Professor David Phinnemore:

I thank the committee for inviting us to share some of our thoughts on what is a challenging, complex, multidimensional and multifaceted process. We have co-ordinated our comments. I will start and Dr. Hayward will follow. I wish to make three broad points. The first relates to the context and background in which the Good Friday Agreement was agreed and what will potentially happen to that context as a consequence of Brexit. The starting point for much of our analysis has been the fact that when the Agreement was agreed, and throughout its implementation, Ireland and the United Kingdom have been part of the European Union. The implementation of the Agreement has taken place in the context of shared membership of the European Union. That shared membership has provided a valuable and vital context, not only in the sense of additional means of promoting co-operation, integration and enhanced interdependency on the island between Northern Ireland and Ireland but also in respect of mechanisms through which relations can be improved and co-operation can be pursued. If we also think about the future, the shared regulatory context is often vital to the promotion of effective co-operation. Shared membership of the Union has been vital to facilitating the realisation of much of the ambition in the Agreement. Brexit has the potential to be significantly disruptive because of the UK withdrawing from that shared context. How disruptive will be highly dependent on the relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit. There are many unknowns. It is incumbent on all of us to thin through what the potential ramifications are of the different forms of Brexit for the future of the Agreement. It is also important to note that the context does not relate simply to trade, which has been the focus of a considerable amount of debate and discussion. There are also important human rights and social and economic rights dimensions as well North-South co-operation facilitated by a shared regulatory context, as well as various institutional dynamics.

There is considerable potential for disruption as a consequence of Brexit. However, my second key point is there are ways forward to minimise that disruption. I say that for two reasons. If we look at the commitments which both the British Government and the EU have entered into in respect of Brexit and the GFA, there is a high level of commitment to ensure that the Agreement can continue to be implemented in full on both the British side and the EU side. The level of commitment that has been at least voiced by the British Prime Minister, in particular, has been underestimated. The UK Government has issued a variety of commitments to maintaining the Agreement in full. Most recently, the Prime Minister had a piece in The Sunday Times. We also have to recognise - and this is not simply because of the successful activities of the Irish Government - the EU's level of commitment to maintaining the Agreement in all of its parts. That is reflected in a series of statements that have issued on different occasions. More important, that will to uphold the Agreement and support its continued and effective implementation is reflected in the fact that the EU is willing to engage in what we refer to as differentiated integration and some differentiated withdrawal for the UK such that a particular status can be conferred on Northern Ireland in order that it can have a different type of Brexit compared to the UK. The EU's language is very much of flexible and imaginative solutions. That is reflected in the existence and the content of the protocol that is being drafted as part of the withdrawal agreement.

My third point relates to the protocol. Elements of it were shaded green which suggested agreement between the British and EU 27. There are also bits in yellow, suggesting that agreement in principle exists, as well as yet uncoloured elements which are, therefore, still up for debate and negotiation. It is important to note its content. It does not simply talk about customs, which much of the debate is focused on at the moment. It provides for an unprecedented level of regulatory alignment through this idea of a common regulatory area. It will essentially provide Northern Ireland with fairly privileged access to the Single Market. It also addresses the human rights issue. Rights have considerable prominence in the Agreement. There is also an extensive set of areas for North-South co-operation which the EU wants to ensure can continue to be supported through the regulatory alignment between the UK and the EU with respect to Northern Ireland.

I do have a word of caution about the protocol. We do not know the detail. The headlines are there on what it is to cover. However, significant questions must be raised on how far the regulatory alignment will go. Will it be sufficient? Will the mechanisms envisaged be sufficient to address the rights issues? The reason we cannot make an effective assessment at this stage is the fine detail to be contained in the annexes has yet to be published.

We should reserve judgment on how effective the protocol will be. Indeed, for a number of us who have argued that the best way forward would be for Northern Ireland to remain in the Single Market, the protocol falls short. It only provides for the free movement of goods. It does not provide for the free movement of services, capital or people, although obviously the people dimension is covered with respect to British and Irish citizens under the common travel area. While on the one hand the EU has progressed matters to the extent that the Good Friday Agreement enjoys considerable prominence in the negotiations, and there are potentially mechanisms to address some of the challenges around its continued implementation, we need to see the detail of what is ultimately agreed between the UK and the EU 27 before we can draw conclusions about how effective the new arrangements will be.