Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Part of the reason Britain is leaving and why we are so content within the European Union is that on this island and in this country, we managed European integration much better than they did over in the United Kingdom. In this country, European integration was achieved through the co-operation and in most instances through the democratic wish of the Irish people. We voted on significant treaties. The reason we voted on significant treaties is because sovereignty in this country resides in the people. The difficulty that the British people have experienced is that sovereignty in Britain does not reside in the people, it resides in Parliament and because of that, Parliament allowed for European integration without really taking into account the fact that the British public was not being brought along with the politicians in Westminster. That manifested itself as a problem with the Maastricht Treaty back in 1992 and since then it has grown as a significant problem within the United Kingdom. It is not for us to provide advice to the United Kingdom but we can point out that a constitution which is written down is preferable. People are able to identify it and to understand it. As well as that, if there is a constitution, it is also preferable that sovereignty resides in the people, rather than in parliament. That is why people look back upon what the United Kingdom did in having a referendum as being an unusual step. There is no need for government's to have referendums in the United Kingdom because sovereignty resides in Parliament. If Parliament wants to make a law it can make the law and it does not have to worry about that law being in any way incompatible with the constitution of the United Kingdom. It would obviously have to be concerned now about compatibility with the EU charter and the convention but in general, Parliament can do what it wishes. What it has done in recent years is to try to adopt a two-pronged approach with Parliament having one say and then giving the people a say by way of referendum and it has predictably created problems for them.

The Bill before the House considerable. There are two parts of it in particular which deal with justice issues. We had a meeting of the Committee on Justice and Equality this morning which was very beneficial in that we had an opportunity to interact with the Minister and his officials in respect of extradition and immigration.

One issue in respect of immigration that I want to put on the record of the House is how it will apply to non-EEA family members of UK citizens. This is an important point. The reason these people can stay in this country is because of the European Union treaties that apply to UK citizens. Obviously, once the UK leaves on 29 March or whenever, non-EEA family members of UK citizens will be left in a position of limbo or uncertainty. I welcome the fact that this morning, the Minister Justice and Equality and his officials confirmed at a committee meeting that those individuals will be granted rights of residency here and will be able to continue with their status as it is today without there being any interference in their entitlements.

We also need to recognise that the removal of the European arrest warrant between this country and the United Kingdom will have a very detrimental effect. It has worked very effectively but from now on we will have to go back to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. I was pleased to hear today that the United Kingdom has enacted reciprocal legislation that will mean citizens from the UK can be extradited here and we will be able to extradite people who are citizens here to the UK.

Several other areas that are not dealt with in the legislation need to be addressed. One of these is the Brussels convention on civil jurisdiction. At present, if somebody in Louth is crashed into by somebody from Antrim, the person in Louth is entitled to sue the person from Antrim in the courts of Ireland because the tortious act took place in this jurisdiction. The reason it is permissible is because of the Brussels regulation, which provides we can sue in the place where the event occurred. After 29 March, there will be considerable uncertainty as to how civil jurisdiction will operate. To continue with the example I have given, it may be the case, if the Brussels convention goes, that the citizen in Louth will have to sue in the orthodox way, which is in the jurisdiction where the defendant is domiciled, which would be Northern Ireland. We need some clarity in respect of this issue.

Another issue about which I have some concern relates to family law. This is not dealt with in the Bill either. Under Regulation No. 2201/2003 recognition is given to divorces from the United Kingdom and child abduction cases that involve Ireland and the United Kingdom. These are all very common when we think of fact we have a land border with United Kingdom on this island. We need clarity as to what will happen after Brexit in respect of recognition in this country of UK divorces and child abduction issues that happen in the UK.

These are the points I want to make in respect of Bill. I guarantee to the Minister, the Government and anyone else who is interested that we will find that some issue will arise after Brexit that nobody has thought about and which will cause considerable trouble. Brexit is a regressive step. The United Kingdom is removing itself from an association of co-operation with other friendly states and it is simply going back to the situation that existed prior to its membership of the EEC. This is not helpful to the United Kingdom or to this country.

See this speech in context