John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the parliamentary delegations from abroad he has met in Ireland since July 1997. [10970/98]
Ceisteanna — Questions. - Official Engagements.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the foreign visits, if any, he plans to take over the next two months; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11042/98]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the euro summit which was held on 1 to 3 May 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11045/98]
Trevor Sargent
Question:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the role played by him and members of the Irish delegation in the decision in relation to the appointment of the head of the new European Central Bank. [11092/98]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the schedule of engagements he will undertake on his visit to Russia in the autumn of 1998. [11333/98]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the official engagements, if any, he plans to undertake in the context of promoting a yes vote in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum. [11339/98]
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:7 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Primakov; and the plans, if any, he has to visit Russia. [11341/98]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 1 to 7 together. Since taking office, I have met with two parliamentary delegations — the US parliamentary delegation in November and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in March.
Over the next two months, I plan to visit Spain on 25 May, Austria on 3 and 4 June, the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs on 8 June and Portugal on 9 June. I will also attend the European Council meeting in Cardiff on 15 and 16 June.
I had a brief meeting with Mr. Yevgeni Primakov, the Russian Foreign Minister, on Thursday, 7 May. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also attended the meeting. We discussed bilateral economic trade and Russian-EU relations. I took the opportunity of the meeting to press for an early lifting of the current restrictions on the export into Russia of beef from certain counties.
I also discussed my proposed visit to Russia this year with Mr. Primakov. While no dates have yet been confirmed for this visit, I hope to travel to Russia in the autumn, possibly during September. In addition to meeting political leaders, I would hope to meet a number of business leaders.
Regarding the Council Meeting of 2 May on Economic and Monetary Union, Deputies will be aware that I made a comprehensive statement on this issue in the House on Wednesday last, 6 May.
I have endorsed the Amsterdam Treaty in the course of a variety of engagements, most recently in addressing the Institute of European Affairs and the April meeting of the EU Heads of Mission. As part of my extensive political campaign, I will join other party leaders on 14 May to campaign for a "yes" vote. I will take every opportunity that arises to encourage a "yes" vote for both referenda.
What does the Taoiseach regard as the most important single argument for a "yes" vote for the Amsterdam Treaty?
I have given many interviews on this issue and I reiterate that the drafters of this agreement succeeded in putting people's issues on its agenda. They did so with a range of issues such as employment and disability. Crime and drug trafficking have also been successfully addressed. Research shows that these are meaningful issues that affect people's lives and by dealing with them the Amsterdam Treaty focused on everyday life. That is an important reason which shows those who are not over committed to the European agenda that the treaty is a positive measure. I cannot claim credit for negotiating the agreement. Deputy Bruton negotiated it and he succeeded in bringing people's issues to the agenda. That is why I am confirmed in my view that it is a very constructive agreement.
I appreciate the Taoiseach's remarks about the previous Government's negotiation of the treaty, and I agree with everything he has said. Does he not agree that probably the most important argument in favour of a "yes" vote is the fact that the Amsterdam Treaty provides for the expansion of the European Union in order to bring in eastern countries, thus ensuring that the zone of peace in western Europe can be extended? That peace has given us 50 years without war in comparison with the first 50 years of the century, which were marred by war. This treaty and the development of European integration guarantees the possibility of peace in Europe for the next generation and for generations to come.
I agree with the Deputy on stability and enlargement. I recently read papers on EU enlargement from 1989 while preparing for a meeting. When considering the limited nature of what was envisioned the success of what has been achieved is clearer. Many of the countries which seek to join the EU are so anxious to do so that they are implementing drastic structural reforms to qualify for membership.
Ireland has benefited enormously from membership, but I resent those who reduce our membership benefits to money. We have benefited from market access as well as employment and investment opportunities. This is why farmers, trade unionists and community bodies strongly support the "yes" vote.
Does the Taoiseach agree that many Unionists in Northern Ireland are very apprehensive about the 22 May referendum? They feel, rightly or wrongly, that the tide is going against them with the agreement. If the Taoiseach accepts this, does he intend to address their fears over the next nine days? It seems obvious that Sinn Féin does not intend to do so.
Will the Taoiseach address the fears of the Unionist community and inform them that this is a "win-win" agreement? Will he inform them that their fears of territorial annexation, which were frequently represented as the true intent of Articles 2 and 3, have been replaced with a much better statement in the new Articles? Does the Taoiseach see the need to address those fears which he has the stature and authority to do?
I hope to address those fears through a series of articles and interviews in Northern Ireland newspapers. In trying to convince and allay the concerns of Unionists and explain to them what is agreed, one of the difficulties is people's interpretation of issues. That relates to something that is not new about issues related to Northern Ireland, people's fears and perceptions. Those people are happier when it is explained to them what the institutional changes will be and what is said about issues like decommissioning.
We must ensure that people understand the advantages of economics, an enlarged Europe and better East-West relationships. Deputies Quinn, Bruton and others will be aware from research done that the major fear is how we and they will share power and administration in the years ahead and we need to address that issue further. I say here — and I will continue to say for the next week — that we are talking about a fair, balanced and comprehensive settlement. It is balanced in a way that people from different communities can, in a peaceful and democratic way, work on a democratic agenda into the future. There have been terrible murders and atrocities on all sides by so many and everyone is to blame. There is no point in attributing blame to one sector or the other. We must try to convince people that those who may have been associated with violence in the past want to play a constructive role in the future. I hope that is what people want to do. People who signed up to the Mitchell principles and this Agreement signed up to wanting to work on that basis. As well as me speaking on this, perhaps all organisations concerned would do well to make their positions clear over the next week and to say we are at the end of the war, the violence and all the things that have happened. Apart from what I will say over the next nine days, I will continue to urge people to do that.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, will he agree that the Unionists' supporters of a yes vote need at this stage a clear statement from the IRA that the war is over for good? Will he also agree the IRA statement issued recently did not state that unequivocally, that it was deficient in that it did not acknowledge the referenda that are taking place here as a genuine and valid act of national self-determination and by failing to do so left an ideological platform upon which the IRA would have the option, if it suited it, to resume violence? Will the Taoiseach agree the Unionist community is concerned at the possibility of Sinn Féin being able to take an each way bet in the sense of retaining an IRA position, which is not one of full acceptance that the war is over, while seeking at the same time all the privileges of normal democratic participation? Will he further agree there is a need for the removal of ambiguity on this subject by the republican movement and by the Governments here and in the United Kingdom in regard to the requirements for participation in executive responsibility in the new arrangements?
I spelt out the position here yesterday in reply to supplementary questions on the requirements for participation in an executive. Those requirements are clear. I refer people to what is in the document and what was given as clarification on what it means on the first day, the press conference on Good Friday.
Regarding people who are still not satisfied or overly impressed by various statements, I said here the morning after the last statement by the IRA — I will not comment directly on IRA statements — that it needs to be stated that the war is over.
That has not yet been done.
The more that can be clarified the better. Statements have been made in the last number of days by leading members of Sinn Féin and if they were firmed up it could be very useful. In reply to Deputy Quinn's point, that is what I am urging people should do.
As we enter the last week of this campaign, there are other central issues. One is that in a new relationship in the North under the institutional arrangements under strand one, what is being negotiated is that people will work together, people who have left violence behind and people who are not engaged in violence or those associated with it. That includes punishment beatings and the other trappings of parliamentary activity. I want to be clear about that. That was what was negotiated and what still stands. Everybody should understand we are asking all the people to take a leap of faith to work the strand one arrangement and its administration. I know from phone-in and answer programmes and analysis that people's main fear is not decommissioning or the prisoners issue, but dealing with those in an administration who they believe are, might still be or were associated with violence. That is the central issue.
That is right. That is the main fear.
Everything I can do to urge those to make their position clearer and that we, in this House, can collectively do, given that there is no division on this issue, we should do. When those statements are made, the parties concerned must have a belief that there is a better day and a better way forward. Everything that can be done to make that clearer, the better. Over the next number of days I will do my part to try to urge people to make that clearer.
There are a number of questions tabled on this issue and when the Taoiseach will be answering questions the next Question Time, these decisions will have been taken because the House will not be sitting next week. The Taoiseach addressed the fears of the Unionist community in respect of what they would probably find most distasteful, but the view of the DUP and the UK Unionists, who are advocating a no campaign in Northern Ireland, is that the Union has been weakened from their perspective. I appreciate it might be difficult for the leader of Fianna Fáil, as distinct from the Taoiseach, of what has been a bipartisan-tripartisan approach to the Northern issue to do this, but I ask the
Taoiseach to formally take the opportunity between now and 22 May to say unequivocally to the Unionist community in Northern Ireland that the Union with the United Kingdom is secure for such time as it wishes it to be secure and that it will only change with its consent. That message is written into all the various agreements and the Taoiseach has said it on numerous other occasions. I am not asking him to do or say anything he has not already signed up to and said. Will the Taoiseach agree that if that message were to come from his lips, as leader of the Fianna Fáil party and Taoiseach, it could perhaps redress some of the undoubted damage that was done by the displays of triumphalism we saw last Sunday and by the manner in which it was reported, particularly on the ITN news?
I wish to make three points. We have talked about what was said last Sunday, but people should not forget the historic decision made then. I know Members have not forgotten it. It concerned people who had been engaged in violence for 30 years and those close to them politically, whatever about the arrangements. We will not have a debate about them being two sides of the same coin because that would run on and on. The reality is that historic decisions were made, decisions which people in this House and elsewhere did not believe would be made. We have moved on in a major way from the path of violence. Sinn Féin voted to accept by massive numbers, of which any of us in our organisations would have been proud, to accept an assembly, institutional change, the Northern Ireland State as it is and to participate in it in government. These were extraordinary decisions. I regret the triumphalism and I do not want it to take from that historic day. If all goes well, the history books will record the decisions and not the camera shots.
The next decision is on Friday, 22 June.
Exactly. I have no difficulty saying that in the reformulation of Articles 2 and 3, there is a clear recognition — accepted by all the parties, and by the UUP after considerable debate — that we have moved as far as the parties wanted in terms of recognising that any decisions which would alter the configuration of the arrangements could be taken only with consent, the majority being of Unionist and loyalist persuasion. I wanted to make that point unambiguous. Some people have held the same view for 30 years, Mr. Bob McCartney during his period in office and Mr. Ian Paisley who is on record as saying this is the major problem and by voting "no" if he won, he would ensure we would not make these changes. I am not sure of the logic behind this, but he would not understand the logic behind my arguments. He is putting forward an illogical argument.
We will not speak here on this issue again before the referenda. As regards this Agreement, the strands and the issues of equality, prisoners and so on, the primary purpose of the efforts by successive Governments and the huge commitment by parties, North and South, British Governments and the Americans has been to try to get a somewhat complex arrangement to bring peace to this island. Surely, people should ask whether voting "yes" for this Agreement will do more to bring peace, harmony and life without violence. The answer to that question after any fair assessment must be "yes".
I strongly agree with the Taoiseach that the great merit of this Agreement is that it writes the principle of consent into the Constitution, which has been accepted by Sinn Féin in its vote for a "yes" vote in the referendum here. That is the historic change which gives great security to Unionists who are worried about whether to vote "yes" or "no". They should take note of what the Taoiseach said and of what we are united in saying on that. Does the Taoiseach agree that if people in Northern Ireland vote "no" to the Agreement, they are also voting "no" to writing into our Constitution the principle of consent and, from a Unionist perspective, undermining their position?
Does the Taoiseach agree that the major difficulty with the republican movement is that for some purposes Sinn Féin says it can speak authoritatively for the movement as a whole while at other times, it says it has nothing to do with the IRA? It has a capacity to speak in different capacities at different times when it suits it. Does the Taoiseach agree that the united republican movement, Sinn Féin and the IRA, must both agree the war is over for good and must say so? Does he agree that historically, the decommissioning issue only became a problem because the republican movement refused to say its ceasefire was permanent and that it was the lack of such a statement that led to this totally unproductive debate about decommissioning? Does he also agree that if the republican movement said in a united way that the war was over that in itself would defuse the decommissioning issue and move it from the plain of being a political question to being a simple technical issue.
I have made my views clear on the statement saying the war is over because it is extremely important. Perhaps it does not matter too much which groups says it, if the war is over. The leadership of the republican movement, whoever or wherever they are, should say it because it would be of great benefit. It would be nice if each group said it but it would be a help if it could be made clear.
Decommissioning is not as great an argument with people in the North as people would argue. People want to hear a clear statement that people will take this process seriously, that they will follow through on what is in the Agreement on decommissioning, that they will co-operate with the structures in place for the decommissioning body and that when they debate and organise how to deal with matters, they will not work against the decommissioning committee which has a clear mandate on what it wants to achieve. It is important people make it clear they will follow this process. By signing the Agreement, I believe they have done so. There are people in the Unionist community who would like it spelled out and if it would be helpful, it should be done.
By Sinn Féin.
Yes. I have spoken to people outside the House on this matter. Because it is written in this form, nobody can argue that it means anything other than what it states. I clarified what it said last Friday week and nobody at the talks disagreed with that assessment. If people agree to that assessment, we will not have to engage in endless debate about an issue with which it is possible to deal and move forward.
As Deputy John Bruton, Deputy Quinn and others have said, we have moved constitutionally in this debate, which is difficult for some people in this State. People have fears and reservations about it and have asked me at question and answer sessions in recent weeks about the events which occurred in the early weeks of this year when paramilitaries of loyalist persuasion seemed to break away from their political parties. People in the Republic will go to the polls and I hope they will vote "yes" in overwhelming numbers on the basis of their contribution, which is a major one to this Agreement. People want to see others opting for a similar fate. It will put matters back years if people vote "no" in the belief that it in some way protects something. I have not heard a good argument put forward by campaigners for a "no" vote in the North on how the framework devised, which dates back to 1991, and the three strand approach do not address concerns about the Assembly, institutional arrangements, and North-South bodies, which will have a relationship with the Assembly that will develop in time along with executive powers and the implementation bodies and which will be based on trust and co-operation, the East-West relationship, which will grow and prosper in the future and the intergovernmental relationships.
Yesterday, it was ironic to hear the leader of the "no" campaign, the Rev. Ian Paisley, say that people from the United Kingdom should not interfere in the campaign in Northern Ireland. This seems to be a change from what he has said all his life. We tried to address the issues which concerned Unionists, Nationalists, loyalists and republicans in this arrangement. I join others in the Oireachtas in commending the Agreement in the strongest possible terms.