I am now interpreting the main Fianna Fáil theory. This was resurrected around 1947 when we had the great anti-Partition process—I remember as a child flicking through these magnificent publications, with the Border going through various cottages and so on; I was quite taken by it— and a great deal of it was true but a great deal of it had not got relevance in terms of solution. It implied that the resistance of the Six-County Protestants to re-unification is not very deeply rooted and that it is quite capable of being modified and reduced and removed by a change of policy in London, backed no doubt, as the Taoiseach implied in the Garden of Remembrance speech, by economic pressure such as the threatened removal of subsidies to Northern Ireland, financial and otherwise. This line of thought implies that while we would not ourselves as a nation coerce the people of Northern Ireland—and we are not capable of doing so anyway—nevertheless they could at least be coerced in the future, either by means of parliamentary reform or by economic pressures and perhaps financial inducements by London itself. I think this is a very wrong, fruitless and futile kind of policy and that is why I say that the Taoiseach goes to London with our support and our understanding of the situation but with no false hopes or prospects of an immediate solution.
Nobody who has given any time at all to understanding the attitude of the Northern Protestants, nobody who has studied their history and their attitudes over the past 150 years or more, could share the optimistic belief of some political commentators in the newspapers that there might be a fundamental change in policy, either following a hint from London or pressure from London, or for that matter, economic pressure from London. I think though we must accept that such pressure could bring about a change in the system in Northern Ireland. It could also bring about a considerable change in the internal system of government in Northern Ireland. Let that be the product of the Taoiseach's visit to London. It is part of the development of Irish history, as we try to foresee it, and partcularly a change affecting the position of the minority in Northern Ireland. This is my hope for the outcome of the London talks. If I may presume to interpret the very extensive work done by the Labour Party spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, certainly from his quite extensive contacts both with British Labour Party and political opinion in London I do not think we would hold out a view which would be as optimistic as some people have tended to hold out for the resolving of the problems of Northern Ireland. I certainly feel, with him, that a sober calculation of the chances of solving the problem of Partition through agreement with London and by overriding the Northern Protestants with aid from London show this idea to be chimerical.
These are the facts of life about the situation in Northern Ireland. The facts of life there are surrounded by political and historic truisms which, though they may be repeated very often, have to be slept on every night. The hope we hold out that Dublin and London will do a deal in October which will resolve the problem shows a lack of understanding of the cultural and political ill-health and the deep psychological ill-health of the Ulster community at the moment. When I hear so many of the sectarian overtones in the republican one-denominational style I have to take out the 1961 census of Northern Ireland and remind myself that we have there a multi-denominational society, a politically stricken pluralistic society, a society in which the influences of religious sectarianism and tribalism is at the highest in Western Europe.
In the publication issued by the Northern Ireland Society of Labour Lawyers there is a breakdown of religious professions of persons as a percentage of the community in Northern Ireland. I would recommend that every Fianna Fáil Deputy should sleep on the implications of the statistics given in the 1961 census in Northern Ireland. It has never been placed on the records of the House in the formal sense. In 1961, 497,000 persons, or 34.9 per cent of the population, were Roman Catholic; the Presbyterians numbered 413,000, or 29 per cent; the Church of Ireland numbered 344,000 or 24 per cent; the Methodists numbered 71,800, or 5 per cent; the Baptists numbered 14,000, or 1 per cent; The Congregationalists numbered 9,000, or 0.7 per cent; the Unitarians numbered 5,600, or 0.4 per cent; "others" numbered 23,4000, or 1.6 per cent; and "not stated" numbered 28,000, or 21 per cent.
It is important in the Republic of Ireland, a nation in which so many people in the Republic use the phrase "a 95 per cent Catholic nation", to point out that out of 1,425,000 persons in Northern Ireland in 1961, 497,000 were Roman Catholics and the other religious groups formed the remainder of the population. I would ask the House to ponder on that fact of life in relation to Northern Ireland. Most electors in the Republic do not seem to appreciate the full implications of the fact that in the Westminster General Election of 1959 almost 500,000 of the electorate who voted gave their votes to pro-Partition candidates. In that election 500,000 people gave a pro-Partition vote and only 84,000 people voted for anti-Partition candidates. The position generally was not that much changed in the Stormont Election in 1969 when 72 per cent of the poll elected 36 Unionists, three Independent Unionists, six Nationalists, two Republican Labour, two Northern Ireland Labour and three Independents. The total electorate at that particular election was 912,000, but with seven uncontested seats in Northern Ireland the number of voters was 778,000.
The overwhelming electoral support for Unionist candidates was self-evident in that election. This is a fact of life that everybody in the Republic should consider. Reality cannot be wished away. Gerrymander or no gerrymander, there is generally a one man/one vote system in operation in Westminster elections. All sober Irishmen and women would do well to ponder on the elementary political, social, and religious facts of life in Northern Ireland. Those who plot guerilla warfare from Kevin Street or, for that matter, from Gardiner Place would ignore these facts of life in terms of changing the political structure of Northern Ireland by the use of the gun, but they would ignore these things at a terrible cost.
While I welcome the visit of the Taoiseach to Westminster in October, I feel it is going to take a great deal more arduous work by this House over many decades before we can overcome the fact that we had a Cromwellian Settlement in 1649 which entailed the driving out of, one might say, the then almost entire native Irish population. They were replaced by settlers of the Scottish Presbyterian stock and by the big English landlords and merchants—who of course got the lion's share at that time. A large number of the Presbyterians and Protestants were reduced very quickly to the status of tenants in that historic settlement. This is the settlement we are coming to grips with today. No amount of rhetoric from Mr. Kevin Boland about eradicating the history of British rule in Ireland is going to overcome the reality that there are in Northern Ireland 1,000,000 people whose forbears have been there for several centuries—and whose descendants will probably be there for several centuries to come— who will not, be coerced even if they are pushed far enough by the gun with a crucifix on one side and a shamrock on the other side and expelled either back to England or to the Scottish Highlands.
This is not the kind of Algerian situation with which so many provisionals, Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil republicans try to draw an analogy. It should be remembered that many of the people in Northern Ireland who are in a state of extreme tension about the activities of the IRA have extensive military training which they got with the former B Specials, the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Ulster Volunteers and their own internal militia. Many of them have a long family involvement with the British Army. I certainly do not wish to see a civil war fought out in these terms.
We must accept that what we witness on many occasions in Northern Ireland is the extreme form of political tribalism, particularly epitomised in the personal attitude of Ian Paisley. We have his counterpart here in terms of the Kevin Boland-Blaney axis. In recent months in the political speeches of Ian Paisley there have been heavy insertions of extreme Protestant piety—a kind of jingo devotion to the long lost and vanished British Empire. There is a perpetual historic recollection of service in the arms of the British Crown forces. With that kind of attitude it is extremely difficult for many republicans to contain themselves and refrain from reacting in like manner. The introverted reactions of the extremists in Northern Ireland is one of the big dangers of the situation.
I do not think we are going to change their attitude but we can reach for reconciliation and brotherhood with hundreds of thousands of the majority community in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that the 1,000,000 people in Northern Ireland all share to the same degree of tension the kind of near-hysterical religious militancy of Ian Paisley. It would be an intellectual travesty if they did. I do not believe the people on the majority side—to use the comfortable term—in Northern Ireland share the local demogogic tradition of the Ian Paisleys, the Craigs or the John Taylors. The kind of trumpeting career which John Taylor has had reflects the extreme neurosis of the Protestant majority. I do not think we can accept that the demagogic heights which these spokesmen reach represent the broad national community concensus in Northern Ireland. I have too much respect for all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland to think that that kind of nostalgic politics would indeed have total control over the situation.
I feel that fact must go on record and that is why I welcome the Taoiseach's visit to London. When the people in the north hear Kevin Boland and Deputy Blaney they have a right to be assured by us that we do not share their views, because unlike some Fianna Fáil Deputies I am not at my happiest when I am attending a funeral in a republican cemetery. I can not accept the statement made by Deputy Blaney, when he was a Minister, on 9th November, 1968, when he said:
The Stormont Prime Minister assumes the right to talk, as he so often glibly does ‘for the people of Ulster.' I come from the most northerly part of Ulster and I absolutely deny his right to speak on the Border question for me or the hundreds of thousands of nationally-minded people in the Six Counties, or the people of the three free counties of Ulster.
That kind of absolute denial from a Cabinet Minister is a good start to polarisation; it is not a good start to dialogue and that is why Deputy Blaney was ditched when the crisis came. He should have been ditched when he made that statement on 9th November, 1968 because when one Irishman denies absolutely the right of another to talk for and on behalf of another Irishman we know we are dealing with the extremes of political attitudes.
We hope Mr. Edward Heath will be in good form when the Taoiseach goes to London. We hope he will have won his joust with the sea—that might have an historic impact on Irish national unity—because I understand his reactions tend to resolve around his prospects at admiralship. No kind of tea party in London will obliterate the fact that there exists a rigid Catholic-Protestant class structure in Northern Ireland. One might ask who is to blame for that—the politicians or the priests? I do not think we need look very far if we are to apportion responsibility in that regard. There is a deep conservatism in the extremes of both religions in Northern Ireland—let us be under no illusions about that. Deputy FitzGerald alluded to it very strongly in his speech. On the Catholic side there is the belief that the whole truth is theirs alone; there is an equal certitude on the Protestant side that not only is the whole truth theirs alone but that the Republic is the sole preserve of the Roman Catholic Church.
It is only when one begins to appreciate the deep cultural, social and political sickness of Northern Ireland that one understands the spiritual sickness prevalent in that community. I submit the attitude of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland to marriage, to marital practices, to private morality and to education in Northern Ireland has made a profound contribution towards the political situation and the polarisation of sectarian thought in Northern Ireland.
I remember speaking at a Tuairim debate a few years ago about segregated Catholic education in Northern Ireland. A young nun from Belfast became most irate; she assured me that this kind of policy in the past decade, and the religious education given to young Catholics in regard to fraternisation and marriage with Protestants, of social intermingling with Protestants and interpretation of their religion, had no impact on the social or political climate in Northern Ireland. From what I could gather of the political and spiritual paranoia of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland, I found it difficult to accept this was so.
There is also deep Catholic and Nationalist hatred of the settlement of the 1700s and they have reacted with even greater paranoia. Although the Taoiseach has the best wishes of this House, he is going to London a very sober man with these chilling realities in Northern Ireland. I might add these realities are not taught in our schools or universities; they are not taught in our social study conferences; they are not analysed by Irish people, North or South; and, as a result, they are not discussed in an open manner in relation to the position in Northern Ireland.
One of the solutions that will be advocated in London will be the federal solution. We should stop talking a lot of nonsense about this subject. When I hear the Taoiseach talking about the federal solution and then hear the former Deputy, Kevin Boland, speak about the matter, I realise it is a throwback to a kind of mystical solution Fianna Fáil once used for getting out of a jam. When the former Taoiseach, now President de Valera, said that coercion would not be used following 1921 it was necessary for him to have another solution and, therefore, he discovered the federal solution. This has now entered the canon law of Fianna Fáil theories for solving Partition.
The proposition is that once British groups were out of the way agreement would be reached because the Ulster Protestants—being a minority nationally—would be forced to come to terms with the majority. It is suggested that we would offer them extremely generous terms—we would offer them a federal solution. Naturally it would be absolute folly on their part not to accept this solution and, therefore, the Taoiseach is off to London. There is this kind of glib anticipation that perhaps he will come back with a federal solution.
It would be dishonest if we did not accept that the thinking behind this suggestion is the idea of coercion because the majority in Northern Ireland have not the slightest interest in a federal solution. The Fianna Fáil development of this possible solution is combined with the quite unwarranted and arrogant idea that, whereas the convictions of Nationalists are deeply rooted and worthy of respect, those of the Unionists are shallow, are based only on historical personal advantage and will be easily abandoned for motives of greed or fear. This is an extremely dangerous error.
There is a very strong proposition advanced by the Provisionals that the British troops should get out immediately, that they should not be here at all, and so the argument goes on. If British troops were withdrawn, I have no doubt this would be followed by a civil war in Ireland. In many ways this would be precipitated by the Unionists attempting to reimpose their will on minority areas, particularly in Derry. One could visualise the extreme backlash once the British troops had departed. The Protestants would decide to settle the question; the Craigs and the Paisleys would achieve a victory if the British troops moved out and they would proceed to bring pressure on Brian Faulkner to precipitate a civil war.
If the majority in Northern Ireland sought to reimpose their will, particularly in Derry, there would be intervention across the Border. The only prognosis we can come to in this matter is that it would be an extremely bloody civil war. It would involve the massacre of a fairly large proportion of Catholics in Belfast and would probably involve the massacre of a large number of Protestants in Derry. It would be quite inconclusive and would leave the country more divided than ever. Although we might have a quite different Border, without question relations between the Republic and Northern Ireland would be more bitter and confused.
Therefore, no sane person can talk realistically about British troops leaving Northern Ireland overnight. I am as resentful and as unhappy and as opposed as any person to the extreme actions of British troops in Northern Ireland on occasions, and I shall always condemn that kind of action by British troops. It is a question of what will happen if another proposition develops. I was perturbed, therefore, when I read the reaction of Mr. Kevin Boland, the former Minister for Local Government, who gave an hour long interview at his home in Rathcoole on November 6th, 1970. He was then talking in a Fianna Fáil context and he said:
That solution might very well involve a certain arrangement to begin with—two Parliaments in a Federal Irish State and it might be that because of certain fears the majority in the Six Counties would seek a certain measure of autonomy, but that could be worked out around the conference table.
He went on to say:
For some time the 32-county State would contain a dissident minority and we might have to adopt the same methods as Stormont have been adopting for 50 years to keep the dissident minority in subjection.
This is what he said would be the development of the use of force in Northern Ireland. It is ironic that so many of the Fianna Fáil official policies on Partition support a federal solution as also does Kevin Boland. I could give several quotations of Deputy Blaney who time and again has advocated a federal solution.
Deputy Blaney, of course, has a much more exotic version. He has us all travelling to Armagh, of all places. The last time an Irish Parliamentarian travelled to Armagh was when Mr. de Valera, in the middle of the night and in relation to a certain piece of legislation, hotfooted it to Armagh and made his views known in no uncertain manner to a certain gentleman. A letter to a newspaper was promptly withdrawn. I do not think any Irish Parliamentarian is seriously upset by the proposition of Deputy Blaney that we should have an assembly of all-Ireland in Armagh as though this in fact would be a solution to partition.
The federal solution is not one for which I see very much hope because the majority in Northern Ireland are not particularly interested in it, the minority in Northern Ireland have no particular illusions about it and the only people who are impressed by it are of course the professional republican politicians who seek to cash in on that kind of development. I feel we should be very circumspect in the Republic about giving advice to Northern Ireland.
There was a statement issued by the regional executive of the Six County Republican Clubs this week and this was quoted in the Irish Times of the 4th August, 1971. The article stated:
A statement issued by the Regional Executive of the Six County Republican Clubs last night stated that Mr. Kevin Boland sought "to pimp off the sufferings and sacrifices of the Northern people by identifying himself with the continuing national struggle in the North". It claimed that the aim of the new republican party was to defeat the Lynch administration and return Mr. Haughey and Mr. Blaney to power within Fianna Fáil.
I will not quote the full statement but that part alone shows the reaction of the Northern Ireland Republican Clubs. Indeed, they have something to say about Deputy Blaney who often expressed appreciation for and understanding of the republican movement in Northern Ireland. They stated:
But when Mr. Blaney was Minister for Agriculture he was quick to protect the robber rights of the ‘belted earls' of Ireland's rivers and lakes. These same ‘belted earls' pimp on one of Ireland's finest national resources with the full support of Mr. Lynch and the additional promised support of the Forcible Entry and Occupation Bill, but neither Messrs. Blaney nor Boland will complain.
I would suggest that the Taoiseach will have to press very strongly in London to ensure that the reforms in Northern Ireland giving elementary protection to the minority in Northern Ireland are in no way diluted, are in no way mitigated or circumscribed by the Faulkner Government. He will have to ensure that the British Army are not used in a situation in Northern Ireland in which, as is now developing in England, a military solution might be regarded as the only solution to the tragic situation in the north.
Successive GOCs in Northern Ireland have repeatedly pointed out that a military solution is not on. I should hope that Mr. Ted Heath and Mr. Maudling, for whom I have a great regard, would not be tempted into the typical British Army 30-day solution and have a holocaust. The Taoiseach, provided he still has the opportunity of making the point, should stress in no uncertain manner that no military solution is ever likely to bring about peace in Northern Ireland. There is great support for that type of solution in the British Press and British public opinion but of course they have never been known for their sensitivity in terms of the peculiar national problems affecting this island.
The Taoiseach should also press very strongly to ensure that legislative guarantees against discrimination, on grounds of religion, in regard to the allocation of jobs or housing, and that legislation outlawing incitement and religious discrimination in Northern Ireland should be operated with full impartiality and supervision by Westminister, if necessary. There might also be a better system of independent inquiry into grievances which develop and inquiries which are called for in relation to members of the police force or the operations of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The refusal of the British Army forces in Northern Ireland to agree to an independent inquiry into the death of two civilians in Derry was a stupid blunder. Inquiries into complaints which are warranted should be held and should be seen to be fully in operation on all occasions in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach has the obligation to insist on that kind of approach.
Also he should insist on the setting up of an impartial Westminster boundary commission to draw up fair local government areas and electoral divisions and thus prevent the prospect of a new-style gerrymander as was contained in the Faulkner plan for local government reform. This is warranted and the Taoiseach should insist on it in his submission to the British Government. The Heath-Lynch consultations should also make it mandatory in the future for Stormont to employ the PR system of election with, I would suggest, though it goes against the grain, a single transferable vote both for Stormont and local government elections. PR was introduced by the British Government and it existed in Northern Ireland in the early twenties. It was abolished within a few years because it proved far too advantageous to non-Unionists. In Derry and Enniskillen there were Nationalist majorities. The reintroduction of PR would be a very favourable approach.
Of course, the Taoiseach is in difficulty having regard to the Government's recent decision in the Republic to have PR abolished. The advantages of it in Northern Ireland are quite patent. It is not only the fairest and most democratic system—certainly I would not be here if it were not for PR—but it would have the merit also of giving the Unionist Party a choice between its own extremes.
The Taoiseach should be courageous enough also to advocate institutional changes in Northern Ireland. Mr. John Hume has spoken of them. The Unionists see red when one talks about constitutional changes but I do not see anything unusually inappropriate in having one-third of the Cabinet in Northern Ireland statutorily reserved for Opposition members. This might be regarded in Northern Ireland as a peculiar variation of democratic rule but if there is to be any reorganisation of any functional organisation under Stormont, I feel the minority must have some participation in government and in the Parliamentary cabinet institutional control structure. One must get the Opposition out of the Opposition straightjacket in Northern Ireland.
That is why it would be well for the Taoiseach to put forward this type of proposition. Mr. John Hume, as far back as 18th May, 1964, wrote this in an article in the Northern Catholic, quoted in the Irish Times. He was referring to the Nationalist Opposition:
In 40 years of opposition they have not produced one constructive contribution on either the social or economic plane to the development of Northern Ireland which is, after all, a substantial part of the United Ireland for which they strive. Leadership has been the comfortable leadership of flags and slogans. Easy no doubt but irresponsible. There has been no attempt to be positive, to encourage the Catholic community to develop the resources which they have in plenty, to make a positive contribution in terms of community service. Unemployment and emigration, chiefly of Catholics, remains heavy, much of it no doubt due to the skilful placing of industry by the Northern Government, but the only constructive suggestion from the Nationalist side would appear to be that a removal of discrimination will be the panacea for all our ills. It is this lack of positive contribution and the apparent lack of interest in the general welfare of Northern Ireland that has led many Protestants to believe that the Northern Catholic is politically irresponsible and immature and therefore unfit to rule.
That makes interesting reading and is food for thought for many of us.
I, therefore, welcome the proposed meeting of the Taoiseach and Mr. Heath. In this evening's Evening Press there is a London report by Aidan Hennigan which states that the former Labour Home Secretary, Mr. J. Callaghan, in the House of Commons called on the British Government to establish an all-Ireland council. He also asked that the Taoiseach and the Stormont Premier should be invited to London forthwith for consultations with the British Government. The report says Mr. Callaghan was listened to with complete attention by members on all sides of the House and after he sat down he was told by the Home Secretary, Mr. Maudling, that his suggestions would be studied intently.
While I have reservations about Mr. Callaghan's understanding of the position in Northern Ireland, I would go along with that approach. It is reasonable and one can support it. I also go along with the demand of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions for reforms in Northern Ireland. I had the privilege last month of being a delegate to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions conference with Deputy Corish and I met several hundred trade union members from unions in Northern Ireland and participated in discussions with them. There are 250,000 trade union members in Northern Ireland affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. I have known many of the delegates for many years. In 1969 the Irish Congress of Trade Unions issued what they regarded as the basis of reform in Northern Ireland. It was headed "A Programme for Peace" and it was issued by the Northern Ireland committee. Many of the reforms suggested have been introduced. Their full implementation is still in question. Certainly the statement issued by the committee after a meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at the time, Mr. Chicester Clarke, contained the basis for normalising politics in that region. The ten reforms listed in the reform programme of the Ulster Movement are steps in the right direction. Admittedly they pale into insignificance when you have, on the one hand, a gun and, on the other, an unarmed civilian or a British soldier. For too long in Irish history the gun has been the magic wand for sounding community relations.
These suggested reforms must be taken seriously. They form a major starting point and there devolves on the Protestant community in particular, irrespective of any history of violence in recent months, the responsibility of ensuring that the word "Protestant" retains its honourable connotation in Irish history. The best way in which that can be done is by deliberately implementing and encouraging these reforms. The ghettos, in many ways a legacy of Protestant domination, and the victimisation in regard to employment, and so forth, will have to disappear. Political justice and even political hygiene demand these reforms. The Protestant community will see its finest flowering when the John Taylors are removed from the political scene. When his kind of articulate bigotry and prejudice are removed there will be hope for political commonsense. Dynamite and gelignite have been used as destructive agents, but it must be remembered that both dynamite and gelignite can make a positive contribution. They can clear away obstacles. Dynamite could clear away some of the frustration, the fear of confrontation, the twisted political thought and the sterile politics. Dynamite could clear new ground.
No group has done more by way of contributing towards peace than has the trade union movement. Last month in Limerick we had 400 or 500 delegates, many of them with their wives, representing over 500,000 members, sitting down together, as no other group in this country can do, setting aside divisions which have beset our people for so long, political divisions, cultural divisions, spiritual divisions and ideological divisions. They did that in the confines of the trade union movement.
The late Jim Larkin, a former President of Congress and a Labour Deputy in this House, speaking in Belfast in 1949 spoke very vehemently about the Government of Ireland Act, 1949. He said:
This special character of the movement is of particular importance today when such persistent attempts are made to single out and emphasise the differences and the peculiarities of the common people rather than their essential unity.
On that occasion the late Jim Larkin made an impassioned and rational appeal, speaking as a trade union leader from Dublin and as a politician, for national unity. He made that appeal in the following terms:
Despite ponderous dissertations on the existence of "two races" by politicians who, in their second breath, use the generic term "Irishmen" for people both North and South, no Irishman, whether from the Shankill Road or the Falls Road, whether from Derry or Cork, denies his Irish birth, disowns his native land or fails to proudly assert his right to be known as an "Irishman". It can be further stated, without fear of contradiction, that whatever the political changes of recent years have brought in the way of division and even the apparent fixation of those divisions, no thought, other than that of the basic and essential unity of the Irish people, ever originated in the mind of any Irishman no matter where his political loyalties lay.
If this underlying sense of unity is still deep down in the minds and hearts of our people, and why should it not be when these same people live together and pass among each other in their daily lives, finding a common purpose and interest in the hundred different facets of life, how much greater must that instinctive sense of unity be in such a movement as our Trade Union movement. Not merely have we such unity in an instinctive form, but we openly recognise and value it, and in our organisations, and in our Congress, have sought to give practical expression to our belief in the essential unity of the ordinary people of Ireland.
We, who meet here today, whether from North or South of the Boyne, have each in our own way worked and sacrificed to build and maintain a united Irish Trade Union movement of the workers in all arts and crafts of our common country. That instinctive desire for unity not only springs from our working-class concern with economic and social issues but also from our acceptance of our common heritage as Irish men and women.
If our struggles to build and maintain a united Irish Trade Union movement carry their own justification then should we not, with equal frankness and fortitude, face the logical corollary—a united, political, economic and social system, attuned to the real needs of the working people and their future welfare—a united nation and people living together in amity and liberty, bound together by a love for and an acceptance of democracy in its true sense, respecting each other's views and acknowledging each other's rights...
In this Trade Union movement of ours we have always tried to keep clear heads, to resist the blandishments of politicians and apply ourselves to furthering the welfare of the working people. If, therefore, I speak of the fruitful word "unity", I do not do so in any light-minded or inconsequential manner. I know only too well that in the clash and conflict of the political arena, the picture has been drawn only in stark black and white, the issue presented so uncompromisingly as to become a monstrous obstacle, and no opportunity allowed for thought as to what there is in common where we touched and found contact, but rather a never-ending emphasis on what divides and frustrates us.
I think these were prophetic, historic and appropriate words. He concluded by saying:
If ordinary people live together they have to learn to adjust their personal likes and dislikes, their idiosyncracies and differences, to compromise, to live and let live. If two or more sections of the Irish people, holding different viewpoints on vital issues, are to live together then they also must solve the problem of adjustment the same as individuals. But so embittered and bedevilled has this whole problem become, so much have the slogans "no surrender" or "unity by force, if not by consent" become the daily catch cries of the fanatics on both sides, that the voice of reason, of understanding, is characterised as that of supine surrender.
Again, I do not think that any Deputy or former Deputy could put our views in relation to this matter so clearly. He went on in conclusion:
Clearly if reason and adjustment, mutual understanding of conflicting views and problems is ever to be attained it can only be done by the Irish people themselves and the more flexible and impermanent are the barriers dividing us the greater the ultimate possibilities of reaching a basis of common endeavours. Equally, must this effort to approach each other be the accomplishment of the plain people rather than that of Government and parties. It was for these reasons that the passage of "The Ireland Act" by the British House of Commons was viewed by many as a tragedy, arising from lack of understanding and appreciation of the whole problem. The intrusion of an outside authority into a domestic Irish problem, the rigid fixing of a barrier which can have no ultimate permanency, because it is so contradictory to the instinctive beliefs of the Irish people North and South, and the placing of the decision as to any future change solely in the hands of a political caucus rather than leaving it to the people as such, all contributed to make this Act the subject of such reasoned and right-minded protest as that adopted by your National Executive.
That was Jim Larkin in his presidental address if 1949. I make no apology in this House for stressing it and for quoting very much at length his contribution because so very often he spoke with commonsense on problems affecting the people of this country. He also gave some words of wisdom which I think the Taoiseach when he leaves for London next October should bear in mind. We shall not meet in this House, I understand, until the end of October. In regard to the relationship between the two countries and the hope of rapprochement he said:
It might be argued that what has been done might well be left alone and that we, as trade unionists, should eschew politics, but to expect that the problem of our people's disunity will cease to be a continuing source of friction and frustration is to indulge in day dreams. Better it is to face realities, and, even now, to seek a path along which reasonable men, and there are reasonable men on both sides of the quarrel, can approach each other and by contact discover if they can come closer together. Let those of us who urge the unity of our common country examine the very real economic and financial problems which are involved in overcoming the present division and put forward our positive solution; let us state in definite and defined terms the undertakings we are prepared to give on issues of minority rights and questions of conscience. Let us do so not through the changing character of a Government in office, but rather through the more permanent organisations of public opinion, the leaders and political parties, committing themselves jointly and severally in public declarations to the guarantees they feel called upon to provide to meet the reasonable views of the minority. Let us do so not in any expectation of immediate results or responses but rather as our declaration of good faith and our desire for harmony and friendship with all sections of our own people.
Let us urge upon the Governments in both areas the need of utilising every opportunity for mutual exchange of views and, where possible, joint endeavours in dealing with problems of economic development, trade, transport and cultural extensions, so that our people may come to learn in a practical manner of the possibilities and advantages of co-operation. Above all, let us not feel that any effort to find a bridge, however slender, across the gulf dividing the ordinary people, North and South, is a betrayal of principle or a compromise of positions.
Certainly, we can respect the views of the former Deputy Jim Larkin who had such a perceptive understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland and who above all had a great entree into the minds of the Protestant working men of Belfast and who could never be accused of acting in a purely southern, republican manner. This is perhaps the great contribution he made in his political life towards the national question. Therefore I suggest to the Taoiseach that when in London he should try to hold out the hand of friendship. Admittedly, it has to come through London but the hand of friendship has still to be extended to our fellow Irishmen in Northern Ireland, so that we can open up joint co-operation with Northern Ireland and have, I suggest, joint trading agreements and perhaps have in the future, for example, a joint tourist board in operation. We might even extend to a greater degree the joint production of hydro-electric power. There is also great scope for co-operation in forestry, inland waterways, sea and air transport and the marketing of livestock.
There are many examples of co-operation in such matters as the sugar beet agreement. There is an urgent need to share our commercial intelligence north and south in coping with the effects of the freeing of trade in Common Market conditions, particularly in such vulnerable industries as the textile industry.
It is absolutely tragic that in our university life and in the life of our technical and technological colleges there is no cross-fertilisation of scientific and management research. These possibilities must be explored.
There must also be joint endeavour in the fishing industry so that we do not have the kind of artificial situation which arose when the fishermen from the north went down to Dunmore East and were bitterly resented although they were fellow Irishmen—and we talk of national unity. I would hope to see co-operation in regard to fishing, fish canning and ancillary industries. It is to the eternal credit of the late Mr. Seán Lemass, the former Taoiseach, that he took his courage in his hands and made that prophetic statement late in 1963:
In the times we live in I believe that the rate of increase in the prosperity of North and South will be accelerated by co-operation in matters relating to industrial, agricultural and tourist development.
There are many possibilities, which are well worth discussing, and I hope that Captain Terence O'Neill will agree, that——
And I would urge Deputies to bear this in mind
——without political pre-conditions, arrangements for their discussion at whatever level is likely to be most fruitful, should now be made.
How many former front bench members of the Fianna Fáil Party would make that kind of statement? The Taoiseach says that his policy in relation to Northern Ireland is a reiteration of the policy of the President, Mr. Eamonn de Valera, and of the late Seán Lemass. Let him reiterate, therefore, in London that as far as he is concerned: "Without political pre-conditions... at whatever level is likely to be most fruitful" we shall renew "co-operation in matters relating to industrial, agricultural and tourist development." The response which came at that time from Captain Terence O'Neill must also be put on record. He said:
It has been demonstrated in the past that there is no bar to specific co-operation measures, provided that these are of clear mutual benefit, have no political or constitutional undertones and can be carried out within our limited powers.
That is the way it all began, that is the way it must continue. The work started by the late Seán Lemass in opening up the prospect of mutual co-operation must be advanced if we are to honour his contribution to Irish political life. In the past we had co-operation in, for example, electricity supply through the Erne Hydro-electric Scheme; in the sugar agreement between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture and the Irish Sugar Company; in the setting up of joint committees on farming to deal with farming problems; or in the agreement, of which Deputy Blaney would not like to be reminded, between the Northern Ireland Fire Authority and the Donegal County Council under which Northern Ireland firemen crossed the Border into Donegal to fight fires. Deputy Blaney, of course, never heard of that kind of mutual co-operation under the existing Northern Ireland administration. The Foyle Fisheries Scheme also springs to mind, and the joint railway board which catered for north and south. In none of these projects were there any political overtones.
There is a great deal of co-operation reared in relation to tourism and in relation to horticulture which is at a critical stage. There is no doubt that in EEC conditions horticulture in both parts of the country is in for a terrible hammering. I would go even as far as to say that economic and industrial co-operation could include the attraction and location of new industries. Regional planning resources should be pooled, and when it comes to cross-Border roads and the main arterial roads structure, the Border must be ignored, as it must also be ignored in the development of our natural resources, particularly mineral resources, the oil resources of the Continental Shelf and of the seas around this country. Above all, when it comes to the exploitation of foreign markets for Irish-manufactured goods and agricultural products, north and south must be jointly involved.
There is a great future for this country—and the gunmen of either extreme, north or south, cannot stop that development—in the struggle for national unity and the evolution towards a pluralist society, of an Irish social democracy, and the bringing in of a better parliamentary system, north and south. This is being given a rather perverse momentum and in the south the Government must remove the clauses from the 1937 Constitution which show sectarian influences. They must do this not only as a gesture towards national unity but also as the evolution of a more democratic political structure in the Republic itself.
The relevant recommendations of the all-Party committee on the Constitution should be implemented with that aim in view. I am disturbed and upset and, indeed, one would want to have a thick skin not to become cynical in the process when I think about the disgraceful treatment that was given for example, to the request by an Irish Senator—Senator Mary Robinson—in an Irish Seanad to have a Private Member's Bill published. All she requested was the simple democratic right to have the Bill printed and circulated to Members of the House. She did not ask that it be even debated but with a kind of brutish parliamentary destructive negativism, Senator Ó Maoláin, the leader of the Upper House as we call it, decided to guillotine it savagely out of the way.
