Patrick Costello (Dublin South Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The advantage and disadvantage of speaking later on is that many of the points I wanted to raise have already been raised. I will echo a couple of things. Senator Currie said we have only scratched the surface in relation to reconciliation and I feel that is true in respect of almost everything we have been discussing around this topic. I would be interested in hearing more - perhaps with the Ireland's Future hat on, as was said - in relation to the conversation with unionists and loyalists about the future that they see. When we tried to have a joint meeting recently with the Assembly, some unionist voices refused to join the committee simply because we were there. That is not a very helpful approach - let us put it nicely that way. It is not a helpful approach to these fundamental issues. What is being done? What can be done?

I share the speaker's call for the shared island unit to be more ambitious and to have and lead these conversations and the outreach to a community that does not want to engage with these conversations one way or another. That is really important.

We must acknowledge that the Irish Government and State needs to do more. Are we living up to our commitment to support the shared institutions? Many members here have spoken about the North-South Ministerial Council being simply perfunctory and not meaningful. Has the Irish State lived up to its commitments regarding reconciliation under the Stormont House Agreement? It has not done so at all. What does that say about the Irish State's view of the shared island and both communities?

There has been much talk about a complete return to violence but we must give some credit and realise that we are a different island from what we were in 1968 and 1969. Part of this comes from the rights-based perspective and international human rights instruments that we must put front and centre as part of any conversation. Surely these will provide a shared language of how to best make decisions.

I am also conscious that this is an incredibly complex matter and reducing it to a binary choice of "Yes" or "No" is not only difficult but potentially dangerous. All we have to do is look at the campaign and rhetoric around Brexit to see how taking a complex matter and distilling it into "Yes" or "No" can cause problems. This suggests the importance of the conversations beforehand and building a clear picture of what that "Yes" or "No" would be about. There is also the possibility of exploring multiple choice voting or other novel ideas. If the witnesses have an opinion on that, I would love to hear it.

Ultimately, there will be much more uncertainty. There are matters that do not give a damn about a line on a map that will affect everybody and I keep talking about climate change in that regard. It is just one challenge we are facing, no matter what community or side of the line we are from. We must also be really cognisant that the union that many are loyal to is starting to crack. A border poll held next week versus one held the other side of a Scottish independence referendum that succeeds would be a very different prospect. I do not know to what extent a Welsh independence referendum is on the agenda but there is growing talk about it one way or another. There is much uncertainty and if we are not trying to at least have those conversations, we will really struggle in the face of that complexity and uncertainty.