Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

In respect of the level playing field, the Tánaiste said it does not matter what it is called, that it is the substance that matters and that it may be an issue of different language around it. This misunderstands what Brexit is fundamentally about for the people who supported it. Effectively, it is a strategy to undercut European Union standards and conditions in terms of climate and workers' rights. It is an attempt to get access to European Union markets as a free ride without the responsibilities that come with it. This is a fundamental part of the strategy of the people who proposed and pushed Brexit and who are now in senior roles in the British Government. Given this, what approach will the Government take on this? This is fundamentally what they are trying to achieve. This is what they want and what they are about. We need to recognise this is not something on which there will be easily won concessions. None of this will be easy but this will be the hardest part because it is fundamentally what they are trying to do.

The issue of the EU office in Belfast was agreed in Article 12 of the Northern Ireland-Ireland protocol, which states there will be European Union access for oversight and that it should be facilitated by the UK. It is effectively already agreed. I take the point it should never have been elevated to the level it has reached but given that it has been and its importance in terms of the European Union having transparent robust oversight of the checks system, it is very important there is full confidence in it throughout the European Union so there is full confidence in goods produced in Ireland. Therefore, is it not important that we take a stronger position on it?

From a negotiating point of view, given that the UK Government has elevated this now, does it not make sense for us to take a stronger position on it? It is effectively putting it in as one of several things that are in the mix at the moment. If we concede too easily on it, does it not weaken our position? On that point of negotiating strategy and tactics, the UK's approach is effectively one of running down the clock. It is taking quite a reckless approach to these negotiations. Does it make sense for us to meet that with the kind of pragmatic diplomacy that seems to be the current approach? Given the positions it is taking and its negotiating tactics and style, should we not be taking a more robust strategy and stance?

See this speech in context