1. The Potential Implications of Brexit for Cross-Border Bodies
Dr Anthony Soares
Deputy Director
Centre for Cross Border Studies
28 April 2016

2. Overview Political Context Policy Context
Functioning of cross-border bodies beyond Brexit
Questions

3. Political Context
“Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union.”
The status of one of the co-guarantors of the 1998 Agreement will be altered in the event of a Brexit, and they will no longer be partners in the European Union. This could affect the relationship between the Irish and UK governments depending on the UK’s future trading and political focus following Brexit.

4. Political Context
[The NSMC to meet] “in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross- sectoral matters (including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.”
“The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework”.
There may be calls from some political quarters to revisit the 1998 Agreement in order to reflect the new context brought about by a Brexit, particularly in relation to Strand II. However, with political consensus, this should not represent an existential threat to the North-South institutions and most – if not all – the implementation bodies. With one of the jurisdictions no longer within the EU, there will have to be some reshaping of the roles of the NSMC, for example, although the extent will depend on the nature of the UK’s relationship with the EU following negotiations.

5. Political Context
6 (1) A provision of an Act [by the NI Assembly] is not law if it is outside the legislative powers of the Assembly.
6 (2) A provision is outside that competence if any of the following paragraphs apply –
c) it is incompatible with any of the Convention rights;
d) it is incompatible with Community law.
Political consensus will also be required in revisions to the 1998 Northern Ireland Act, which uses EU law repeatedly as a limit to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s legislative powers and to the powers of its Ministers. With consensus there should be no significant difficulties in amending the Act to reflect the changed circumstances of a Brexit. However, without consensus on revisions to the Act or calls to revisit the 1998 Agreement, there is a risk to political stability at least in the short-term.

6. Policy Context
[The NSMC] “to use best endeavours to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies, in areas where there is a mutual cross- border and all-island benefit, and which are within the competence of both Administrations, North and South”.
A Brexit may also present challenges to the NSMC’s ability to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies, especially if post-Brexit the UK’s policies begin to diverge from those of Ireland. In this scenario, the ability of the two jurisdictions to undertake cross-border and all-island cooperation may come under strain, although such cooperation will not necessarily become impossible, particularly if there is political support and the corresponding funding from the two governments, North and South.

7. Policy Context
Crucially, the degree of policy divergence will be dependent on the extent to which a post-Brexit UK will be integrated into the EU’s Single Market. If the UK opts to retain access to the Single Market, then it will be obliged to reflect many of the EU’s policy frameworks, regulations and standards.

8. Cross-Border Bodies Beyond Brexit
“The Body will have a remit throughout the island of Ireland in relation to the promotion of food safety”. To what extent could this be achieved if there is a divergence in standards between the two jurisdictions?
“[P]romoting harmonisation, where appropriate, in the development of surveillance systems including methodologies, approaches to reporting, and information technology systems”. Possible that harmonisation may become more difficult in the event of either jurisdiction opting (or being obligated) to introduce divergent systems of surveillance.
If the UK’s integration to the EU Single Market is minimal or is rejected as a post-Brexit model, then cross-border bodies whose functions are exercised in relation to a set of common standards between the two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland may face a more challenging environment. If a cross-border body is operating in a context where each jurisdiction possesses its own agency in the same sector as the cross-border body, then any significant divergence in standards may prompt calls for those single-jurisdiction agencies to take greater responsibility for some of the functions of the cross-border body. In some cases, however, a counter-argument could be made that divergence between the two jurisdictions could reinforce the value of some cross-border bodies in their roles as disseminators of relevant information to stakeholders operating on a cross-border or all-island basis.

9. Cross-Border Bodies Beyond Brexit
“The Body will have a general remit to promote scientific cooperation and linkages between laboratories accredited, or working towards accreditation, under relevant EU directives”. The relevance of EU directives may only apply to one jurisdiction.
“It is intended that the Body will provide an independent assessment, through independent scientific advice, of the safety and hygiene of food produced, distributed or marketed in the island of Ireland”. Such assessment by may become more difficult to carry out on an all island basis.

10. Cross-Border Bodies Beyond Brexit
Reliance on EU funding for CBC?
Ability of stakeholders to be involved in CBC activities?
Levels of political support for cross-border bodies?

11. Cross-Border Bodies Beyond BrexitUK EU

12. Thank you! Any questions?