Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This week, which culminated in the House of Commons vote on Tuesday night, has been described as extraordinary. It is fair to say it has been an extraordinary two and a half years. The resounding defeat on Tuesday night came from those who want to leave the EU, those who do not want to leave the EU, those who are undoubtedly using this issue to further their own political agendas or careers, those who want a second referendum and those who want a general election. Given that Britain it is a democracy, it is a disgrace that we have seen so much political jostling and so many internal party skirmishes, not to mention the various resignations of the past year or so.

As I listened to some of the speeches and comments that were made inside and outside the UK Parliament this week, it struck me that words like "vitriolic", "nasty" and "ignorant" could be used to describe them. The lack of knowledge and concern for the Good Friday Agreement has been obvious. Many speakers have no insight into Irish history. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is just one Irish voice - I hesitate to call it an Irish voice - in Westminster. I refer to the DUP group, which used to be very much on the sidelines but is now in a very dominant position as a result of the 2017 UK general election. Its position does not reflect the fact that it accounts for less than 2% of the membership of the House of Commons. It is ironic that all of this week's events have happened at a time when a new Laurel and Hardy film has arrived into Dublin cinemas. I cannot help being reminded of their film "Another Fine Mess", because that is exactly what this is.

I have acknowledged on other occasions the tremendous work that has been done over several months to prepare for various possible scenarios, including the work that was done to arrive at the withdrawal agreement that was resoundingly defeated in the British Parliament this week. The ball in now in the court of the English Parliament. I have read reports and heard so-called "evidence" that Prime Minister May is now engaging with senior parliamentarians and reaching across the parties. Why was that not done before now? It can be quite confusing at times to understand what exactly Britain wants, apart from having its cake and eating it. I have to wonder whether it is under the illusion that the EU will wake up and agree to everything that the Brexiteers want, or that the EU will give up Ireland and the backstop and do the bidding of Britain. While I note what has been said by my colleague, Deputy Pringle, I am an eternal optimist. I hope enough work has been done at EU level to ensure the backstop is firm and is guaranteed.

The withdrawal agreement provided for an orderly exit. Unless something changes, there will be a disorderly exit at the end of March. I think that would be very difficult, and possibly disastrous, for both Britain and Ireland from an economic and social perspective. While we respect the democratic vote that took place in Britain in 2016, I think there are questions around the reason for that vote which need to be addressed. Many questions need to be asked about the campaign leading to the vote, the conflict between elements of the Conservative Party and UKIP and the air of complacency around those who wanted to remain in the EU. On a lighter note, I read an article in The Guardianthis week in which Jonathan Freedland looked at the historical background to the vote. He suggested that its genesis could be seen in Henry VIII's decision to break away from the Catholic Church in Rome so that he could divorce and marry and will and take over the wealth of the monasteries. I think he has a point when he suggests that this may have been the first Brexit. I think there are elements of truth in his contention that "for the Brexiteers, Britain remains a global Gulliver tied down for too long by the Lilliputians of Little ". We know from our own history that the arrogance we are seeing has always been there. I would have thought we would have seen an end to that type of arrogance by now.

What is to come? We know there is a variety of possibilities. I agree with what has been said about the importance of holding firm. It is important that the EU does not yield on the backstop and that there is an adherence to the Good Friday Agreement. There is also a need for contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit. There must be a focus on matters within our control, rather than those outside our control. As a representative of Dublin Central, I am familiar with the extent of the work of Dublin Port. I understand its importance for trade between Ireland and Britain. I am aware that two thirds of our exports to continental Europe use the UK landbridge. Much of that produce goes through Dublin Port. I think the focus has to be on what is within our control and on preparing for a no-deal Brexit.

When we talk about a hard border, there seems to be a particular focus on the passage of goods and customs. While that is important, we must measure the impact of a hard border in societal terms as well as in economic terms. We must be conscious of its impact on people in communities who have lived through the worst of the Troubles and who know what it is like to travel on unapproved roads and pass through British army checkpoints. None of that has been experienced in such communities for the past 20 years. We sometimes have to get away from the economy and look at the social impact of a hard border.

I acknowledge that there have been two and a half years of hard work and negotiations. I am conscious of the travel, expense and the finances involved in that process. This matter has yet to be sorted. When we look at what is going on in our world and in Ireland, we can reflect on where all of that expertise, work and finance could have gone. Matters like climate change, conflict, war, displacement and the refugee issue come to mind from an international perspective, as do the housing and health sectors in Ireland. It is clear from our history that we have been over-reliant on Britain. It is time to come out from under that shadow. We should not be totally reliant on Britain in all of our trade and all of our relations, or indeed as a landbridge. There are alternatives to Britain. In one way, it is good that we have to look at that now.

See this speech in context