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

Fair enough. As the Acting Chairman is aware, the history of this island is, to a large extent, dominated by our relationship with the neighbouring island and history always concentrates on moments of strife and turmoil. However, it is important to state that there have been many positive consequences of the relationship between this island and the neighbouring larger island. In the areas of entertainment, the arts, sport, business and trade unionism there is a significant level of co-operation and connectivity between the two islands and that has been mutually beneficial for all the people who live on them. Our joint membership of the European Union since the early 1970s has assisted that co-operation and connectivity. We have become closer as a result of that joint membership.

It is unquestionably the case that the relationship, connectivity and co-operation between the two islands and, indeed, the two Governments, will be damaged as a result of Brexit. Nonetheless, the people of Britain voted for Brexit and their Government has entered into a withdrawal agreement with the European Union which we, as a Parliament, have ratified and to which we also agreed as a member of the European Union. However, it is important to point out that those who promoted Brexit in the debate on it in Britain, both before and immediately after the vote, stated there would be no difficulty agreeing a trade deal with the European Union. What really happened is that the people who advanced Brexit did not think about it or think of the consequences before they put that important issue to a vote of the people of the United Kingdom.

Let us recall what happened and how we got into this current crisis. The former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, entered into a withdrawal agreement with the European Union in November 2018. She brought it back to her Parliament and was heavily criticised there. On four occasions between January and March she tried to get it through her Parliament but she failed on each occasion. She did the only thing she could and resigned in June 2019.

The current Prime Minister took over in July 2019. What did he do? He stated that the withdrawal agreement Mrs. May had entered into with the European Union had to be changed and that he could not tolerate it. We sort of sneered at him and stated that he would not be able to change it but, in fairness, he managed to change it in a minor way. A meeting between him and the then Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, on the Wirral in October 2019 laid the pathway to a change to the withdrawal agreement. However, let us be clear as to what that change was because we all recognised it at the time. He got rid of what he referred to as the dreaded backstop but, in effect, he replaced the backstop which applied to all of the United Kingdom with a backstop that applied to Northern Ireland. We all saw that for what it was and unionist politicians in Northern Ireland were outraged that it had happened.

Let there be no ambiguity as to what the British Government knew they were doing in October 2019. They knew the deal into which they were entering. Subsequently, the new Prime Minister tried to get his deal through the House of Commons, but failed to so do. He sought to call a general election, did so, and succeeded in it. In January of this year, he ratified that deal before the House of Commons. However, before it was ratified, he launched an election manifesto on behalf of the Conservative Party, stating that it was a great deal, the only deal, a deal that would lead to a trade deal with the European Union. That is how the Conservatives sold it to the British public in the election in December 2019. The British public went along with it and voted for the Tories and their representation of that withdrawal agreement. He signed up to that withdrawal agreement in January 2019.

On 8 September this year, out of the blue, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stated in the House of Commons that the British Government was introducing legislation that will breach the withdrawal agreement. It was extraordinary. Not only did he state that the British Government would breach the agreement, he brazenly stated in the House of Commons that the Bill was a breach of international law. There are many decent people in the United Kingdom, including many former Prime Ministers, who are outraged by this action. In fact, I think five former Prime Ministers came out to assert their disgust that the good name of the United Kingdom was being traduced as a result of this brazen and reckless act by the British Government. That is the reason we are where we are. What message does that send out? I regret to say that the message it sends to this House and, indeed, all of Europe and the rest of the world is that this is not a trustworthy British Government. That is a very serious statement for any politician to make but, I regret to say, it is true. We need to recognise that that is the case during the ongoing negotiations between the British Government and the European Union.

We also need to ask ourselves how we will proceed with this breach of international law. The argument is made by some of the politicians in the United Kingdom that this is not yet a breach of international law because the UK Internal Market Bill has not been enacted. That is not much of a point in their defence because even the publication of that Bill, in my assessment, is a breach of the provisions of Article 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol. There are measures within Article 12 which allow the European Union to vindicate its rights under the agreement that was entered into with the United Kingdom. We will need to do that. However, let us be clear that one thing we as a country and the European Union as a union cannot do is appease lawlessness on the part of a state, irrespective of how important that state is to the European Union or how distinguished it is in its involvement with the European Union. We cannot appease lawlessness because, as I stated previously, if one appeases lawlessness, one will only encourage the lawbreaker.

Many Deputies have spoken about reunification in this House and the end of partition. That is a valid point but let us not make the same mistake about ending partition that the British made when it came to Brexit. We need to prepare for it. We need to get a team of academics together who can put forward a constitution for a new Ireland. We need to ensure we do not make the same mistakes as were made in Britain.

See this speech in context