Mr. Dermot Ahern:

I thank the Senators for their questions. Senator Boyhan raised the issue of two for and two against in the UK. I cannot really say. To be honest, I do not think views expressed by me in that respect will change anything. It is what it is. Some Senators asked whether there would be a rethink. I do not think we can even proceed on the basis that we are hoping that the voters will be given an opportunity to rethink. We just have to continue on the basis that this is going to happen. There will be adverse implications for all of us, including north, south and east.

In respect of red line issues, I do not think we should be adamant about anything, particularly when we are negotiating within a bloc of 27 states. What I would say is that we should be very strong and put Ireland first in any of our negotiations. I will not go as far as to say that we should reserve our position, although that would be a knee-jerk reaction to the situation where we are clearly going to be the worst affected across the EU. We must accept the bona fides of the people with whom we want to continue to be members of the EU. If there is any red line issue relating to the negotiations, it must be any adverse implications for the Good Friday Agreement. At the beginning of my presentation, I spoke about the three-way relationships. I always used to say that the Good Friday Agreement is only as good as the paper it is written on. What is really important is the type of relationships built up between people North and South from an economic and societal perspective. I said to a Senator over a cup of coffee earlier that one of the most embarrassing meetings I had when I was a Minister was when a group of clearly Unionist businesspeople came to me in this complex to talk about energy and the need for an all-island electricity market. They were decrying the fact that things were not happening quickly enough and they were coming to me to lobby to make sure the Irish Government did its damnedest to promote that. This is why in any discussions with Unionist politicians, particularly the DUP, I would tell them that we were never going to agree on the issue of the Border and the constitutional issue, and the Good Friday Agreement in effect parks that anyway, but that we should get on with the all-island aspect - all-island, not all-Ireland - across all the sectors. One finds common cause with these people.

At the end of the day, they are representatives who are responding to their communities. They want issues sorted out at a micro level. As I stated in respect of electricity, it makes no sense that we had two separate grids on the island of Ireland. It makes no sense that on the island of Ireland we have separate telecommunications. These were the specialties I was involved with, other than some of the more high-profile ones in the Department of Foreign Affairs and so on. It went right through into those Ministries, particularly in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I maintain that right across, whether it was health, tourism, education, telecommunications or energy, there is so much commonality between us that we should get on with pooling our resources.

Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, there is Brexit. Whoever devised it - reference was made to Mr. Cameron going over to Brussels and not getting a good deal and all of that - I cannot say because I was not around at that time. The former Minister, Senator McDowell, may well confirm this but when I went to Brussels, I very rarely came across a British representative of any political party who was favourable to Europe. There were a few exceptions. Tony Blair was extremely European in his outlook but I would be hard pressed to name others - maybe Douglas Alexander, I remember. Indeed, Theresa May was my opposite number when I was in the then Department of Justice and Law Reform and I cannot remember ever having a conversation with her about the EU. Generally speaking, I cannot remember the UK representatives who I met, both when I went to the UK and when they came here and when I went to the EU, ever being enthusiastic about the EU project. It was always, "We are paying in more than we are getting out." In my earlier years, when I was a member of the then British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, it used really grate when some of the membership, who were very friendly to us, used to come and say, "Oh, we are coming over to see how our roads are getting on, how you are developing our roads with our money". They were decrying the fact that we were a net beneficiary and they were a net contributor, while forgetting about the original aspect of the European project, which was to bring peace and to stop countries fighting on the fields of Europe. While dealing with it across a table, there was a transfer of funds to bring all the nations up. Thankfully, we are now a net contributor, as are many of what were net beneficiaries. From that point of view, the British people were fed on decades of negativity and by putting something to a referendum in that respect, in my view, the result was always going to be negative. I would not be optimistic that this matter will be turned around quickly and I believe we have to get on with it and put our best foot forward in the negotiations, both within the European Union and with the United Kingdom.

Senator Paul Daly mentioned the currency fluctuations. Those of us from the Border areas have dealt with those over the years. They have been an added difficulty for us. People will get on with their lives and will deal with whatever is thrown up. Despite the difficulties, one will not stop the transfer of people, whether they come for the horse racing in the fine horse racing stadium that we have in Dundalk or for something else. The Senator is correct in that at least 50% of the patrons there every week are from the North. They are great betters and they bet with sterling. Those traditions will continue.

As I said, what I try to focus on - one could get bogged down in the macro issues of the European institutions - and what we need to be aware of are the micro issues, in that these are the issues that ultimately will affect ordinary people in their daily and business lives and small businesses on the island, North and South.

Senator Mark Daly referred to the aspect of a united Ireland. The issues are too complex to even visualise that but I think we need to make some provision for the possible entry at some stage of the North into the European Union similar to the way in which it was done in Germany. I do not give in to this issue a Border poll, even though I would love to see it successful. It is far too early for that, to a certain extent. I was telling Senator Daly that, not my maiden speech in Leinster House in 1987 but in my second speech as a young backbencher, I spoke on the issue of the Troubles at that time and I referred to the fact that there is a body of opinion which says that, eventually, the Catholics will outbreed the Protestants, and I had occasion to look back on that speech, find it - in fact, in the archives of Leinster House - and look at it. I decried the whole issue of 50% plus one, which is now enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, that is, basically, when 50% plus one of the population in Northern Ireland wants a united Ireland that will happen. I stated in that speech that long before that will happen, we must have an accommodation and an understanding with the Unionist tradition on this island because we cannot force them by dint of numbers into a united Ireland. That is why, in all of my political career, I focused on all-island initiatives in order to show those people who do not necessarily agree with the issue of a Northern Ireland that it is necessary we live on this island. As John Hume said, it is not uniting the territories of Ireland; it is uniting the people who live on the territories of Ireland. I very much subscribe to that.

Senator McDowell referred to the issue of a common trading area and a customs regime. I was first elected in 1987. The day of my second election, in June 1989, was a lovely day and I tried to get out to some of the polling booths to see how things were going close to the Border. I could not get out of the town of Dundalk. There was at least a five or six mile tailback of lorries and cars stuck at the Border, backing up right into the town of Dundalk. I had to give up. I could not visit the polling booths on election day out at the Border. Literally overnight, particularly with the passing of the Single European Act subsequently, or in and around that time, those checkpoints disappeared. Much more than the military installations that were across the Border which caused obvious difficulty to people traversing the Border, the customs regime was debilitating to the economic development of our area. I would love to see the European Union agreeing to some sort of special arrangement, a special economic area within the island of Ireland, to deal with our difficulties. I am not particularly sure, given my experience, that the EU would allow something like that, but I would say we should ask for it. I would not be particularly hopeful. One will find that there is some other area in Europe which has a similar problem and it will want similar arrangements, and of course once one gets into that at a negotiation with 27 around the table one is back to square one. That is not to say that we should not continue with asking for that if there are examples such as East Germany in that respect. Without being overly cynical about it, I have seen circumstances - we all have seen one of the most high-profile circumstances - where the strength of a small nation within the European Union was evident. I am a supporter of the European Union but my support for it has been somewhat dented in the last number of years.

When we voted "No" in a referendum on a treaty, we were told to be good little boys and girls and vote again whereas when the French and Dutch voted "No", the reaction was that they were founding members of the European Union, so what was wrong? They were not told to go back and vote again on the same thing. That is why I have some cynicism about the negotiation sphere in Europe and the difficult we have as a nation in putting our best foot forward in regard to having our position clearly articulated as a key priority of the EU. There are reports everything will be pretty good in the conclusions next Saturday, and I hope that will be the case. Ultimately, I hope that will be the case also in the final hard negotiations.

I was involved in negotiations on the marine in Brussels which went on for 48 hours. We got no sleep and I understood how at the very end of negotiations people would give in to anything because they were so tired. In 2005, when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs, I had to console the Cypriot Minister, a man in his 70s, who was in tears after he, as representative of his country, was, in effect, forced, because he was the only one holding up the agreement, to agree to accession talks on the possibility of Turkey joining the European Union. There was so much pressure on that poor man. He told me he did not want to go home because he would have to face his people but, ultimately, he had to agree. That is why I say that at negotiation level, we need to be very strong and to insist that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

On smuggling, some people might say I am overstating the issue because smuggling has gone on despite the North and the UK being in the European Union but the avenues for smuggling have been substantially reduced. However, they have not obliterated because when there is criminality, people will always look for new outlets. Once there is a border of some sort, in particular a customs border, I fear we will be back to the bad old days of smuggling and it will give new avenues to criminals to exploit.

Senator Reilly referred to the area of health, which is close to my heart. For many years we have spoken about cross-Border health initiatives. Some have worked and others have not but I believe Brexit will slow down those initiatives and make it more difficult for people on the ground. That is not only in health but in every area, especially in tourism.

Will opportunities come from this? Yes, there will be opportunities. Recently, a company from Craigavon announced it had set up in Dundalk. It wants an EU presence. That is great but it is robbing Peter to pay Paul within this island, and I do not think that is good. I understand its decision and we will be cheering in Dundalk when the jobs are there but those jobs are not going to Northern Ireland, which, as Senator McDowell mentioned, has a less robust economy that is much more reliant on the UK crown, which was referred to earlier. I think I have answered all the questions.