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

It is sometimes lovely being up here in the gods. The gods have certainty. With the lovely railings set behind us, we can have a perch and be slightly above it all. What I have sometimes seen and would stand up for is the ability here to come together, which we have shown in the Brexit approach and which I think has been right. We should hold to it even in this difficult, uncertain moment where our position may end up costing us dearly.

No one knows what the House of Commons will do. It seems to me that a lot now depends on what the Labour Party decides to do because the Conservative Party is clearly completely divided and does not have a majority to be able to act as a Government ordinarily would. I read an article by Stephen Collins. I hope he does not object to me saying this but he is old enough with enough grey hairs to be able to go back to that history. I had forgotten that Harold Wilson had called a referendum in the 1970s. As Stephen Collins argued, the tradition in the Labour Party that Harold Wilson and Jeremy Corbyn represent comes from a position which is very critical of the European Union. They seem to think that the socialist revolution that they seek is being impeded by that Union. I heard another lady who writes for the New Statesmandescribe the European Union as the antithesis of what they want because it represents the status quo. I was thinking that it was a status quowhich has brought peace compared to what went before and I quite like it compared to the European history of ongoing murder and mayhem. That is still part of the British Labour Party tradition.

For the last two and a half years, we have been asking where the real heart of the Conservative Party is, and it is clearly pro-European. Everyone is focusing on the 118 who voted against their own Government but ignores that the majority of the Tory Party voted for it and is still very much of a European tradition. Even some of those 118 are probably similarly inclined but perhaps voted out of a desire to get a remain option back by voting against the Government. That does not seem to be the issue now. The key issue is which way the Labour Party goes and whether it has the ability to do what we sometimes do here, and meet at the bend, if there is a bend at the House of Commons at which an arrangement might be formed. I am sceptical that that will be possible. I do not think we should have significant involvement in it because if we did we would disturb the process and we do not want to interfere. I am sceptical.

Any softer Brexit option that would replace the withdrawal agreement might have the advantage that the compromise within the withdrawal agreement that came from the customs arrangement being extended from the North to the whole of the UK, which was slightly duplicitous, and would have to be more explicit, whatever arrangement, whether the Canadian or Norway plus type, it was. It would have to have acceptance from a sufficient number of Tories about Theresa May's red lines being crossed, agreement from the Government to recognise that majority and implement it in European negotiations, which would not be easy, and it would have to have a mechanism where the Labour Party was able to help co-ordinate and organise that. That is not a likely prospect. The other option is for a second referendum, which our party espouses in Westminster. We have supported it and called for it in the North and here because we want to see the United Kingdom remain in the European Union.

It is, however, difficult

to see how this can command a majority. It is true what people have said, that clearly the majority of members of the House of Commons were initially remainers. However, is there now a majority in the House of Commons to push through, organise and co-ordinate a second referendum, which would be incredibly difficult at the best of times? I do not know. It depends to a certain extent, it seems to me, on what the numbers are within the Labour Party. Both these prospects now seem so precarious, particularly in the difficult political situation the UK has got itself into. We all know how sometimes set narratives have arisen because of what has gone on in the UK for several months such that it becomes difficult for people to take a truly rational, step-back assessment of matters. I fear that the no-deal scenario is still a real prospect. The British Government cannot co-ordinate. We read in The Daily Telegraphthis morning that even the Treasury might want a guarantee against no deal. I am not certain that the Government might not inadvertently allow the country to fall over the edge. In this case my real concern - I go back to my initial point - is not just the immediate, although we must legislate extensively for all the immediate technical aspects of it; it is also the cost to our political and societal relations with the UK of the smashing of those relations that would occur in such a no-deal scenario. Whatever happens, we must be careful to ensure that if real difficulties come with this, we maintain our calm and cool, we do not get into antagonistic spats in any way, we maintain those good relations and we welcome back the English rugby team here in February, although perhaps not like in 1973, when it bravely came at a very dark hour.

I have one last small thought. I would be interested to hear the Tánaiste's response to this suggestion if it is possible. The Tánaiste deserves credit for the way in which the Opposition has been kept informed. This is part of this bend-in-the-road form of politics, which serves us well, the way in which the stakeholders of the group have kept in touch with our unions, our businesses and our universities and we have held together in that position. I hope I am not breaching confidence in saying this, but we had a meeting the other night at which the leader of Sinn Féin asked a valid question about the rights of our citizens, Irish and European, in Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal, crash-out scenario. I have one question in response as to how we manage this if it does happen. As well as all the legislation here, in those circumstances, in two or three months' time, we would need more than ever an assembly in Northern Ireland to help manage whatever must be done because it would be bloody difficult. We should not leave this to British civil servants who have no democratic accountability, or indeed the House of Commons. That will not help. Would our preparations in an emergency require new assembly elections? I do not know. It seems to be an intractable problem. From the Tánaiste's perspective, is there any way we might see a restoration of the assembly in order that, should the worst crash-out option come to pass, it could help manage it and in that process we could hope to restore a good relationship with our unionist neighbours in order to help us manage these difficulties and try to ensure we do not lose all that has been gained since the Good Friday Agreement has been in place? There should be no recriminations, we should not point fingers, there should be no I-told-you-sos, there should be no retribution in any way. We should just try to manage the thing, and part of managing it might be an assembly in the North. I do not know if the Tánaiste sees any way for the Irish Government to make this a possibility.

See this speech in context