We are now fast approaching the critical meeting of the European Council to discuss the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. At this point in the process, the Government has maximum leverage and may avail of a veto to secure the best comprehensive deal in our national interests. There is an effort in the British press and by the Tories to bounce us into some kind of vague, cobbled together deal, after which, I assume, they would move on without a second thought for Ireland, our peace agreement, or, indeed, our economy. There is a very real danger that the best interests of Irish citizens, North and South, will be sacrificed in order to allow Britain and the European Union to move ahead.

The Fianna Fáil Party, for its part, seems to have moved away from its stated aim to support the Good Friday Agreement and secure special designated status for the North. The party is apparently now prepared to settle for something far less.

I appeal to the Tánaiste that his Government cannot follow the lead of Fianna Fáil in this regard. The Government must take and argue the principle that any progress that does not explicitly contain protections for Ireland's economy, our citizens and the Good Friday Agreement really is not progress at all. That is the Tánaiste's duty. Ireland cannot become collateral damage. I do not believe the Government should be bought off with vague assurances in order to allow the wider talks process to proceed. This will be another test of the Taoiseach's and the Tánaiste's leadership. The Government cannot back down in the defence of our national interests. The best way to secure our national interests is not this talk about regulatory divergence or convergence. Across Europe, and even within the British Government, it is accepted that Ireland is uniquely exposed with regard to Brexit. People recognise that Ireland requires a unique solution. That solution is for the North to be granted designated status, or whatever term is used. This means remaining in the Single Market, it means remaining in the customs union and it means the protection of the Good Friday Agreement in all its parts. That is Sinn Féin's position, it is the position of the EU Parliament, it is the stated position of the Dáil and it is a position from which the Tánaiste must not resile. It is vital that we have clarity and binding agreements. Without this the process should not be allowed to progress. Any talk of parallel processes is nonsense and dangerous at that.

Will the Tánaiste indicate if this is the position he will adopt in his meeting with Donald Tusk in Dublin tomorrow? Will the Tánaiste commit to using the veto if the Government does not achieve an agreement and if it is deemed necessary?

I thank the Deputy for an opportunity to put a number of things on the record in relation to the Government's approach to Brexit. I shall first turn to the veto issue. The talk of whether or not Ireland uses a veto misunderstands the reality we currently find ourselves in. There is very strong solidarity across the European Union among 27 countries, including Ireland, around what is required to allow this process to move on to opening up phase two, which is about future relationships, trade and transition arrangement, etc. The idea of whether or not Ireland will stand alone and use its veto actually misunderstands the fact that we are standing with another 26 countries at the moment. Yesterday I spoke with the German foreign minister who reconfirmed that position. I also spoke with the Luxembourg foreign minister who reconfirmed that position. When I represented the Taoiseach in Brussels last week I got that point reinforced to me, very strongly. I spent over an hour with Michel Barnier last week who also said that the EU's challenge is Ireland's challenge. They will not abandon Ireland on this issue. This is why we are working together to ensure that three areas that require substantial progress actually deliver that progress.

Clearly there has been a lot of progress although there is still some work to do on citizens' rights issues. Then there are the Irish issues. There has been very good progress on the common travel area. We have had deep discussions and a lot of very detailed work has been done in ensuring Ireland can maintain, in full, the benefits of the Good Friday Agreement on this island. That has posed very challenging questions on how we manage the Border questions in the future. How do we ensure that we can protect what we enjoy today, which is largely an invisible border that has developed over time and which has allowed the normalisation of relationships through trade and movement on the island? How do we protect that in the context of Brexit? We have very strong support in doing this, as I have already said. Between now and the meeting on 14 December we are looking for a language that reflects the need for credibility around how we are to approach this issue and solve it during phase two and the parameters within which that can be done. We will not have all of the answers by the middle of December but we are looking for significantly more clarity than we currently have from the British negotiating team in order to support, with the other 26 countries and with Michel Barnier, the move to open phase two of the negotiations. I believe that most people would like see phase two happen sooner rather than later given the uncertainty that remains in the absence of phase two beginning.

I thank the Tánaiste. I do not for one second misunderstand the issue of the veto or how it might be deployed. I do not gainsay it either because I have seen myself the sense of solidarity at the European level. I do not believe that the Tánaiste or any Deputies should miss the clear impatience in some circles to move on to phase two. My concern arises around the position of the Government because it is a mistake to be ambivalent on any level on this issue. It is a mistake to give any message other than that Ireland requires a resolution and an agreement that protects the Good Friday Agreement in all of its parts and also protects Ireland's economy. This requires the North to remain within the Single Market and to remain within the customs union. There cannot be ambiguity on those matters as we move in to phase two. I put it to the Tánaiste that if the Government goes down that road then it is making a very big mistake. I also put it to the Tánaiste that, solidarity notwithstanding, in the absence of that level of certainty and clarity the Government would be left with no option but to exercise the veto. I ask the Tánaiste for reassurance that he sees these matters and that he understands these matters, as Sinn Féin does, in accordance with the position that has been adopted by the Dáil, which recognised all of those strands and the necessity to have full clarity on them.

I assure the House that we are not looking for some kind of constructive ambiguity in language to get us over a political problem. I regard the decisions that may or may not be taken on 14 December as of real, historic significance for Ireland. This is about the permanent change, potentially, in the relationship between Ireland and Britain and the relationships on this island. We have been very clear on this issue and unlike others we have not changed our position for months. Perhaps what has changed is the expectation of others that Ireland might, under pressure, change its position. We have not done that. I have been very clear that our first preference in respect of solving the Border issues and the North-South co-operation issues and so on would be for the United Kingdom as a whole to show a willingness and an appetite to remain part of the same customs union and the same trading platform as the rest of the European Union. That is, however, a decision for the British Government and its negotiating teams to make. In the absence of being able to solve the challenges, which run deep, that we face on the island of Ireland by a broad trade agreement in phase two between Britain and the European Union, then we have to recognise that Northern Ireland has unique challenges that will need tailor-made unique solutions. We have made that very clear. We have spoken about the need to avoid regulatory divergence because, essentially, if we had two jurisdictions on this island operating to different rule books for regulation it would be impossible in a practical sense to maintain the kind of relationships we have today. This is why we have taken such a firm stance on this issue and we will continue to hold to that position. Hopefully we will see progress that can allow us to move on to phase two in the middle of December. If it is not possible to do that, so be it.