Dr. Martin Mansergh:

I defined in my opening statement the position of the two governments and I think they would both agree and respond that they have a shared responsibility, not joint authority or joint sovereignty, but shared responsibility. This exactly accurately describes what their position is, has been in the recent past and is likely to be so for some time to come. We often hear people argue that this or that aspect of the agreement or the operation of the institutions ought to be changed. I recall at the time of the negotiations that George Mitchell, the chairman, was often pressed regarding why he did not override or exclude Sinn Féin, the loyalists or unionists on this or that particular issue. His assistant, Martha Pope, used to always say the former Senator liked to have his ducks lined up in a row. The temptation to press the override button should be resisted. If we start to unravel in one corner, we may start unintended consequences unravelling in other ones.

A question was asked about Articles 2 and 3, citizenship and so on. This is a sort of a betwixt and between situation. Essentially, it is a right to personal citizenship. It does not mean that people living in Derry and Omagh have a vote in the Dáil elections. An argument was made that elected Sinn Féin MPs should have the floor of the Dáil, etc.

One would run into this being an attempt to put in the old Articles 2 and 3 by the back door and effectively exercising jurisdiction. There are some limits as to what citizenship and I think the Government has committed itself, in principle anyway, to both in presidential elections but it has not actually proceeded forward with it.

There are two dynamics that were referred to, economic and political. Because we live in a mixed economy, a lot of the dynamic in any economy comes effectively from the private sector and so on with encouragement from the Government. One area which there are deficiencies, and I have been involved in a committee in this regard in the Royal Irish Academy, is in respect of higher education in the North and in particular the lack of higher education in the north-west, which in an ideal world would be done on a cross-border basis because Derry-Donegal is one region. It could be that some Ministers for education, I will not bother pointing out the party, believe the theory that people can be over-educated. How it serves the unionist interest to have such large numbers of people going across the water and then staying there I find impossible to fathom. Anyway, that is their business.

My only message on the political front is that we should not talk or behave as if we are taking the political outcomes for granted. That a united Ireland is inevitable and is going to happen and so on raises resistance. The message is for more acceptance of the fact that it is for a democratic decision north and south of the Border and that in some respects, there will be unpredictable elements as to how that would happen in whatever situation it would be.

Neutrality was mentioned briefly. Personally I am in favour of neutrality, provided it is recognised that it is a policy and not a status. Effectively a Geneva treaty-type status went out the window in 1914 when Belgian neutrality was overridden. One has a policy and what that means in a particular situation within wide limits has to be determined by each country for itself. Sweden was neutral until recently but up to 1941, it allowed German troops to cross its territory. We certainly did not go quite that far in 1940.

Hume-Adams was mentioned and one has to realise that there is the public theatre and there is also what is going on in the background. There is a good question as to whether Hume-Adams actually existed and it is dealt with in Albert Reynolds's autobiography to a certain extent. They made three very good public statements in 1993 but the reality was a draft declaration that was being worked on by three parties, and the third party was the Dublin Government. I even saw a private letter from Adams to Reynolds in 1993, in which he referred to what was subsequently called Hume-Adams as the Dublin document. History is actually an awful lot more complicated than what goes out on the public stage.

On the question of confederation which has been raised, as Mr. Kirwan said, by Senator McDowell and was also in the New Ireland Forum, Professor Brendan O'Leary argues - one could perhaps argue with him - that confederation is ruled out because it means first having an independent Northern Ireland, that is, confederation is between two independent states. There is a fairly strong suggestion that there would be strong nationalist-republican objections to the equivalent of an independent Northern Ireland even with foreign affairs and so on. It was suggested by Sir George Quigley, who was also behind the concept of the all-island economy in the early 1990s. On the whole, I would not be in favour of that. What I do think and I have always been - even at the time of the New Ireland Forum and at times when my party leader Charles Haughey was swithering on the other side - in favour of the unitary state. Within that context, however, Belfast requires a special status. We should remember when the United Irishmen in Belfast, the Presbyterian leadership in the 1790s, objected to Dublin Castle rule. Like Glasgow, Edinburgh and certain other places in the world, we need to give proper recognition to Belfast in any scheme. I also think we need to give more recognition to some of the achievements of Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to say you want to unite with a territory or that you respect unionist identity when you completely and totally reject the system of government which is part of their identity and with which they have identified. I think something a bit more nuanced and I am not in the least suggesting an uncritical attitude to the history of Northern Ireland, far from it.

I will finish on one point-----