Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am going through them. That was not the Deputy's first question. In respect of no deal, we are making preparations at the ports and airports. We have control of land that we need at Rosslare and Dublin. We have control of Dublin Airport and will be able to enforce the acquisif we need to at the ports and airports. In respect of land borders, I have said many times in this House that we are not making any preparations for physical infrastructure, controls or checks on the land Border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. As I have said before, that does create a real dilemma and a real problem for us. In the event of no deal, the United Kingdom will have obligations under the World Trade Organisation and we will have obligations to protect our Single Market and customs union, of which we will continue to be a full part. That would create a dilemma for both countries and for the European Union. Therefore the only solution which can assure that we do not see the emergence of a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is an agreement on customs, a common customs territory, call it what you will, and regulatory alignment between Northern Ireland and the European Union or perhaps the whole UK and the European Union. That is what we have negotiated. I do not think we will get anything very different from the agreement that is on the table now. Even if there is a period of uncertainty after 29 March, we will end up with an agreement not dissimilar from what we have now. That is why we should ratify it now and not subject citizens and businesses to that level of uncertainty or potential damage.

The UK Government has been quite open about what it is seeking. It is seeking to explore alternative arrangements which it believes could replace the backstop. We have yet to see any such alternative arrangements written down in legal form, let alone operating and tested and working anywhere in the world. They seek the possibility of a time limit and we have explained why a backstop with a time limit is not a backstop, as the Prime Minister herself eloquently explained when she was advocating for the backstop. An insurance policy that can be cancelled at the time one most needs it is not an insurance policy at all. They have sought a unilateral exit clause and again we have explained why it is something we cannot accept.

I have raised the issue of Article 50 potentially being extended and the Prime Minister has made her position clear. She intends that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on time on the date it has set. On the European elections, there are conflicting legal opinions but the general consensus is that if Article 50 is extended to the end of June or early July, the European elections will not have to take place in the United Kingdom as the new European Parliament does not actually sit for the first time until early July. However, if Article 50 were extended beyond early July, it would be necessary for the European elections to be held in the United Kingdom, as UK citizens would continue to be EU citizens and therefore under the treaties would have a right to be represented in the European Parliament. We have made provision in our legislation that if the elections do take place in the United Kingdom, the candidates last elected in Dublin and in Ireland South will not take up their seats in the European Parliament until such a time as the United Kingdom has left. Another detail which is unfortunate but we can find no way around is that should the United Kingdom leave before the European elections take place, UK citizens resident in Ireland will not be able to vote in the European elections as the treaties say that the European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union.

UK citizens will not be EU citizens after Brexit. They will continue to be able to vote in local elections, Dáil elections and Seanad elections, but will not be able to vote in European elections. Unfortunately, we could not find a way around that as it would require an amendment to the treaties.

I do not think for a second that criticism of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, and I very much agree with Deputy Boyd Barrett in that regard. The occupation has gone on for far too long. This Government is a very strong supporter of a two-state solution and a just and lasting peace as there can be no peace that is lasting that is not just. We believe the settlements are wrong. The Tánaiste is currently hosting a two day retreat on the Middle East in Farmleigh House and Iveagh House, with foreign ministers from Arab countries, France, Bulgaria, Sweden and other countries. We are very committed to Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution. We do not believe it is inherently anti-Semitic to be critical of the state of Israel. Perhaps Deputy Boyd Barrett is missing the point about the concerns some people have. It is not so much about criticisms of Israel but the double standards of some people who are very critical of Israel for doing certain things that are wrong while turning a blind eye when similar things are done by regimes in places such as Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea. They naturally wonder if there is something particular or different about Israel that singles it out for criticisms-----

See this speech in context