Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Last night, I read through the material and put down on paper a few thoughts in preparation for today, but then another avenue opened up. What appeared certain until today was that Britain would leave the EU and the uncertainty was all about the when and the how and whether it would be a no-deal Brexit, a last-minute deal or an application for an extension. New vistas are appearing daily. Yesterday we had the British Labour Party's decision to back a second referendum to prevent a crash out. This throws up the possibility of no Brexit if that is a proposition on the paper if the referendum goes ahead. The Tánaiste has been very strong in confirming that a disorderly Brexit would be a lose, lose, lose situation for Ireland, the UK and Europe.

Prime Minister May recently postponed the vote until 12 March. That has been interpreted as an attempt to wind down the clock such that the withdrawal agreement is far more appealing than crashing out with no deal and the Prime Minister will be able to win a vote in the House of Commons on the matter. The Taoiseach is of the belief that Britain will not crash out. Yesterday, "extension" appeared to be the word of the day at EU and Irish level. Today, it appeared in the vocabulary used by Prime Minister May, who promised to give members of the UK Parliament a vote on extending the Brexit negotiations or withdrawing without a deal if her plan is rejected next month. The latest proposal is for a meaningful vote on 12 March and will include whatever additional assurances she gets from the EU. If that proposal falls, two separate votes will take place the following day, one on a no-deal Brexit and another requesting an extension. She now appears to be taking seriously the challenges and problems that a crash-out Brexit would bring. I find it rather bizarre that she is acknowledging it at this stage. Yesterday, she stated, "I believe that if we have to, we will ultimately make a success of a no-deal". However, she will also present an honest assessment of the very serious challenges presented by a no-deal Brexit. The debate in the House of Commons has descended into a major row between the British Labour Party and the Tories over which of them has made more U-turns.

The leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster, believes a deal on Brexit will be reached by 29 March. Another member of the DUP, Jeffrey Donaldson, commented today that the EU will shift and make the necessary changes to the withdrawal agreement. He made those comments in spite of the fact that the EU has been firm that the withdrawal agreement is all that is on offer.

Three days of late sittings have been allocated in the House to prepare for something that might not happen and which we hope will not happen. Prime Minister May is insisting on going to Europe to seek concessions. What is very certain is that the political system in Westminster is in disarray. I have been at meetings today since 3.30 p.m. and have not had a chance to hear the latest news. I wonder what new avenue has been opened at this stage.

I wish to acknowledge the briefing last Friday morning organised by the Tánaiste. It provided a whistle-stop tour of what Brexit means for the Departments mainly affected by it. Although short, it provided a good overview of the Bill and the issues that will be discussed this week. A significant body of work has been carried out for something that might never happen and which no rational person would want, namely, a no-deal Brexit. Officials went through the 15 Parts of the Bill which involve nine Ministers. The hours of work that went into the preparation of the Bill took away from the work that the Departments should have been undertaking. What came across from the briefing was that the motive behind the Bill is to ensure a seamlessness after 29 March and if there is no deal.

Of course, the new favourite word seems to be "extension" but it is difficult to see what that will achieve beyond what is happening now. What is the point of an extension if the EU is maintaining that what is on the table is all that will ever be on offer? After two years of negotiations, one would have thought that every "i" had been dotted and every "t" crossed. In the case of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will become a third country. As other Members have stressed, what is paramount is protecting the Good Friday Agreement, supporting North-South co-operation, and protecting and maintaining the common travel area.

On the section of the Bill dealing with health and the confirmation of existing healthcare arrangements, the explanatory memorandum confirms the situation regarding access to health services in the UK for citizens of this State and vice versa, but the question of access to healthcare for a UK citizen living in Ireland when that person is in another EU country is not addressed. An issue regarding drugs which has not, to the best of my knowledge, been raised is that people travel to facilities such as Merchants Quay Ireland and the National Drug Treatment Centre at Trinity Court in Dublin to access addiction treatment and interventions. How can the opiate substitution treatment methadone maintenance programme between Belfast and Dublin or Ireland and the UK be maintained if there are differing regulations in each jurisdiction relating to the prescription of methadone? Will people be prohibited from having prescriptions filled in other jurisdictions?

On industry, although the EU has been firm to date on respecting the Good Friday Agreement and the need for the backstop, it is very clear that the UK will remain in some form of customs union in the event of a no-deal Brexit. There will be pressure for such a customs union from countries such as Germany, for example, the car industry of which has a significant dependency on the British market. A crash-out Brexit now appears less likely, given the upsurge in discussion of an extension. I acknowledge that Enterprise Ireland and other agencies will facilitate additional lending and investment instruments and it is likely there will be significant demand for that. However, a question remains about the criteria that will be applied in that regard and the basis on which certain people will be supported but others will not. The Student Support Act 2011 is dealt with in the Bill and those current arrangements will continue, as will the arrangements under the Harbours Act.However, even if a deal is agreed and there is no crash out, there will be a need for border checks of some sort. Even Norway, which has access to the Single Market, and Turkey, which has a close customs union deal, are subject to border checks. There needs to be clarification of what kinds of checks are proposed and envisaged between Ireland and the UK and the UK and continental Europe.

It is crucial that there be no hard border on the island. The Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, of which I am a member, heard many presentations by organisations, community groups and businesses, some of which were from the North or involved in North-South Border co-operation. Their fears and concerns were very apparent to the committee. There is a need for more clarity on this issue because a hard Brexit is still a possibility.

Notwithstanding the immense work done on the Bill by officials, it is a rush job which was prepared in a vacuum and without knowing what is coming. I hope that does not come back to haunt us. The hope is that the legislation will not be needed. There are bigger questions for the EU generally in regard to its commitment to the principles on which the EU was founded and by which it is supposed to abide, such as respect for human dignity, law, human rights, democracy and equality. The situation is very challenging. There are difficulties and frustrations but, as an eternal optimist, I do not think it will all be doom and gloom. I hope I am right.

See this speech in context