David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Last December, the Government told the Irish people that it had a cast-iron guarantee regarding the North and that in the event of a no-deal scenario, there would be no hard border or no hardening of the Border on the island of Ireland and this deal was designed not just to avoid any hardening of the Border but to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts and to protect the rights of citizens on the island, including those in the North who are Irish citizens and who, as a consequence of that, would continue to be European Union citizens.

The reason that was described as cast iron was that it was a backstop, and a backstop is not some temporary arrangement. A backstop, by its very nature, is a permanent arrangement. It was never meant to be ideal or the only option on the table. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were right when they said on several occasions that the backstop option was only in play in the event there was no deal between Britain and Europe on trade or if a better deal was not put on the table. It was designed to make sure we had an insurance policy if the current talks between Britain and the European Union fail. That was the nature of the backstop arrangement. We now have the British Prime Minister talking about a temporary backstop arrangement, with time limits imposed. It is not a backstop at all. It has now become a UK-wide extension of the implementation period and, essentially, nothing more than that.

I had some quarrels with the Tánaiste over this because my observation of where the British Government is at is that it has torn up the backstop agreement and is clearly focused on some sort of arrangement or deal at the end of the day that will cover Britain in its entirety and would see the North being part of that arrangement. We are now left with no guarantees.

We have to go back to the start of this process when many people in this Chamber supported an Irish position, which was that we must avoid at all costs stumbling into October still negotiating with Britain on the wider issues without having any guarantees and any solutions for Ireland. We were promised by the Irish Government that would not happen. We were promised that even before we would even move on to phase two of the negotiations we would have a resolution of the Irish issues. That came and went and then we had this backstop agreement. We warned the Minister of State's Government at the time it was published.

We warned the Government not to oversell the agreement, not to be naive, to keep its feet on the ground and see it as the political agreement that it was. It was not a legal agreement. Flesh had to be put on the bones of the December agreement which needed to be built on. It did not include services or all areas of trade. It was not even envisaged that the North would stay fully in the customs union and the Single Market. It only envisaged the North staying in the customs union to protect what it called the all-island economy, the Good Friday Agreement and North-South co-operation. Even then, it was quite limited, but at least it was something. However, that something has now been taken of the table.

I have attended almost every meeting of the stakeholder forums which the Tánaiste hosts once a month. I go to listen and engage and the Tánaiste sets out the position of the Irish Government. None of it is secret. There are some things he will share with us in confidence, but the overall thrust of the Irish Government's position that it wanted progress by June was very public. It was the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach who set the bar that we could move beyond June if we did not have real and substantial progress on the Irish issues. When he came to Dundalk, Mr. Barnier made a very similar commitment. I was at the lunch where the Tánaiste and Mr. Barnier were at one that we could not move past June without having what they both described as real and substantial progress. I have my view on what the bar should have been, but even by the Government's own measure, its strategy has failed. That is the reality.

The European Council's statement following the meeting expressed concern that no substantial progress had been achieved on a backstop solution for the North and Ireland. For all of the talk and promises that we would have real and substantial progress and were not going to stumble into October without any resolution of the Irish issues, that is exactly what happened, yet we move on regardless. There are no consequences for the British Government and no pressure. Brexit was not the dominant issue at the Council meeting. There was no real reprimand for the British Government or, it seems, real pressure exerted by the Irish Government. That is a dereliction of its duty. All other European partners have their concerns and issues, all of which I respect, but the Irish Government's position has to be to protect the interests of those who live on the island of Ireland. At the end of the day we cannot depend on anybody except ourselves and have to make sure that at the very least the Irish Government is holding Britain to account, forcing the European Union to hold it to account and using whatever leverage we have to make sure that will happen. That was the Irish Government's stated intention, according to its rhetoric, but it seems that it was comfortable in allowing the phase 1 negotiations to move on without real concrete solutions. Now it seems content to leave the June summit without concrete solutions, even though it stated all the way along that it would not allow that to happen.

The Minister of State must accept that this is not a good outcome for the Government. It is certainly not a good outcome for Ireland or the people I represent who now have very real concerns about what is going to happen. Leaving aside all of the differences we can have on these issues, with the British Government and the European Union and leaving aside all of the different scenarios with max fac, max fac plus and all of the things we are hearing that might come from the Chequers meeting and the White Paper in which Mrs. Theresa May will put some options on the table, the hard reality is that the British Government is still intent on taking the North out of the European Union, the customs union and the Single Market. There may be some sort of customs partnership, but we do not know how it would work in practice. What we do know is that services will not be included. Not every area of trade will be included. There are real question marks about whether the European Union will agree to any type of arrangement which will allow Britain to stay in the Single Market without supporting the four freedoms which include the free movement of people.

I have no difficulty with the European Union defending its position and making sure the rules of the Single Market and the customs union are protected. We are a member of the European Union and it is taken as a given that that must happen. However, if there is divergence and the North is not aligned with the rules of the Single Market and the customs union, we will have a problem. That would be a step backwards and we did not vote for a step backwards, North or South. We should not accept it under any circumstance. The Government has an awful lot of work to do between now and October to recover lost ground. Pressure needs to be exerted on the Minister of State and the Government to come back with a solution that will protect the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts, avoid any hardening of the Border and protect the rights of citizens.

I also want to address the immigration issue. It is important that it featured at the summit as it is a huge issue. I listened intently to the debate and opinions expressed by Members on whether Russia or western allies were right. I do not side with Russia or western governments in the conflict in Syria. They have all failed that country and region. I am very concerned about the welfare of the people who live there and the fact that many of them are being forced to flee and are not being given the protections and supports they should have. As other Deputies said, we are very fortunate that we do not have a far right party or politicians to any great degree in this state. We should be very proud of this, given what is happening elsewhere in Europe.

See this speech in context