Dr. Stephen Farry:

It might be helpful at the outset if I recap the Alliance Party position on these discussions. As people will appreciate, the party is not defined around the constitutional question. We have some elected representatives, members and supporters who take a pro-union perspective and some who already take a pro-united Ireland perspective, while most of our people would probably have an open mind regarding the future and be prepared to listen to debates on this topic. Having said that, we are conscious that many debates are happening, not just on the future of the island of Ireland but also regarding the future of the UK. We are willing to take part in any rational constructive discussion on a without prejudice basis. In that regard, I am pleased to take part in this session and in similar exercises. I also stress that the Alliance Party recognises the mechanisms contained within the Good Friday Agreement for decision-making, including the thresholds that have been accepted, albeit they can be fleshed out in much greater detail, as Professor Harvey and others advocate.

I will make a few other points before I address the specific question. It is important to stress that the emphasis now must be on dialogue and issues regarding precisely what the questions would be in any referendums, if they were ever to occur. That matter is still to crystallise. It is the same with issues regarding the trigger points for any referendums being called. They also need to crystallise, if at a later point. The emphasis must be on discussions and conversations happening to see where consensus can be built. There must also be a teasing out of several of the practical issues which we must address and to challenge ourselves concerning many aspects of those issues.

If we were ever to see a referendum called, it would also be crucially important that it would be one that would have a prospect of success. A situation where Northern Ireland were to end up in a succession of referendums on this issue would be incredibly difficult for our politics. We therefore see a referendum being very much the end point of a process. There is no guarantee that a referendum would be called, but at the same time, if it were to be called, it would have to be a process which would move and proceed with some degree of smoothness while recognising the great differences of opinion in Northern Ireland.

Turning to the example of German reunification, I wish to stress that happened very swiftly following the fall of the Berlin Wall, in less than 12 months. The process of reunification in that context was eased, however, by what was then the West German government taking a major decision to bear considerable financial and economic costs, which may not be an option on this island at this stage. Obviously, the differentials that existed between West and East Germany are nothing close to the differences between the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland today. However, there was almost unanimous support across both parts of Germany for reunification, which will obviously not be the situation in the context of Ireland.

My question for Professor Harvey and Mr. Bassett in the context of having recognised the principle of consent and that being a binary choice is whether they nonetheless also recognise, at least academically and theoretically, that there are other models we can talk about. I refer to being able to talk about different models within what would essentially be a single Irish state. However, are there other models, even sui generistypes of considerations, of some form of shared sovereignty that could be explored as alternatives? What would be the views of Professor Harvey and Mr. Bassett on that aspect, especially if those concepts were potentially likely to generate a much greater sense of consensus?

In the same vein, to what extent is it useful, without prejudice to any wider political or constitutional change, that we in the short run fully exploit what are still untapped opportunities for practical economic, social and environmental co-operation on the island? I am struck that we have had the North-South structures of the Good Friday Agreement for more than 20 years now. Whenever I sat on the North-South Ministerial Council, it struck me that it was a perfunctory-type process and it was not really being used to its full advantage. On a practical level, therefore, by building on the shared island unit, among other initiatives, to what extent is there scope to focus in the short term on building up those aspects of practical co-operation of which I spoke? That could be an end in itself or it could ease some of the wider political and constitutional questions that people want to pursue.