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

I welcome the opportunity to share some of my reflections on what is happening during the Brexit negotiations, which are so critical for our country, our neighbours and our European Union. Like most of my colleagues in this House, I have spent two years looking at this inside out and upside down. We are no wiser about what will happen in the next six months than we were a year or two years ago. Who would have thought we would be living in a world in which we would hear a speech like that given by the US President today? I am in a state of flabbergast at some of the sentiments that were expressed in his speech. Similarly, who would have thought that the UK political system would be in such a fractured state? It is not just fractured. I was thinking today that if we end up with a simple choice between the Tories going for some kind of Canada-plus deal and the UK Labour Party going for some kind of Norway-plus deal, we could see what side will win. While that is the usual fracture in any political system, we need to look at the fracturing within both parties.

I understand that Prime Minister May today ruled out a Canadian-type trade deal arrangement on the basis that it would inevitably lead to the fracturing of their Union and the introduction of borders in the Irish Sea. It is hard to understand why she is adopting that as her firmest and most trenchant position, given that on 5 December 2017 her Government was willing to sign off on an initial deal which would have provided for exactly that, as previous speakers have said. One wonders whether some of the UK negotiating position is now informed by a desire to use the Irish issue as leverage to try to get some sort of favourable "have cake and eat it" terms whereby the UK benefits from some of the same flexibilities that the EU has rightly said it will extend to Ireland and - equally rightly - has said it will not extend to the UK. That is only one path or possibility, but others can be followed. I understand the UK Treasury intends to present a paper on Friday of this week which will outline how the costs of certain options favoured by Brexiteers could lead to a fall of 5% or 10% in the GDP of the UK, which would be the equivalent of the crash we have just been through. We know what effect that would have on society and on the political system. It is hard to imagine that any political system would inflict such a shock on its own country and economy.

Similarly, one gets a sense that the UK Labour Party is getting accustomed to the idea that the UK might stay within the Single Market or try to stay within the customs union. When one drills down on that, one has to reflect on how those pursuing this option would answer the critics within the UK Labour Party and the Tory Party who would argue that it would involve the UK leaving the EU but becoming a rule-taker. How would they get that through their own party? If those within the UK Labour Party who are asking to be trusted on the basis that the key thing is to get into government do not have an answer to that question, we are left again in a state of uncertainty.

I think we are in a difficult position. I think Ireland and the EU have been taking the correct diplomatic approach, by and large. This is a time to be united and strong, as the Union has been, and to maintain adherence to the treaties and to our code of law, which is what Michel Barnier is doing in protecting the four freedoms. I know there are always circumstances in which those rules are seen to be moved, if the Union really has to move them. I think the Union has taken the correct approach, by and large, in this instance and the Government and the Dáil have followed suit. I would like to make one criticism, however. I think that in some of our tone and some of our diplomatic language and positioning, we are at risk of unnecessarily creating a division with our neighbours to the east and to the north which we may come to rue.

I will give an example of why I say that. I was at an interesting conference during the week. It dealt with our energy future and where we are going. Anyone who knows anything about our low-carbon energy future knows that we have to move to a huge extent towards the electrification of our transport and heating systems. The power grid is critical in that context. This is at the heart of the new industrial revolution, not just for the energy sector but also for aspects of the digital sector like data centres and other infrastructure. According to the best grid engineers at the conference in question, which was held in the middle of the week, we have to make sure we maintain an all-island approach. They pointed out that we are going to have to run a synchronised system with huge quantities of renewable power on it and argued that it will be incredibly expensive to do this as part of a Twenty-six-County approach. I know there are differing opinions on the issue of North-South interconnection. I strongly adhere to the need for such a connection because my analysis of where we will need to go on energy, which is the critical industrial revolution of our times, and on the digital services that come with it, is that we need to adopt an all-island approach. Regardless of the dealings that are eventually worked out, it would be a terrible failing for us to end up having to reintroduce the previous system on the island of Ireland. It would not be a border in the sense that it would not involve checkpoints. It would not be political in the sense that it would be on wires. If we do not end up with an all-island energy market and co-operative all-island arrangements with regard to energy, it will be one of the tragedies of this whole process. I am not just talking about the North because the scale of the energy transition we need, and the balancing capability we need, will also require an east-west connection with the UK and on into the rest of Europe.

That is my vision of some of the critical things in this context. They might be slightly policy-wonkish, but they actually matter. That is why I was critical of the Tánaiste when I heard him say on Saturday that he has not spoken to Arlene Foster in months. Regardless of what we think of her actions with regard to the renewable heating incentive and the failure to re-establish the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is in our interests to maintain relations with her. It is a concern that we are not talking to the DUP at this time, not just because there are practical issues to be discussed but also because regardless of what comes next, there will be a need to maintain personal relations in a way that reduces some of the concerns the DUP will have. It seems inevitable in my mind that we will go towards some sort of border in the Irish Sea. I know the Taoiseach said last week that we should not describe it as "a border in the Irish Sea", but the first premise I would come to is that we are not going to go along with borders between counties Monaghan and Tyrone, counties Cavan and Fermanagh or counties Donegal and Derry.

We are going to have to be careful in negotiations. Maybe some people in the United Kingdom might decide to be really clever by forcing the European Union to impose such a border, or force an Irish Government to impose it. We should hold to the Good Friday Agreement and say we have signed a globally recognised treaty and that we are not introducing a border come what may in this process, and that we may have to have border controls at some of our other ports but will not introduce a border along the Northern counties. If that is to be the case, then it is critical we maintain good relations.

I have a slight fear. Part of this is to do with the UK press and others presenting us in a certain way. I understand we are not in control of that. I believe, however, that we have to be careful in our relations with the UK political system and the Northern Ireland political parties such that, whatever else happens, we will be able to pick up the pieces after the incredibly tense, uncertain next six months and return to a normal working arrangement. I make this point as a former Minister responsible for energy who was able to sit down with Mrs. Arlene Foster and agree we would have the same energy target in the North and South, namely, 40% renewables. We were able to agree that the ESB would purchase the distribution network. We agreed to set up an all-island energy market and a common transmission system. That was all possible because the decision was to a certain extent taken out of the identity politics account and was presented in a beneficial, good-relations account. That is what we need to do. It will not be easy to do in the next while but we should start talking to the DUP and listening. The assembly should also be returned to do the same.

See this speech in context