Mr. Les Allamby:

I will address one aspect of each of the three questions. To respond to Senator Marshall's question, the numbers are relatively small. I cannot remember off the top of my head the exact number who have renounced citizenship in the past ten years, but the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is relatively small. We do not know how many of them are people who are renouncing Irish citizenship. There are two significant issues. First, no one should have to renounce citizenship in order to preserve, assert or defend his or her rights. Second, this will become a bigger issue, particularly if the legal case taken by Ms DeSouza does not go the way I hope it will, that is, if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, this will eventually apply to people who desire reunification with family members who are EU citizens. That is when the issue of preserving EU rights will become far more significant, but i is not clear what will happen. The UK White Paper on immigration essentially applies current arrangements for people outside the European Union and largely replicates them for people within it. In the context of future proofing, this is a very significant issue and the numbers could become considerably greater. That is why the issue is important.

"The Blame Game" is a television programme in Northern Ireland. We have had enough of the blame game locally. If Senator Paul Daly was asking specifically about the two Governments and the Good Friday Agreement, there are three pieces of the agreement jigsaw that have not been fully implemented, namely, a Bill of Rights, an all-Ireland charter of rights and the civic forum. I am a great believer in the value of a Bill of Rights which comes into its own in times of stress and difficulty. When things are stable economically and politically, people are less likely to need to reach for a Bill of Rights. It becomes important when things are not so stable. The United Kingdom leaving the European Union, something nobody envisaged 21 years ago, is just the circumstance in which a Bill of Rights is important. If the identity rights I discussed in my opening statement had been included in a Bill of Rights recognised by the UK Government, we might have avoided some of these issues. The importance and value of a Bill of Rights in the long term remains. The all-Ireland charter of rights was very much aspirational; they were not necessarily enforceable rights, but the concept of parties across the island of Ireland signing up to and committing themselves to the general concept of rights and equality remains important.

On the civic forum and whether we should have some initiatives around a citizens' assembly in Northern Ireland, there is a need to have an umbilical cord between citizens and politicians and political institutions.

That was envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement and we do not have that. Those all-important aspects are writ large as a result of the decision to leave the EU following the referendum.

I thought I knew - I think I do know - the Good Friday Agreement pretty well, but I found myself rereading it to refresh my understanding of the agreement in light of these political developments. In the discussion we have had in Brussels, Dublin and London, it shows the value and importance of the Good Friday Agreement but there is work to finish there.

On the common travel area, clearly there is a good working relationship between the two Governments, as is acknowledged by both sides. It again comes back to future-proofing. If those relationships change either economically or politically for whatever reason, at the end of the day a memorandum of understanding simply signifies the two Governments agreeing their understanding of a situation; nothing prevents that from changing at the behest of either of those two parties. We need to see some clear legal underpinnings.

Leaving the EU is interesting. The UK Government used to maintain that the common travel area predates both Ireland and the UK joining the European Union, which, of course, is right. However, many of the issues within the common travel area ended up being underpinned by EU law, including the freedom of movement, for example. As that is going, we need something to ensure the common travel area arrangements are copper-fastened irrespective of whatever happens politically in the next ten, 15, 20 years or beyond. Therefore while I welcome the memorandum of understanding - without knowing its content - as a step forward, it should be a step forward on a journey that is about ensuring those rights are clear not just for my generation, but also for a future generation.