Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Brexit revealed the serious inability of our public discourse to deal with complex issues such as that entailed by membership of the European Union. Looking back over the last five decades, the British media have portrayed the European Union in a simplistic and hostile way. One need only read the front pages of tabloid newspapers - not only the tabloids - to be forgiven for believing all sorts of crazy lies about the European Union. This is not trivial. The office of the European Commission in the United Kingdom set up a website to counter myths about the European Union, covering the period 1992 to 2017. It lists nearly 700 myths that have been circulated in Britain about the European Union, from false claims that it would ban fresh pasta, colouring pencils and vitamin supplements through to that it would standardise the sizes of vegetables, rename popular British products and even abolish the double-decker bus. Seen collectively, it is preposterous nonsense, but for many the relentless background noise about the European Union is the only information they have received on European co-operation and the major political movement on the continent since the devastation caused by two world wars. This bias was not helped by generations of politicians who took the credit for popular policies but blamed Brussels for imposing anything from which they wanted to distance themselves. It is no wonder that UKIP grew from this fertile soil. It is no wonder that the European Union began to be seen as the problem and that leaving it was the solution.

As my colleague, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, MP, reminds us, we have to understand the reasons many British people voted to leave the European Union in the referendum two years ago. For some Leave voters, it was because they had been lied to, not just during the referendum campaign when illegal campaign spending and a host of lies were exposed but throughout years of anti-EU propaganda. For many other Leave voters, it was due to domestic policies and choices made by the Government of Britain but which had been blamed on Brussels or foreigners generally. For now, the fact that the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union raises three simple questions for Ireland. What is the likely future of the United Kingdom? How does this future potentially affect Ireland? How should we react?

Let us consider an island nation with a distinctive culture and identity which includes its tradition of monarchy; a nation that has given up aggressive imperialism and is now reliant on the United States as a military partner; one of the world's largest economies, with a welfare state; a nation that possesses one of the world's safe currencies; a trading nation, with investment in high-tech industries, that sells its products across the world but that keeps strong control of immigration; a nation with a stable democratic system, with guaranteed civil liberties and a dominant conservative party; a nation that co-operates on an intergovernmental basis with its neighbours but that has a history of not getting on with the continental states beside it; and a nation that rejects political unions or other close economic unions. The nation I describe is Japan.

One possible post-Brexit future is for Britain to become more like Japan in going it alone. It is a vision of fortress Britain, a country that wants to trade with the world but that does not want to share decision-making with another country through co-operation or partnership arrangements, that prefers strictly limited trading deals instead. Clearly, there are some who are pro-Brexit who believe the United Kingdom can pull up the drawbridge and, as they put it, have greater control of its borders, laws and moneys, but there are serious flaws in any such vision of a Britain in splendid isolation. First, it was telling that one of the first news items in response to the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Theresa May’s big reveal last week was not the Opposition's reaction but the reaction of the global currency markets. A version of Brexit that stays close to the EU customs union and Single Market is good for business and the currency markets respond favourably, but the risk of a no deal scenario is greeted with panic and the relative value of the pound drops. That is where the comparison with Japan breaks down.

The UK economy is more globally integrated than Japan's and the pound is a global currency. The United Kingdom is part of European supply chains, many of which operate on a just-in-time basis.

The UK is primarily a services economy with leading companies in finance, IT and communications, all of which require regulatory alignment and close integration with other countries' markets in order to sell their wares. A Fortress Britain could take back control of migration but to what end?

What motivated the concern with migration? Some surveys suggest the main fears about migration are about competition for jobs, concern about crime and access to housing. Just before the June 2016 vote to leave the EU, UK unemployment was just under 5% and employment was nearly 75%. Clearly, migrants were not leaving many British people outside the jobs market. Crime rates have been static or falling across the UK for a number of years with no evidence that recent migration has increased crime. Housing is a problem with issues similar to here in terms of unaffordable housing but in the north of England, where I canvassed and where large majorities of people voted to leave, pressure on housing is far less acute than it is in London and the south east of England, which largely voted to remain. None of these reasons is convincing when it comes to why so many people voted to leave the EU. A more plausible explanation is that British people are dissatisfied with the status quo because a fifth of the UK population live in poverty. A total of 1.5 million people are unable to afford the essentials of life and we have seen the soaring use of food banks in Britain in recent years. Jeremy Corbyn is right to say that investment is needed across the UK to create decent jobs and better living conditions for all but that is not something that Fortress Britain can deliver and it is not fair to lay the blame for so-called "neo-liberal" policies at the door of the European Union. The European Single Market has vibrant State industries alongside the private sector in many countries. There is little or nothing in the British Labour Party's industrial strategies that could not be achieved within the EU. There has been a right-wing turn in recent European policies associated with the rise of conservative parties across Europe and not least the influence of the strong Conservative Party in the UK itself in shaping the EU Single Market but the EU also has the strongest protections for workers and the environment of any single market in the world. A strong Labour Government in the UK could help to enhance these protections, expand the social dimension of European co-operation and create a social Europe.

UK Labour desires a future relationship that is very close to the EU with a customs union to protect jobs and close alignment to the Single Market. This type of future relationship may well be possible as one outworking of Theresa May's deal but in addition to the inevitable extra costs and delays of so-called "friction" at the border, former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair has pointed out a profound political flaw in May's Brexit deal. She has tried to give Brexiteers a form of Brexit while minimising the economic damage. This makes the UK a rule taker instead of a rule maker. Having the theoretical ability to strike independent trade deals elsewhere will not soften this genuine loss of sovereignty for those who so wanted to "take back control". This is the same problem that Jeremy Corbyn faces by trying to keep the UK close to the EU Single Market.

Another former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has made the sensible suggestion of running citizens' assemblies up and down the UK to at least lay out all the sides and test whether pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit voters can find common ground. Gordon Brown is right to identify that the UK is still deeply and bitterly divided on the issue of Europe and that some way needs to be found to heal those divisions. He believes that a second referendum must be carefully prepared for to avoid a situation where even if the UK people voted to remain after all, there would be millions of Leave voters who would feel betrayed, humiliated and resentful.

The deal to exit the EU is what it is and I pay tribute to Irish Ministers and diplomats who so valiantly protected Irish interests in the negotiations. The UK will pay around €41 billion - €18.5 billion in 2019 and 2020 during the transition. It must be emphasised that this is a significantly discounted entry fee for full access to the EU's customs union and Single Market. People talk about the UK paying a divorce bill. It is paying a discounted rate for the benefits of the Single Market for two years. The remainder in the following years will go towards projects that the UK agreed to fund in the last MFF round and its contribution to the pensions of UK civil servants working in Brussels for the past 40 years and British MEPs. It is hardly money for nothing as the Brexiteers pretend. Given that the UK actually spent more than €900 billion in 2016, its contribution to the EU as part of the withdrawal agreement can be shown to be relatively small.

The withdrawal agreement protects the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens across Europe. That provides additional legal certainty for Irish citizens in Great Britain and the British in Ireland. We cannot assume that our historical agreements under the common travel area would flawlessly fall into place once Brexit happens. This is an issue I have been pursuing over the past year. We should remember that this agreement on rights is particularly important for Irish families where one or more family member is a British or EU national.

It is important to recall that we are not voting today with regard to that future relationship; we are simply being asked to endorse the orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU by March next year. There are really only two deeply contentious aspects of the withdrawal agreement from my perspective. One is our core concern, which is that there cannot be a hard border on the island of Ireland. Second, the extent to which the withdrawal agreement constrains or limits the future relationship agreement is of concern to the most ardent Leave supporters.

In respect of Ireland, the negotiation process showed solidarity between member states of the EU. Ireland’s concerns were well flagged in advance and the EU negotiation team has delivered a viable proposal from our perspective. Our friends in the British Labour party and across Westminster have also listened to and understood our serious concerns about the border and I am grateful for their solidarity. The bottom line is that we want people north and south of the border to continue to enjoy the most significant benefit of the Good Friday Agreement, which is the free and unfettered access to both jurisdictions. This free and genuinely frictionless movement of people facilitates family and personal relationships and facilitates doing business on a cross-Border basis. This has boosted prosperity and embedded peace. What made this possible was shared European law. Brexit means that for these benefits to continue, we must be certain to have a body of law that continues to facilitate that open border. The transition period as the UK leaves the EU contains that legal certainty because existing EU laws continue to operate. The future relationship agreement is expected to contain equivalent legal certainty to maintain such a non-existent border. Of course, that has not yet been negotiated but in the unlikely event that the future relationship does not provide such certainty or that no future relationship agreement can be made at all, we need to have a legally operable backstop in the withdrawal agreement as an insurance policy. That has been the position of this House and of the Government.

We have this in the document revealed last week, alongside a commitment to use our best efforts to ensure we never need to use that insurance policy. Unionists do have a legitimate concern about the backstop because it does single out Northern Ireland in certain respects, but this has to be examined in a measured way. For centuries, the United Kingdom has treated Scotland and Northern Ireland - and all of Ireland - differently from England and Wales. Different legislation and policies applied and continue to apply in each jurisdiction. Devolution has enhanced regional differences. The UK was never a unitary state where all parts enjoyed or operated the same body of law. It is not a radical suggestion that Northern Ireland might do some things differently in the interests of its people and businesses. As it happens, Northern Ireland benefits from the all-island energy market under EU rules, and the draft withdrawal agreement provides a legal basis for this to continue. An all-island wholesale electricity market does not undermine anyone's sovereignty, identity or constitutional preferences. Northern Ireland benefits from an all-island food health and safety regime. For years, live animals moving between Britain and Northern Ireland have been tested before transport across the Irish Sea, and this has never been raised as a constitutional issue. If, and only if, the backstop is needed, this will be extended to other food products.

If our insurance policy is needed, Northern Ireland will remain in the EU customs union and subject to parts of the Single Market rules to the extent necessary to keep the Border open. This will create some paperwork east-west between Northern Ireland and Britain if, and only if, the future relationship between the UK and EU is so distant that this is rendered necessary. The benefit to Northern Ireland's people and businesses is that the backstop gives them free access to the entire EU market. It is potentially a tremendous win-win scenario, but it will require political leadership in Northern Ireland to explain its potential fully.

At any rate, this is only hypothetical as we do not yet know the shape of the future relationship. There is a danger of countries playing constitutional politics with the draft withdrawal agreement, as we heard in the mutterings in the past hour or so, with Spain and France threatening the agreement in regard to Gibraltar and other matters. There is no such constitutional manoeuvring going on in the Irish case. Let us be clear about that across this House. We should not try to muscle constitutional issues into this agreement. We will not accept a backstop that moves backwards and would take away the tangible benefits of the Good Friday Agreement, or leverages in something that is not agreed in the Good Friday Agreement.

There is nothing in the Irish component of the draft withdrawal agreement that should concern unionists. In this regard, I include unionists across all parties in Westminster. The real and substantial sticking point is whether the draft withdrawal agreement constrains or limits the future relationship agreement, to which the answer is, yes it does. The draft withdrawal agreement has close co-operation on customs built into it, which strongly signals close alignment on customs into the future. Is this a problem? For most people of most political persuasions, it most certainly is not. Deeper economic co-operation is happening across the globe. Countries everywhere are in customs unions and negotiating new arrangements, including, for example, south-east Asia, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, east Africa, central Africa, west Africa and southern Africa through the Gulf Co-operation Council and in the Eurasian customs union. Most of the world is in one or more customs or free trade agreement. The future UK-EU relationship will inevitably involve economic co-operation. Both sides have talked up an ambitious close future relationship. It is in our best interests that east-west trade between Ireland and Britain be as free and open as possible. We would prefer a scenario wherein the British people got to vote again. I tend to agree with Mr. Gordon Brown that not enough has been done to allow people across the UK to address their sense of frustration properly. Not enough has been done to counteract a media environment that has dripped poison about the EU for decades, not least through the toxic pen of former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Boris Johnson.

A significant number of people in the UK have serious doubts about the EU. We need to understand these doubts. I do not believe they are due to nationalist xenophobia. Rather, I believe they are largely because of domestic economic policies that have left far too many people behind, especially in the north of England and in rural England. Fuel has been poured on the fire of Euroscepticism by cynical public commentary over too many years. Following a process of national deliberation, including business and civil society alongside ordinary citizens, we might see the kind of societal shift of attitudes that we have seen in our society through citizens' assemblies, which have profoundly moved and shifted public attitudes on issues that we thought were entrenched. This, in turn, would make it possible to believe that a second referendum might produce a very different result, but not just a narrow victory for Remain that would leave behind too much bitterness and cynicism.

There is nothing undemocratic about consulting the people a second time as long as something substantial has changed that might reasonably cause people to change their views. Two things have certainly changed. First, the level of general knowledge about the EU has grown immeasurably. Leading politicians apparently knew little about the detail of the customs union, atomic energy co-operation or countless other details of the European Union. They do now. Second, there is a deal on the table. It has its strengths, weaknesses, upsides and downsides. It is telling that many of the arch-Brexiteers only talk about the downsides and still fail to articulate any vision of how Britain might prosper outside of the European Union. In my view, this is because the UK cannot become another Japan. The UK economy does not produce the kinds of goods and services that would make fortress Britain a viable model in global trade. Enough has changed since June 2016 that it would be reasonable and sensible to ask the British people if they are sure that they still want what they voted for in 2016. Who wins from Brexit? It is not the people of the UK, who will almost certainly be poorer under even the most generous future relationship. Clearly, certain wealthy individuals and organisations see opportunities for themselves.

The draft withdrawal agreement deal that is on the table is as good as the circumstances allow. It is a sad loss for the European Union but we can hope that a process of reconciliation can occur between the UK and the European Union post Brexit. We would certainly welcome the return of the UK people as full members of the European project into the future. We would warmly welcome a second referendum before the door is firmly closed, perhaps after a postponement of the trigger date of Article 50. As for this motion, the Labour Party will support it as the best deal that could be negotiated in the circumstances that prevail.

See this speech in context