Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much, a Chathaoirligh. I did not get an opportunity to put a question the last day, so I appreciate the opportunity now to speak in this second round.

It is almost 23 years since the Good Friday Agreement was endorsed by the people in both jurisdictions on this island. That is more than a generation ago and much has changed. Reference has been made to the impact of Brexit, but the political landscape in the North has also changed significantly over that generation. Twenty three years is a considerable amount of time for dialogue and discussion. The Good Friday Agreement gave nationalists and republicans the right to democratically and peacefully pursue their objective of a united Ireland. That is what one does in a democracy. It is up to anybody in a democracy to win hearts and minds for their perspective, arguments and propositions.

Senator Currie referred to last night's debate. One point that occurs to me is that all of the political voices who argued that they are in favour of a united Ireland or argued that they are republicans stated that we need to prepare the ground for a referendum. We need to do this properly and that is exactly what is stated in this paper. At the first meeting with Professor Harvey and Mr. Bassett their presentation stated:

In our view the people of this island are likely to be offered a choice about their constitutional future in the decade ahead. It is essential that when that time comes everyone is clear about the consequences.

Their paper argues that we should prepare the ground constitutionally. In last night's debate I did not hear anybody disagree with that politically but what is missing from this debate is what form that preparation takes. Is it endless talking shops or is there a structure to the preparation? For example, is it agreed that we have a Citizens' Assembly? I note with interest the speech given by Fianna Fáil's Deputy Jim O'Callaghan to the University of Sussex in which he put forward some propositions, for example, that one House of Parliament would sit in Belfast and that there would be regional policing arrangements. He is putting out some ideas about the form a new Ireland would take. Today, another Fianna Fáil Deputy, James O'Connor, argued that the three coalition parties should put in place a Minister of State with responsibility for Irish unity. There is a growing realisation politically that we need to responsibly prepare the ground for Irish unity. I accept that involves dialogue and discussion. I call on both Professor Harvey and Mr. Bassett to spell out the structures and processes that take us forward. Everybody agrees that in due course a referendum is inevitable, whether in five years, ten years or other period. There is political acceptance that it is inevitable. Therefore, it is very responsible to prepare properly. What is the process? Is it by means of a Citizens' Assembly, a White Paper on Irish unity or an all-Ireland Oireachtas committee on Irish unity? Could the witnesses spell out in clear terms what they believe are the ways forward?

I accept there are different perspectives in our committee and the witnesses would have seen that at their first meeting. I invite those who challenged the paper at the previous meeting, who say they are in favour of Irish unity, to comment. In politics, as with everything in life, whether one is a manager of a football team or running a business, if one says one wants to make something happen one has to have a plan to make it happen. I ask those who challenge the paper to say what is their plan for moving towards Irish unity. How do they intend to advance the cause of Irish unity? Who are they making their case to and in what format? In what timeline should it take place? With all due respect, I put that challenge to all those who say they want to see Irish unity. I would like to hear a dialogue. This is a great opportunity. I accept there is a lot more to come. I hope that the MP, Ian Paisley Jnr., will join us soon to discuss some of his thoughts on all of this. He certainly indicated recently that he would. We want to hear more voices, but today is about hearing from Professor Harvey, and Mr. Bassett who is a barrister, as they speak in their professional capacities about their paper and what they think we should do. I invite other participants to give us their thoughts. This is a really important dialogue, as was last night's debate. They are my questions and that is all I have to say.