Mr. Pat Cox:

Reference was made to other witnesses talking about trade flows and so on. Trade with the USA is particular because of the volume of US foreign direct investment and the level of in-company trade that takes place. It is not to say that is all of it but it is a very large part of it. That is a structural issue in the Irish economy. In or out of the EU and with or without Britain, that structural issue is there. There is no doubt that the larger part of the rest of the trade gravitates to the EU 27. A point which should not be ignored is that the EU has the exclusive competence under EU law to negotiate free trade area agreements between the EU and other states. Of the order of 90% of Irish exports are covered by EU free trade area agreements. If I am being asked whether I think a small state has the same weight in that global environment to negotiate trade as a large bloc like the Single Market, my answer is "No". We derive a considerable advantage in our non-EU trading relationships from EU free trade area agreements. Indeed, this is one of the complexities for Britain. Britain will need not only to negotiate new trade arrangements with the EU, it will need to renegotiate 55 free trade area agreements under which it enjoys trading privileges with other states because of the EU. That accounts for 85% of British trade.

I refer to net contributions. Just as earlier we were a net beneficiary, these are a function, happily, of our relative economic success. In spite of the many issues we have at home, we are, relatively speaking, one of the wealthier EU economies. Paying the net contribution is a function of the success we enjoy. When we joined the EEC, we were one of its poorest regions. Consequently, we were entitled to draw down substantial funds to assist our development. Not only do we have the benefit of trade for the money and access to a market, there is a great deal more we get which ought not to be set to one side by those who chose to ignore these things. For example, I refer to the last question. We get for all of our students the same rights as any student in any member state. If a state does not charge its own students, it cannot charge an Irish student because we are European and equivalent to them. When we get our qualifications, they are mutually recognised professionally as qualifications across the EU. When one is issued with a passport or driver's licence, it is recognised everywhere. One does not need to get a German driver's licence to be in Germany because the Irish one will work. We have ERASMUS exchange programmes, CAP funding, Leader funding and trans-European network funding in respect of ports, which are already providing things here. We have research and development grants for Science Foundation Ireland, our universities and leading innovators and researchers. While we have access to the Single Market, we have a great deal more besides and we should not ignore that. Beyond that are the intangible benefits of living on a continent that only knew war but which for the prolonged period, by historical European standards, of seven decades has lived in peaceful co-existence. That is an important stability condition from which much of the rest follows.

Senator Michelle Mulherin raised a whole series of issues about immigration and terrorism. As I am in this public forum, I take the opportunity to express sympathy and solidarity with all the victims of terrorism, especially of the recent and horrific events in the United Kingdom in Manchester and London. On immigration and the flow of refugees, we have duties and responsibilities. Our duties arise under international law and the Geneva Convention and we should not ignore those. However, we have responsibilities also to our citizens not to have something that washes over us to such an extent that we cannot cope. The consequences of the war in Syria, the shocking volumes of people who have had to flee, the shocking conditions in which they have found themselves as they have fled and the shocking exploitation they have suffered need a humanitarian response. However, I make the point that no single state can solve this on its own. If there was ever an issue the EU ought to address in future, it is to get a modern asylum policy and border management policy and to co-operate on them. Otherwise, as we have seen, unfortunate people who are fleeing will be shoved from pillar to post as they try to find some space.

This is an area in which the EU could and should be more effective and where we should play our role. We are already very proud of the fact that our Naval Service has done so much to rescue people. We do that jointly with Italy. However, there is a wider European effort in which we should feel free to join. Ideally, we should be part of that effort. There is a great deal of work to be done there. My broad answer to the immigration and asylum seeker point is that we need to follow the law while also managing how we deal with this. Our system has broken down and we will not answer it by doing what Hungary has done with everyone building fences around their countries. The only way to answer this is to find mutual solutions. Our concern should be reflected in pushing the EU and joining the debate to develop a modern immigration and asylum policy and a border security policy with capacity. That will cost money. That is why I am saying we need instruments that are focused on solutions and not big waffling discussions on some global concept of Europe. We need real delivery instruments with some real delivery capacity.

On the question of terrorism, its source and radicalisation generally, I risk digressing to make the point that it is unhappily the case that many of the terrorist incidents we have seen in continental Europe and the UK in the course of the past decade have been carried out by radicalised persons who were born, bred and educated in their host societies. We need to distinguish between immigration and asylum, which could include some bad guys but is mostly innocent people trying to escape slaughter and war, from this real issue. That real issue comes again to something where there is at least partly a European contribution to make. The United Kingdom will be leaving. It has a very good intelligence gathering system. We share intelligence flows through our Garda and security forces as we saw since the London incident in the last two days with the surprising but not necessarily unexpected link back to Ireland. We must do more of that. The EU needs to develop a greater capacity for that kind of sharing and policing because citizens are entitled to security. I return to the point that because this is a universal issue, trying to find an Irish solution, British solution or German solution is doomed to failure. The problem does not stop at any one border.

The European Union can be instrumental in the sharing of that information. In all of these areas I say, please, voice our concerns. We must ask ourselves if we, in Ireland, acting alone, can find a solution that will work better than sharing a solution across a wider territory. I strongly believe it can be done better in finding the right instruments at a European level that will also apply to us and assist us in dealing with the challenges.

I wish to respond in general terms to the question of whether we should pay money to access a market. It is not just about that; it is also about valuing freedom and the values that hold us together, even though they are stressed and sometimes strained, but that does not matter. Ireland is remote from somewhere like Ukraine where I have been privileged to do a lot of pro bonowork on behalf of the European Parliament on the Ukrainian reform programme. I highlight the fact that the Clerk of the Dáil, Mr. Peter Finnegan, and his staff have received staff from the Parliament in Kiev. They have made an extremely active contribution behind the scenes out of the headlines, for which they deserve credit. As an Irish person, I am really proud of the work that has been done.

We must realise there are aggressors on the borders of Europe. I refer, in particular, to the annexation of Crimea. I also refer to the war in Donbass, in which as many as 500 people die each year, despite the so-called ceasefire. Some of our neighbours are really scared and one sleeps less easily in the Baltic states than in Ireland. If we value freedom, Ireland must contribute to the debate.

I have listed the questions posed by Senator Frances Black. We must do everything we can to minimise the prospect of a hard border. There is a high chance, subject to sharing a lot of information on persons who travel to Ireland, which I do not think is an issue, that we will be able to resolve the issue of the free movement of people. The issue of the free movement of goods is more complicated. Ireland's membership of the customs union suits its economic interests because it helps to provide lots of supply chains. There will, however, be consequences if the Republic remains in the customs union without Northern Ireland. We need to work on minimising them as best we can. Unfortunately, when the United Kingdom chose to leave the European Union, there was no vote on the degree to which it should happen. Unhappily, it opted for a hard Brexit. The European Union cannot talk someone into a soft divorce if the other divorcee insists on controlling its borders, getting rid of the European Court of Justice, leaving the customs union and breaking the links with the Single Market. That is a hard Brexit. The British Prime Minister, Theresa May, has argued against what she has called the binary logic of a hard or a soft Brexit. In her party's manifesto, the speech in Lancaster House and the UK Government's White Paper she has opted for something every other observer regards as a hard Brexit that will, unfortunately, have hard consequences.

There has been much political comment in the Republic of Ireland and some debate in Northern Ireland on seeking special status for Northern Ireland. I am not sure what that term means. Does it mean that, to all intents and purposes, Norther Ireland would be involved with the Republic of Ireland in an all-island engagement with the European Union? That clearly would amount to very special status because constitutionally Northern Ireland is part of a state that is about to exit the European Union.

Earlier I asked the following question: why does Northern Ireland need an executive and a voice? I wonder if that is what it wants. When we reach the political question, a united Ireland can only happen through winning hearts and minds and consensus. History has taught us that militarism, bombs, guns and bullets are not the answer and divide rather than unite. If we want to have a consensual conversation about an evolution, with whatever structure and timescale is deemed appropriate, towards a unified island, we must tread carefully and with respect to ensure we will reach people's hearts and minds. I would not like to go over the heads of the representatives of Northern Ireland and say special status, in the way I have defined it - I am not sure what others mean by it - is something they would want to be covered in circumstances where one third of their trade is with the South but the two thirds of their trade with the rest of the United Kingdom would be damaged. In pure trade terms, people in Northern Ireland have questions about what their preference should be.

The point has been well made that 56% or the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to stay in the European Union. Whether the same percentage would vote to exit the United Kingdom in a border poll is a separate question, one on which I cannot make a judgment. In opinion polls a majority in Northern Ireland have indicated that they would not support breaking the union with the United Kingdom. One needs a majority in favour of breaking the union in order to have Irish unity. The question of a united Ireland is connected because one needs to win hearts and minds and reach a consensus. I am optimistic that it is a very decent perspective that it should not be force fed. The pace should not forced because there must be consensus. We do not want to see a return to the killing and maiming we witnessed for three decades. That must be left behind and nothing should let the genie out of the bottle by creating difficult sentiments.

On the half-in, half-out question or whether we can do one deal with the United Kingdom and a different one with the European Union, the answer in law is no. The deal with the United Kingdom as a third country will be done under Article 218 of the treaty, under which the European Union has exclusive competence to make trade deals. We would only be able to do a bilateral trade deal with the United Kingdom if we were to exit the EU 27. We cannot choose to be tadhg an dá thaobh. We are on one or other side of the equation; we cannot have a 50:50 or each way bet. We can, however, keep a watchful eye, with others, to ensure the deal done with the United Kingdom will be consonant with Irish interests to the greatest possible extent and have a duty to do so. The effects of the adjustment or transition may be so severe that we may need to call on our European neighbours to show solidarity with us by an easing of the burden in financial terms. We need to be conscious of this aspect, but it is not our first bargaining point. It is important to note that 3.4% of the GDP of the EU 27 is tied up in trade with Britain, whereas the figure for the United Kingdom is as much as 12.8%. Therefore, the level of trade is of much more importance to the United Kingdom. As much as 17% of Ireland's GDP is tied up in trade with Britain. Ireland is, therefore, an asymmetric outlier and may thus need to make a special plea.

My last point is about transport. I co-ordinate activity on the major trans-European transport corridor from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean, while a colleague of mine, Mr. Péter Balázs, co-ordinates activity on the transport corridor that includes Ireland and the United Kingdom. In transport planning, if the United Kingdom leave the European Union, it will be like missing two front teeth. Senator Gerard P. Craughwell is correct that we must consider strategic infrastructural investments to ensure energy and transport connections to facilitate the new reality while maintaining access to the United Kingdom.

In considering that issue we should seek from the European Union a focus on TEN-T and have a debate about reprioritising the corridor to connect an outlying, peripheral island to the Continent because the middle piece, the landbridge across the United Kingdom, will become, as I stated, like two missing front teeth.

I thank the special committee for the invitation to appear before it. I also thank Senators for their interest and questions. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to address the committee.