Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

They have accepted that, but they also want to maintain connection with the rest of the island of Ireland. They want an absence of borders and the protections of a free trading environment in and out of the European Union, as well as with the rest of the United Kingdom. This was a compromise where all sides had to sacrifice something. To see it through only one perspective because there is disruption linked to the protocol, there would be a lot more disruption without it. The disruption emanates primarily from the kind of Brexit that the British Government chose to pursue. The protocol was the effort to manage that disruption and to limit it as much as we possibly could on the island of Ireland by effectively extending the EU Single Market for goods to Northern Ireland outside of the EU. The price of that was some limited checks on goods coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Even though that is a UK market, it is also goods potentially coming into the EU Single Market. That is what we are trying to manage now in a way that, through maximum flexibility, we can limit to the greatest extent possible that checks burden on goods coming from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. What Vice-President Šefovi is saying is that for goods that are going to be on retail sale in Northern Ireland, we can reduce the SPS checks, which is the majority of checks on food. For example, for supermarkets, supply chains and so on we can reduce the checks burden by 80%. That is a huge change from where we were at the start of the year. It would need a formal change to the implementation plan that was signed also by the British Government on 17 December when Michael Gove was negotiating on behalf of the EU and an implementation plan was agreed. The British Government has not only agreed to the protocol, it has also agreed to a full implementation plan for the protocol which, we hope, will be amended and changed to reflect new concerns that have emerged since the protocol has been partially implemented. It should not be forgotten that a great deal of the protocol has not been implemented because of grace periods that have been unilaterally extended by the British Government.

There is a context here that we have to understand. Every day I think about this issue I try to put myself in the shoes of a unionist to understand that perspective.It is a perspective that I can understand causes concern but there are also concerns on the other side of the argument that perhaps have not been as vocal or as focused upon because we have heard one perspective, effectively, from the British Government in the context of Northern Ireland, certainly in recent times. The focus now must be on the window of opportunity that is there. We must speak less about the triggering of Article 16 and more about which are the issues we are trying to resolve for unionists, nationalists, business people and those who consider themselves as neither so that we try to dedramatise and reduce, to the greatest extent possible, the friction and disruption that is linked to this arrangement that has been put into international law to try to manage the disruption of Brexit. I think we can do that. We can deal with the very emotive issue of medicine supplies into Northern Ireland. That is a very important issue and it is something the EU wants to prioritise and get done early. The EU is willing to change EU law to provide the legal certainty that the British Government and many in Northern Ireland may need. We should explore with both teams what percentage of checks we can set aside on goods that are staying in Northern Ireland and how we can maximise that number. The EU is up for that discussion, whether it is 80% or more, if it can be done credibly and protect the integrity of the Single Market. The same applies to customs checks.

We must not forget that from the perspective of the Irish Government, while Northern Ireland and its stability is, of course, the primary concern, this is about more than just Northern Ireland. It is also about Ireland's place in the EU Single Market. If we allow a situation where important elements of the protocol are set aside, at some point the question will be raised as to whether there is a gaping hole that is, effectively, unguarded, without any form of checks, data sharing or anything, in the EU Single Market through Northern Ireland. If it is the case that a hole exists between Ireland and Northern Ireland, where stands Ireland's status within the EU Single Market? That is why this is an all-island concern. It is a Northern Ireland concern in terms of political tension but it is also a concern for us in terms of our economic model and so on because Ireland's place in the Single Market cannot be called into question on the basis of decisions of the British Government. That is not acceptable to me, particularly when two British Prime Ministers have put agreements in place with the EU to ensure that Ireland's place in the Single Market remains guaranteed and that no Border infrastructure on the island of Ireland would be seen as acceptable. Those are the two benchmarks we must overcome for the people of Ireland and businesses here.

On top of that, we must find a way to implement a protocol in a way that I hope unionists will be able to accept in the future. The implementation of the protocol must not undermine their Britishness and must reduce, to the maximum extent possible, the number of checks and trade disruption on goods coming one way, from east to west, Great Britain to Northern Ireland. As I say, having spoken to Vice-President Šefovi this week, his team is focused on trying to move that conversation forward in a way that is constructive, helpful and open. I hope that Lord Frost's team will be doing the same today and tomorrow so that when Lord Frost and Vice-President Šefovi meet on Friday, we can see at least some measurable advance in terms of the relationship towards finding solutions. I totally agree that we must be careful not to slide back into any kind of groupthink that is, in some ways, anti-British because that is not helpful. However, at the same time, we must articulate the truth about how we got here and why. We must also insist that international agreements matter, particularly when our core interests are at stake and if they are undermined, with consideration of both the peace process and our economic model.

In primarily answering Senator Mullen, I hope I have answered many other questions as well. As I say, I think that for now, the less talk about the triggering of Article 16 and its consequences, the better. That will be the case for the next couple of weeks. That is not to say that the EU is not prepared and continuing to prepare for that outcome, should it happen, because it is. It will be a robust response should Article 16 be triggered, particularly if large elements of the protocol were to be set aside. The focus should be on negotiation, partnership and trying to find a middle ground in terms of how the protocol is implemented and that all sides in Northern Ireland can at least live with and move forward on the basis of that implementation.