Yesterday, we finally saw a proposal from the United Kingdom Government to amend the withdrawal treaty. Now that we have a written position, much of the speculation, bluff and bluster of recent weeks can be consigned for analysis of this position. The context of the position, however, leaves an awful lot of questions. There is a lack of detail and clarity. It is clear that there would be some element of customs checks on our island under whatever context results from this proposal. It is very difficult to see in the proposal where lies the respect and belief which the British Government has always stated with respect to the Good Friday Agreement. Some of the proposals would undermine and weaken the key provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.

Does this proposal protect the all-island economy? Does it guarantee that there would be no hard border? Does it protect the EU Single Market? These are the other three key principles, along with protecting the Good Friday Agreement, that need to be assessed and measured against this proposal. It is Fianna Fáil's view that the proposal fails on all four issues. Despite their vagueness, the direction of the proposals does not seem to be travelling towards protecting those four key principles. They provide for a customs border, a regulatory border and a change in the regime of Northern Ireland.

I understand that a process is getting under way with the EU to analyse those documents. Will the Tánaiste update the House on where that process is this morning? Engagements took place last night between the Taoiseach and Prime Minister Johnson and between the Taoiseach and President Juncker. Have any substantial issues arisen from those engagements that the House needs to know about?

I want to focus on one aspect of the proposal, namely, the position of the Stormont Assembly and the ongoing participation of Northern Ireland in the proposed so-called all-island regulatory body. The detail around that is very vague. What is the Tánaiste's understanding of those proposals? Having listened to the commentary this morning, is it the Government's understanding of the position that one of the political parties in Northern Ireland - it does not matter which one - would be able to veto ongoing participation, notwithstanding what the Assembly believes and the will of the people of Northern Ireland? As currently framed, does the proposal potentially give one party a veto? Is it acceptable to the Government that that would be the case? I want the Tánaiste in particular to give his understanding of and clarity on this key sequence.

I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to respond to what is the issue of the day, despite storms, rugby matches and so on. These are very serious issues. The British Prime Minister has put forward what we regard as a serious proposal. We are taking it seriously and so is the EU. That is why the response will be a cautious one until we have had an opportunity to study the detail of the three documents. These are the letter to President Juncker, the detailed explanatory memorandum in terms of what is being proposed, and the legal text which has been given to Mr. Barnier's task force for consideration. We have had discussions with the Barnier task force already on the detail of that and there is probably discussion happening right now with our ambassador in Brussels. We had a conference call this morning in my Department in which we went through in some detail our initial assessment, which is as follows.

There are some positives in this proposal. The British Government is now proposing, effectively, full regulatory alignment for goods and agrifood products on the island of Ireland. That is consistent with the backstop. There is a whole series of technical issues that I believe will be a problem with this, and which would need to be the subject of discussion and negotiation. There are two significant problems with this proposal that are very clear from the outset, one of which is in relation to customs. If one is insisting on Northern Ireland being in a separate customs territory from the rest of the island of Ireland, then despite this paper saying that the British Government wants to try to avoid customs checks, it raises the prospect of customs checks somewhere, not just in premises and businesses. We believe this will be a real problem.

Deputy Calleary asked if this proposal deals with the commitment for no border infrastructure on the island of Ireland. No, it does not with regard to customs. Does it allow for an all-island economy to function, as we had been given a commitment on in December 2017 and in the withdrawal agreement, with the backstop? No, it does not. The customs proposal is, therefore, a problem.

The second significant issue is whether and how an Executive in Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland could be given a consultative role in how these proposals would take effect. We cannot support any proposal that suggests that one party, or a minority in Northern Ireland, could make the decisions for the majority in terms of how these proposals would be implemented in the future. That would not be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement and is not something that we could possibly support as part of any final deal.

I welcome that commitment. Will the Tánaiste clarify that it is his understanding of the current proposal in its current wording that there is potential for one party to veto this, regardless of which party that is?

I am becoming increasingly frustrated by commentary from British politicians of all hues and commentators who do not seem to understand that the Border is not just an economic issue. It is far greater than that. It is about society, this island - so many different things rather than just the economy. In his discussions over the next hours and days, how does the Tánaiste propose to get across, once and for all, the understanding of the importance of not having any border checks on this island and that this is not just an economic issue but far broader and far more important than that?

I believe the Deputy and I are at one on this. I thank the other parties in the House for their co-operation on these issues. We share a concern because all parties in the House understand the complexity of this challenge but also the fragility and vulnerability of Northern Ireland and relationships North and South in the context of what we are trying to do here. Jonathan Powell, a former adviser to Tony Blair in the build-up to the Good Friday Agreement, put it very well in the past couple of days in the British media when he said that people just do not get this. It is not about facilitating trucks crossing the Border in terms of removing checks. It is about something much more fundamental than that, namely, identity. That is what the Good Friday Agreement tries to address in the context of a unionist identity and a nationalist identity, and allowing both to live together in the context of an island of Ireland that functions, with two jurisdictions but with real convergence between the two so that the Border is largely invisible. This fundamentally disrupts that. That is why the customs element of the proposal is a technical problem in terms of the integrity of the EU Single Market and how it would work because it would require checks somewhere. It is also a problem in the context of this identity issue, which we in Ireland understand only too well.

The response from the Barnier task force will be to engage. It is not going to go into some sort of secretive tunnel process, which some people have referred to.

The task force is anxious that there be full transparency in respect of the discussions and how they work. I hope that we will enter a period of serious discussion and negotiation in terms of whether we can work with the UK to move the proposals, which currently are not the basis for agreement, to a place where we can find a landing zone for agreement. We do not have much time to do that. I hope that the British side will be willing to do it.

Yesterday, Boris Johnson presented the so-called workable alternative to the backstop. The reality dawning on most people is that it amounts to little more than a set of dangerous and reckless propositions that play loose and fast with the Good Friday Agreement. Many people living in my constituency and elsewhere in the Border region stretching from Cavan to Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal and who have benefitted greatly from the Good Friday Agreement are very concerned at the prospect of a hard border being put in place. North or South, we do not want a hard border on the island. The all-island economy is under threat and needs to be protected and the Good Friday Agreement must be defended. As far as we can see, what is on the table does none of these things. That is the reality.

There is cross-party support in the Oireachtas and, except for the DUP, a cross-community consensus generally on the island in respect of most of these issues. That was well presented yesterday evening when Manufacturing Northern Ireland, an organisation that represents many businesses in the North, stated:

For us, it's moving from the best of both worlds to the worst of all worlds. Only logical conclusion from this ... is that the UK deliberately wants this offer to be rejected. It's simply an exercise at shifting blame.

The Tánaiste will agree that this is an assessment that many of us did not want to say so quickly, but it is the reality. It is probably a sound assessment. While I accept that the EU and Irish Government did not want to rule the proposals from the British Government out straight away, a sense of reality must be brought to bear. What Boris Johnson has presented is unworkable in its present form. That needs to be said now. It entails time-limited arrangements and provides for a DUP veto. The DUP will exercise that veto because it has always exercised vetoes in the past, which has created many problems.

It is ironic that the British Government has cloaked all this in the language of the democratic consent around the Assembly in the North without recognising that no part of Ireland has consented to Brexit. The people of the North voted to remain. That cannot be said often or hard enough. It is the reality. The proposal to give the Assembly the power to decide the types of arrangement to be put in place and how long they will last will give the DUP a veto. Abusing the petition of concern has caused many problems in the past. The DUP has used the petition of concern to flout every positive and progressive programme of Government that has come before the Assembly in the past ten years. We must recognise that what has been proposed is unacceptable and an abuse of the Good Friday Agreement. Any arrangement that can be voted on, vetoed, blocked or stalled by the DUP is a non-runner for Sinn Féin. Will the Tánaiste dismiss this element of the proposal and make it clear that it needs to be taken off the table and that the proposals, as constituted currently, are not workable?

I thank the Deputy. The first judgment call that the Irish Government and the EU collectively have to make is on whether the Boris Johnson Government wants a deal and what the evidence, language, conversations and phone calls between Dublin and London suggest. My judgment is that Boris Johnson does want a deal and that the paper published yesterday was an effort to move us in the direction of a deal. However, I agree with the Deputy that, if it is the final proposal, there will be no deal. There are a number of fundamental problems with the proposal.

It is also true to say, though, that there is a progression towards the space where we need to be in terms of other elements of the proposal. We have moved from a verbal commitment regarding an all-island approach to agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, conditions towards a written commitment, with a legal text behind it, to all-island alignment with the rules of the Single Market in respect of all goods, including agriculture. That is a good thing and we need to recognise progress, since it is difficult to find progress at the moment.

As I pointed out to Deputy Calleary, elements of this proposal simply will not be part of any final deal. Of the two most obvious ones, first is the approach to customs, which we believe does not work from a technical and legal operability perspective. However, we will test it more fully with the task force in the coming days. Second is the issue that has been referred to in London as "consent", but whether it is consultation or a role for an Executive in Northern Ireland in terms of how proposals are implemented, we cannot support any proposal that essentially suggests that a minority will determine what the majority has to live with. It is just not going to work. If that is the proposal, it will be very difficult to get an Executive up and running. Why would other parties buy into an Executive if they believed it could essentially prevent solutions linked to Brexit?

These are serious issues that we need to deal with in a serious, calm and competent way through the EU task force and direct conversations with our counterparts in the UK. I will be in Belfast tomorrow meeting the Secretary of State, Mr. Julian Smith, and I am sure that we will have discussions around this space. It is important that we be clear, calm and respectful, but also honest about what is possible and what is not. There is no point in having a series of proposals, even if they all make sense and work, if they can essentially be vetoed by a minority or one party in Northern Ireland to the frustration of the majority.

We have heard what business leaders are saying across the spectrum in Northern Ireland. There is deep frustration. They want solutions that work and on which they can rely. That is what we are looking for, too. Even though yesterday's proposals are not the basis for a final deal or agreement, I hope that they are the basis for a serious discussion and negotiation that can progress those proposals into a landing zone that might work for everyone.

I thank the Tánaiste. Although I understand that the Irish Government has to be open to trying to find a solution, most people looking on would be in the same space as Manufacturing Northern Ireland in believing that the British Government is trying to give the impression of being reasonable while hoping that the proposals will be rejected and it can return to what all of this is really about, that being, best positioning itself for a UK general election. That is a dangerous situation for the people not only of this island, but of Britain, and its conclusion will lead us into a bad space.

Regardless of whether we have a backstop or agreement, there are a range of elements on this side of the Border on which we need to work. An example was provided to me a few days ago. When a person who was born in the North and now lives and works in the South but who has a Northern Ireland driver licence went to get it changed, that person was told it would have to be surrendered and there would be a wait of three months before an Irish one could be provided. If that person is stopped by the Garda, the person will be prosecuted for not carrying a licence. People across the country are dealing with practical issues like this on a day-to-day basis. While the big politics is going on, ordinary people on the ground are having major problems. The Government needs to make a better effort to acknowledge those problems and do something to alleviate them.

We certainly acknowledge the problems. That is what this is all about. We have spent three years trying to address the problems, and the complexity of those problems, in the context of the UK as a whole leaving the EU and all that flows from that. We continue to hold out for the solutions that can respond to the practical problems that people living on the Border and the island generally want us to try to solve. We will be calm and respectful, but very firm, on these issues. This is not about cutting some kind of deal at the last minute. Ireland has been very consistent and transparent in its asks, and we will continue to be as the pressure builds to try to get a deal.

As stated, I believe the British Government wants to get a deal, but I would forgive anyone for being sceptical. Ireland has not been treated well at different periods during the negotiations because the policies, proposals and approach of the UK has shifted towards Ireland at different times. That said, we need to work with the negotiating team and that is what we are doing. There is a serious proposal now on the table. It will not be the basis of a final agreement but I hope it can be a stepping stone in that direction.