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

It does not surprise me that the legislation has moved through the House as quickly as it has. The main purpose of the Bill is not controversial; it is to maintain as fully as possible the status quoin the common travel area to avoid disruption. No sane or sensible person in this Chamber would want to cause unnecessary disturbance or massively disrupt the status quo, particularly in the areas covered by the Bill such as electricity supply, health, transport and education services, education programmes for students and so on. Who would want to see such disruption? That is why I find Deputy Lisa Chambers' little barb utterly bizarre. As much as anybody else in this House, we want to avoid disruption and unnecessary arguments. We put forward a few amendments where we thought the legislation could be strengthened, but most of them were ruled out of order. We made a point about our disappointment about this, but we have not slowed the passage of the Bill. It was unnecessary politicking for no good reason. It was disappointing but perhaps not terribly surprising.

I was surprised, as was Deputy Cullinane, about the ruling out of order of some of our amendments. I conveyed our disappointment to the Office of the Ceann Comhairle. The objective of the Bill is to avoid disruption in the event that there is a no-deal Brexit. Our amendments sought to include a firm statement and an assurance that if things were to unravel and there was a no-deal Brexit, something we hope will not happen, we would set down a clear statement that there would be no hard border and that we would not entertain one. In a no-deal scenario we will not entertain pressure from anybody, whether in Britain or the European Union, to erect a border. I still think that amendment should be included. While these are all important issues to be dealt with to maintain the status quo, everybody knows that the discussion in the next few weeks will all turn on what will happen if there is no deal and whether there will be a hard border. I am not saying the other matters do not affect people; they are important.

I commend the civil servants and staff of Ministers. Even if the Bill is not politically controversial, it is technically difficult. There was a lot of work put into it and I commend those who did that technical but important work. However, the big issue confronting us is what will happen if there is no deal. We all hope there will be one. In the House and private conversation the Minister has said there will have to be hard conversations. There certainly will. Perhaps he sees it as a necessary tactical negotiating position not to get into that matter too much at this point. However, there are certain things that he needs to say. Pressure will be exerted if that is what transpires eventually. We have to say we are not submitting to that pressure. In the end it is other people's problem if that happens. Whatever issues they may think are important - the Single Market or anything else - they are not as important as peace on this island. It needs to be stated clearly that under no circumstances will we risk that danger.

On the crazy politics that is driving the Tory right and the Brexiteers, the little Englander nationalism, we are very much focused on its English manifestation because it is impacting directly on us. However, we should not imagine that it is a uniquely English phenomenon.

See this speech in context