would not be disentangled from the EU framework for at least five or six years. It is beginning to look like a gross underestimate if one factors in recent discussions pertaining to the likely transition arrangements.

It is against this background that we have heard quite a lot recently about how the rules-based international order is threatened - threatened by aggressive military posturing by Russia and China; threatened by unilateral dismissal of international treaties, not least by US President Trump; but also threatened by the UK decision to withdraw from the European Union. The rules-based international order is, quite simply, a shared commitment by all countries to act in accordance with agreed rules. These are rules that evolve over time, such as international law, regional security arrangements and trade agreements.

Membership of the European Union requires adherence to the membership rules in order to reap the extensive benefits of membership in terms of trade, security and higher social and environmental standards. By leaving the European Union, the UK has signalled that it no longer wants to obey these commonly-agreed rules. It does not want to be under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice or be restricted by trade deals struck by EU negotiators, yet it wants to preserve the benefits of frictionless trade with the EU market. It remains to be seen if the UK is committed to maintaining European social and environmental standards or whether Brexit will be an excuse to unwind hard-won rights and protections for workers and citizens.

This is the "have your cake and eat it" scenario that has been rejected, again and again, by Michel Barnier, negotiating on behalf of the EU. It has been rejected by the European Commission and by member states, including Ireland. However, talk of cakes is too frivolous for such a serious threat to Ireland and to the very basis of co-operation between European member states. So far, two UK proposals have been rejected. First, the maximum facilitation model relies excessively on technology, not least that hundreds of cameras would need to be placed on or near the Border to monitor the movement of goods vehicles, which is unacceptable and, in any event, clearly unworkable. Second, the customs partnership model is yet another attempt by the UK to be effectively inside the customs union area while also negotiating additional trade deals outside of it. Again, this is clearly unacceptable.

Let us be clear. Both of these proposals are attempts to do the impossible, which is to preserve the benefits of international co-operation without agreeing to a realistic set of international rules. Instead, the UK has proposed fewer rules, with weak or non-existent arbitration and little or no commitment to pay towards the upkeep of the European rules-based system from which it wishes to profit economically. The fundamental contradiction in this position is obvious to all.

Last week, Downing Street finally promised to publish a White Paper before the June summit, with another proposal. This appears to suggest that, in the absence of an agreed alternative, all of the UK will "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which support north-south co-operation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement". This version of the backstop is initially seductive. It seems to be a plausible solution to our immediate concerns about the Border on this island and about barriers to trade between Ireland and Britain. However, is this just another version of the already rejected customs partnership or is the UK willing to remain within all of the rules and obligations that come with membership of the customs union, including the role of the European Court of Justice and annual payments to the EU? If it is just another attempt to retain access to the customs area while negotiating trade deals outside of it, then it is not going to be acceptable. If it means remaining genuinely inside the rules-based customs union, with all this implies, is it politically achievable within the UK?

There is clearly political pressure within the UK Cabinet to make this a temporary arrangement, not a sustainable option. There is also likely to be a legal impediment to the UK putting detail on future trade arrangements within the text of its exit agreement. Everything keeps coming back to the international rule of law. When we reach the June summit, the time is up for any further fudging of issues, prevarication or attempts to get a free pass into European free trade arrangements. The Government must ensure that the UK is prepared to sign up to a legally-binding set of rules which outline in no uncertain terms how the Irish Border will remain open and frictionless. A proposed UK-wide backstop that is not politically stable, and potentially not legally possible, is just not acceptable. It does not provide sufficient security for Irish jobs and it does not give us the sustainable solution that is needed for the Border. The Government must take a firm stand at this June summit.

The UK is a trading nation. It imports goods, not least food products from Ireland, and it exports services. We have been told, again and again, that the UK wants frictionless free trade with the EU, but trade between countries requires shared rules and mechanisms to enforce those rules and to arbitrate between businesses and between national governments. The UK is highly reliant on exporting complex services, not least financial services.

The World Trade Organization does not provide a sufficient set of rules to oversee this kind of trade. The UK is either a member of the European rules-based order or it is not. If the UK wants to trade across the European Union, it must agree to follow all the rules that come with access to that market. The European Economic Area provides access to the Single Market for countries that remain outside the political union. The EU's customs partnership with Turkey provides a template for trade in goods.

We must also be clear with the British Government that it cannot use Ireland's concerns as leverage to get it a customs partnership which we have already determined is unworkable and not in our interests. Prime Minister May has spoken on several occasions recently in defence of a rules-based international order. The great irony is that the UK's exit from the European Union is a leading example of the breakdown in rules-based co-operation between countries. It has unleashed an ideology that is totally out of step with a hard-won European and global rules-based regulated approach to trade. After endless months of fudge, bluster and threat, the time has arrived for clarity. Ireland must insist that clarity is provided before we move a step further. Nothing less will suffice.

See this speech in context