Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. The publication of this legislation yesterday by the British Government and the contributions of various British Government Ministers who have attempted to justify it have amounted to a profoundly dispiriting moment. I was in government when the Good Friday Agreement was sanctioned by our Government. I was there during the early stages of the Good Friday Agreement and I was a Member of this House before the Good Friday Agreement.

Reflecting on the transformation of the British-Irish relationship as well as on the involvement of the European Union and the United States in facilitating the Good Friday Agreement, what transpired yesterday is a profoundly damaging moment for the Good Friday Agreement itself. More importantly, it demonstrates the degree to which the British Government now seems oblivious to the various sets of relationships in which it has engaged as well as to an international agreement to which it itself has signed up, whose ratification it promoted in the Westminster Parliament, and which it now has decided unilaterally potentially to upend it.

The British Government's published legislation would give powers to Ministers unilaterally to override aspects of the protocol itself. This is reckless and, as I said earlier today, has the potential to destabilise politics in Northern Ireland. It is also economically incoherent, damaging and the kind of legislation that clearly was framed without any significant engagement with industry or business in Northern Ireland. It is clear from the manufacturing sector, the export sector and the dairy and meat sectors that the protocol has had an advantageous impact. I have met all the various sectors who have articulated that reality to me and who are equally concerned about the dual regulatory proposals that are contained within the Secretary of State, Liz Truss’s, proposals. That would significantly undermine traceability within the food industry and would cause real issues for industry in general.

I met with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, last week, as well as with the Vice President, Maroš Šefčovič. We have been in touch with colleagues in the United States as well. As Deputy McDonald will know, a delegation representing the US Congress was recently in London, Brussels and Dublin. Suffice to say, all parties find it difficult to comprehend the rationale for or the logic of the British Government’s position, bar the domestic situation within UK politics itself.

Fundamentally, what has happened here is a violation of trust. The real difficulty is, having entered into an international agreement with the European Union, colleagues across Europe are wondering why one would enter into a subsequent agreement, if the first agreement is so casually put to one side.

I want to reiterate one key point, which is that the European Union has been flexible right throughout these negotiations. The European Union came forward proactively with proposals, having listened to parties in Northern Ireland and having listened to industry. We asked them to go to Northern Ireland to engage, and they did. This was not a fait accompliin terms of the proposals that were published last October, but as a basis for the resolution of legitimate issues that were raised by unionism and others around the operation of the protocol. With substantive negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom Government, those issues could have been resolved and still can be resolved.

See this speech in context