Private Members' Business. - British Legislation on Partition: Motion. – Dáil Éireann (20th Dáil) – Tuesday, 26 Feb 1974

Private Members' Business. - British Legislation on Partition: Motion.

Mr. Blaney

I move:

That Dáil Éireann re-affirms the following resolution, unanimously passed on the 10th May, 1949, protesting against British legislation endorsing Partition:

Dáil Éireann,

Solemnly re-asserting the indefeasible right of the Irish nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory,

Re-affirming the sovereign right of the people of Ireland to choose its own form of Government and, through its democratic institutions, to decide all questions of national policy, free from outside interference,

Repudiating the claim of the British Parliament to enact legislation affecting Ireland's territorial integrity in violation of those rights, and

Pledging the determination of the Irish people to continue the struggle against the unjust and unnatural partition of our country until it is brought to a successful conclusion;

Places on record its indignant protest against the introduction in the British Parliament of legislation purporting to endorse and continue the existing partition of Ireland, and

Calls upon the British Government and people to end the present occupation of our six north-eastern counties, and thereby enable the unity of Ireland to be restored and the age-long differences between the two nations brought to an end.

In moving this motion, perhaps, I should re-assert my own personal stand in regard to the matter that the motion deals with and say, for the benefit of the House and the records of the House as well as for the benefit of those who may have other views of my outlook, that my views on the Partition of our country and the best way in which a solution of lasting peace, not alone between north and south but also between Great Britain and Ireland, might be sought has been expressed on many occasions by me and, indeed, received quite a wide measure of publicity.

Naturally, there were many critics of those views. Some of those critics have often sought to saddle me with hidden motives ranging from self-ambition to mischievousness or worse. In reply I will only remind the House that I come from an Irish republican background. I was raised in an Irish Republican tradition and I have never to my knowledge betrayed or reneged on that tradition. The House will grant me the fact that I speak with some knowledge of the northern scene and I have always been consistent—indeed, one might say persistently consistent—in the views I have expressed.

Those who wish to criticise me should at least examine the various points and speeches I have made over the past four or five years. They will find that many of the tragic things I warned against have come to pass. They will further find that what I have always argued is, unfortunately, only too true—that those who have condemned the violence that bedevils this land, who have condemned without seeking to understand and remove the underlying roots of this violence have been in the main responsible for its continuation and escalation over the past few years.

This motion which I now move is in no way contrary to the views I hold on the question of Partition. The motion, unanimously passed by Dáil Éireann on the 10th May, 1949, was moved by the then Taoiseach, Mr. John A. Costello, and seconded by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Éamon de Valera. It is as follows:

Dáil Éireann,

Solemnly re-asserting the indefeasible right of the Irish nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory,

Repudiating the claim of the British Parliament to enact legislation affecting Ireland's territorial integrity in violation of those rights, and

Pledging the determination of the Irish people to continue the struggle against the unjust and unnatural partition of our country until it is brought to a successful conclusion;

Places on record its indignant protest against the introduction in the British Parliament of legislation purporting to endorse and continue the existing partition of Ireland, and

That is the motion as passed by a unanimous resolution of this Parliament on the 10th May, 1949. I now wish, in the present circumstances, that it should, appropriately, be reaffirmed. I should add also, of course, that this resolution passed in 1949 was not only passed without dissent but was passed with applause and approval of the various contributions then made, particularly by the proposer of the motion, the then Taoiseach, Mr. Costello. Further, a copy of it was directed to be sent—and I am quite certain it was sent—by this Parliament through the Ceann Comhairle's Office to the Governments of all countries in which we had representation and to the governments of all countries in any part of the world that were regarded as friendly.

So far as this resolution of 1949 is concerned, it was not only unanimously passed in this House but was circulated, brought to the notice of and put on the record of the vast majority of governments of countries of the world. I take it that that record in all of these countries—whether they are now friendly or not is not at issue—still shows what we as a Parliament had to say unanimously in 1949 in reply to the Ireland Bill, as it was then known, which later became an Act. We took such exception to that measure that we set down at the earliest opportunity, to the best of our ability and with the greatest emphasis possible, what we felt about such a Bill being enacted by a British Government to continue and copper-fasten Partition which we have never recognised and I sincerely hope never will.

I want to say at this stage that I deliberately have not arranged for a formal seconder for this motion. I have decided to leave the seconding of the motion to the individual conscience of each of the other Deputies in this House or to each of the Leaders in the House on behalf of their party or parties. I want, in fairness, to say this to the Members of the House, at this stage rather than at the conclusion, as I might well have done, lest anybody might feel that had they known they might have done differently to what they may now do. However, apart from that and apart from the motion, the Taoiseach has put down an amendment to this motion. I feel Deputies should examine it very closely before making up their minds on the motion or on the amendment. First of all, the Taoiseach calls on the Dáil to:

recognise that the Irish people comprise different elements all of which contribute to Irish life and culture, and each of which has the right to pursue its legitimate aspirations.

That is a plain statement and nobody would disagree with it. The question I really direct to the Taoiseach is: Is it another way of trying to think that the majority of the people of Ireland are not entitled to self-determination and that the minority of partitionists in the north-east corner of Ireland are entitled to opt out of the nation? That is the question I asked arising from what, to me, is a plain statement of fact but adds nothing to what we already know and cannot, in my estimation, in any way either take from or put to the motion that I am advocating that the Dáil should adopt and pass.

Going back a little, Mr. Costello, who was Taoiseach in 1949, Deputy Cosgrave's predecessor, had no doubts about this point when he moved the motion to adopt the resolution similar to that which I have before the House at the moment. He had no doubt at that stage that the people of Ireland were entitled to determination. He had no doubt that the minority of partitionists in north-east Ireland did not have the right to opt out no more than the majority of any county in the 26 would have the right to opt out at the present time. In that regard I refer the House to the Official Report of 10th May, 1949, column 794, where the then Taoiseach, Mr. Costello, in the course of his contribution proposing the motion for the adoption of the resolution had this to say:

The fundamental democratic principle on which all democracy rests is the right of the majority of the people of a State or nation to determine its own destiny. That is all this country asks for, but the people who give lip service to democratic principles apparently will not put them into practice in the case of Ireland.

No doubt Mr. Costello, when referring to lip service, was referring to the lip service of the British parliamentarians at that particular time who were foisting on this country through the Ireland Bill—which later became the Ireland Act—something which was a contradiction of democracy in action.

The Taoiseach's amendment then goes on to recall—and I quote:

—recalls the efforts of successive Governments here over the past 25 years to bring about a spirit of harmony, understanding and co-operation between these different elements in the interests of the common welfare.

Again, a pious platitude which in effect means nothing at all. I hope I may say this without being regarded as uncharitable. The various efforts to foster cross-Border co-operation in the past in cases in which they failed, failed because those participating in those efforts ignored the root cause, namely, the British presence in Ireland. That failure was dramatically shown up in the emergence of the civil rights movement which led to the present situation in the Six Counties.

Mr. de Valera, in seconding the motion of 1949, which I am now bringing before the House, was in no doubt about how co-operation for the welfare of the two elements should be brought about. I quote from the Official Report of 10th May, 1949, columns 812 and 813 where Mr. de Valera had this to say:

I had hoped that there were sufficient fair-minded people in Britain who, when the facts were known to them, would be able to influence their Government to do justice to Ireland. If this thing is to be ended peacefully it should be ended by British action to start with. Britain has done this thing and Britain ought to undo it. They have the power to do it. If they really want to, they can tell this minority in our country that is not a fifth of the population of this country and not a fiftieth of the population of Britain, "We are not going to support you in your claim for privilege. We are not going to permit this small minority of the two peoples to continue to set the two peoples by the ears and to stir up and continue the old antagonisms between them.

The Taoiseach's amendment finally asks the House to declare—and I quote—"that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it and affirms that the aspiration towards a united Ireland can be achieved only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."

Let us look at those words carefully and closely. I have always held that the use of force was legitimate in the circumstances that a situation developed in the North in which the British Government proved unable or unwilling to halt widespread, armed attacks on isolated and helpless communities. I have always felt that in such circumstances of a civil war situation of which certain Deputies in this House continually warn, we would not only have the right but the duty to intervene. That apart, I have never, nor has any other commentator suggested, to my knowledge, that unity and lasting peace can be achieved other than by agreement. The Provisional IRA, for instance, have never advocated force as a solution to Partition. Their acceptance of the Boal plan recently as a basis for discussion gives the lie to such emotive propagandist phrases as —and I quote—"Trying to bomb one million Protestants into a united Ireland."

Unity by agreement is the only way and every Deputy. I have no doubt, subscribes to that. However, before going further I should at this juncture, perhaps, refer to the latest amendment. I do not say that in any way reflecting on the further amendment that was circulated here this evening and which I was sorry I did not have much earlier so that I might have included it more fully in what I was preparing to say to the House, that is the amendment in the name of Deputy Jack Lynch, Leader of the Opposition who proposes, as I understand it, to add to the motion that I have already in my name and on which I am speaking, these words:

And, further, that Dáil Éireann

Recognises that the Irish people comprise different elements all of which contribute to Irish life and culture, and each of which has the right to pursue its ligitimate aspirations.

I can see no great difficulty in bringing these two points of view together, the view expressed in the Taoiseach's amendment and the beginning of the Opposition amendment. I have nothing really to say on this because, to all intents and purposes, as I read them, the two are identical.

Then we come to the second part to be added by way of amendment to my motion:

Recalls the efforts of successive Governments over the past 25 years to bring about a spirit of harmony, understanding and co-operation between these different elements in the interest of the common welfare,

My comments have already been made and I do not intend to enlarge on them. The third part of the amendment states:

Declares that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it,

This is identical with the amendment already circulated in the name of the Taoiseach. I have dealt with it and have nothing further to add. The Opposition amendment continues:

Re-affirms the inalienable right of the people of Ireland to a united Ireland.

That is the first section to depart in any way from the Government amendment. In the short time I have had to look at these amendments I cannot in any way see how this particular part of the Opposition amendment adds, confirms, improves or says anything which was not said better in the original resolution passed in 1949 and which I wish to have reaffirmed at the moment. Perhaps in the course of discussion we may learn what makes this worthy of being part of the amendment and what part it is proposed it should play when added to what is already better and more fully stated in the original resolution and in my motion which is before the House. I will quote again from the resolution:

Dáil Éireann solemnly re-asserting the indefeasible right of the Irish nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory, reaffirming the sovereign right of the people of Ireland to choose its own form of Government and through its democratic institutions, to decide all questions of national policy, free from outside interference.

I set these two parts of the resolution against the fourth part of the Opposition amendment. I cannot see how this adds anything or makes more clear the intention of the original resolution.

The remainder of the Opposition amendment says

Re-affirms their aspiration to achieve this by peaceful means——

I take it that "this" refers to the unity of the country——

and

Accepts that for practical purposes this involves the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.

I will now return to the Taoiseach's amendment. The Taoiseach, in the last part of his amendment, says:

affirms that the aspiration towards a united Ireland can be achieved only by peaceful means and with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

I may see things too clearly as black and white. While there is some difference in the wording and emphasis on the particular words used, I can see no difference in the ultimate practical outcome or intention of these two tail-ends to the amendments. I may be enlightened in the course of the debate and I will welcome this enlightenment.

Unity by agreement is the only way and every Deputy subscribes to this view. Agreement, however, between men and women will not be possible—I repeat will not be possible—until Britain makes clear her intention to withdraw from Ireland. The Taoiseach carefully avoids this basic point when he calls for recognition by this House of the right of the partitionist majority in the Six Counties to decide when they shall, if ever, sit down and talk about unity by agreement with the majority of the people of Ireland.

Let us examine the rights of the partitionist majority in the Six Counties. The Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which created Partition gave them no such right. The British Parliament reserved to itself the right to decide. The measure which caused the motion of 1949, which I have re-tabled for re-affirmation and which was passed unanimously under the Ireland Act, 1949, changed the position which existed since the 1920 Act because it said that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as a majority of the Northern Parliament decided otherwise.

Under the Sunningdale Agreement and the terms of the amendments which the Taoiseach and Deputy J. Lynch have tabled, the right to opt out is transferred from the Northern Parliament to the majority of the electors of Northern Ireland. I ask for enlightenment as to what the difference is if democratic institutions are to be constituted and remain in the Six Counties. Further, that right of the Government in Northern Ireland is now guaranteed by the British Government in its declarations on the Sunningdale Agreement, paragraph 5. Now 50 years after the passing of the Act which brought about Partition and all the tragedies which have followed from it, we have the British Government utilising the Sunningdale Conference under paragraph 5 of the Declaration, giving a further unnecessary, gratuitous and, one could say, provocative guarantee to the Government of Northern Ireland to determine when, if ever, they will agree to join with the rest of the country in unity and in peace.

In my estimation Sunningdale is underwriting the Ireland Act of 1949 which this House unanimously condemned. What has happened in the meantime to justify such a change on our part? Power sharing, and the proposed Council of Ireland, are the two carrots offered to us. We are being told that power sharing has brought a transformation in the Six Counties but the question is who is sharing the power? Sixty per cent of the Protestant population are trenchantly opposed to it as seen from the fact that 60 per cent of the members they elected to the new Assembly oppose it.

The election now in progress in the Six Counties will demonstrate just how many of the minority also oppose it. The opposition to it is mainly, in my estimation, because it is power sharing by a select middle-class sectional grouping selected by the British Government. This is another attempt by Britain to impose a partitionist settlement which does not have the full support of the people of the Six Counties. It is, therefore, a new recipe for further violence. I have already indicated this at the first opportunity available to me, on the Taoiseach's Estimate on the Adjournment. What I said then is worth looking at now, and it backs up what I am further reemphasising here tonight. I said then:

The second Sunningdale carrot we are offered in an attempt to persuade us that things are changed is a so-called Council of Ireland. Each of the 14 Ministers, seven from the North and seven from the South, will have the power to veto any decision of that Council. The seven from the North will be chosen by the Executive on which the Unionists have already insisted and got a majority.

Mr. de Valera in seconding a motion similar to mine in 1949 spelled out all too clearly what such an arrangement really means. Mr. de Valera said in column 815, Volume 115:

There can be no solution, however, so long as those who are in a privileged position can say: "We will not touch you unless you are prepared to agree with us." They have only to say "No". Bring them into a conference, it has been suggested —I have heard it suggested even in this House when I was in charge of External Affairs that the representatives of the Government of Ireland, of the British Government and of the Six Counties should get together and sit down at a table and try to work out a solution. Surely everybody knows what would be the result of that. As long as one member of the conference is going to say "No, I will not accept that", the result would obviously be that there could be no agreement, and the end of such a conference would obviously be worse than the beginning.

That, better than any words of mine, describes the whole tragedy of Sunningdale as a solution. In putting this motion I have not arranged a formal seconder. It is for the Deputies, for the parties, and their leaders, to consider this motion and what I regard as the obvious attempt by the Taoiseach, in his amendment, to evade the truth, the real truth, of the present situation.

Wolfe Tone, who spoke of his aspirations, said:

To unite the whole people of Ireland and to substitute the common name of Irishmen in place of the denominations of Protestant, Catholic and dissenter—

prefaced that statement, and this is not often quoted, by saying:

by the need, if it were to be achieved, to break the connection with England, the never-failing source of all our political evils.

Parnell, who spoke of the struggle, said:

For that which may seem possible for us—

warned that:

—we must struggle for it with a proud consciousness that we shall not do anything to hinder or prevent better men who may come after us from gaining better things than those for which we now contend.

Sunningdale, and the terms of the amendment which the Taoiseach has tabled here, do, in my estimation, just that. Sunningdale, and the attitude of the Taoiseach to it, would tie the hands of those who in the future will face the task of trying to undo once again this second British version of Partition and it is no other. Mr. de Valera in seconding his motion in 1949 said:

By this resolution we assert the right of our nation to its unity and independence. By it we promise that we will do everything we can to maintain that right.

With these words I commend the motion to Dáil Éireann and I look forward to what may be a most interesting event, to see who, in fact, wishes to second the motion. I look forward to hearing what has to be said on both amendments.

Mr. O'Kennedy

To allow a debate on this motion, and to enable the Government to express their view, I formally second the motion, reserving my right to speak at a later stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is the Deputy's privilege.

The Taoiseach

I move the amendment in my name:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" where that phrase first occurs, and to insert the following:

"—recognises that the Irish people comprise different elements all of which contribute to Irish life and culture, and each of which has the right to pursue its legitimate aspirations,

—recalls the efforts of successive Governments over the past 25 years to bring about a spirit of harmony, understanding and co-operation between these different elements in the interest of the common welfare,

—declares that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it, and

—affirms that the aspiration towards a united Ireland can be achieved only by peaceful means and with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."

Three years ago almost to a month I moved, as a private Member, a motion like that now before the House in my name tonight. That motion expressed our rejection of violence as an instrument to secure unity and welcomed the steps then taken to end discrimination and establish fundamental freedom in Northern Ireland. The motion was passed by this House, without a division.

Tonight, three years later, we see, I hope, the beginning of developments which will, I hope, put an end to violence and the use of violence as a political instrument in our island. The essence of these developments is the involvement in the administration of Government in the North of Ireland of two sections of the community and the recognition that progress in our island can come only from the process of discussion and agreement. Conviction, not compulsion, must be its instrument.

I want to ask the House to lend its support to this approach and I hope in the few words I say to explain as clearly as I can the objectives which we seek to achieve, and why I believe we can hope at last to begin to resolve an issue which has previously defeated every generation since we have had the responsibility of dealing with this problem. In what I say I hope, as far as possible, to keep to facts rather than abstractions. I hope to deal with the realities of the present and not get too diverted into past debates, discussions or the introduction of anything that is past other than in so far as it is relevant to the present.

For more than half a century now the island of Ireland has been divided; and for a much longer period its population has differed in its loyalties and its political allegiances. These are facts.

It is also a fact that the political division of Ireland over 50 years ago did not end conflict. It simply bottled up the old conflict of loyalties within Northern Ireland. This conflict has come to a head at the present time; and it has been aggravated and brought to a new and more dangerous level over the past five years by wanton killings and destruction; and by the fears, apprehension and bitterness to which this has given rise. I hope that nothing that is said in the course of this debate will, in any sense, exacerbate the situation in the North of Ireland.

The consequences of present dissensions are not confined to Northern Ireland. Though they press most heavily on the population there, they spill over and affect all of us throughout the island, so that none of us in any part of Ireland—even if we wanted to—could regard ourselves as uninvolved.

The events of recent years, terrible as they are have, however, had at least one salutary effect on all of us. By showing us clearly the danger underlying present conflicts, they have had a chastening effect throughout the island. The result, I believe, is that we all now understand much better than before the realities of the situation in which our history places us; and we are correspondingly ready to accept the complexity of that situation without the comforting illusion that there is any easy or simple solution. The Irish people, as it has often been said, comprise many different elements, with many different beliefs and aspirations, held often with a passionate conviction. These different elements contribute in their own way to Irish life and culture—and have a right so to contribute, within the law. Recognition of this diversity of traditions and aspirations is a necessary first step if we are to come to terms with the problems with which history has presented us.

In the past, each of the major traditions in Ireland saw the issues much more simply. Each asserted its own loyalties in direct opposition to those of the other, and each claimed the right of a majority as absolute. But one applied this principle to Ireland as a whole, maintaining that the unity of the island was indissoluble; and the other to Northern Ireland maintaining that the division of the island is irrevocable. Neither of those views was compatible with the other.

What is new in our day, and what offers us a basis for hope, is that each tradition has begun now for the first time to accept that its own claim is not absolute. Both within Northern Ireland, and in Ireland as a whole, each community is beginning to see that it cannot either ignore or repress the aims and hopes of the other; or expect them to change or disappear overnight. Each is coming to understand that it must learn to live with the other and accept that the hopes of the other are legitimate, at least as aspirations.

Once each tradition begins to do this—once each accepts the validity of the other and allows some scope to its aspirations without abandoning its own—an accommodation which can grow into a settlement becomes possible for the first time because reconciliation between different sections of the community can be given precedence over the fruitless struggle to settle the old conflict definitely either way; and political institutions which encourage people to work together and build on what they have, for the common good of all, can be established.

It is right, I believe, to recognise that if this approach is to work, it is essential that all concerned commit themselves to the process of establishing trust and understanding. Once there is this genuine commitment, all concerned can work together in the present without ulterior motives. The resolution of the issues which may arise in the future can then safely be left to the future, perhaps a very different future, to decide.

This approach to the deep, and so far intractable, problems of this island is the basis for what happened at Sunningdale last December. I believe that only this approach is realistic in our present situation and that it is the only approach which can bring genuine peace to Ireland. The agreement there has an immediate relevance to what we are discussing tonight.

All of us at Sunningdale accepted one fundamental principle: that neither tradition in Ireland can be suppressed or ignored. It follows that an accommodation between them is the only alternative to continuing conflict. Each side must take account of the fundamental concerns of the other and both must agree despite their differences to work together to common advantage. We have, in the past, as a nation, always resisted coercion. On what precedent in history, or reason, could we now urge a solution for others based on that principle?

The parties at Sunningdale took as a basis for their discussions the agreement in principle on a power sharing Executive which had already been reached by elected party leaders in Northern Ireland. They sought to work out political structures which would build on, and at the same time, support the earlier agreement. Ideally we would have liked if representatives of all the parties elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly could have been present. But by refusing to accept power-sharing within Northern Ireland, some of those elected had excluded themselves from Sunningdale because they refused to accept the underlying principles on which it was based.

After four days of detailed discussions and negotiations in which each of us tried honourably to look beyond our immediate interests, we reached an agreement which we believe to be a coherent and balanced response to the overall needs of the present situation in this country. What we agreed on was a package worked out with great care and attention. It must be taken as a coherent whole. No party or interest can select one part of the package and say that it is acceptable but the remainder is not. This, I may say, is a fundamental attribute of what was decided at Sunningdale. What the communiqué describes must be accepted or rejected in its totality.

The agreement which was reached last December was widely welcomed at the time. Indeed, I think it is true to say that seldom in my political experience have I received comment as enthusiastic or from so wide a range of interests as I did following the conference. Young and old alike were caught up by it and saw in it the beginning of a new hope.

In the time that has elapsed since then, the agreement has been widely commented on, interpreted, and criticised. I am glad that it has been closely studied; and I welcome the fact that part of it has recently been upheld by the courts. But there is some danger, too, perhaps, that all this comment and interpretation may upset the basic unity of purpose which was reached at Sunningdale and obscure the terms of the agreement itself.

The communiqué had three basic elements which were closely interlinked. These elements follow closely the terms of the motion we are now discussing. Firstly, the communiqué dealt with the present status of Northern Ireland.

Secondly, it provided for the setting up of a Council of Ireland as an institution with worthwhile economic objectives and to develop trust and understanding throughout the island; and, thirdly, it addressed itself to the need for action against violence in any part of Ireland and the need to ensure widespread community support throughout the island for such action.

The Supreme Court have not yet, to my knowledge, handed down their written judgment in the recent action questioning the constitutionality of the parts of the communiqué dealing with the status of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I cannot go into this question in further detail until I see the court's judgment.

A second important aspect of the Sunningdale communiqué which has given rise to some controversy is the agreement to establish a Council of Ireland. In the months since Sunningdale we have engaged in detailed discussions at both ministerial, political and at official level with the Northern Ireland Executive on the precise functions which the Council will carry out.

The Council of Ireland will be a new body. So far as I know it has no precise precedent anywhere. It certainly has no precedent in Ireland. The Council will not be a threat to the interests or the loyalties of the majority in Northern Ireland who now oppose any change in the status of the area. It is not a way of achieving unity either by stealth or against their wishes. We see it as a body which will help a large section of the community in the North to identify with the institutions of government and which can achieve the economic advantages spelled out in the Sunningdale communiqué. I refer, in particular, to the passage in paragraph 8 which indicates the objectives to be borne in mind in the studies of the functions to be performed by a Council: (1) to achieve the best utilisation of scarce skills, expertise and resources; (2) to avoid, in the interests of economy and efficiency, unnecessary duplication of effort; and (3) to ensure complementary rather than competitive effort where this is to the advantage of agriculture, commerce and industry.

But above all, as well as these objectives, we see the Council as a means of establishing co-operation and trust between both parts of the island and of encouraging them to work together to common benefit, without any sacrifice of principle on any side.

Part of the amendment in my name, before the House, is a condemnation of the use or advocacy of violence. In this the amendment reflects the views expressed in the earlier motion moved by me in this House in March, 1971.

It is indeed a sad and regrettable commentary on our times that such a condemnation is necessary. Surely by now the effects of violence are clear for all to see. It hardens divisions. It entrenches hatreds. It perpetuates the partition of minds which has kept our people apart. Its effects will not pass away with the lives of those responsible. For generations, the memory of a son, a father, a brother, a sister, a child or mother killed or maimed in the name of an abstraction will breed its own bitterness and make that abstraction—whether it is loyalist, nationalist or republican in its purpose —abhorrent to those who survive.

The Sunningdale communiqué recognises the need for concerted action to deal with violence in any part of the island, and the parallel and equally pressing need to ensure that measures taken to deal with violence are such that they command the widest possible support throughout the whole community. I want to make it clear that we do not see action to deal with violence as something which we must do on our part in return for agreement on other issues of more direct concern to us, such as, for example, the Council of Ireland. It is quite clearly in the interests of all of us to ensure that those who insist on having their way by violence will find no refuge anywhere in this country, north or south. That must be accepted and asserted to by every Member of this House and by everyone in the community who wants to see peace in Ireland. There cannot be any escape from that reality and there cannot be any escape from accepting the consequences that flow from it.

We have been criticised for the way in which crimes of violence have been dealt with here. Let me make the position clear. Over the past 19 months or so, since the Special Criminal Court has been operating, the number of persons convicted of offences involving firearms, explosives et cetera in Border areas was 155. Of these persons, more than two out of three were from Northern Ireland. In other words, the violence is not of our making: it originates in the North and spills over into our territory. And it is on our forces of Garda and Army that the burden of containing it is thrown. I do not make this point in any cavilling spirit. Neither do I want to take issue with those with whom we have a common interest in quelling violence. All I want to establish is that the Army and Garda forces here are doing a difficult job better than they are often given credit for and, though they may not prevent all violence, they are making a substantial contribution to containing it.

Precisely because we accept the importance of eradicating violence from our island we went to Sunningdale with specific proposals to deal with the legal problems which would inevitably arise when extradition is sought in one jurisdiction for a politically motivated crime committed in another. We wanted to ensure that if extradition in such cases gives rise to problems the accused will still be brought to trial in the jurisdiction where he was arrested even though the crime was committed elsewhere. We were ready to begin at once to legislate here for a common court system in Ireland which would have this effect, and we also suggested measures linked with these proposals to guarantee human rights in each jurisdiction which would help to ensure broad community support.

I am sorry our proposals for a common court system were not immediately accepted at Sunningdale but they have not been shelved. It was put to us at Sunningdale that they gave rise to complexities and problems in British law, and because of this we agreed that these proposals, as well as other approaches to the same problem, should be studied by a legal commission established by both Governments. I hope that the commission will soon be able to submit a report on which we can act. And I would suggest that both Governments ask it to do so—at least on an interim basis— before the conference to ratify the Sunningdale Agreement reconvenes— on condition that this does not mean any postponement of this second stage of the conference. We are not only willing but anxious to act on these issues—and we want to see reciprocal action in Northern Ireland.

The alternative which has received a good deal of publicity offers no way in which understanding and trust between all sections of the community in Northern Ireland can be developed. Instead it would confirm minorities in their old frustrations and confine them to a situation in which there was little hope of real participation in Government. It would institutionalise the old antipathies and bottle up the old hatreds—for yet another explosion of violence in the future.

The great merit of the agreements made at Sunningdale is that they are a genuine attempt by elected representatives who each accepted the valid interests of each of the others, to reach a settlement which would take account of the complex reality of our present situation in Ireland and yet be flexible enough to allow for change according as the situation itself may change with time in the future. It is a settlement built on present realities which does not attempt to impose a single rigid pattern on the future.

The fundamental principle which all who met there accepted and which I have tried here again to set out explicitly can be summed up as follows. So long as each of the main traditions in the island of Ireland maintains its present aspirations and its present loyalties, an accommodation between them is the only alternative to continuing conflict. We should never overlook that. An accommodation means a settlement in which each takes account of the most basic concerns of the other, and both agree, despite their present differences, to work together to common advantage.

Can those who oppose the accommodation which we reached together at Sunningdale say as much? Do they accept present realities in Ireland and, if so, how do they believe they can be dealt with? Do they think we could have reached a wholly different accommodation? Or do they oppose the very idea of an accommodation between different aspirations, as expressed by different people, merely because they still want to see the issues resolved simplistically in their own favour or because they prefer to see conflict continue and increase so that, on the ruins, they may build an Ireland in accordance with their own personal vision?

These are questions which critics of Sunningdale must ask themselves— and answer honestly. They will not be answered simply by ingenious or imaginative proposals. The test of any proposal in this country today is not whether it is ingenious or imaginative but whether it takes account of realities including the reality of what people will really accept. If our problems could be met by ingenious or interesting proposals alone, I venture to say that they would long since have been settled.

I am even inclined to question whether at this stage any single proposal of what I might call a static character—however well-intentioned —could meet the present situation, aggravated as it has been in Northern Ireland by wanton killing and destruction by various groups of extremists. Even if any one such solution within Northern Ireland or on an all-Ireland basis were widely accepted it would still be likely in the present situation to draw such bitter opposition from some sections of the community that it could not easily work. You cannot build a future on coercion. Surely our history has taught us that, and that is why we sought and signed the widest possible agreement at Sunningdale.

The Sunningdale agreement and the agreement on power-sharing in Northern Ireland which preceded it, and which is so closely linked to it are not static or definitive solutions to our problems; and they do not compete for support on this basis with this or that other "solution" offered by one group or one individual or another. Taken together, the Sunningdale proposals and power-sharing provide a framework for trust and future co-operation between people of different views which can accommodate and we believe provide any change which may occur in these views. This is a framework worked out in patient negotiation by elected representatives from all parts of the country voicing the deepest concerns of those they were elected to represent—a framework within which the people of all Ireland can begin to work towards a solution without compromise on their basic present aspirations.

The truth is, I think, that a solution to the kind of problems we face in Ireland will not come as a formula to be discovered at this or that moment. It will come as the gradual outcome of a process, and it will require time, patience and honesty of purpose by people prepared to commit themselves to that process.

That is why we cannot say that Sunningdale itself will or will not work. It is rather a basis on which we can work. Let me repeat that it is we who have to make Sunningdale work for us. By "we" I mean all people of goodwill throughout this island, North and South, all those who have seen enough of killing and destruction and who want to shout "stop"; all those who believe that it is past time for all of the people of this country, by their own combined efforts to lift the burden of their history from their own shoulders and those of their children.

What I am saying in all this is that the resolution passed by this House in 1949 was passed in entirely different circumstances. Even the phraseology of the Ireland Act which was then going through the British House of Commons differs very dramatically from the Act which established the Assembly in the North of Ireland. The position has changed in the aftermath of that legislation and particularly in the aftermath of Sunningdale. For too long we have been prisoners of our past and tried to build for our children a future we could not know, much less determine. I said after Sunningdale and I want to repeat it now, that we are dealing with the realities of the present. We are not dealing with statements, documents, however numbered, in the recent or remote past. We are not dealing with what those who had to deal with it said or did in the past. It is as relevant to quote Brian Boru today as it would be anyone else. We are dealing entirely with the realities of the present.

The measure of agreement we reached at Sunningdale, the proposals we put before the people, we believe to be the basis by which progress can be made. I listened carefully to Deputy Blaney's speech. I did not think there was anything new in it. He was a member of a Government for many years and as far as I know most of the time if he disagreed with what was being done by his colleagues on co-operation with the North of Ireland he sat and stayed in office, silent most of the time on the North of Ireland. We are trying now to deal with the realities of the present and I would hope that the seconding of the resolution by the Opposition does not in any way commit the Opposition to the approach which is regarded as not being in the interests of peace in this country as enshrined in some of the suggestions that have been made by the proposer of this motion. We want to seek peace in this country. We want to see it based on justice. We believe that we have made a useful start to that process and we ask for the support not only of this House but of the people in the common interests of all the people of Ireland to make that arrangement work in the interests of the present and the future.

Mr. J. Lynch

The amendment standing in my name is as follows:

To add to the motion the following:

And, further, that Dáil Éireann

Recognises that the Irish people comprise different elements all of which contribute to Irish life and culture, and each of which has the right to pursue its legitimate aspirations,

Declares that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it,

Re-affirms the inalienable right of the people of Ireland to a united Ireland,

Re-affirms their aspiration to achieve this by peaceful means, and

Accepts that for practical purposes this involves the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.

Before I come to the amendment I want to say that we were not aware until Deputy Blaney announced it while he was speaking that he did not have, nor had he sought, a seconder for his motion. We arranged deliberately to have his motion seconded, for a number of reasons. I will come to some of the reasons later, but one of the reasons was that, as Deputy O'Kennedy said, in formally seconding the motion, we wanted to hear the Government's views on the motion and on other matters as well, particularly on the Sunningdale agreement and more particularly on paragraph 5 about which some questions have been raised and in respect of which clarification has been sought.

Mr. Molloy

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Lynch

We were informed that because of the action originally in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of that paragraph, and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, that it was not possible for any clarification of paragraph 5 by or on behalf of the Government because it may have been held to be in contempt of court because the matter was then sub judice. I submit that that matter is no longer sub judice. The decision of the Supreme Court is final and binding as far as that action is concerned. Therefore, we expected to hear more on that paragraph other than the one sentence in the Taoiseach's speech which dismissed it:

I cannot go into this question in further detail until I see the court's judgment.

I submit that the content of the court's judgment can make no difference whatever to an agreement reached in Sunningdale and which was incorporated in the Sunningdale communique. The decision has been made, and the reasons for the decision could not in any way affect the Government's knowledge of why paragraph 5 was written into the Sunningdale agreement in the formula in which it was written and what was understood by those who agreed to the writing of paragraph 5 in that form. We are, therefore, to say the least of it disappointed that we have not received any clarification from the Taoiseach even yet, even after there was no risk of the sub judice rule being invoked against him or any member of the Government.

I want to come to the generality of this motion before I go into any more particulars of this nature. Deputy Blaney's motion seeks to re-affirm the motion that was passed in this House fewer than 25 years ago. The Taoiseach in his speech said it was no longer relevant, and by his amendment seeks to delete the terms of Deputy Blaney's motion and, I hope not, derogate from the subject matter of that motion itself. We assert that irrespective of developments, developments that we welcomed, this motion still fundamentally represents the views and aspirations of the Irish people in relation to Partition and that they ought not to be abrogated. I hope to demonstrate that in the little time I have available, and again to ask the Taoiseach why he should seek to delete the terms of this motion, which is not Deputy Blaney's motion but a motion proposed on the 10th May, 1949, by the then Taoiseach, Deputy John A. Costello, supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Eamon de Valera, spoken to by way of amendment by only one other Deputy—an amendment which received no seconder—and therefore, subject to that reservation, obviously received the full approval of Dáil Éireann as it was comprised at that time. I should like to repeat the terms of the motion, if the House will bear with me:

That Dáil Éireann solemnly re-asserting the indefeasible right of the Irish nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory—

There is nothing there that we should delete or derogate from in that preamble.

—re-affirming the sovereign right of the people of Ireland to choose its own form of Government and, through its democratic institutions, to decide all questions of national policy free from outside interference.

I ask the Taoiseach is there anything in that preamble that he or any Member of the Government or any member of the party supporting the Government can disagree with? To me it is basic republican philosophy, and I see nothing in it that we need in any way change at the present time. It goes on:

Repudiating the claim of the British Parliament to enact legislation affecting Ireland's territorial integrity in violation of these rights...

It has been fundamental from the start that we do not accept the right of the British Government to legislate for any part of our national territory. That was asserted in the motion already proposed by the former Taoiseach, Mr. John A. Costello, when he said:

Our essential objection is that part of our country has been taken away from us and is being annexed by this Bill, which purports to annex it permanently even against the wishes of the representatives of Great Britain in the British parliament

There are other quotations which may be more relevant to comments which I shall make later on, if I have time. The recital goes on:

Pledging the determination of the Irish people to continue the struggle against the unjust and unnatural partition of our country until it is brought to a successful conclusion...

Again, the word "struggle" can have no sinister meaning in the context of the times that were in it. The former Taoiseach moved it and the former Leader of the Opposition, Deputy de Valera, supported it, because the policy was that that struggle for the ending of Partition was to be pursued by peaceful means. I see nothing whatever offensive in that part of the preamble, which goes on to say:

Dáil Éireann places on record its indignant protest against the introduction in the British parliament of legislation purporting to endorse and continue the existing Partition of Ireland.

I have already quoted one sentence from Mr. John A. Costello's speech when he was Taoiseach, in which he expresses, and rightly so, his indignation at this attempt in the 1949 Ireland Act to legislate for, as he regarded it then, the permanency of Partition. The motion concludes:

...calls upon the British Government and people to end the present occupation of our six north-eastern counties and thereby enable the unity of Ireland to be restored and the age-long differences between the two nations brought to an end.

The Taoiseach has suggested that this motion is now irrelevant. I would have preferred if he indicated in what manner and in what instance it was necessary for him to move an amendment deleting what I think are the tenets of the belief of those who want the re-unification of our country, and that achieved by peaceful means. That does not create any new situation. It does not, I submit, prejudice the current situation as it has developed in the 25 years since this motion was passed unanimously by Dáil Éireann, passed incidentally by the first Coalition Government that was set up in this country since the foundation of the State.

The main purpose of our amendment was to maintain the spirit and purpose of that resolution passed by Dáil Éireann in 1949 and repeated here by Deputy Blaney. We can endorse, too, the Government's amendment except, of course, that part which seeks to delete the motion passed in 1949. We were prepared to see substitution of certain words by way of addition to the basic motion, not by way of their deletion and substitution by the words in the Taoiseach's amendment. We have accepted without any question the first sentence of the Taoiseach's motion: "That Dáil Éireann recognises that the Irish people comprise different elements all of which contribute to Irish life and culture, and each of which has a right to pursue its legitimate aspirations." In one of my earlier speeches when the troubles in the North of Ireland first broke out, I referred to that in a speech I made in Tralee on 20th September, 1969:

Differences in political outlook or religious belief need not set people apart. They exist in most countries and are no barrier to effecting a constructive co-operation of the various elements in the community in national development; indeed, diversity of cultural backgrounds can exert a stimulating influence. The real barriers are those created by fear, suspicion, and intolerance.

In a later speech which I made over Radio Éireann on the eve of 12th July, 1970, I referred to the two main traditions in our country. I referred, first, to the majority position which was reflected in the minority in the North, and then I spoke of the other great tradition in Ireland, that of the majority in the North. I said we have had invasions piled upon invasions— the Danes, the Normans, Scots and English, who followed into Ireland our earlier migration and became part of our soil and the blood and bone of the green fields we cultivated.

I accept entirely the wording of the first part of the Taoiseach's amendment. There is nothing we cannot accept in the second paragraph:

—declares that the use or advocacy of violence to secure unity is abhorrent to it, and

—affirms that the aspiration towards a united Ireland can be achieved only by peaceful means and with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

We think the final paragraph can be better expressed by the amendment we propose.

This is an affirmation which can be interpreted as giving a de jure right to the majority in Northern Ireland to permit, if they so wished, the re-unification of our country. We have accepted for many years, for practical reasons and for practical purposes, the institutions in the North of Ireland. This was repeated again in some of the Taoiseach's speeches. We accept in furtherance of our desire for re-unification by peaceful means that peaceful means are to be used in its pursuit and then, practically speaking and for practical purposes, we need the agreement of the people of the North of Ireland.

I do not accept that proposition if there is any inference or any implication in the form of the Taoiseach's amendment that they are given a de jure right to maintain the Partition of Ireland by opting out at all times of a United Ireland. The Sunningdale Agreement, as I indicated in my speech at the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis, has in paragraph 5 two declarations which are startlingly different. For the purpose of my speech here tonight, I need only refer to the British Government's declaration which was:

The British Government solemnly declared that it was and would remain their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

That was a long way from the second subsection of Section 1 of the Ireland Act of 1949 in which it was declared that

Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's Dominions and of the United Kingdom and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's Dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.

This would appear to be the watering-down of that claim. I think there was something in the new Constitution Act passed by the British Parliament to that effect as well. The communique goes on to say that the present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom but that in the future if the majority of the people should indicate the wish to become part of the United Ireland the British Government would support that wish. That is quite acceptable and is an advance on the position, but there still remains the fact that the present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom.

If we read in with that the final paragraph of the Taoiseach's amendment, there are grounds for believing that this would cement the continuation of that constitutional position as contained in the British declaration. It would appear that this Parliament accepted that position. Therefore, it was for that reason that we put our amendment in its present form. Instead of deleting the substantive motion we sought to maintain it because we believe it represents the fundamental desires and aims of the Irish people. Instead of deleting it, we add the paragraphs which I have quoted at length from the Taoiseach's amendment and which, we believe, take account fairly well of the current situation with the exception that in the last paragraph we want to substitute these sentences:

Re-affirms the inalienable right of the people of Ireland to a united Ireland.

That is accepted and unquestionable.

Also:

Re-affirms their aspiration to achieve this by peaceful means, and

That may be repetitive, but I want to make sure that our amendment will be clearly understood. Finally:

Accepts that for practical purposes this involves the agreement of the people of Northern Ireland.

We have to accept this as a situation for the reasons I have already stated. By putting our amendment down in that form—it was the only form in which we could get an amendment— we believed that it would be relevant and admissible under the rules of order. We want to maintain the substance and principle of the original motion passed in 1949 and to maintain the statement of the current situation in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Taoiseach's motion but to put the position in more realistic and acceptable terms at the present time.

Time is difficult in a discussion on a motion like this, but I wish to deal with other aspects of the Taoiseach's statements. I have referred to the short reference he made to his inability to deal with paragraph 5 of the Sunningdale Agreement. The Taoiseach went on to speak about the Commission to deal with legal matters arising out of Sunningdale because the proposition which the Taoiseach says the Irish Government made at Sunningdale was not acceptable, that is, the establishment of a common court of law. We, too, support that. I doubt whether the selection by the Taoiseach of two members of the Supreme Court was wise and proper in this respect. Ultimately, as we have seen, the Supreme Court has already been summoned to adjudicate on a challenge to part of the Sunningdale communiqué. In time to come we will find that two members of our Supreme Court would be rendered ineffective because of whatever part they would play in promoting legislation to deal with the setting-up of a common court to deal with the prosecution of criminal offences on both sides of the Border. That was inappropriate, to put it no stronger than that, and certainly it was unwise.

The Taoiseach also mentioned that the Sunningdale communiqué must be accepted as a package—take it or leave it—and at the same time later on he talked about taking account of other people's point of view. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has said that, too, commending only Deputy Blaney's outright rejection of Sunningdale, but taking no account at all of the fact that there are features in the Sunningdale communiqué that disturb many people in this country and in particular the implications and the possible interpretations of paragraph 5.

We have not been given any clarification by those present. The Taoiseach mentioned that it was a great pity that all the elected representatives in Northern Ireland were not present at Sunningdale. It probably was a pity, but that would still have excluded the elected representatives of the biggest number of people on the island of Ireland, and that is the Fianna Fáil Party.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 26 Feb 1974