Vol. 482 No. 3
9 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's position regarding possible changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution in view of the current peace process and particularly in view of remarks made by him on 20 October 1997; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18204/97]
The Government's position on possible changes to Articles 2 and 3 has been set out formally by successive Governments in the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993 and the Joint Framework Document of February 1995, with which the Deputy and the House are familiar.
In my remarks at the multi-party negotiations on 20 October, in responding in particular to the Ulster Unionist Party, I confirmed this position. On that occasion I stated:
I am happy to set out again the position of the Irish Government on Articles 2 and 3. As the negotiations progress, we will discuss proposals for change in the Irish Constitution as part both of balanced constitutional change and of an overall agreement. This is a shared position with the British Government, as set out formally in the Framework Document. The achievement of an overall agreement is what we are now about, and all items are of course on the table as of now, including balanced constitutional change, and are open for discussion. The overall agreement, including its balanced constitutional dimension, will of course be put to the people in the referendums at the same time.
Let me make one further point, and this again repeats what I said this morning. The Irish Government is deeply aware of the sincerely held views of the Unionist community on Articles 2 and 3, and we are listening carefully to what is being said to us here by their delegation about these Articles. But Unionist concerns about Articles 2 and 3 are mirrored by the deep significance of these Articles for the identity of the Nationalist community. If we are to reach an honourable agreement, both of these realities must be addressed together or, as Seamus Mallon has put it, what is needed are arrangements to ensure "equality of allegiance".
I have no illusion about the complexity and the difficulty of the above challenges, including that of finding a balanced constitutional accommodation. But that is the challenge and that is the responsibility that has been given to all of us. The Irish Government will not be found wanting in meeting this challenge and this responsibility.
There can be no mistake, therefore, about the Government's commitment in this area, and this has been made clear to the other parties in the talks. The Government is ready to discuss with the parties in Northern Ireland their concerns in relation to possible constitutional change in this jurisdiction, including Articles 2 and 3.
It would in due course be for the Oireachtas to put to the people for their approval any proposed amendments to the Constitution arising in the context of an overall peace settlement in Northern Ireland.
Was the Minister for Foreign Affairs surprised at the reaction of the Unionists participants in the talks to his earlier remarks in regard to their walkout and does he consider that any attitudes or actions of his led Mr. Maginnis to describe him as having come with a macho and aggressive attitude to the discussions?
In all humility, could anybody imagine me to be a macho or aggressive person?
That puzzles me.
It puzzles me too. It left me confused because I did not feel that description sat well on me.
The Minister was confused rather than shocked.
No, I was shocked, perplexed and horrified. With respect to the Deputy's serious question, there may have been some misunderstanding about what I said. I had not finished what I intended to say when they walked out. They walked out on the basis that they said they wanted to reflect on my unfinished statement. When they reflected they quickly came back in the afternoon session when I made my position clear as per the statement I read out to the House. I am still perplexed as to the reason for their withdrawal, but happily they came back. I had a bilateral meeting previously to that with Mr. Trimble and happily and hopefully I will meet him next week when I will ask for another bilateral meeting with him. Peace broke out in the peace talks.
In a "happily and hopefully" atmosphere——
One has to be.
——perhaps they will understand and appreciate that the Minister is neither macho nor aggressive and that he will make a solid contribution to these talks. Séamus Mallon said that what is needed are arrangements to ensure equality of allegiance. Will the Minister elaborate on what he understands Seamus Mallon meant by that or what the Government understands that to mean?
Everything is open for discussion. The totality of relationships is open for discussion. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is my interpretation of what Mr. Mallon said. In regard to the equality of allegiances, everybody's loyalties will be seen in their proper context and due respect will be given to the Unionist position and the Nationalist position.
Does the Minister consider that such equality of allegiance will be enshrined in the Irish Constitution and in British statute?
It is too early at this stage to give an indication as to what the final outcome of the talks will be. I have no doubt that Séamus Mallon's quotation and its meaning will be discussed at length in the talks. It is a hoped for outcome of the talks that we talk about the equality of allegiance, but whether it will be enshrined in those terms or in the formula proposed by Mr. Mallon in the final outcome of the talks is another question.
Given that the questions we are pursuing are in the context of remarks made in relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution, that the Minister's clarification of his remarks was to the effect that the Government would pursue a balanced constitutional arrangement in the context of talks which would reach a balanced settlement and bringing Seamus Mallon's reference to equality of allegiance into that discussion vis-a -vis constitutional matters, surely we are entitled to assume we are talking about a constitutional change in the Republic and an equivalent change in British statute which would provide for that equality of allegiance of the people in Northern Ireland.
The Constitution and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, are both open for discussion and will be referred to in the ongoing and serious negotiations. Account will be taken of the Deputy's, and others, views on Articles 2 and 3 and the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Everything is open for discussion — nothing is excluded. To anticipate what might be said about the amendment of Articles 2 and 3 or the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, would be the wrong direction to take at this moment.
To be fair to the Minister and not to anticipate the outcome of the discussions, does he accept, as a matter of fact, that there will be no agreement with the Unionist community or their leadership unless there are changes made to Articles 2 or 3?
There is no doubt that Unionists see Articles 2 and 3 in a serious light and they take every opportunity to remind us of their significance in our Constitution. There is no point in being fair to me, but to be fair to the delicacy and sensitivity of the negotiations, I do not want to give a direct answer to his question at present.
