Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome that at last we have a written position paper by the British Government setting out its vision of the future EU-UK relationship. It has taken more than two years to get to this stage and only months remain before March 2019 when the UK leaves the EU. I also welcome that Theresa May refers to commitments to Northern Ireland and to Ireland in her foreword to the White Paper.

There are two sides to the story when it comes to Northern Ireland and Brexit - the economic side and the political side. The White Paper is ambitious in the type of economic partnership it outlines. It remains to be seen whether a deal can be struck, not least in respect of UK payments to the EU, the role of the European Court of Justice and the four fundamental freedoms. Not only is there a risk of the UK cherry-picking what it wants from the Single Market but there is an explicit plan to allow employers to cherry-pick the so-called talented workers and allow them free movement but not other workers.

This is not something to which we could agree.

I would like to focus on three British proposals that are worth emphasising. They involve the maintenance of the all-island energy market; the suggestion of a common rule book for goods, including agrifood, which accounts for the greatest bulk of our exports to Northern Ireland; and the UK's participation in certain EU agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. Ireland exports animals and food worth €3.9 billion to Britain each year, as well as chemicals worth a further €3.9 billion. Nearly €600 million in animals and food, as well as a further €200 million in chemicals, crosses from Ireland to Northern Ireland each year. In turn, we import food worth nearly €500 million and chemicals worth €64 million from Northern Ireland. Many people are unaware that we import so much food into the Republic from the UK. Behind all of these figures are jobs, farms and businesses. Without prejudice to the negotiations that are yet to come, I welcome the fact that the UK is clearly seeking an agreement that would maintain the open Border that is fundamental to the maintenance of so many livelihoods on this island.

Inevitably, there is a political dimension to the agreement of standards and regulations for trade. The proposal in the UK White Paper for biannual meetings between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts to agree the evolution of standards is a recognition of that. It is a way for the UK to participate as a rule-maker and not exclusively as a rule-taker. While this is a radical proposal, I believe it merits careful consideration. The proposed model is not unlike the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, which the UK co-founded in 1960. It envisages a relationship that is less one-sided than the current relationship between the EU and EFTA. From Ireland's perspective, a permanent association agreement between the EU and the UK would help to secure the permanent openness of the Border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. It would reduce the risk that a future UK Government might tear up any agreement that might be perceived as locking the UK into some kind of second-class relationship with the EU.

Everything I am saying about the proposed model is predicated on an association agreement being negotiated and being deemed to be workable. I concede that this is a long path away because there are many negotiations to be had. I believe it could be a model for the EU's relations with other countries on its periphery, including Norway, Ukraine and Turkey. Before I touch on the political dimension to Brexit and Northern Ireland, I want to emphasise that the fundamental point I am making is that the model which has been proposed could be of value to the EU in the future. A number of countries that will seek membership of the Union in the years to come might not fully qualify for such membership. If a model of this type is negotiated with the UK, such countries might see it as an acceptable alternative to full membership of the EU. We should be bold and courageous enough to develop that and to think about whether it might work.

This House used to have a much greater focus on Northern Ireland affairs. In recent years, there has been a significant diminution in the number of debates, the quality of debates and the number of hours we devote to this issue. That has been my experience. Obviously, Brexit has brought the Border back into our debates. It is now a central part of our agenda. We need to look beyond the economic and social aspects of the Border. Northern Ireland's political system, as set up under the Good Friday Agreement, is in a precarious position. The political stalemate that has existed in Northern Ireland for more than 18 months has its origins in the so-called "cash for ash scandal" which, quite frankly, is not referenced too often nowadays.

See this speech in context