Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and join others in commending her, the Tánaiste and their team for their work in representing Ireland in the current negotiations. As others have noted, there has been some strong commonality of concern from all parties. There are also some shared clarities on core principles, which are vital to all of us and about which all of us have spoken in different ways. Among those principles is the idea that the Good Friday Agreement must be protected, maintained and prioritised. In the conversation about the backstop, sometimes the agreement has been somewhat lost.

The agreement is not simply some piece on a chessboard or something to be moved around. It is an internationally recognised peace agreement lodged with the Security Council. It is a document to which the UK and Irish Governments and the EU are guarantors and for which they have a responsibility to guarantee. It is important to remember that it was passed by referenda - by more than 70% of those in Northern Ireland and more than 90% in the Republic of Ireland. There is a strong mandate, therefore, although sometimes that is forgotten in conversations that seem to suggest it is an aspirational document to be moved around, edited or lightly referenced. It is a fundamental responsibility to guarantee its provisions to everyone on this island, in respect of citizens' equivalence, rights and all the core principles that obtain.

That guarantee to those on this island is reflected in the backstop. That the backstop would extend throughout the UK was, as was rightly pointed out, a proposal of the UK. The responsibility is to guarantee the agreement's provisions to those on this island, which has been rightly reflected in the negotiations and whose seriousness cannot be understated. The agreement is especially pertinent in respect of our alarm when we saw the non-paper. While the document has been discussed and rejected, what is notable is not simply its unworkability, lack of understanding or utter disregard for the Good Friday Agreement but that hundreds of thousands of people live within the highlighted zones. It just shows what an extraordinary proposal it is that there would supposedly be a 10 km zone through heavily populated areas. It reflected the lack of understanding.

Others have spoken to the wider issues but I will comment on a few specific issues. We are at a crucial point and it is a different time. While we have spoken about the UK and what proposals it may bring, I would like the Minister of State, especially given her European remit, to comment on the question of the perspectives of our colleagues in Europe, in view of the pending European Council meeting. We cannot be sure, and many of us may not expect, that the current Tory Administration will put forward a proposal for an agreement that will be accepted. I was in London on the day the British Parliament was prorogued. I protested with many others and was glad to hear the British Supreme Court ruling on the matter.

The British Parliament has required the British Prime Minister to seek an extension if no deal is agreed. If there is the form of a request for an extension but there is not a substantial offer or a meaningful proposal, there will be a question as to whether our European colleagues consider the potential for a future proposal. Will they consider the prospect of a British election or even of another referendum, as has been put forward by the main British opposition party? Other proposals, in the event of a different arithmetic in a future House of Commons, may even lead to former versions of the withdrawal agreement being put forward. Will such considerations be in the mix? For a request for an extension to be accepted, will negotiations need to be at the point of a final agreement? The preference of the current British Administration has been made clear in some of the language it has used. Insofar as the Minister of State can - I acknowledge she has limits - will she outline what argument we can make to our colleagues in Europe on the issue?

Others have spoken about the necessary review of the omnibus Act, and about various business sectors and companies. How ready are our universities in respect of Horizon 2020 projects and ensuring that no major research projects or collaborations will be discontinued in the event of the scenario for which none of us wishes, namely, a no-deal crash out? The Tánaiste commented somewhat on our ports and the landbridge. I expect that the Minister of State, given her European remit, will contribute to a decision on special European projects of common interest. I urge the Government to consider prioritising the investment in Ireland's port infrastructure as a project of common interest in our connection with the EU, which is more important than our investment in a repository for fracked gas, as is the current Government priority. Such special projects will determine to a large extent the funding we receive from the EU over the next period.

On financial speculation, it has been galling for many British people, who face severe insecurity in respect of their employment and devastating impacts for their families, that many of the most vocal supporters of Brexit, some of whom funded and invested in the campaign for Brexit, are now betting on a collapse in the value of sterling if there is a no-deal crash out.It has been pointed out by many that the date of 31 October is not an accidental date but is a date with very serious implications around liabilities, corporate tax and speculative returns. It is particularly galling to see many who are pushing for Brexit moving their assets, companies and financial speculations and investments to Ireland. I do not know what is the capacity or what may be looked at but I urge the Government to try to think creatively on that issue. It is appalling that they may seek to profit financially from Ireland's financial situation while at the same time causing such damage to our country.

I shall now turn to human rights and emergency supports. I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection and I am aware that Ireland has common recognition of entitlements and rights, but we are potentially looking at a period of time where the emergency supports that we give to our social welfare system may be stretched if we see families who are moving or returning in the wake of Brexit. This is an area where a special and extra budget may need to be allocated. This would apply not simply to routine entitlements but also to the measures that may need to be in place, for example, before people can demonstrate habitual residence here or whatever other measures they may need to demonstrate. Potentially there is a greater caseload to come through our social welfare system. Those are some of the practical questions and issues.

I am aware that it is everybody's wish that we continue to have our open border and, appropriately, that we have our soft border but given that the Taoiseach today mentioned the prospect of border checks in a no-Brexit scenario I would like to know what steps the Minister of State is taking to ensure that we do not return to the border infrastructure or the militarised border of the past, or the militarised border that we currently see in other parts of the EU, for example, under groups such as Frontex?