Mr. John Bruton:

The EU is negotiating a number of trade agreements at the moment. I do not have a list of them in my head. We have had difficult experiences in ratifying agreements with Canada and Ukraine. In the latter case, a relatively small number of people in the Netherlands were able to bring about a referendum in which a relatively small number of people rejected by a narrow margin a treaty that had been negotiated on behalf of all 28 member states with Ukraine, which was under threat from Russia at the time. The ability of the EU to negotiate trade agreements, and conclude and ratify such agreements, is weakened by this sort of eventuality. This needs to be remedied.

Some people might argue that the rights of minorities have to be protected in a situation like this. That view has been reflected in some of the questions that have been asked by Senators. I suggest that the interests and rights of majorities also need to be protected. I believe that the EU, by its very nature as an organisation based on rules that apply equally stringently to big and small countries, to the rich and the poor and to the economically powerful and the economically weak, is the best organisation for a smaller country. The over-riding reason I believe it is in Ireland's interests to be at the heart of the EU is that the relationships of power within the Union are mitigated by the existence of rules. If the EU were to break up and we were to revert to pure power politics in Europe, the smaller countries would be the big losers and the bigger countries would be unrestrained. That is why it is so important for us to remain not just in the EU, but in the lead in the EU along with other countries that have similar interests. It is a great support for us that the biggest country in the EU - Germany - is so committed to the European ideal and indeed to the rights of smaller countries within the EU. Germany is the great bulwark for the preservation of peace in Europe, partially as a result of its bad conduct in the past. That has now been turned into a tremendous asset in terms of German political support for Europe. I think that is a very positive thing to reflect on.

I will respond to the specific questions that have been asked by the members of the committee. I agree with the Chairman that the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference has a great deal of work to do. It should probably meet once a month as soon as Brexit occurs, if it occurs. The conference should monitor court judgments and regulatory changes that are being made to identify anything that could add, however infinitesimally, to the burdens faced by those who do business between this island and Britain and across the Border on this island. It is fortunate that the Good Friday Agreement has an east-west dimension as well as a North-South dimension. The east-west dimension was originally included in the Agreement to reassure Unionists, but it is now in our interests to make it very strong because it has the potential to protect our interests in the context of Brexit. On the other hand, the North-South strand was what was important for Nationalists when the original agreement was being put in place. That has been partially mitigated by the doubt that has been put over the continuance of EU funds. It is up to the British Government to come forward with proposals to strengthen the North-South and east-west strands in a way that maintains the balance of the Good Friday Agreement, which from the outset was a balance between varying interests.

On the points made by Senator Reilly, it is interesting that one of the areas of competitiveness in which Ireland is among the worst performers in Europe is legal delays. I do not know the reason for this. I am not a Member of the House anymore. I think the experience in Europe generally is that vested interests in the professions are better than their counterparts in the trades at resisting change. Vested interests in trade and manufacturing find it less easy to resist harmonisation and competition. Resistance to putting the consumer first is easier in some professions, perhaps because the changes involved are so complex.

That means that legislators have to do more work in the professions than other areas.

With reference to Senator Victor Boyhan's suggestion that we try to make Brexit simple and easy to understand, by their nature some things are complex and any attempt to simplify them can lead one into great error. For example, Boris Johnson tried to simplify the Brexit issue by saying the British people could have their cake and eat it. It was a memorable phrase, but it irresponsibly misled people in Britain. In the context of referenda, there is a very big obligation on citizens as citizen legislators not to look for simple explanations but to attempt to understand complexity because this is a complex issue. The United Kingdom got itself into its current position because it oversimplified what the European Union was about. It has not studied it in the way smaller countries like Ireland have had to do because of the nature of our position. We understand the European Union because we have to. Until now, the United Kingdom felt it did not have to understand the European Union but that it could make a simple decision to leave and that the consequences would be light. It will find that they will not be. That is the price it is paying for the search for too much simplicity in the description of complex issues.

I was invited to speculate on what Scotland might do. I am tempted to say we have enough problems of our own without worrying about Scotland. As the Scots are probably quite good at looking after their own interests, I will not address them.

In 2015 a poll showed that only 32% of Northern Irish Catholics and 14% of the total population wanted a united Ireland. Those figures would now be somewhat different but not radically so. For the past 200 years Irish nationalists, both constitutional nationalists and nationalists who also entertained the use of other means, have tended to wish away the substantial resistance to a united Ireland among a significant, concentrated and deeply convinced section of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Asking Unionists to change their position on this issue is akin to asking them to change the way in which they have defined their identity. We may not define our identity in that way, but they have defined theirs as including allegiance to the Crown. It is not something they will easily change and that a 51% majority in a Border poll in Northern Ireland would change. The financial and security practicalities of imposing the wish for a united Ireland of a 51% majority on a recalcitrant 49% would fall entirely on the shoulders of this state. The British would no longer have any part to play and we would have to shoulder the burden on our own. It is important that we be honest with ourselves about this.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe there is a need for provision to be made in EU law to facilitate a united Ireland. As Senator Mark Daly pointed out, Germany was reunified without any change to the treaties. If both communities in Northern Ireland were to decide that it was in their interests to have a united Ireland, the European Union would facilitate that overnight, as would we. It would cost us money, but if that is what both communities wanted, we would have no difficulty in paying for it. However, it is more difficult to try to do it when only one community or a narrow majority of one community and an overwhelming majority of the other want it. Members will probably be glad to know that I am no longer a practising politician. How to work this out is now an issue for current Members who should not underestimate the difficulties involved.

To keep the option open of Britain resuming membership of the European Union at some stage in the future, all we need to do is what the President of the European Parliament, Mr. Antonio Tajani, has done and say that option is open. It does not have to be discussed any further than that. Should the British Parliament come to consider the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, it will look at this and might consider that that option might be better than what has been offered to it. That is all that is needed. No further elaboration is required.

Senator Paul Daly asked about having a Minister with responsibility for Brexit. As I indicated in the section on competitiveness, meeting the Brexit challenge involves every Minister. There is no part of government which is exempt from the responsibility for meeting the challenge. It is a collective challenge for the entire Government. Having been a line Minister, there is always a risk that one can become completely immersed in one's own agenda. A Minister may attend Cabinet meetings but not become involved and perhaps not even encourage himself or herself to become involved in the affairs of other Departments. I fear that if there were to be a Minister with responsibility for Brexit who would be the bag carrier in dealing with all of the problems, the rest of the members of the Government would sit back, consider that issues were for the Minister with responsibility for Brexit and leave him or her to deal with them. It is better for Ministers to have collective responsibility. However, I acknowledge that the suggestion of a Minister with responsibility for Brexit was put forward in good faith and with the best intentions in terms of the interests of the country. I do not criticise anyone for putting it forward. It shows seriousness, but I do not think it would be the right thing to do at this point. However, again, that is for others to decide.

I share Senator Mark Daly's concern on the issue of a vote in the House of Commons on the Good Friday Agreement. The UK Government has approached Brexit with little active interest in the impact in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. It is being dealt with with the English electorate in mind, which is a pity. There is an interesting contrast between the European Union and the United Kingdom. In the European Union no treaty change can be made and no new member can be admitted without every existing member agreeing to it. However, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland two of the four constituting nations can decide for the other two.

That shows the difference between the two unions.