Professor Colin Harvey:

I thank the committee for the further opportunity to discuss this matter. We appreciate the chance to follow up on our previous meeting. We submitted a follow-up written response after that meeting and we hope that members found it helpful. Today is an opportunity for us to talk through some of those responses and we would be happy to answer questions on those or related matters.

I will start by noting what members will have noted, that being, since our previous engagement with the committee, there have been further notable interventions in the discussion. In fact, it seems that not a week goes by without another major intervention in this debate. Members will be aware of last night's "Claire Byrne Live" programme on RTÉ and the paper being launched today by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. There will be a shared island unit event this week and Ireland's Future is holding a major report launch on Thursday. We have also seen further proposals emerge around a timeframe and even a suggested date for when it might happen. In a sense, all of this underlines what we suggested at the previous meeting, that being, the momentum around this debate is remarkable. However, it raises the question of where the debate will go next.

I will address two of the questions covered in our written response and my colleague, Mr. Bassett, will focus on the other two. We hope that our written response will be made publicly available so that members of the public can read what we have written.

The first question we have addressed is that of how long the Northern Ireland institutions could or should continue after Irish reunification. The Good Friday Agreement contemplates a transfer of sovereignty from the UK to Ireland, but it does not expressly address the precise form that a united Ireland would take. The agreement and its values will shape that discussion alongside other existing obligations relating to continuity of protection. There are clear provisions in the Good Friday Agreement that are forward facing and the committee is well aware of concerning rigorous impartiality and guarantees around identity, culture, citizenship and rights. There should be no diminution of guarantees and protections as a consequence of a vote for a united Ireland. There must be an equivalent level of protection in terms of guarantees, protections and rights in the event of a united Ireland.

We recognise the significance of shared institutions in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland as one part of the Good Friday Agreement. Those Northern Ireland institutions will remain in place unless and until an alternative arrangement is agreed. We believe this is part of a larger, constitutional conversation that, as committee members know, is ongoing and intensifying at the moment, around the precise form a united Ireland will take with detailed questions around constitutional design. For example, there are proposals at the moment for a citizens' assembly to focus on some of these and related questions. That might be a helpful channel for this debate going forward. Whatever happens in terms of the Northern legislature, executive and judiciary, the approach will need to be consistent with current constitutional arrangements in Ireland or any new constitution that emerges, as well as other relevant legal obligations. We highlight the sense that this is part of an ongoing, larger conversation about constitutional design.

Why focus on securing referendums when important work on reconciliation remains outstanding? We are aware that this question often comes up and we felt it would be helpful to further clarify our response. In our view, the work on reconciliation is absolutely essential. The work is ongoing, and it must continue whatever the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. We take that as a basic starting point. However, our view is that reconciliation, and debates around reconciliation and a shared future, are simply not assisted or advanced by avoiding hard questions about the constitutional future. In other words, we do not help the cause of reconciliation by avoiding doing the necessary homework in advance of these referendums taking place.

We also do not think the current debate is assisted by making reconciliation a precondition to holding the referendums contemplated in the agreement. In our view, this is not an either-or conversation. The work of reconciliation will continue alongside the referendums anticipated in the agreement. Arguably, in our view, making this an obstacle to progress breaches the express terms of the agreement, as does the recently mooted notion that these referendums can be categorically ruled out for an indefinite or set period of time. That sort of language runs very close to being out of step with the express terms of the agreement.

Echoing what we said in our first engagement, and welcoming the chance to follow up today, our strong advice to this committee is against reopening the express terms of the Good Friday Agreement. Instead, our advice today, as in our first engagement, is that the collective focus must be on the good faith implementation of existing commitments and good faith adherence to the textual requirements of the agreement.

My colleague, Mr. Mark Bassett, will address the other questions in our follow-up response. I thank the committee and look forward to the conversation.