Mr. Pat Cox:

I am not saying the Senator suggested it but these things come up. They arise from the question about whether we are caught in the crossfire? We are caught in a circumstance that we do not find desirable and from which we cannot escape, but we would be very unwise to cause that to propel us into a self-harming direction. There is a second element in this. I believe, unhappily, that the consequences of the Brexit will be highly negative for the British economy over time. That in itself will have a spillover effect in Ireland. It is, therefore, exactly not the route to follow. We do not want to hitch our wagon to something that we expect to go into more decline than potential growth.

There is a third element which is historic and in a sense paradoxical. We are going through all these centenary events, we are having a decade of centenaries. Last year we had what was one of the key high points as we recalled 1916. It is paradoxical that 100 years later the rupture in this relationship comes not from Dublin but from London. In a curious way it is a challenge to our State to understand what is its statehood and what mature choice we want to make. We should not enfeeble our statehood by feeling our only option is to follow what Britain does in Britain's own interests. Looking at how the British debate has emerged and considering what Scotland wants from the Brexit period, namely, to maintain Single Market access, or considering the comparative indifference in the entire debate to Northern Ireland, it seems that to throw ourselves at such tender mercies would be a highly unwise strategic decision for our State.

All that said, the Senator asked the question as to what we are to do. We are part of the EU 27 and the first part of the negotiations is clear. The negotiating mandate will discuss citizens' rights, the exit bill for the British, and the Irish question. The committee will have heard directly from Mr. Barnier on that position. The citizens' rights negotiating paper, to which I referred in my opening remarks, expressly includes a reference to Ireland to say we want all of the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU states to be resolved without prejudice to the arrangements that are made for Ireland. In other words, it recognises that our common travel area within that is a separate case.

When it comes to trade, we cannot be half in and half out of the customs union and the Single Market. We will be in the European Union and the United Kingdom will depart from the European Union. If that applies to the entire territory of the United Kingdom, our 499 kilometre border will become a land border within the Single Market. The exit of Britain from the customs union, which they say they want to negotiate their own trade deals, is something that will inevitably impose serious problems with cross-Border trade. Some suggestions have been made that Northern Ireland should be somehow accommodated as if in the Republic of Ireland. When we look at trade from Northern Ireland, it has a huge trade with the Republic but a much larger trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, so whether that is what Northern Ireland itself would choose to do is a question for political leaders in the Northern Ireland Executive. I hope that Executive will quickly re-form itself because Northern Ireland needs a voice at this table.

There are no simple solutions to the Northern Ireland part.The committee may have heard evidence from reading newspapers and from staff in the Revenue Commissioners who have pointed out how this might work. While it is true that there is no precise equivalent, the border between Norway and Sweden is not a precise parallel but offers some insight, as do the borders of many European states with Switzerland. Norway and Sweden have a very high level of exchange of data between the two customs services. They also have the right for customs officers to engage in hot pursuit up to 15 km into each other's territory. There are sensitivities on this island about issues of hot pursuit. It is not that I am recommending this but I am simply observing that one does not get easy parallel examples.

On the question of Ireland within the broader trade deal, there are two parts to this. The first part concerns Ireland, the common travel area, free movement and how somehow to avoid a hard Border. Mrs. May has not promised no Border but rather no return to the past hard border. We have to be careful that we do not get swept up in something that is not on the table. The issue of travel ought to be soluble but the issue of goods presents a problem around tariff codes, rules of origin, transaction costs and necessary inspections, even if they are random and occasional. Technology can help but it will not be the full solution.

As regards the question of a referendum, these issues on which the Senators have posed questions, or the negotiating stance of the EU, there are two elements to answer these questions. The EU negotiator, Mr. Barnier, cannot ignore EU law. If he does, it is the right of any member state or institution of the Union to contest this breach of the law before the European Court of Justice. The first part then concerns what the law allows. The second part concerns political judgement. The Senator asked about the European Parliament. It has passed a resolution and if one looks at it one can see what it is asking. It is very much in alignment with what was adapted by the Heads of State and Government late in April this year. It shows a high level of engagement across the institutions to speak with a single voice and have almost a single script. What, therefore, would be the role of the European Parliament? I would say, politically, it is to be a kind of guarantor in that the things that the EU wants to negotiate should be negotiated on the grounds that its assent is a requirement. Mr. Barnier will need to look over his shoulder to ensure the things he agrees with the United Kingdom are consonant with EU law and consistent with the general mandate of the Parliament because the Parliament's vote is sine qua non.

On the question of a referendum for Ireland, the more that future changes in whichever domain of the EU can happen under the aegis of the Lisbon treaty, the less likely is the question of a referendum. This is because that treaty is already the law. If issues are outside the terms of that treaty, without prejudging them they may or may not require a referendum in Ireland. If they are done strictly within the terms of the Lisbon treaty, and many could be done within those terms, a number of which need to be negotiated, and Ireland needs to have a negotiating position and be an active participant, then some of those changes might not require a referendum. Overall on the question of referenda, it depends on the complexity, ambition and scale of European change. If it is limited to building on the basis of the existing treaty, then no, and if it is outside of the terms of the existing treaties, given Ireland's customary practice, probably yes, as regards a referendum.

I have already touched a little on the question of the borders. The examples I mentioned of Norway, Sweden and Switzerland and so on have their own specificities. We will have to do something similar and have our own specificities on this island.