Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

At the outset, I wish to mark how sad an occasion the triggering of Article 50 by the UK Government was. In a sense, in that moment it became clear that the UK intended to leave and that our entire union was being undermined. It was a bad day for everyone in Europe as it means a diminished Europe and a diminished relationship between us and our nearest neighbour, with whom we have built up a very good relationship in recent years. That the UK decided to leave our union and take a different course was a day of sadness.

In my mind, it is not necessarily conclusive. There is still political opposition in the UK from the likes of my Green Party colleague, Caroline Lucas, as well as Nick Clegg and others who seem willing to say, "No, we do not agree with this and think it a fundamental mistake" and are looking to see what ways it might be averted. My colleague, Steven Agnew, has joined with others in the UK and Green Party leaders in the European Parliament to test here whether Article 50 is revocable. It is being taken here in order to be able to get to a European court to make a quick decision should that become a viable or desired outcome. I support their case. We are not taking the case ourselves because it has to come from outside the jurisdiction but we support the application as one of the ways available to fight the worst adverse effects of Brexit.

We are examining it because it has become obvious since the referendum almost ten months ago that what is being delivered is a much harder Brexit than anything that might have been expected or articulated during the referendum campaign. A certain section of the Tory Party and UKIP seem to have control of the narrative and the political impetus in the United Kingdom since the referendum. They have steered their Government in a way that rules out the Single Market and effectively rules out, it seems, the customs union, although that is not as conclusive, rules out the Court of Justice of the European Union as an arbitration court and articulates the view that no deal is better than a bad deal. It is becoming increasingly clear the longer the process goes on that no deal would, in effect, be a terrible deal. We all have to try to avoid that because a terrible deal for the UK would also be a terrible deal for Ireland. We would be affected by the downturn in their economy that would happen and in terms of the relationships on this island, North and South. Across the board, it would be hugely detrimental to our long-term interests. Therefore, we have a particular obligation to try to avoid that no-deal scenario.

We are in a sense in opposition. It seems to me that those 70 or so Tory MPs, who seem to be driven by the idea of empires lost and national fervour around independence, are willing to go that no-deal route. It seems they would be happy to end up with a crash in the negotiations that are about to take place and exit the European Union in a manner that would be deeply damaging. We must avoid that outcome. There are also those in Europe, on the other side of the negotiating table, who might similarly think that this is a good way of giving a punitive lesson and teaching the UK a thing or two. We have to avoid their desired outcome. We can and should play a conciliatory, intermediary and positive role in the negotiations to try to avoid those outcomes.

What might that mean? What might our negotiations strategy be? In the coming weeks, before the European Union's negotiating position is absolutely finalised in the end of April or early May, I hope that the Government seeks to start discussions around some of the transitional or other arrangements that would follow on from the final completion of the Article 50 exit process. The Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, made a statement during a debate last week that has been proven true in terms of what President Tusk stated, which is that the European Union wants a lag of three to nine months, or whatever it is, between any discussions about future arrangements before we have the discussion around what the Brexit exit Bill might be and how UK and EU citizens might be treated in different jurisdictions. He wants, as it were, the divorce arrangements first.

I understand in some ways how that might be a negotiating position to test the water in terms of how the negotiation process might proceed. However, I think it is a mistake. We should be willing to take the initiative and explicitly say not to start this with all the hard ball stuff and the difficult stuff. For instance, how will we make the issue about how much of a bill is to be paid legally verifiable? Who will be the final arbiter of the bill or how it can be legally tied down? That issue is not the most important issue to get right and to debate. There will be some transitional arrangements and the UK will have to pay costs and certain pensions and there will be many other arrangements. However, it is not the fundamental issue at stake and should not be allowed to be come a stumbling block.

We see this week with the issue around Gibraltar and the threat of military support being withdrawn how quickly this can be steered into a direction of negativity and adversarial conflict. That is not in our interests. It is in our interests to highlight some of the issues where we will need co-operation come what may. I will give a few examples of what those transitional arrangements might be. We are right to put the relationship on this island first and foremost in the debate on how UK and EU citizens will be treated in corresponding jurisdictions.

We should be upfront and quick in sorting out the issue of a common travel area on this island as well as east-west travel arrangements between Ireland and Britain. We must also address the rights of European citizens in the North because their ability to work in the South may be a complicated issue. While travel will not be restricted, restrictions may apply in respect of employment and so forth. The island of Ireland could be used as a test case for addressing some of these issues.

I was fortunate to visit Brussels two weeks ago to attend a major conference on the development of an energy union. It is becoming increasingly obvious that energy co-operation will be essential to the economic interests of the United Kingdom, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. The UK recently completed a modelling exercise on its future energy mix in a low carbon world, which we must all move towards. Included in the exercise was a ramping up of its strategy to achieve much greater interconnection. Notwithstanding Brexit, Britain is planning to provide approximately 12 GW of additional capacity of electricity capacity between the UK and the rest of Europe by 2035. Market rules and jurisdictional arrangements are needed should a conflict or dispute arise. It is in everyone's interests, including those of the rest of Europe, to get this interconnection right. We need to share and balance energy, achieve security of gas supplies and adopt common standards to be adhered to should a pollution incident arise in the Irish Sea, for example, from Sellafield. We also have the whole EURATOM issue. We need to get agreement on all these issues very quickly. There is no reason to wait for divorce arrangements to be agreed between the UK and EU before starting negotiations on these issues. Starting negotiations now would be a better European strategy that would wrong-foot the hard-line Brexiteers by focusing on some of the good outcomes co-operation would deliver. This would change the nature of the negotiation strategy.

My advice to the Taoiseach and his officials in advance of the European Council meeting is that he should state to Michel Barnier, his officials and the European Parliament that we should not wait for six or nine months but start now to create a safe space for discussions on these matters and numerous other areas. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, for example, faces significant issues on migration which need to be addressed. Why wait or delay? Let us get involved in negotiations now. It would help us to shape our priorities if we played on a European pitch in this way, rather than concentrating only on our national effort.

See this speech in context