H.E. Dr. Eamonn McKee:

I thank Senator Blaney. I will break it down into several parts. We must ensure we retain the success we have enjoyed so far. We cannot make assumptions that we have achieved all of the objectives of the Good Friday Agreement itself. People often speak about the elasticity of language but when we read through the Good Friday Agreement it is very clear. I remember Seán Ó hUiginn launched the idea of parity of esteem. Parity of esteem, equality of treatment and equality of respect are all still issues that need work in Northern Ireland. For example, tremendous efforts have been made in policing and it has been a real point of stability for Northern Ireland. Again we have to be very careful to make sure it remains fit for purpose and that it itself is composed of the elements of the society it seeks to police. It has been a tremendous success story but we have to continue to pay attention to it.

If we go back to 1985 and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there are still issues regarding economic equality and equity in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement still has to make itself felt in certain areas. If we look at some of the social and economic metrics, there is a lot of catching up to do in certain areas, for example, Derry. In a way we need to make sure we are as assiduous in pursuing the values and principles of the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland society today, particularly in a society that is changing in terms of its outlook and the complexity of its demographic.

In looking to the future, as Dr. Mansergh said there is an element of instability around the idea of the future of a united Ireland and quite what shape it makes. This is a conversation we will have to have with great care and great respect for all of the parties. I fundamentally agree that if we are looking at a united Ireland, we are looking at a very different state.

We have to have a very searching conversation about the past 100 years, going back to independence. If we look at it, partition was imposed and created two monolithic societies. In the South there is quite a degree of consensus. A point I have often made is that I do not think we have paid enough attention to the damage that was done to Ireland with the abolition of our parliament in 1800. That sounds like it is going back a long way but not having a local government from 1800 to 1920 meant when we took over the State in 1922 the instruments for governance were not great. The Catholic Church was there almost as a government, as it had been effectively. In a way, down South we have developed a governance model in not the most propitious environment. The same could be said about Northern Ireland and why it gave rise to conflict. There is a very searching conversation we need to have down South as well as in the North about what is the future society that we envisage.

I do think the shared island unit is a great initiative. It is the way to go. I remember at the time of the Good Friday Agreement speaking to Dr. Mansergh in the castle complex about North-South co-operation. Dr. Mansergh made the point that the one thing we do not want to convey in terms of North-South co-operation to the unionist community is that this is some sort of revanchist project to try to get Northern Ireland back by stealth. He said it had to be based on the notion of mutual advantage. Mr. Kirwan was very much part of making sure the areas of co-operation and the joint bodies that would be created were to be for the advantage of everybody.

The conversation on the future will be very searching. We have a lot of work to do in terms of how we describe what it is. We have to consult an awful lot of people about it. If there is a good example of change management in Northern Ireland, I would say it is the Patten commission on policing. There were several reasons it was very effective. One was the terms of reference we gave it in the Good Friday Agreement. There is also the fact that Mr. Patten and the commission members went along the highways and byways of Northern Ireland to find out what people wanted from their policing. They asked what were the problems and what were the solutions. This is why they came up with more than 175 recommendations. Another element was the oversight commission to make sure the recommendations were implemented. The Patten commission's recommendations were firmly grounded in the views and desires of local communities about what kind of policing they wanted. That is why security sector reform in Northern Ireland was so successful. It created not a police force but a police service fully accountable to its people. Following the model of listening to people and trying to build a better Ireland is the way to go.

From my point of view, being in Canada is fascinating. The Canadian model shows how people of divergent loyalties can share the same space, not only in stability but in a very prosperous country. The complexity of the Irish situation in Canada, including the imperial Irish for example, reminds us of our own very complicated past. Our history is much more complicated in some ways than the official narratives. The cliché of loyal unionist and disloyal nationalist is not correct when we look at Irish history. I often make the point that in 1916, when Yeats spoke about a terrible beauty being born, in a way he was speaking about a terrible simplicity being born. Our history is incredibly complicated. Our future as a united Ireland has to embrace the complexity of identity that has characterised unionism and nationalism. Looking at the future is a very big topic of discussion that reaches into all kinds of legacies and hope for the future. This is probably a very wandering answer.