Seanad debates

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

Withdrawal Agreement Between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Motion

 

10:30 am

Photo of Emer CurrieEmer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. It is good to see him here and it is lovely to be in this Chamber for the first time. I thank the Fianna Fáil Party for proposing the motion.

Breaking the law, bending the truth and acting in bad faith are not words that any modern democracy should want to be associated with, and yet here we are debating the actions of the UK Government doing just that. The withdrawal agreement was signed less than a year ago. Implementation of the provisions of the Internal Market Bill will turn lawmakers into lawbreakers. It will damage the UK's reputation and credibility internationally and bring potential legal action in the European Court of Justice, while potential trading partners and signatories of future agreements may view negotiations under a cloud of suspicion.

These, however, are the UK's concerns, not ours, and they are cold comfort to us right now, we who could be staring down the barrel of a no-deal Brexit or a return to a hard border in a matter of months, to Northerners who fear the end of the status quoof a living agreement based on compromise, consent and choice, with reconciliation as both its work and its prize, to be replaced by fears of the past, "what ifs", and "it does not bear thinking about", to Border counties and businesses whose livelihoods depend on the prosperity that comes from peace and all-island economic opportunities. Instead, after four years of uncertainty there is more anxiety, there are more questions and, unfortunately, more ignorance of the fragility of reconciliation in Ireland.

I welcomed the joint television address last night with the First Minister, Ms Arlene Foster, and deputy First Minister, Ms Michelle O'Neill, about the alarming spread of coronavirus in the community. Working together against Covid-19 is imperative right now, especially when the two leaders did not share the same platform for three months. Anyone who is a stakeholder of the Good Friday Agreement must put reconciliation first. When identity politics is played, locally or unilaterally, everyone loses. This is well-rehearsed but it is worth saying again until the penny drops. The Good Friday Agreement is the textbook and the framework for building relationships on these islands after decades of division across communities in the North, North-South and east-west.Brexit utterly undermined and undermines these relationships, but we cannot allow it to undermine the principles of the agreement itself.

Mr. Boris Johnson and Mr. Brandon Lewis claim the UK Internal Market Bill protects all the communities of Northern Ireland. Where did this latest intervention come from? The businesses of the North sought clarity from the joint committee and through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, not a collision course with the Northern Ireland protocol. All political parties accepted the withdrawal agreement. Even the First Minister accepted it, despite singular voices in her party who did not. There were no protests by communities or civic groups. We can only speculate as to whether it is buyer's remorse, a trade deal negotiation stunt, an escape route into a hard-deal Brexit, or internal Tory politics that is driving this irresponsible agenda, but we can safely say it is a world apart from that of our community, who never wanted Brexit in the first place. It is not for their benefit and it is not for the benefit of the peace process. Instead, the UK Internal Market Bill has reopened old wounds and brought back old words, exhausted rhetoric and polarised reasoning. Once again, it has pulled apart communities - east and west, green and orange - in Westminster and Stormont. It sets us back when we should be looking forward.

The UK Internal Market Bill also seems to threaten the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement institutions, that is, power-sharing. Section 46 of the Bill would provide a mechanism for the UK Government to promote economic development and provide infrastructure, such as transport, roads, schools, health services and housing, according to its own agenda and not that of local communities. This is very unsettling.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.