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

One of the great advantages of the Good Friday Agreement is that it changed the way people in Northern Ireland viewed national sovereignties. Prior to that, the majority of people in Northern Ireland viewed national sovereignties in a very binary way. They saw themselves as being either Irish or British. The Good Friday Agreement enabled that to be changed and with the passage of time, people in Northern Ireland saw themselves as Irish and British, others saw themselves as Northern Irish and European, or Irish and European. That was a great achievement. What it did, as Professor John O’Brennan said, was it transformed national sovereignties in Northern Ireland from being something threatening to something that was viewed as being complementary.

Unfortunately, Brexit changed all that. Prior to the Brexit vote, no consideration was given to the impact Brexit was going to have on the Good Friday Agreement. Whatever about changing the perception people in Northern Ireland had about national sovereignties, the subsequent decision by people who advocated Brexit to go for the hardest form of Brexit had very serious consequences for the workings of the Good Friday Agreement. That was recognised in this House. I recall we debated the issue in 2016 after the Brexit vote. It was only when negotiations commenced between the UK Government and the European Union in November 2017 or thereabouts that the reality of Brexit met the fantasy of Brexit. For once, there was a recognition by the British Government and the Brexiteers that this was going to be much more complicated than they had thought. The immediate response at that time by those who advocated Brexit was to try to undermine the Good Friday Agreement. The charge used was that the Good Friday Agreement was unsustainable or it had served its use. One Brexiteer referred to it as being a bribe to two sides, to the extremes, in Northern Ireland. The original policy was to try to undermine the Good Friday Agreement in order to get around the obstacle that it posed to the type of Brexit that Brexiteers wanted.

Fortunately at that time, Britain had a Prime Minister, Theresa May, who prioritised peace and the Good Friday Agreement. She put forward a deal that was rejected. The Prime Minister was changed and the new Prime Minister told the unionist politicians of Northern Ireland he would do one thing and then did the complete opposite. We need to appreciate that is what actually happened. The protocol that was entered into was a reaction and an unnecessary consequence of Brexit but it was agreed to by the British Government.

We now fast-forward to recent times. The current argument being made by those who advocate Brexit is that the protocol is undermining the Good Friday Agreement. The cynicism and irony of that charge cannot be overestimated. The same people who in 2017 were saying that the Good Friday Agreement was unsustainable and unnecessary are now saying the protocol that was entered into is damaging the Good Friday Agreement. Let us recognise from the outset that Brexit itself damaged the Good Friday Agreement and the consequences of Brexit probably also damaged the Good Friday Agreement. However, that does not mean that we have to abandon and sacrifice peace on this island and all we have achieved in order to facilitate those who come to this with a Brexiteer mentality.

I believe the reason the British Government has now sought to present the Good Friday Agreement as being under threat by the protocol is that it is trying to gain support in the United States for what it is seeking to do. It knows the Good Friday Agreement is recognised in the United States as being a very important international agreement.

It is great that the United States has allowed itself to assume the position of a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement. However, the British Government is now trying to say the protocol it entered into is damaging the Good Friday Agreement when before that it never showed any consideration for it.

We need to be careful in what we are doing. We need to send out a clear message that the protocol will not be changed or renegotiated. However, what can be done is that the manner by which it is implemented can be changed. The Irish Government and the European Union have sought to do that but, unfortunately, that does not fit within the political agenda of the current British Government.

What is the reason the current British Government wants to get away from the protocol or wishes to raise it as a political issue? It is not out of concern for unionism and unionist politicians. We know that because it threw unionists under a bus a number of years ago when it signed the protocol. The reason it is doing this is twofold. First, it suits the political agenda of certain individuals within the United Kingdom Government to have a situation where Brexit is still a burning issue and attacking the European Union still serves a political purpose it has. Second, and this is probably a more legitimate purpose, maybe there is a proposal and plan to try to preserve the union because of the threat posed by Scottish independence. I do not know but the Government needs to be clear in its response.

See this speech in context