Ms Claire Hanna:

I thank Professor Harvey and Mr. Bassett for their contribution and their written submissions. I have some technical questions arising from their submission and then I may ask a question arising from the Ireland's Future document. Professor Harvey has put a lot of effort into trying to get a comprehensive answer from the Secretary of State on what he thinks might trigger a vote.

It will not surprise him to learn that I do not believe we are that point either. The words that always come to mind are those of John Hume on Magilligan Strand when he said, "You may govern us, but you do not have our consent". In the century of partition, as we think about the impact that had on Northern nationalists, that is why the issue is at the front of many people's minds. I acknowledge that things are moving very quickly and that the context has been changed, and I agree with Professor Harvey that it is prudent to explore the issues. I wish to follow up on Senator McGahon's question about what he thinks are the signals the Secretary of State should be considering. I appreciate that there are both legal and political interpretations of that.

The second question is about external impediment. Professor Harvey referred to one argument that was made, and it was one made by my colleague, the former Member of Parliament, Mark Durkan, about EU membership not requiring Article 49. He had framed the issue of EU membership as a potential external impediment. How broadly does Professor Harvey think external impediment should be defined, and does he have views resulting from that about the participation of the UK Government and what form that might take? In addition, what are his thoughts about the benefits of trying to transition this conversation away from a win-lose, "Yes"-"No" border poll and making it a conversation about two positive campaigns for two equally legitimate aspirations, as the Good Friday Agreement defines the constitutional aspirations in Northern Ireland? How do we make it a conversation defined by the principles and precepts of the Good Friday Agreement and not the type of binary win-lose conversation that we know is making some people anxious, rightly or wrongly?

I have another quick question. The impact of Brexit on the Good Friday Agreement is obvious, and Professor Harvey knows that the Supreme Court took a very narrow view of what came under the principle of consent in the Miller case. His Queen's University colleague, Professor Chris Cotton, criticised that judgment for taking a blunt view, and I agree. Are there other aspects of the agreement that have a mainstream understanding or interpretation, but which Professor Harvey believes might be vulnerable to a different legal interpretation if somebody were to challenge it? I appreciate that might be a somewhat specific question.

My last question is for Professor Harvey wearing his Ireland's Future hat. What does he envisage and advocate as regards the relationship between Britain and a theoretical new Ireland? How does he propose to enhance what is currently strand 3 and the east-west relationship? What does he see as the continuing role, or not, of the UK Government in the early years of a new Ireland?