Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

For the people out there listening, I will read it. "I think in a no-deal scenario it would be very difficult to avoid a hard border because of the obvious fact that, Ireland remaining part of the European Union, would no doubt be asked to implement European Union law". That sounds clear to me. Pressure will come on to protect the integrity of the market and, therefore, the issue of averting a hard border could also come under pressure. It is in that context that our second amendment has been put forward stating that the Irish Government should seek a Border poll, to happen simultaneously North and South, if there is any inkling that a hard border might be established. That is on basic democratic grounds. If there is a possibility of a hard border, with pressure from Britain or Europe, then on basic democratic grounds, people North and South should have the right to have a say on whether they want or are willing to accept that. That is a simple thing we should say. To be honest, it is also a warning shot to Europe that if any pressure comes on us we will have to do that. It is also the case that the logic of all of this crisis and drama is to state that a border does not make sense. This is the time to advance an argument about the benefits of a united Ireland.

The 500 redundancies in Bombardier in Belfast this week gave a sense of how we could begin to advance that argument. I refer to the common interests of working people and uniting in their common interests on the basis that they are workers. I refer to opposing a Border, having unity and breaking from the green-orange tribal politics which has divided and weakened working people. It has resulted in a rotten little statelet up in the North which has done little for working people. This is an argument that can gain an echo not just among people who see themselves as nationalists but also among working-class Protestants.

That is logic behind our two amendments. I will conclude by saying that while we are not going to oppose this motion, neither can we vote for the agreement. I will explain why. It is precisely because I am an internationalist. The agreement makes reference, for example, to the need for Britain and the European Union to continue their commitment on the EU-Turkey deal. That deal is an absolutely rotten Fortress Europe anti-immigrant deal. It is a deal with a rotten and brutal regime that has no respect for human rights in Turkey. We have essentially used Turkey by paying it to be a buffer against desperate Syrians trying to flee from the horrendous situation in Syria. I refer to trying to keep them out of the European Union. The need to maintain that commitment is referred to in the agreement. I could not possibly support that in an active way. I am not going to oppose the deal because it has a commitment on the Border issue but neither am I going to endorse it.

I am also not going to endorse references to EU policies on state aid. They are a real problem. I disagree with Deputy Howlin on this. EU state aid rules are a problem for us in being able to invest in key strategic public enterprises without having to be subject to the rules of competition according to the fiscal treaties. They insist on competition when there are key areas of public investment and infrastructure that do not need competition. The last thing needed is competition. What is needed is public investment in key services and infrastructure. That is our position. We should hold fast to having no Border North and South and insist that working people should not pay the price for whatever resolution finally emerges from the Brexit drama.

See this speech in context