Dr. Anthony Soares:

I will pick up a couple of Mr. Molloy's questions as some were directed at Mr. Sheridan. He indicated he cannot see any role for the special EU programmes body, SEUPB, going forward. We think there might be a role, although the name might have to change. Again, this is about looking for different scenarios and trying to take things forward. It goes back to the comments from earlier. Some of the issues we are dealing with now existed before membership of the European Union and the Good Friday Agreement. They exist now and will continue to exist, whatever happens. For our organisation, the need for cross-Border co-operation was there before, it is there now and it will carry on, as there will still be a need for cross-Border co-operation with the UK outside the EU. Whatever the complexities of the UK not being in the EU, we still need cross-Border co-operation to address some of the issues. For example, Mr. Brady spoke about cross-Border workers.

We see the possibility of a role for the SEUPB as one of the cross-Border implementation bodies set up under the Good Friday Agreement, but that will need creative thinking. For example, it could deal with programmes funded by the EU under the European neighbourhood policy. They are for EU member states bordering a non-EU member state. Again, if we think creatively, the Irish and UK Governments should support cross-Border co-operation with other activities related to the Good Friday Agreement. If they come up with the funding for that, the SEUPB would have a role. I would not necessarily see it as not having a role.

I am not saying this is because we must keep the SEUPB no matter what. Anything we keep in terms of North-South or cross-Border co-operation must have a practical element. It is what that co-operation is about. It is around practical issues, coming out with outcomes and not just existing for the sake of it. In terms of its current role and delivery of current funds, that is a question for the SEUPB to answer. I can see that any organisation that has to deal with, accommodate and address the concerns of two member states or two governments and administrations, along with various Departments, would be complicated. It is a question for the SEUPB.

On the issue of border controls at Irish ports, this goes back to an earlier question around the Border being placed in the middle of the Irish Sea. The Centre for Cross Border Studies has another suggestion. No matter what happens, the Irish Government, as an EU member state, cannot deny entry to EU citizens of other member states. Whatever it wants, the UK Government cannot stop EU citizens entering Ireland. As far as we can see, there is no way the European Commission or other member states would agree to a position where Ireland could deny entry to other EU member state citizens. In terms of maintaining a soft border and the movement of people, the argument is that we would allow any EU citizen entering the Republic of Ireland to travel to Northern Ireland in the knowledge of whatever regulations and restrictions are placed by the UK on EU citizens. For example, the people moving into Northern Ireland would not have access to employment and welfare rights. They would only be there as visitors. That is where the argument comes in that we can control it if the people try to get into Great Britain.

Why would this happen? If it is okay to allow those people to enter into Northern Ireland under those circumstances, surely it should be all right for them to carry on and travel into Scotland, Wales and England in exactly the same circumstances. Therefore, one does not need to introduce border controls. If it is acceptable for Northern Ireland, it must be acceptable for the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is one argument we would put forward in terms of not having a border at the Irish Sea.

Mr. Molloy asked about positives. The issues that the Good Friday Agreement deals with were there before, they exist now and they will exist in future. The positives are about being creative and engaging the governments in Dublin, Belfast, London, Scotland and Wales to strengthen the relationships that exist at all levels.

This goes back to the comment that the Good Friday Agreement has not been entirely delivered in terms of some of the institutions, for example the Civic Forum for Northern Ireland and the North-South Consultative Forum are still outstanding issues.

How we deal with the United Kingdom leaving the EU is a concern not just for governments, political parties or business leaders, but for civic society as a whole. Civic society has a role in terms of moving things forward. Another positive is to strengthen the voice of civic society and how it interacts has a direct influence.

In terms of cross-Border workers, we have a border people project within the Centre for Cross-Border Studies that deals exactly with all those issues. Mr. Brady is quite right, some of the issues currently are complex with the UK and Ireland both members of the EU. We can always fall back on the common regulations under the EU as the EU set up structures and introduced specific rights for cross-border workers, posted workers, employment rights, social security co-ordination and so on. It is correct that things could become even more complex, especially if there is policy divergence between the UK and Ireland as an EU member state. I am not trying to sell our border people project that we run but that project and other centres that give advice on these things will be more necessary in the future and need to be supported.