Ms Mairead McGuinness:

I thank the Cathaoirleach for both questions. As she said, five years later we are still having this conversation because, before the ballots were cast, there was not enough conversation about the practical implications of Brexit. There certainly was not a focus on the real implications for Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland.

To deal with the Chair's second question on rumours and concerns about where checks might potentially take place, I was very happy to hear my colleague, Maroš Šefovi, deny that completely. There is no interest at the Commission or in the European Union to make the problem an Irish problem because clearly this is a Brexit problem. It is a decision of the United Kingdom, which it took, in my view, without due consideration of the wider implications. Since the date of that referendum we have been trying to work towards agreements with the United Kingdom to minimise the disruption and damage.

In my view, Brexit is a fragmenting event and there is no upside to it. I know the UK takes a different view but I certainly do not see any upside. Even if we look at how we have to restructure to engage with the United Kingdom, there are a plethora of committees now, which are perhaps more bureaucratic than if the UK was a full member, but that is in the past. I stress to the committee that there is no discussion in the college about the sensitive point raised by the Cathaoirleach that checks could take place elsewhere, the inference being that Ireland would be disadvantaged in terms of access to the Single Market. I can understand why these discussions are taking place and why people fear this, but I stress very clearly that it is not on the agenda and there is again, and remains, huge sensitivity to the island of Ireland and Ireland as a full member of the European Union.

On the Chair's first point regarding a measured response, it is important to reflect on what happened and why we were forced to take legal action. Imagine being in a room with somebody negotiating a deal, a conversation is had, the meeting ends and the second party goes outside to make a unilateral declaration that it will diverge from the agreement signed up to. This party has not told you or even passed a note to say this might happen or given the courtesy of a heads-up. That is very damaging because, when trying to work out problems, people have to be very honest with each other and deal with that in the room in a very honest way.

As to the measured response, the legal route is there. There are other potential avenues that are contained in the trade and co-operation agreement, TCA. It is not helpful for me to outline what might happen "if"'. It is important for me to stress that we hope that will not happen. We hope that whatever needs to be done to resolve the complexities around the settling in of the protocol in Northern Ireland will be negotiated around the table as equal partners, respecting each other's very different views but understanding that, when it comes to Northern Ireland, we have a shared responsibility. Again, all the efforts made from the moment of that referendum in 2016 right through to now are mindful of the unique situation of Northern Ireland. That was how Michel Barnier dealt with the TCA discussions and how my colleague, Maroš Šefovi, is dealing with the issue now. He and I talk practically every day and exchange concerns, hopes and fears. We will do that again this afternoon in college.