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

We should not read too much into the fact that there were not banks of Members here: I did not expect them. One reason for this is that we are united in this House on a core point in this Brexit issue, namely, the core principle of what we stand for. When we all voted in the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement, to remove of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, we were voting for a flexible constitutional approach to what happens in Northern Ireland, including in respect of the right of people to regard themselves as Irish or British, or of multiple identities or none. That is the actual backstop we all hold to. It is why this House has been united in the position it has taken and supportive of the Government and the EU negotiating position.

This debate might not have been as exciting as some of the debates in the House of Commons in recent times but that is because there is less excitement here. There are genuine worries, nerves and fears but we are united on the core principle. Through that unity, I hope we can help to achieve a deal that protects the peace process, as referred to by the Tánaiste in his opening remarks, that maintains a common travel area, minimises the impact on the economy, maintains our strength within and unity with the European Union and, perhaps most important, retains and protects our good relationship with the people of the United Kingdom. Those who say there is a binary choice have a right to leave the European Union based on the Brexit vote, but it should be noted that the deliberate shading of the constitutional arrangements in the North to allow people the flexibility to identify as Irish or English, or neither or both, is fundamental.

In addition to acting on the desire to protect the vow we made, we need to meet other objectives. It is not as if the peace process is perfect and that one could say the current arrangements are a brilliant example of politics in action, although we might say that on the international stage. Maybe it is like being in a marriage that is going through difficulties in that one puts on the bright face for the outside world when there is a lot of work to do to make the marriage or flexible arrangement work. More than anything else in what happens next, we must maintain a good relationship with our unionist and nationalist friends and those who have a mix of all sorts of identities in the North. I hope there is a deal before 31 October. I am sure the Government has the support of the House in ensuring this. The greatest risk is north of the Border. Irish agriculture will be affected and Brexit will be really difficult in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth but it is in the North where the effects will be worst. If we can secure a deal that is island-only, the Government will have the clear support of the House in making the necessary arrangements and ensuring the final flexibilities, as long as we protect the key principle or vow. I refer not only to protecting the Single Market and customs arrangements but also to protecting the multiple identity we have agreed to in the North. If this can be achieved, those concerned should go for it.

Ironically, it may be easier for our unionist friends to regard the withdrawal agreement itself as a better option if a deal has to be made. While the Tánaiste, Taoiseach and British and Irish officials signed off in November 2017 or December 2017 on an all-island arrangement, it is clear from the detail that the withdrawal agreement is possibly a preferable arrangement for the unionist community. This is because an all-island arrangement would have to have some sort of customs arrangement for goods going from Britain into Northern Ireland. A withdrawal agreement would remove that necessity. From a unionist position, I imagine that would be preferable. Even if under an all-island customs arrangement the North had the best of both worlds and could trade into Britain and the South, I could understand how there could be sensitivities over identity being affected by it. I do not know whether it is at all possible for the House of Commons. We cannot tell the House of Commons what to do or the United Kingdom its constitutional position. Determining such matters is its right but the withdrawal agreement has a couple of advantages. The first concerns the impact in respect of the need for customs arrangements pertaining to the Irish Sea. Given the timelines and the statement from Brussels to the UK Government today to the effect that there is now two weeks to get a deal in place, another advantage of opting for the withdrawal agreement, given its detail and complexity, is that we know it could be agreed at the Council, even at the last minute. The British Prime Minister has voted for it already. It is clear at this stage that we are entering a very fraught few weeks so the advantage of being able to agree something is worth considering. Whether it would get through the House of Commons is a different matter. If the DUP was on board, it would be worth considering. I am fairly sure when I listen to Labour Party Members in the United Kingdom that there are about 30 of them who would sign an agreement of the kind in question, even if the party did not provide a Whip for it. I am quite sure the 21 rebels who were expelled from the Tory party would also back such an agreement, as most of them have done already. If the British Prime Minister were minded to have a deal — there would be a loss of face in terms of the withdrawal agreement having been turned down three times — and if there were a democratic majority in the House of Commons, the loss of face would not really matter. It would be restoring the primacy of the House of Commons and expressing its will. At this stage, from a distance, I believe it would be a great relief in the United Kingdom in that it would be out of the process it got itself into for three years. In thinking about how to assist with the all-Ireland approach, I have come full circle to thinking the withdrawal agreement is still the best option if the United Kingdom is to leave with a deal. Therefore, we should not rule it out.

If our first objective is to maintain our relations with our good friends in the North of every political view, the second is to retain our good relations with the people in the rest of the United Kingdom, but not just those in the political system. I have ten first cousins in the United Kingdom. I am sure everyone else here has a similar scattering. I have friends in the United Kingdom who voted to leave and I do not want to fall out with them. We have developed a relationship with the United Kingdom through the political and administrative systems and as people. We get on well with the people in Britain. It is weird how the world has turned.

Those old certainties do not hold. If England were playing soccer against Azerbaijan, one would be up for Azerbaijan no matter what. That does not apply anymore. I play cricket. I celebrated that remarkable fourth day in Headingley as if it had been our own team playing because it was such a fantastic game. We are very close. When the lads are holding up the shoes and celebrating, I think "fair play to you". That is part of our culture too. We are really close to them. It is not just in sport, it is in every aspect of life. We are good neighbours and good friends. We are relations to each other. We should not let ourselves fall out no matter what happens in the difficult period ahead.

We must retain our relationship with the House of Commons no matter what difficulties arise or what hard courses the House takes, as difficult as that may be. We have to listen to it and respect MPs' English nationalist intentions, although, as I have said, we should try to steer those intentions as best we can to minimise the damage caused by whatever they decide to do.

We have to retain our solidarity with the European Union. I believe the various political groupings have done that through our European colleagues and our colleagues in the European Parliament. That is particularly important because in the next phase, if there is a very difficult crash-out no-deal Brexit, we will need a certain flexibility from the European Union when it comes to the immediate arrangements to be put in place.

I have heard some people being critical of the Government, and one might well argue the case for what they have said about the need to be more transparent about the arrangements. They were worried that sufficient arrangements are not in place. I will be honest. I do not believe that is the key criticism at this time because one of the things we will have to do is to hold our cards close to our chest right until the very end with regard to the necessary arrangements. This is the case because we do not know what will happen and because we will have to negotiate these arrangements with the UK. Even if a no-deal Brexit were to occur, it will take months for some of the arrangements to be put in place. We will have to get some flexibility from the European Union. The Commission will have to give us a bit of room because this is really tricky stuff. I will not criticise the Government if it has not made all the arrangements three, four or five weeks - 42 days - before a no-deal Brexit. I believe it has the support and trust of the House in respect of the broad approach it is taking. That should extend to whatever those final arrangements might be.

Similarly, and this may be the most difficult issue, if there are tweaks that can be made to get either an all-island arrangement or the withdrawal agreement back in play, they should be considered. I understand the reality the Government faces. If Ministers are out on the front pages tomorrow announcing a possible solution, in the mad feral sort of debate being carried on there is a real risk that the Government's best idea would be gobbled, chewed up, and spat out as a result of this incredible blockage to which proceedings have come.

I talked to my English and Welsh colleagues yesterday. We are in regular contact. That is especially useful. I support the Green Party of England and Wales in its desire for a second referendum in which it would clearly support the remain position. That is a different position from that of the Liberal Democrats, which I understand said at its conference that it would revoke Article 50. I do not know how it would do that. I prefer our party's position to that of the UK Labour Party, which seems to have articulated today that it would also hold a referendum but that it would seek to have the best of all worlds to suit both the leave voters and the remain voters. It is a case of "whatever you're having yourself".I have a particular concern about that approach. I do not want to lecture or look down my nose at any other party but, in the past two years, I have been puzzled by the Labour Party's opposition to the backstop because I understood it was that party's position to support the backstop. I fear that it has become a proxy in the rows in the House of Commons between hard Brexiteer Tories and soft Brexiteer Tories and between Labour and the Tories as a whole. I hope we can avoid becoming the football in the middle of those complex political developments.

Come what may, whether there is a hard Brexit, whether an all-island arrangement is reached, or whether a withdrawal agreement is ratified, we have to position ourselves for the long run, both for the long and extensive period of trade negotiations that will be necessary and to maintain collaboration. In maintaining collaboration, we must not join the race to the bottom or adopt what I see as the fundamental flaw in the Brexit process, the idea that we can tackle climate change together, which we must, while lowering standards to attract investment and business to one's country.

Tackling climate change together requires us to share energy, to monitor and manage the seas together, to swap digital technology and all the latest innovations, not only with the UK or the rest of Europe but with the wider world. I do not agree with the position Guy Verhofstadt seemed to hold at the liberal conference, which is that a European empire is opposing some other empire. I do not believe that. I believe we are moving towards a more global solution. It is not globalisation in the sense of a race to the bottom but globalisation based on common goals and common challenges that we all face together. The European Union works well when it works together, not as fortress Europe, but by sharing technology and common goals with the outside world to save our planet. That is the big risk in our time.

I will take time to pay particular credit to the officials and diplomats in the Taoiseach's office and in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who have really stood up to the plate. Let us keep that tradition of calm, rational, collaborative, and international negotiation that is global in outlook but that comes back home when it comes to the Fermanagh-Leitrim border or to east-west trade to Holyhead. We should maintain that.

I was joking with some of my English colleagues. I have used a metaphor many times in respect of Brexit, an image from Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels. The big monster, Gulliver, is held down with small little wires. In the metaphor these are the fibre optic cables that connect us and the electricity cables through which we swap renewable power and share our planet. The UK is not going to sail off into the North Atlantic. It is not going to buccaneer. It is part of our region and area. It is going to be part of the collaboration we need, regardless of the outcome of Brexit, over a ten or 20-year period. The world is not going back in such a way as to need a Singapore in north-western Europe. It is not going in that direction. We need to maintain our good relations and maintain civil dialogue with all sides. We must recognise the UK's constitutional right to leave and not force it into any awkward position while also protecting our country, our island, and our vow to allow North and South to be different, yet the same, and to hold all sorts of identities. That is not a contentious subject and it will not draw a big crowd. This House is not divided on this question. We are united and we should stay that way.

See this speech in context