Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

They have said "No", so that is it. Looking, as I did earlier, at the opinion given by the Attorney General, Mr. Cox, it became clear that this scenario was about to evolve. This means that, on the face of it, although we can hope for the triumph of hope over experience, the realistic view is that she will lose the substantive motion and we will then go into the uncharted territory of hoping that there is a majority in the House of Commons for the rejection of a no-deal outcome, which I confidently believe is the case unless it is interfered with by partisan politics. The cross-party view in Westminster is that there should not be a no-deal exit.

If such a resolution is passed, one is then left with the question as to where the House of Commons goes to from there and what we can expect from that. The obvious next step is to seek a postponement of Article 50 in some shape or form. One thing we have to bear in mind was that Jean-Claude Juncker said yesterday, in the clearest possible terms, not to come back seeking an amendment or to renegotiate anything. We face a serious situation. If it is the European Union's position not to signal that further concessions are available to the European Research Group and the DUP, which I think is the correct position, we are depending on the emergence of a cross-party consensus within the House of Commons to reject a no-deal exit. That is a precarious hope on which so many of our fortunes will depend.

I support this Bill as a fire brigade measure, which is necessary. I believed, like Senator Ned O'Sullivan, over the last few weeks that it would be a theoretical exercise. It is now becoming far less theoretical and far more realistic that this legislation may be needed. For there to be something in place before 29 March, I believe these Houses should co-operate with the Government in passing this legislation without further delay or complication.I accept that it only addresses the immediate potential adverse consequences of a no-deal exit. I am taking it on faith that the Government has done the minimal job necessary to protect us from major negative outcomes of a no-deal Brexit. Further refining legislation may be required to deal with issues that simply have not been dealt with in this legislation, but I hope that is not the case. If it is, we should give the Government the support it will need in introducing further legislation if it is absolutely necessary.

This is a sad day for Ireland and I am not making a point about Sinn Féin because it is pointless in doing so. It is a sad day that no one is speaking in the halls of Westminster for the majority of people in Northern Ireland. They deserve to have a voice and the people in the rest of the United Kingdom deserve to hear it in the clearest and strongest way possible.

I do not believe the members of the European Research Group, ERG, really care about Northern Ireland. I do not believe their concern about the union is valid. Even if there were differential treatment, for the purposes of the European Union, between the two parts of the United Kingdom - Northern Ireland and the island of Britain - I do not believe it would weaken the union. However, I strongly believe the motivation of ERG members has been much more complex and slightly more devious than has been generally accepted. They want the next best thing to a no-deal Brexit because they want to have a World Trade Organization or Canada-type scenario and know that the situation in Northern Ireland is an obstacle to it.

In their contributions in public Jacob Rees-Mogg and Priti Pattel have said Britain should be willing to use potential damage to this country as a bargaining chip in the negotiations. If we were to abandon the backstop and allow the next phase of negotiations to proceed, I have no doubt that that card would be played repeatedly to receive concessions, weaken the resolve of our partners in the European Union in the transition phase negotiations and put us in a progressively weaker position in upholding the Good Friday Agreement.

I admire the Government's stance, of which I am totally supportive. I particularly admire the Minister of State's personal contribution to the debate. This House has shown itself to be conscientious and responsible. We established our Brexit committee. I commend Senator Richmond on his work as chairman of it. We have done our best to try to be constructive, but the time is coming for us to be realistic. On this occasion realism comes down to this. It is unlikely that the Prime Minister, Mrs. May, will get her deal through. It is possible that there will be a resolution in the House of Commons against a no-deal solution. It is also possible that there will be a postponement of Article 50, but in view of the position taken by President Junker and the clear statement that effectively there is nothing further to be discussed in regard to the withdrawal agreement, we should not be under any illusion that it will be anything more than a mere postponement.We should be very clear in our diplomacy and in what we say that those who are doing so much damage potentially to this island by attempting to bring about a no-deal solution should be identified and should take responsibility.