Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will resume on Questions Nos. 38 and 41, which are being taken together.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste will be aware that Border communities are extremely worried about recent statements that he and the Taoiseach made regarding the imposition of customs and Border checks. The Government states that it could not produce a plan months out from Brexit, which is only six weeks away now. People are asking if there is a plan B and , if so, when they will see the shape of it. The Tánaiste has stated that this will happen when there is agreement with the Commission. When will that be? Will it be next week or the week after? Will it be a week Brexit is due to happen? People are extremely worried about the direction in which this is going. We need to reassure them. We also need people to realise that there is a possibility of a no-deal Brexit and that they should prepared for it. That is key.

I welcome that the Tánaiste recently informed the Cabinet about the no-deal Brexit plans in the various Departments. As I have mentioned to him, both privately and in public, I also believe that there is a role for the Dáil in respect of this matter. We have a part to play. Does the Tánaiste have a view on revisiting the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Act 2019? How does the Government proposed to keep the Dáil on board in respect of this discussion? We want to be kept updated, not only in private rooms but also in this Chamber. We need to be telling people at home exactly what is coming down the track.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The final supplementary will be from Deputy Lisa Chambers.

Lisa Chambers (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate what the Tánaiste is saying in terms of the timing involved and the political sensitivities relating to discussing potential Border infrastructure. At this point, however, with 44 days - just over six weeks - to go, it is reasonable to start releasing those plans and pushing the Commission to give a verdict on the Government's proposals.

One of the issues referred to either last week or a week and a half ago is that of a grace period. It might alleviate some of the concerns if there was some detail on what kind of a grace period would be involved. In terms of implementation, are we talking days, weeks or months? Discussing details of potential checks either near or away from the Border will not provide any sort of reassurance to people but it would provide a degree of clarity and certainty in what is an uncertain environment. That is what businesses are seeking.

I also do not buy into the idea that if we start discussing our plan B - what we would do in an emergency - this would somehow equate to our putting forward an alternative arrangement. The backstop is not as good as the UK remaining in the European Union. An alternative arrangement is supposed to do exactly what the backstop will do but putting infrastructure or checks in place in particular locations is clearly not the same. Doing the latter would give rise to a much inferior outcome. In the context of equating the two, I just do not see a link. With just over six weeks to go, clarity is needed, even in the context of the grace period. If businesses and farmers knew that they would have two months or three months grace, it might remove some of the stress.

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our friends from Colombia. The Minister formally opened the new Colombian embassy in Dublin yesterday and we opened an embassy in Bogota in the past 12 months. The relationship between our two countries is closer than ever before. The Minister is very welcome. I look forward to visiting Colombia, hopefully at some point in the next six to nine months.

Deputy Crowe is correct about the concerns of those in Border communities. I have met many of them. This is a cause of real anxiety. When I say that we will not sign up to a compromise deal that essentially involves acquiescing to introducing infrastructure on or near the Border, I mean it. I say that because of the concerns of the people to whom I refer. We need to be firm, if respectful, and state that we expect the UK to honour the commitments it has given to Ireland and the EU during the negotiations. We must also indicate that will not allow a situation whereby, in order to solve a difficulty at Westminster, we would create a significant problem for Ireland for the foreseeable future and that the Border would dominate politics here again. We all thought we had left the latter behind two decades ago. In the context of a decision the UK - not Ireland - has made, it is not unreasonable to request that Irish interests in this regard be protected. It is in the context of a no-deal scenario - when we may be forced to make difficult decisions in order to protect both our place in the Single Market and the Good Friday Agreement - we must state that we regard any arrangements put in place as temporary while we continue to negotiate in respect of the same issues on which we are negotiating now. The EU has made it clear, through a European Council decision, that no formal trade negotiations between the EU and UK will be opened until the three issues in the withdrawal agreement - citizens' rights issues, the financial settlement and the Irish Border question - are addressed in full. We will continue our campaign, if necessary through a no-deal, to try to protect this island against the political impact on communities of the reintroduction of Border infrastructure.

I will try to and answer Deputy Crowe's question on what the House in respect of Brexit in the context of a later question on the matter.