Emer Currie (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for being here. Each of their contributions has been hugely valuable and quite different but there is a spectrum of issues to think about. I agree with Mr. McCord that we need to hear from ordinary unionist people. It is significant that he is here and that we heard from other unionist voices in recent weeks. I ask Mr. McCord to tell us how important it is to think about legacy and people's rights to truth and justice in all of this.

My next question is for everyone. The impact of big data on the Brexit campaign was mentioned. We have different electoral laws but when it comes to communications, how would a referendum on the same island but in two different jurisdictions and with two different sets of electoral laws be managed? That will be complicated and we need to think about it. We also need to think about how fundraising is done and how it would be paid for and influenced.

I agree with Professor Harvey that this forum cannot be a one-off event, and it is not. This issue is firmly on the agenda, including in the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, which is a good home for it because the committee is attended by British Members of Parliament, Deputies and Senators and, given the nature of the Good Friday Agreement, it engages across the islands on different issues. The committee will do a report on that and we are only moving in one direction.

How likely is it that we will be able to come up with one proposition to sell to people? I am thinking back to the New Ireland Forum and its outputs. Could we look at that process before we get to the point of having a citizens' assembly? We could produce three ideas on how to do this and then let the citizens get involved, while concurrently engaging in the wider conversation among community and civic groups because that is essential.

I refer to the representatives of the SNP and their experience. It sounds like they feel Brexit was a stunt and that the referendum was based on a paper-thin argument that had not been interrogated. It was stated that Brexit should be interrogated, that communities and civil society should be involved and that the process should be long and open-ended. On that point, we here have started on a bad footing because there is an emphasis by some parties on a border poll instead of talking about constitutional change being the priority. I am going back over the last couple of years and that has hurt this process because a border poll can be seen as a stunt, as opposed to the bigger question and the legitimate and necessary conversation around constitutional change and our constitutional future. I ask the witnesses for their opinions on that because calling for a border poll here and now flies in the face of a long and open-ended debate.