Professor Brendan O'Leary:

In reply to the question of whether there should be a standing committee of both Houses I agree. This is what I proposed in speaking about a standing constitutional forum. A question was asked about ministerial preparation. Korea has had a Ministry of National Unification for a very long time. I will give a practical example. It has a women's unit, and one of my former PhD students is the head of that unit. It addresses all questions affecting women's rights and social policy. That is the type of ministry I believe we require. German reunification was a sudden unexpected surprise. There was some anticipatory constitutional preparation but Germany was not ministerially prepared for the momentous sudden changes imposed by unification. We have plenty of advance warning. Therefore we can get our houses in order much better.

I was asked whether I considered confederate and federal options. Yes, they are considered in the book. The argument against confederation is that it is strictly incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. To have a confederation we would have to have two sovereign independent states linked in a confederation across the island. The Good Friday Agreement allows for two options. These are the United Kingdom or a sovereign united Ireland. Strictly speaking, a confederation would be neither. I have no personal antipathy towards federations. I have worked to help create federations elsewhere in the world. What I can say is that two-unit federations have a disastrous track record. If we think about federalising Ireland we have to ask what would be the appropriate units. Would it be the four historic provinces? Would it be the 32 counties? Would it be new city regions? The moment we name the particular cities that would be the capitals of those regions, we will hear an outcry from all of those cities that are not named. In other words, there is no current consensus on the possible units that might make up a federal Ireland. As I have said, two-unit federations have very poor track record.

I want to reinforce Dr. McGuinness's reply on the debt question. In the break-up of states and secession the question of debts is always considered against the question of assets. In the break-up of the Soviet Union - I am not comparing the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union - the zero option was agreed. The Russian Federation took all of the debts and all of the assets on its territory and the new independent republics began their lives debt free but without some of important previously shared assets of the Soviet Union. These types of arrangements are definitely possible.

A range of other subjects are being investigated by my colleagues in Analysis and Research Ireland North and South, ARINS, on security, policing and future of foreign policy. I look forward to future occasions of this kind to discuss these matters. My colleagues will also address some of them in the session to come.