Yesterday's vote in the British House of Commons is serious and grave and creates real uncertainty and anxiety. No clear or coherent view has yet emerged from the British political system of the type of Brexit that would command a majority of British parliamentarians. In our context we know a no-deal Brexit would be very damaging to the Irish economy, to the UK economy and to Europe as well. That is why we must double down in our efforts to be ready and prepare comprehensively for a no-deal Brexit.

In Ireland the Fianna Fáil Party's decision to continue with the confidence and supply agreement has spared us the mayhem, instability and uncertainty that is evident from the British system, which would have flowed if a general election had been precipitated here.

When it comes to Brexit the Government must be honest with the Oireachtas and the people. It needs to be honest about the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on our politics, economic potential and social well-being. The Government needs to be honest about all the preparations currently under way concerning a no-deal Brexit. It should share all of its analysis in areas such as pensions and social protection, for example. It should publish its analysis of the implications of a no-deal Brexit on our budgetary projections on revenue and expenditure.

Yesterday's exchange between the Tánaiste and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport are deeply worrying because it suggests the public are not being told the full truth for party political reasons. I get the same sense at times with the Government not revealing the full details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit. As the Taoiseach knows, the Minister, Deputy Ross, replying to a question about whether there would be checks on a truck travelling from Scotland to Larne and proceeding to the Republic, said, "I would anticipate that there would be checks." In reply, the Tánaiste said:

Yes, but we can’t get into where they’ll be at this stage. They could be in the sea, they could be... But once you start talking about checks anywhere near the Border, people will start delving into that and all of a sudden we’ll be the Government that reintroduced a physical border on the island of Ireland.

To that, the Minister, Deputy Ross, said, “Yeah, but I didn’t know what to say.” Clearly he did not do his homework.

This obviously was a conversation that was never meant to be public; the microphones were still on. However, it seems there is a private understanding and knowledge within Government about a border in the aftermath of a no-deal Brexit but at all costs that private understanding must not be shared with the public. Is that not a fair conclusion to be drawn from the exchange between the two Ministers? It is like the episode from Fawlty Towers, "Whatever you do, don't mention the war", but somebody forgot to tell the Minister, Deputy Ross. Who is telling the truth here? Were Ministers told not to mention the possibility of some checks being done or in place in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Is it the Government's position that border checks could be at the sea? How realistic is such a proposition anyway?

As a Government, we very much regret the vote that occurred last night in Westminster to reject the withdrawal agreement and the associated joint political declaration. A no-deal exit would be very bad for Ireland, for the United Kingdom and for all of the European Union. A no-deal scenario would leave us with no guarantee of there not being a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It would leave us with no protections on citizens' rights and freedoms and, of course, would have a major impact on jobs and the economy, particularly the traded sector, SMEs and the agrifood industry. Therefore we must do all that we can in the coming weeks to avoid a no-deal exit of the UK from the European Union, but not in a way that compromises our fundamental positions.

This is a problem that began in Westminster with the referendum on Brexit. We found a solution: the withdrawal agreement negotiated over several months and agreed by 28 governments. Now Westminster has rejected that solution. Therefore the problem lies in Westminster. I welcome that the British Prime Minister has said she will now engage with senior politicians from all parties to see if they can come together to find a way forward with a Brexit that commands a majority in the House of Commons. However, whatever they come up with must be acceptable to us in Ireland and the European Union as a whole.

The Deputy mentioned the budget impacts. The budget was planned and written with Brexit in mind. That is why we have provided for a budget surplus. That is why we provided for a rainy day fund. It is also why we provided for a 25% increase in capital spending, with €1.5 billion being invested in infrastructure in Ireland to give the economy a bit of a boost at a time when there is a risk, obviously, of a significant slowdown.

In terms of plans for checks, we are obviously now implementing the no-deal plans. It is no longer contingency planning: we are implementing our no-deal plans. That provides for checks at ports and airports in Dublin and Rosslare. We are not planning for checks along the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, nor are we planning for checks in the sea. I cannot imagine how one would carry out checks in the middle of the sea. I think they can only be done at ports and airports.

Everything the Tánaiste has said is very consistent with our position that we stand by the backstop and we stand by the withdrawal agreement. His only concern - it is a genuine concern I have - in answering questions on this issue is that if one uses the wrong words or says things in the wrong way, people will misinterpret that as though one has some sort of secret plan to impose a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland; we have no such secret plan.

However, the Tánaiste said that the border checks could be at sea. I did not say that; nobody else in this House said that, but the Tánaiste said it to the Minister, Deputy Ross, albeit he thought he was saying it privately not realising it was caught on microphone. Now the Taoiseach is saying that clearly it could not be at sea. The Tánaiste went on to say that "But once you start talking about checks anywhere near the border, people will start delving into that and all of a sudden we’ll be the Government that reintroduced a physical border on the island of Ireland.” The emphasis was on "we'll be the Government", so whatever one does, do not mention the border. He was effectively saying to the Minister, Deputy Ross, "Don't mention it. For God's sake don't mention the border because we'll get tarred with it and that's the last thing we want."

Has that conversation happened with the European Union? Has the Government shared that view with the President of the Commission and with Michel Barnier? What is the Taoiseach's take on the exchange between the Minister, Deputy Ross, and the Tánaiste? In the aftermath of the budget the independent Parliamentary Budget Office made the comment that there are no projections in terms of revenue and expenditure.

I am not sure exactly what the Deputy is driving at. The Tánaiste was referring to checks on goods moving from the UK to Ireland. That is what the backstop provides for. The backstop and the withdrawal agreement provide for checks on the movement of goods between Britain and Ireland at the ports at Dublin, Dublin Airport and Rosslare and also at the ports in Northern Ireland. That is what the withdrawal agreement provides for. That is what the backstop provides for: checks on goods traded between Britain and Ireland.

Is that in a no-deal scenario?

On the budget, I mentioned already how the budget was planned with Brexit in mind. All the economic analysis we have so far from Copenhagen Economics and the ESRI, for example, indicate that there would be a slowdown in economic growth, but not that we would enter recession. Some people feel that is a little optimistic.

The projection from the ESRI, Copenhagen Economics and others is that in the event of a hard deal or no-deal Brexit, the Irish economy would slow down but not that it would go into reverse. That is why we built buffers into the budget, including a surplus and a rainy day fund.

Last night, as predicted, the Brexit withdrawal agreement negotiated between the British Government and the European Union was overwhelmingly rejected by the British Parliament. As was the case during the Brexit referendum debate, the vote last night again reflected an absolute disregard for the interests of Ireland and for the international obligations of the British State to honour and implement the Good Friday Agreement. Indeed, there is an unmissable hostility to Irish interests in some sections of the British political establishment. The level of Brexiteer delusion is perhaps best summed up by the commentary of the DUP leader, Ms Arlene Foster, when she claimed that we never had a hard border in Ireland. That is manifestly not true and it illustrates clearly that Brexiteers do not deal with reality. I am sure the Taoiseach does not need me to point out just how worrying that is because with every day that passes, we lurch closer to the possibility of a no-deal scenario and the return of that hard border.

Yesterday, prior to the vote in Westminster, the Tánaiste briefed us on contingency plans in the event of this situation. These contingency plans focus on east-west matters, which are important to protect trade and commerce between our islands. The Tánaiste said that the legislation required to deal with these matters will not be published until 22 February. Sinn Féin will assist in crafting and passing all necessary legislation but the Government is coming to all of this very late in the day. The Government needs to revise that schedule and Members need to see the legislation before late February.

The Tánaiste had nothing to say, however, on contingency planning to protect our all-island economy, citizens' rights and the Good Friday Agreement in the event of a crash Brexit. Last night, as has been said, the Tánaiste and Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport were at odds in respect of checks on goods crossing the Border in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Minister, Deputy Ross, said that there would be checks but the Tánaiste said there would not. They cannot both be right. Who is right? Is it Deputy Ross or is it the Tánaiste? The reality is that in the absence of a backstop, there will be a hard border and there will be checks. The Taoiseach has skated around this issue time and again. Is it not now time to say out loud that in the absence of a deal, there will be a hard border and to reassert that this is an unacceptable, indeed, an unconscionable situation for us? It is time to state clearly that the Taoiseach will not, under any circumstances, accept a hardening of the Border and the chaos that would follow from it for citizens in their daily lives.

I ask the Taoiseach to state unequivocally that the backstop remains the bottom line, that he will defend that position and that there will be no resiling from it.

The Deputy's time is up.

I also ask him to set out the Government's plan to protect our all-island trade and economy, our society and our peace agreement in the event of a no-deal, no-backstop Brexit.

I very much agree with the Deputy's initial remarks. We had a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I remember it well. During the Troubles and prior to 1992 when the Single Market came into effect, I remember very well crossing the Border as a child and in my early teens. There were customs checks. I remember the 24-hour rule and I remember seeing soldiers, and I never want to see any of those things ever again on our island between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is why I have been working so hard to secure an agreement over the past year and a half.

In terms of the legislation, we expect to have the heads of the Brexit omnibus Bill within the next two weeks - ideally by the end of next week. That will give a very clear picture as to what is in the legislation. Of course, we will be open to input at that point from Opposition parties as to whether it covers everything that needs to be covered. We anticipate having the final Bill ready for publication on 22 February 2019. It is a big task, which is why the legislative programme that we produced yesterday contains only six Bills on the priority list for publication this session, three of which are explicitly linked to Brexit.

Words are not enough to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I hear people saying all of the time, in various analyses, that there will not be a hard border just because nobody wants one but it does not work that way. The only way that we can avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland into the long term is by having an agreement on customs, a common customs territory or customs union and regulatory alignment either between Northern Ireland and Ireland or all of the UK and the European Union. That is what we negotiated in the withdrawal agreement and the backstop, namely a common customs territory and regulatory alignment so that there would not have to be a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is not good enough for those who rejected this agreement to just say that there will not be a hard border because everyone says that there will not be one or because nobody wants one. We must have a political agreement that involves a single customs territory and regulatory alignment. There are lots of ways of doing that. There are Northern Ireland-specific solutions and there are UK solutions but that is what has to happen if we are to secure an agreement and ensure that a hard border does not emerge on our island.

In response to the Deputy's direct question, I will absolutely defend the backstop but the backstop is there as a means to an end. Let us not forget what the backstop is, namely a legally operable guarantee that the mechanisms will be put in place to ensure no hardening of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is the outcome that we need to achieve and I stand by that, absolutely.

I am well aware of the intent and the content of the backstop and welcome the Taoiseach's assertion that he will stand by it. I take it that this will remain the case, irrespective of overtures or pressure that might come from the British Government or from other quarters. The backstop is necessary, as the Taoiseach correctly said, to avoid a hard border. It logically follows that in the absence of a backstop, the Border will harden and that will result in many things, including checks as goods crossing that border. The Taoiseach has again failed to set out the contingency in that eventuality, which is not one that I or anyone in this House wishes to come to pass. What happens then? The contingency legislation for east-west matters has been dealt with and we will see that legislation shortly but the big question remains. What happens regarding the Border on the island of Ireland, not least in the context of the consequences for the Good Friday Agreement? What is the contingency plan for that? Let us make no mistake about it, as sure as night follows day, if there is a crash Brexit and there is no backstop, a hardening of the Border will follow automatically.

The Deputy is way over time.

What will the Taoiseach do? I agree with him that his should not, under any circumstances, be the Government that reimposes a hard border on the island of Ireland. However, that begs the question again: what does the Government do?

I beg the Deputy to acknowledge that she is over time.

What does the Taoiseach propose to do? What is the contingency in that set of circumstances?

The Government of the United Kingdom - and the United Kingdom - has given the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland a commitment that Brexit, which is its policy, will not result in a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We have come up with the solution. We have it in the withdrawal agreement plus the backstop. That is how we avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is now for those who have rejected that solution to honour their commitment to us that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland by coming up with an alternative solution that does exactly what it needs to do. The ball is now very much in their court. I do not believe they will be able to come up with an alternative solution. I do not believe they will be able to come up with something that departs very differently from what has been agreed, unless they fundamentally change their red lines in relation to the customs union and the Single Market.

We stand by the withdrawal agreement. We stand by the backstop. Westminster has rejected it.

It is now up to Westminster to come together to develop a solution to what it believes is a Brexit it can pass through the House of Commons. Whatever it comes up with must be acceptable to the European Union and Ireland.