Mr. Daniel Holder:

Leaving Brexit aside, it is really the absence of implementation of the rights-based provisions of the various agreements that make up the peace settlement that has contributed significantly to the collapse of the institutions. These issues were the unfulfilled business. They were safeguards against the abuses of executive power that took place and which ultimately made the institutions untenable. On whose responsibility it is, I do not see it as the fault of the political structures, per se. These are international treaties and agreements. The main duty bearers are the two Governments, specifically the British Government which has the jurisdiction to legislate for the things for which it was supposed to legislate, including amending the British Nationality Act 1981 to bring it into line with the Good Friday Agreement, as recommended by the human rights commissioner, which would have prevented cases such as the DeSouza case from arising. In addition, the introduction of a Bill of Rights was very much a core component of the Good Friday Agreement. As I alluded to, if the citizenship rights provisions had been implemented at the time, we would not be facing many of the problems we are facing; rather, there would be equality of treatment and a retention of rights.

Ms Boyd might be better placed to identify the number of people affected by the Home Office decision in 2012 to deny Irish citizens in Northern Ireland EU rights to family reunification. Of course, that is reciprocated for British citizens, including those born in the North, who live in this state because it is a right that attaches to a citizen of the European Union residing in a member state other than the one of which he or she is a citizen. The issue caused by Brexit is that whereas this was restricted to a specific group of cases, namely, people looking for family reunification rights, Brexit massively amplifies the problem because essentially it shares the issue of people not being able to exercise EU rights as Irish citizens across a range of other areas of provision that would be covered by the withdrawal agreement or would have been covered by the paragraph 52 commitments. Even if there is a welcome continuation of cross-Border health and education services, for example, under the memorandum of understanding for the common travel area, a distinction needs to be made because they are not enforceable rights. The Governments might agree to an administrative arrangement, but who knows who the next Prime Minister will be or make up the next government of Britain or what attitude it will take to those administrative arrangements? What we really need is an enforceable right. Had some of these instruments been implemented when they were supposed to be, an enforceable EU right would be the type of thing that would be retained.