Mr. Colm McCarthy:

If I may take Senator Reilly's questions first, clearly there would be a particular impact in the Border counties. The Border, for trade purposes, has more or less disappeared. There is no customs, and there are not that many taxation differentials North and South either now so the Border, as an economic barrier, has disappeared except for washing diesel and such practices. For legal activities, however, it has more or less disappeared.

If the British leave the European Union an option for us would be to say, "We are off with them". That is an option that should not be entirely dismissed but if the British leave and the Border becomes the external frontier of the European Union, that could be very awkward for the Border counties because we could end up with passport controls, customs inspections and so on at that frontier.

I spent a good deal of time in Croatia in recent years. Croatia joined the European Union last year. That has created a lot of hassle for small rural communities on the border between Croatia and Bosnia, which is not part of the European Union, and the border between Croatia and Montenegro, which is not part of the European Union either. There were suddenly many more people marching around in uniforms and peaked caps making life awkward, collecting statistics and so on. That is an issue, and we need to be alert to it.

Deputy Byrne raised the important question of the transatlantic free trade and partnership deal being negotiated. That will take years. One consequence, particularly if Cameron wins and accelerates the referendum to 2016, which is next year, is that the British might decide to be outside the European Union and negotiate their own transatlantic free trade agreement, not just with the United States but with Canada, with which Britain has traditional relationships.

We could also negotiate our own Atlantic free trade agreement, not just with the United States but also with Canada and Great Britain as part of traditional relationships. It could move in odd directions in the event that the British leave. The point was rightly made that Norway, Switzerland, Iceland and a number of other countries were not members of the European Union but that they had free trade access and that in some cases there was also free labour movement. It varies case by case. Countries outside the European Union would, I am sure, negotiate precisely these arrangements.

This does raise the issue of how bad it would be for a European country that was not a member of the European Union. The answer is that it would not necessarily be that bad with the right trade deal and the right deals on the free movement of capital and labour. Such a country would not have much of a voice at the table when decisions were being made, but a lot of people argue that we do not have much of a voice anyhow. Perhaps that might not be true in the case of Britain, but it certainly is true in the case of a small country such as Norway. What does Norway lose in not being a member of the European Union? One could argue that it does not lose very much. It means that people do not have to fly to Brussels all the time, which is not a big issue.

It seems that the transatlantic trade deal will not be concluded by the time the referendum is held, if it is held at all. The British could go off on a completely different tangent as regards transatlantic trade arrangements if they were to see a future outside the European Union.