Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Senator Higgins.

I welcome the Tánaiste back to Seanad and I am glad there is continued engagement on Brexit with both Houses of the Oireachtas. It was not long ago that we were in this Chamber marking the 20th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, but the closer it gets to 29 March, such debates become increasingly important.

We should not be partisan on this issue and I have said consistently that we need to give credit where credit is due. We have strong debates and disagreements in this House but it is important that we also recognise the significant time and energy being put into Brexit both by the Tánaiste and by the entirety of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our diplomatic staff. We have managed to unite the entire EU 27 behind a common position regarding the importance of the backstop, but we cannot just assume that this was necessarily a given; it took months, if not years, of careful, intensive preparation. This should be noted and recognised.

The Irish position has been made absolutely clear and it has strong support in these Houses. The backstop is crucial because it is, essentially, an insurance policy. It is a binding legal commitment that, no matter what future arrangements are made, we will not accept a hard border on the island of Ireland. I cannot emphasise this enough. Recent events in Derry, as the Tánaiste said, are extremely worrying and underscore just how important it is. On that basis, we also cannot afford to be complacent about where we go from here. I fully appreciate, for obvious diplomatic reasons, that we have been very careful in how we discuss what might happen over the coming months and years. We have chosen to emphasise the importance of a legally-binding backstop, instead of dwelling on the implications of a no-deal Brexit that would not include such guarantees.

Recent events in Westminster make clear that we need to work through these implications. We have had the firm support of the EU 27 but the depth of that solidarity will be seriously tested in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Significant sacrifices were made by ordinary Irish people to avoid the collapse of the European banking system, for example, and it would be great to see similar support offered if we are facing the worst impact of a no-deal Brexit when we will need financial and other support. We may also be faced with the prospect of an external frontier of the EU running across this island, along with demands to maintain the integrity of the EU Single Market, as well as similar World Trade Organization, WTO, obligations binding on both Ireland and the UK. Recent comments from the Polish Foreign Minister were quickly and rightly nipped in the bud but they emphasise that difficult conversations will be coming in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

We are currently waiting on clarity from the UK, specifically from the UK Parliament, as to how it wants to move forward. There is a very real chance we will not get that. Broadly speaking, I can see three main scenarios for the priority of avoiding a hard border. The first is that the UK decides to remain in the EU, the second is that the North of Ireland remains in some form of customs union in the general spirit of what is in the withdrawal agreement, and the third is that a border poll is held on reunification. Worryingly, the current parliamentary numbers in Westminster are threatening the first two options. I fully understand the need for sensitivity on the third, but it is undeniable that the potential for a no-deal Brexit significantly increases the possibility that a border poll may take place in the coming years. That is something we need to be able to talk about in a manner that includes everyone on this island and demonstrates a generosity of spirit and respect for diversity. There is no one narrative; there never is. We need to be able to speak openly and carefully about what a border poll would mean in practice. If people may be asked to vote on reunification, we need to be able to discuss what that would mean economically, politically, socially, and culturally for everyone in Ireland. It is not inflammatory to recognise this possibility and want to account for it in a sensitive manner. The Tánaiste said that he is a "constitutional nationalist", who would like to see a united Ireland in his lifetime, if possible in his political lifetime. That is an aspiration that I share, but Brexit itself should offer a warning of what can happen when one plunge's head-first into a referendum without proper discussion, care, consideration and planning beforehand. We need to be willing to have these conversations.

I have taken part in discussions with the nationalist community in the North and also with the unionist community, who engaged in good faith and regularly asked what a united Ireland would mean, what would the impact of it be on their daily lives and what would change. We need to be able to account for elements such as the economic impact, recognising any costs but also the potential benefits of an all-island economy. That is something that a parliamentary committee could do in a non-threatening, inclusive and sensitive manner, working on a cross-party basis. I would look to the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement where colleagues from all parties and none could engage with key principles of consent and parity of esteem, as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement, in this manner. I believe the attitude would be one of wanting to support the Tánaiste and his Department in such work. It is something we must consider.

Beyond this, we need to ensure that our Brexit preparedness is not solely economic. This is something I have consistently emphasised on that committee. I think, for example, of the EU-supported PEACE programmes, which have been responsible for incredible projects related to post conflict recovery and counselling in the North. I think of the educational agreements needed to ensure the same opportunities for Irish students in the North. Post Brexit, how can we maintain crucial environmental protections, as well as human rights protections, both North and South? In terms of infrastructure, is there potential for increased capital investment, such as a new airport facilities, on which the Tánaiste touched?.

These are issues that require a detailed debate and we must say very clearly now that we cannot have a single omnibus Bill presented here two days before Brexit, with hundreds of pages and no time to engage with it meaningfully. We need to be given time to do our work as legislators. Overall, I thank the Tánaiste and his Department for their hard work so far. I offer my full support in the months ahead and urge him to take the contributions made by this House on board.