Amendment of Constitution: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann, noting the implications of the Supreme Court judgment in the McGimpsey case, calls on the Government to initiate the necessary constitutional changes to end the State's territorial claim on Northern Ireland.

—(Senator Murphy.)

Acting Chairman

Senator Norris has eight minutes left.

Mr. Norris

This is one of those occasions on which I can say I am genuinely glad to have had a few days, nearly a week, for reflection because the House will recall that at the conclusion of this debate the last day I said that persons like myself who took a gradualist approach had been undermined. On reflection, I do not believe that this is true and I would like to say that I will be pushing for the taking of my own motion at a later date:

That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to hold a referendum with the intention of amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution by the addition of the following phrase: "that in the promotion of this aspiration towards national unity the use of violence is prohibited."

On consideration, it seems to me that recent developments make this absolutely vital and I refer again to important cases, the McGimpsey case and the case involving Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and the extradition cases. It seems to me that if we put these together we have a very interesting and dangerous scenario. On the one hand, it has been held by a senior court in this land that the claims in Articles 2 and 3, far from being aspirational, constitute in fact a territorial imperative and that is a phrase which should give all of us pause. We have coupled with this the statement of Mr. Justice Brian Walsh that, and I quote:

In the domestic law we do not recognise the existence of political exemption to offences committed within the State and trials within the State in respect of offences which are politically motivated. However, the legislative provisions for political exemption do apply in respect of those parts of the national territory which are not within this State.

It seems to me that by putting these two ideas together we have what amounts, in fact, to an explosive formula almost tantamount to an incitment to violence and certainly constituting a ground for violence on behalf of the Provisional IRA. I believe that if we do not move towards the amendment at least of the Constitution, if not the dropping of Articles 2 and 3, we here as politicians in the South could well stand accused of being accessories to murder. I have to say that I will be voting in favour of this motion to drop Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution but I am a realist and I understand the political realities. I do not believe that the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, has the room for manoeuvre to do this. He does, however, have the room to manoeuvre, I believe, and has the political ingenuity to be able to sell to his own troops the notion that Articles 2 and 3 should be so amended. I appeal to him to do so. I remind the House of the words of the Taoiseach in his presidential address to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis in 1989 when he said: "Political progress may not of itself bring violence to an end, but it would at the very least undermine its base and make it even more meaningless and irrelevant". That has not happened as a result of the judgments in the Supreme Court. It requires urgent political initiative. He says further in the same speech. "We value our place in the Community of law-abiding peace-loving nations too highly to neglect in any way to play our part in defeating international terrorism and crime and to take all reasonable steps to prevent violence and bloodshed".

The Taoiseach showed imagination and innovation in nominating to Seanad Éireann the distinguished Northern surgeon John Robb and in the Irish Press of 20 March last, former Senator Robb had a letter which reads in part as follows: “If, as a result of the recent judgment in the McGimpsey case, the Supreme Court now infers that Articles 2 and 3 confers a legal right to Northern Ireland, the most serious implications must follow and these must be challenged. As Dr. Paisley might say, where is the mandate for this assertion? If it is assumed to derive from the Irish people as a whole, it should be recalled that those living in Northern Ireland were not canvassed for their opinion when the Constitution was being enacted in 1937.

If, on the other hand, the mandate relates specifically to the 26-county Irish Republic, then we must also recall that in 1937 less than 40% of the population of the Irish Republic voted in favour of the Constitution. "So it is the wish of a minority as expressed at that time. He urges precisely the kind of amendment that I have been urging myself.

May I say that the position of Deputy Haughey indicates and suggests a very remarkable development from the old Fianna Fáil position and I would like to quote from an election speech of the late President, Eamon de Valera, in 1939. It is quoted in Neutral Ireland and The Third Reich by J.P. Duggan, page 49 where President de Valera said:

I appeal to the young people to get into the ranks and defend what has been won, and if necessary be prepared to secure what has not yet been won.

It was quite clear I would suggest, what Mr. de Valera meant and implied and insinuated at that stage, and I thank God that Deputy Haughey has the statesmanship to move away from that dangerous position. I appeal to him to go that step further and consider what is possible in terms of amending the Constitution in this way.

I regret that so much political manoeuvring has been seen in the ranks of the major political parties and a refusal of all parties, including the Progressive Democrats, to face up to the reality of this issue in a consistent manner. Let me say also in regard to this proposal that it is not in essence an original proposal of my own, it comes from a distinguished former member of the Oireachtas, Jack McQuillan. Mr. McQuillan has made available to me a complete file, a dossier, in which he wrote an earlier version. I put some small sophistications into my amendment. I have here in my hand and I am prepared to make available to the Government, a mass of correspondence which makes it perfectly plain that such a proposed amendment would be welcomed in Unionist circles in the North of Ireland; would be welcomed by leading bishops of the Protestant churches throughout the island on a 32 county basis; would be welcomed by certain specific, named members of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy; would be welcomed and would be supported by leading figures within the political life in the South of Ireland. I would like to say in the light of all this evidence, which I am happy to make available, will the Government not give us an indication that they are prepared to move in an situation which has been rendered critical by the two judgments that I mentioned?

I will end by saying that this is a very wide perception. It is reflected in a headline in the Observer of Sunday, 18 March 1990: “Judges award the Provos a mantle of legitimacy”. It is our responsibility, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, to remove that mantle of legitimacy from the Provisional IRA. The Government have it in their capacity and I urge them to do so. I recognise it may not be practical to get rid of Articles 2 and 3 but they can and should amend them. We have had referenda on much less worthy topics. I commend this motion to the Government and I will be commending my own amendment later on.

Mr. McGowan

This is a good subject to talk about. I have listened on the numerous occasions that we have had outbursts of interest in the North of Ireland and concern expressed for those who live in it. One would be tempted to laugh. It is almost amusing to hear the kind of statements that are being made. The statement by the last speaker that a file of information has been given to him from everybody, including the Catholic Church, Paisley and a list of organisations that have furnished information and if only the Government would be wise enough to accept the dossier that the Senator has we could move forward. I would be tempted to laugh but I respect the House and I will not.

We are dealing with a motion that proposes to change the Constitution. I may not be as eloquent as some of the people who are speaking on the motion, but I am sincerely committed to a solution. I have to travel through the North to be here at all. I have been in the North a thousand times for every once that any Member contributing to the debate has been. However dumb I might be, I have learned something. I consult with and work with different organisations and I am part of cross-Border organisations. I have an intimate knowledge of what they are prepared to do and what they are not prepared to do. No circus in the Dáil or Seanad will encourage anybody to jump off their seat and come down and be ready to respond and to solve the problems in the North. That is not the situation.

As I have said numerous times, it is a tragedy that politicians and the media exploit the situation. Some elected representatives use the troubles in the North to keep themselves in the public eye, especially when they lack ideas. The media in Dublin and London have very little knowledge of and qualifications to speak about to the North and they distort the events in the North. The people on the ground are unhappy with the sensationalism with which their problems are discussed, especially in this House, and the outbursts of people who have very little to contribute. I believe they make a mistake in trying to do it on the backs of those that have to live in the North. It is a tragedy. You can change Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. It would be very important for me, as a Senator who lives within 100 yards of the Border, to listen to Senator Norris and to those who put their names to the motion, if I thought for one minute that there was the least possible chance of moving forward one yard or making any contribution to the situation in the North. However, I am involved in cross-Border projects and I am working with DUP members on organisations and I know at first hand what they will accept and will not accept. This is sheer eyewash. I believe this country will go forward when it is economically and physically possible for them to do so.

If, in fact, there are articles in the Constitution that are obstacles, the Constitution itself would be part of negotiations. It could be reviewed and looked at if sensible proposals came forward. To say: we will remove Articles 2 and 3 and that will remove the obstacles is not on and it was never on. In fact, it is totally ridiculous. We have a situation in this country and a similar situation in Britain where parliament is reluctant to get involved in the courts. If anybody here suggested to the British Government that we were unhappy with a court finding I know the answer we would get. I could give you a litany of the responses we have got from eminent public people in Britain and in the North to refrain from commenting on judgments that might not have pleased us on events in the North. It is terrible.

Over the past 20 years many people in the North of Ireland have sought to express concern and to offer advice, to risk their future and even their lives, to get a solution and we have people here who have a simple solution. Why did you wait for 20 years while thousands were murdered? The solution, according to these people is that all we have to do is to remove Articles 2 and 3 and we are on the road to recovery, the road back. No sane person, North or South on this island, believes that that motion, if carried today, would contribute one iota.

The two people who went to the Supreme Court were entitled to do so. I welcome those people who came into the courts and challenged the Articles. That was right and proper and was a welcome move by those people. But they went home and accepted the verdict of the court. People who continue to simplify the problems in the North and to offer simplistic solutions are making no contribution because those who are living in the Bogside, the Falls Road and the Shankill tonight are not listening. They do not care. You are miles off the target. You are light years away from the problems in the North. You are contributing to them by putting forward simplistic solutions. It is a tragedy.

Why did these people not go up and spend some time there, and not on a guided tour and announce to television and the press that they are coming? Why do they not get into their cars and drive up unannounced and see for themselves the position on the ground? It would do them good and it might change their minds about the kind of contributions they are going to make here. Go up and spend a weekend, unannounced, in the North of Ireland. They will soon see how important the motion is.

The Government have been consistent and there are a number of areas where the Government are going forward. The economic part of the solution is vital because there has not been development in ghettos in the North. There is neglect. Those are areas where this Government, I believe, now recognise that there has to be a joint input by the British Government and the Irish Government and solutions have to be found on the ground that are acceptable to the people who live there. I find it amusing to hear Senator Norris mention Dr. Paisley. I can imagine Dr. Paisley's response. Whether this motion is passed or not would have very little significance for Dr. Paisley.

I am talking and thinking about a lot of people, the groundswell of people in the North of Ireland who are concerned about their future, the future of their children, their education, the economy of their homes and their survival in that difficult situation. Get off their backs. That is all you are doing here by flying kites and debating sensational motions. They do not want it. I can tell you I am as near to them as any man in this House. I would say you are making no contribution whatsoever. It is time that you stopped using them. This is a good subject to talk about but a hard one to deliver on. Only those who are responsible in Government can tackle the problem. When you are outside you are free to fly your kite as you like. Nobody ever asks you to deliver on it.

I think that this motion would certainly do nothing — even if it were adopted — to contribute to the solution of the problem in the North of Ireland. I believe we are going forward and that there is recognition, North and South, that it is not an easy problem and it is one that has to be tackled. I would see the economic development of the North and South jointly with EC input as the best road forward. Hopefully down the road there is a generation of people that will see their future in a united Ireland. Tinkering with the Constitution will contribute nothing.

Dr. Upton

I would like to share my time with my colleague, Senator Costello. I hope to take ten minutes and Senator Costello hopes to take five.

At the outset, I would like to say that Irish unity has long been a national aspiration. It is part of our tradition; it is part of our heritage. We in the Labour Party have supported that aspiration. It is part of our party's policy and we will continue to support that aspiration as long as it is pursued by peaceful and non-violent means.

The reality of the situation, as far as opinion polls are concerned, is that there is still a clear majority in favour of Irish unity. It is my belief that anyone who is in touch with the political realities on the ground would also share that opinion. We are not opposed to constitutional reform. If a settlement in Northern Ireland is reached by agreement we are not opposed to changing the Constitution so as to facilitate the attainment of that settlement. What is being proposed in this motion is a once-off business, it is not part of any package, it is not part of any initiative aimed at bringing peace to the North. It is piecemeal; it is taken in isolation.

To delete Articles 2 and 3 from the Constitution would require a referendum. Does anybody think that such a referendum would be carried? I certainly do not. If a referendum were to take place it would have to take place in an environment which would be preceded by debate. I believe that debate would be rancorous. I believe that emotions would be released during that debate which are best left alone. I believe that such a debate would polarise the country in a manner that would be divisive and acrimonious. That is the very last thing this country needs at this time.

We must remember that political parties were set up in this country because of people's strongly held views on the North. There are still great tensions in some political parties because of the way in which Northern views are held. Indeed, in our party we have had more than our share of problems in this regard. Perhaps we have been more open about them but certainly there are other parties — the two major parties, particularly Fianna Fáil — who have had great difficulties as well in relation to accommodating the differing degrees of vigour with which views on the North are held.

I want to ask a question: suppose a referendum takes place and suppose it is not carried, what will be the effect of that? What will be the effect of it in relation to peace in Northern Ireland and in relation to Irish unity? What would be the effect of a referendum defeat on the Unionist community? What would be the effect on that community which now feels besieged and beleagured? I certainly think a defeat could not help the opposition and would certainly be entirely counter-productive to any anxiety to attain peace in the North. The history of referenda in this country, at least their recent history, has been painful and bitter. The emotions which were aroused during the divorce and the abortion referenda still linger. The bitterness which was generated has not been fully dissipated. If there was a referendum on the deletion of Articles 2 and 3 what was seen in relation to the referenda on divorce and abortion would be in the ha'penny place compared to the types of emotion that would be released in that type of climate.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that the passions which would be generated would serve nobody's interest. Most of all, they would not serve the interests of the people in Northern Ireland. If change in the North is to come, and if there has to be change in regard to Articles 2 and 3, then it has to be part of an overall agreement and an overall settlement. It would be disastrous to hold a referendum now without having that as part of an overall packet for change, for reformation and for a settlement in the North. It is for those reasons that the Labour Party will be voting against the proposal to change those Articles.

Mr. Costello

What we are debating today, if we take it in the context of what we had on the Order Paper last week, namely the discussion on the rail link between Northern Ireland and the Republic, highlights what I and, indeed, Senator Murphy, who has this motion down today as a Private Members' motion, have been looking for for a long time — that is a full-scale debate on Northern Ireland. It is a shame that what we have to deal with is a debate on one aspect of it. We were talking about another aspect of it the other day. We cannot get the Government side of the House to come forward with a full-scale debate on Northern Ireland, to tease out all the developments that have taken place in recent weeks and months and to put them in the context of what has been taking place in other parts of the world, from South Africa to Eastern Europe. This has already been done in the other House. I think it is a shame that the Government have been afraid to allow us to have a full-scale debate on all the issues relating to Northern Ireland.

My colleague, Senator Upton, has put the Labour position and put it very well. Our position has always been that we have never been a sectarian party. We have never been tainted with sectarianism in relation to Northern Ireland or any other part of this island. We have always, at the same time, aspired to the unity of the peoples, North and South. That has been our aspiration and we certainly make no apologies for that. We have worked to bring about that unity; the unity of workers on both sides of the divide. We have worked at it through the trade union movement in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and we have always sought to establish a community of interest on this island.

That is the way we see Irish nationhood going; a community of interest that is bonded together by the ordinary men and women of this island coming together in reconciliation and in workers' participation and democracy. From that point of view, it is extremely important that we emphasise what can be done domestically in terms of industrial contact with Northern Ireland, in terms of the range of services industries that we can establish, such as telecommunications, the area of tourism, where so much work can be done to bring people together, the area of education, where co-operation can be shown across the educational divide between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, not to talk about the whole area of integrated education in Northern Ireland itself. There is a lot that can be done and that, we in the Labour Party suggest, should be the focus of activity in bringing about this unity of mind and spirit that would be the basis of any true unity. It is not a question of territorial annexation. It is a question of unity of people.

In terms of the wider area, the European Community, there is so much that can be done there and so much work that has to be put into it both in areas of resources and funds that are coming in, in terms of structural funds that can be used in the general framework between both sides of the island and in terms of legislation. There is a lot that can be done and must be done by the socialist group, which is the largest single group in the EC, to ensure that it is that aspiration to unity which is the one that is represented in legislative measures and to ensure that any legislation that goes through the European Parliament is legislation that considers the partitioned nature of the country at present and seeks to reconcile the divide.

There is so much that can be done now and that will be possible particularly in 1992. We should be directing our attention to the domestic area, the internal area, and bringing in what has been described by a certain gentleman as the totality of relationships between these two islands, Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

We have been working in the area of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has a tremendous number of flaws and has not been pursued to the fullness it should be. It was a good structure in terms of potential for developing an umbrella structure to ensure that both sovereign States in the Republic and in Britain ensured that, by and large, the equivalent of a Bill of Rights operated in Northern Ireland and that there was a level of supervision. The recent development in relation to the inter-parliamentary tier that has been established is another stage in that direction. The recent call from the British Secretary, Peter Brooke, for round table talks is another move in that direction.

We have seen in that context the falling of the barriers and the borders in Eastern Europe and the unbelievable happening where President De Klerk and Nelson Mandela are able to sit down and talk about apartheid. The protagonist of apartheid and the opponents of it are prepared now to come together around the same table and to talk in terms of getting rid of that racial partition there. I believe that the right political ethos is abroad at present.

In relation to this motion, if we presented a referendum to delete Articles 2 and 3, because that is all that is specified in the McGimpsey judgment, I have no doubt that it would fail. That constitutional proposal for amendment would be lost. In the process, we would have that terrible situation re-introduced into this country that we experienced in the earlier eighties when the abortion referendum and the divorce referendum were discussed, when we had that blood drawing of people between people.

The old antagonisms came to the surface and people who dwell on slogans and shibboleths had their day. The end result would be that we would have an awful lot more talk and we would have an awful lot more prejudice instilled rather than have real work.

I have been talking about the real work towards reconciliation.

This motion, because it covers a narrow area — I appreciate the intention of the proposer — really diverts attention from the real work of bridge building which is on-going hard work that has to be done over a long period of time. It gives scope for a lot of that to be taken away because we know that a referendum would bring about all those old prejudices of the past.

I would much prefer that we got an opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland, to discuss proposals for advancement of our position in relation to Northern Ireland in the context of the aspiration to unity, and that we would see it in its totality rather than concentrating on one or two individual issues as is the case here. I believe we are one nation on this island with many traditions. That is the position I would like to see us reach.

Professor Raftery

I am sharing my time with Senator Jackman. She is taking five minutes of my time. I would like to compliment my colleague, Senator Murphy, of UCC, for raising this issue. I do not share many of the reservations expressed by Senator McGowan, Senator Upton and Senator O'Toole. I have had certain reservations about these two Articles in the Constitution for some time. Certainly since the recent court finding in the McGimpsey case I have the gravest reservations about the two Articles.

In 1937, when the Constitution was drafted, many people were unhappy about it then. No less a person that W.T. Cosgrave described the two Articles as make believe. More importantly, a nonpolitical person, the Secretary at the Department of Finance, Mr. J.J. McElligott, objected strenously to the inclusion of these two Articles. He described them as fiction, which would give offence to neighbouring countries with which we are constantly protesting our desire to live on terms of friendship. He concluded that these Articles would hinder rather than help our efforts to get national unity. Can anybody deny that he was wrong?

I have to admit that I have not been in Northern Ireland as often as Senator McGowan. At the same time, I want to tell him that I have been there many times and I have done business there with people on both sides of the divide, I have been invited to talk and to lecture there many times. I have some views which are different from those he expressed on the issue.

Thirty years after the Constitution was drafted when people had a chance of looking at the whole situation more dispassionately, an all-party review committee of the Oireachtas suggested that these offensive Articles, particularly Article 3, should be replaced. The review committee recommended that Article 3 be replaced by a clause saying:

The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its territory be reunited in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen.

How can we have brotherly affection while these two Articles exist in their present form? Would, for instance, the Taoiseach sit down in brotherly affection with someone who made legal claim to his estate in Kinsealy or his holiday home in Inishvickillane? He would not. It is preposterous to expect Unionists to sit in trust with us while we lay claim to their territory.

The recent judgment in the McGimpsey case vindicated the view of Unionists that we had designs on their territory with scant regard for their will or their rights in the matter. It, in fact, got rid of the myth that Articles 2 and 3 were an aspiration to unity. In fact, the court said quite emphatically that Articles 2 and 3 constitute a legal claim which the Government have not only the right but the duty to pursue. It is a constitutional imperative. Following that judgment it appears to me that these two Articles constitute a provocation for Unionists and a justification for the IRA terrorists. Indeed, they tend to contradict and undermine the Anglo-Irish Agreement where the unification would only come about with the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. They should be changed; they should be amended. Let us hope that that can be done, as Senator Upton and Senator Costello said, within the context of an overall political package. I would be far more confident than Senators Upton and Costello about the wisdom and the generosity of the Irish people if the amendment were put to them in an informed and dispassionate manner.

Mrs. Jackman

By raising the issue in the Seanad this motion gives us the opportunity for dialogue, debate and discussion. I would like to compliment Senator Murphy for giving us that opportunity. I have to say that we are very much aware of the divisiveness of a referendum and there must be a fair deal of talking done between now and the holding of a referendum.

I have to agree with Senator Raftery and I too, would have more faith in the Irish people to come to grips with this issue. I would hope the same emotion that surrounded the divorce referendum would not emerge again. As a nation the Irish psyche, possibly from a legacy of our colonial domination, are obsessed about territory and property. While we should have been talking about the real issue within the debate on divorce we ended up talking about the threat and the fear of losing property.

This motion affords us an opportunity to raise the awareness of the Irish people to the situation as it is. We would need to distance ourselves from any Supreme Court interpretation which would seem to confer an element of legitimacy on the Provos' campaign. I have grave doubts about taking things in a piecemeal way. This has to be discussed within a wider agenda. We have got to accept that moderate Unionists over an over again have stated that these Articles are offensive. It behoves us, if we are honest with ourselves, to work towards the removal of these Articles ending the States' territorial claim to Northern Ireland. I believe them when they say those Articles restrict the Government's capacity to strive for compromise with the Unionist majority, and that they add a constraint to any future bargaining with the Northern majority. After all, we are talking about compromise.

We cannot disregard the Presbyterian synod when it puts Articles 2 and 3 as a high priority on the agenda working towards reconciliation. These are all moderate voices. Senator Costello referred to unity of hearts and unity of minds, not preoccupation with territory. Surely at this stage we cannot afford any further time to look into our hearts and to thrash out the position again and again right into the next generation. Why can we not be adults and face up to the situation as it is?

I support the motion because I feel we cannot be hypocritical, that we must take the views of moderates into account, that we must rid ourselves of the emotion surrounding this. We are talking about fair-minded people north of the Border. We must be fair minded south of the Border. We must work towards raising the consciousness of the ordinary men and women and ensure that they are exposed to discussion, dialogue and debate that is unconfrontational, sincere, logical and at the end of the day is open to the views of the moderates in Norther Ireland with whom compromise is the only way forward.

It is timely now. We cannot wait forever to do this, or await some new generation for whom the whole concept of a united Ireland at that stage will be within the context of a united Europe. It is extraordinary that we can produce compromises for every other country but when it comes to our situation we find we are not adult enough to think and to work towards what would be considered compromise for the final solution for this island.

Mr. Harte

It has been mentioned here that this idea would be welcomed by many prominent people — politicians, ordinary members of the public, the Churches, etc., in the North of Ireland. The very fact that somebody welcomes something with an open mind does not mean that it would make good sense to do it at a certain time or in a certain way. Therefore, that argument does not stand up.

The question of the removal of Articles 2 and 3 could, without full debate and dialogue on what the outcome of a referendum might be, could give the Nationalist population false hope. Against that we could give the Unionist population a false sense of belief that all our aspirations are over. The real problem is that we have had no public debate on the whole question of the North of Ireland. This is what makes it a problem for us. The Labour Party have discussed the issue with our own members at our annual conference and they voted against it. That is a Labour Party congress decision.

Some people said we did not understand the merits of the removal. If one decided to go out in bad weather without getting a weather forecast beforehand and proceeded to go out without the proper clothing into a woody area it would not be a good idea. That is a simple analogy. That is one of the difficulties. If we went in without reconnoitreing the ground well we could go over a precipice. We do not know what the outcome of a referendum would be.

There are peculiar decisions on extradition at the moment. We do not know what the five judges said in the present cases on extradition. All we know is that they came together. That could present another difficult problem. This would relate to the question of the North of Ireland. I do not mind the moral influence. If you are to have a moral influence it must have the ability to place a power behind it. I do not think, unless we go into the full ramifications of it, that the power would be behind this moral act. We have a moral obligation to a degree to do that. The moralising posture alone will not influence controversial politicians or people. For that reason, it is useless to suppose that we can influence in this way.

There has been a great reluctance to have a full and wide debate on the Northern problem. We may be taking a course of action which could result in a painful experience, adjusting from theory to reality. It could also be interpreted by the people of the North as a move exclusively based on Eire's national interest. I do not think this would curb the abuse of power in the North because we do not fully understand the problem and we have not got a full grasp of the facts. We are in enough trouble dealing with problems at the moment; we must understand the full situation before we come to make decisions. Let us bear that in mind before we embark on this course of action.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Walsh)

I have listened very carefully to the comments made in the course of last week's debate. These comments will, of course, be communicated to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as requested by several Senators.

The Constitution in its 53 year history has served the State well. In order to ensure that it reflects the sort of society we want, it has been amended on a number of occasions over the years. From time to time there have been suggestions that we should also seek to amend Articles 2 and 3, but this has not been proceeded with and there is no obvious consensus at present for such a move.

Articles 2 and 3 are central provisions of the Constitution. As such, and while there are differing views on their appropriateness, as has been brought out in this debate, I do not believe we should amend these provisions except in some entirely new circumstances. We do not accept that such circumstances exist at present, or that we should seek to move in the direction being suggested outside the context of new political arrangements on this island which may emerge at some stage in the future.

Any proposal for an amendment to the Constitution would thus have to be very carefully thought out with regard to its content and its purpose. I have heard it suggested here that there is now a strong tide in the country in favour of radical and urgent change. I have to say that this is not the sense that we have. Moreover, I think all serious political observers would accept that, in the absence of political consensus, it would be highly divisive to ask the people to agree to the changes being suggested.

Before addressing some of the specific points that have arisen, I think it would be as well to examine dispassionately what the Supreme Court said in its judgment. Some of the key points could perhaps be summarised as saying that:

Article 2 of the Constitution consists of a declaration of the extent of the national territory as a claim of legal right.

Article 3 prohibits, pensing the reintegration of the national territory, the enactment of laws applicable in Northern Ireland.

The Anglo-Irish Agreement is not inconsistent with the Constitution and in particular with Articles 2, 3 and 29.

The Agreement was not concluded in disregard of the interests of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.

The court was satisfied in particular that there is no incompatability between Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. In this general regard, I would ask Members and, indeed, the wider public, to note in particular the references in the judgment to Article 29, sections 1 and 2, of the Constitution whereby Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation and its adherence to the principles of the specific settlement of disputes.

It is difficult to understand, in all the circumstances, why there should now be continuing controversy about Articles 2 and 3. We believe that such controversy is a serious distraction from our goal of making progress on the North and of operating the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the most effective manner. Those who seek to make play out of the decision as a means of questioning our bona fides on the Northern issue are misplaced in their criticisms and are obviously intent on making capital out of a judgment to which, in our view, no controversy need attach.

What is important is that the constitutionality of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The operation of the Agreement and the functioning of the Conference and the Secretariat have allowed the Government to play an important role in achieving progress in Northern Ireland and, in particular, in addressing the needs and the situation of the Nationalist community there. The decision of the court, having rejected the claim of unconstitutionality, allows the Government to continue their commitment to the operation of the Agreement; and it successfully sees off a threat which was designed to bring the Agreement to an end.

It has been said that the effect of the Supreme Court's judgment will be to bring about a qualitative change in the Government's policy. I disagree fundamently with this view. The Supreme Court decision has affirmed that, within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3, as now interpreted by the court, there is full scope for the Government to pursue and develop their policy in relation to Northern Ireland.

I would also reject categorically the notions that I have heard here that Article 2 is aggressive in its intent, that it is bombastic and unhelpful and that the idea of a national territory is increasingly dubious. We obviously regret if some wish to see Article 2 in these terms. We make no apology for stating here and now, as we have always done, that the idea of national unity is deeply cherished and that the need to work for it, and towards it, is as compelling now as it was when the Constitution first came into force. There is nothing aggressive in this. In operating faithfully in conformity with the terms of the Constitution we will always do so in a manner which is sensitive to the concerns and fears of the Unionist people in Northern Ireland and in a manner which is calculated to be in the best interests of all the people on this island. We are deeply committed to making progress on this basis.

We do not have, as one Senator suggested, "aggressive territorial intent" on the people of Northern Ireland by virtue of Article 2 of the Constitution. The claim of legal right is not a Government one, nor one which is the possession of any one individual political party. It is a constitutional claim which the Government, any Government of the day, are obliged to uphold or else seek to change by way of constitutional amendment. In this regard, we do not believe that we should consider changing such fundamental tenets of the Constitution in a vacuum; we are, however, as I said, prepared to examine and review these articles in the context of new political arrangements which may emerge on this island.

The Taoiseach set out our position on this in the Dáil last November when he said that "the Forum report made it clear that the New Ireland, to which we aspire, would require a new Constitution designed to ensure that the needs of all traditions on our island would be fully accommodated." This approach, to quote the words of the Taoiseach, is "generous, forward-looking and genuinely intended to chart a way out of the prejudices and divisions of centuries."

The sensitivities of Unionists in relation to Articles 2 and 3 have existed ever since the Constitution came into existence. Last week, one Senator went so far as to suggest that friendly relations with Unionists could not be developed alongside Articles 2 and 3. We do not believe this to be the case. There is nothing in Articles 2 and 3, as defined by the Supreme Court, that would inhibit us working with all the parties concerned in pursuit of peace and stability on this island. Indeed, the Supreme Court has specifically emphasised in the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that:

A procedure which is likely to lead to peaceable and friendly co-operation at any given time must surely be consistent with the constitutional position of a state that affirms its devotion not only to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation but to that ideal founded on international justice and morality.

We totally reject the notion that Article 2, as is now interpreted, can give succour to the IRA. This is an organisation which operates outside of democracy and of the Constitution. If it wishes to misconstrue the provisions of the Constitution and its ideals, based on peaceful and friendly co-operation, we can only say that it is wrong and very wrong. If others insist on suggesting that the Constitution does in fact confer rights on this organisation and their methods, then they, too, are equally wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which can in any way justify the campaign that the IRA are conducting; to suggest otherwise is simply a perverted and mischievous reading of a document which is dedicated to peace.

I have taken the opportunity of this debate to try to address the concerns that have been expressed, arising out of the McGimpsey judgment, and to state that, in my view, these concerns are misplaced. In the light of this, and of the reasons which I have outlined, I call on the House to reject the motion before it.

Professor Murphy

Are there no further contributions from the Government side?

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

Nobody is offering.

Professor Murphy

First of all, I want to thank everybody who spoke in this debate and to thank the Minister for his reply. I am very pleased that the debate has provoked such widespread discussion, and not simply in the House. Indeed, not very much in the House, I regret to add, but it may be an indicator of the gap between Government thinking, Fianna Fáil thinking, on this matter as reflected by the meagreness of their contributions in the House and the large amount of interest the debate has generated outside. I am very glad that the debate has had that consequence.

I was not so naive as to expect that the Government would accept this motion, nor, even in the theoretical case that the Government did accept it, I was not expecting that there would not be some kind of a quid pro quo, that a constitutional change would not mean a constitutional replacement. My main purpose was twofold; to get the House to address the new situation that has arisen from the judgment of the Supreme Court and, secondly, to push out the frontiers of debate. The fact that the newspapers and the media generally have taken up this motion over the last week is very interesting. There are very few motions in this House that got such an airing as this one and it cannot but do the Seanad good in a time when the image of the Seanad, perhaps, is not all that it might be.

I am pleased enough in general with the consequences and I thank the Senators who spoke and my colleagues Senators Ross and Norris and the Fine Gael contributors particularly. I must say that I have to compliment Senator Manning on his speech last week, and Senators Raftery and Jackman on their contributions today. This bears out that whatever limitations Fine Gael have had as a party in the history of this country, they have not been lacking in recent decades in generosity, in imagination, even, I would say, at the risk of the political careers of some of their leading members. I compliment once again Deputy FitzGerald's intention at any rate to lead a constitutional crusade. He might have been naive, he might have not estimated fully the cynicism with which he was faced, but at least he was of good heart and he had a good intention. I am glad that Fine Gael have adopted the attitude they have adopted here.

I must say I am disappointed with the contribution of the Labour Party. I had expected better. But then, who knows, Labour are the victims of their own imperatives and it is important for them from time to time to wrap the green flag a little bit more tightly around them in case there should be some confusion——

Mr. Farrell

That is not a crime.

Professor Murphy

——it is a crime when it is done as expediency — in case they should be confused with The Workers' Party, perhaps. I am sorry that their contribution was so negative. I respect people like Senators Upton, Costello and Harte, but I thought their argument was unconvincing. My motion pre-supposed that any constitutional steps taken by the Government would mean, of course, all party commitment. In fact, Fianna Fáil are the only bar to an all-party referendum; and that is why a referendum would not necessarily be divisive, unless Fianna Fáil chose to make it so. So, I do not accept that a referendum would be necessarily divisive.

I do not accept either, by the way, the point made both by Labour and Fianna Fáil speakers that the people of Ireland are committed to unity and that they deeply cherish it. That is bunkum; we all know it is bunkum and why do we not say so? If the referendum would be lost, well then we would know where we stand — that we were frankly a partitionist, territorial people with no interest in the North except to annex it, if we had the strength to do so. Of course, as Senator Costello reminds us, there are other things to be done; but that was not what the motion was about. Could I remind the Labour Party, if I could get their attention for a moment, that their attitude is disappointedly partitionist in respect of the fact that nationalism has divided the working class in the North——

(Interruptions.)

Professor Murphy

It should be Labour's primary purpose to try to reconcile the divided working class in the North, and their opposition to the spirit of this motion is disappointing in that regard. I would have thought Labour would have moved forward also away from the outmoded concepts of sovereignty and territory which were understandably the preoccupations of those who drafted the Constitution in 1937.

Finally, I must say that I cannot accept — and I do not really believe that Senator Costello accepts — that this is one nation with many traditions. That is a cop-out. There is no one nation inhabiting this island and that is my further objection to the Article 1, 2 and 3. I must say that I was not disappointed by Fianna Fáil's contribution because it was exactly what I expected. I thought, however, there might have been more contributions and I did not expect the gutter level of contribution from Senator Lydon in particular. His use of phrases like——

Acting Chairman (Mr. R. Kiely)

I do not think it is fair to refer to a Senator in his absence. I think you should withdraw that remark.

Professor Murphy

The reference of one Fianna Fáil Senator to "West Brit pseudo-intellectuals" I found deeply offensive. It is the kind of rhetoric that, if we saw it in The Sun and The Star newspapers we would talk about the English gutter press, but it indicates to me a gutter level of rhetoric which is not worthy of this debate.

Acting Chairman

Senator Murphy, I do not think it is fair for you to refer to Senators in their absence and I think you should withdraw the remark.

Professor Murphy

I have no intention of withdrawing my disapproval of such rhetoric in a debate like this. May I proceed, please, without interruption? Senator Manning has indeed reminded us — and the debate bore it out — that Fianna Fáil on the subject of the North cannot be trusted, that their use of the North from——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Senator Murphy, without interruption.

Professor Murphy

I demand the protection of the Chair. How dare any Senator who has not contributed now heckle me like this? I request the protection of the Chair.

Acting Chairman

May I remind the Senator that he is getting the protection of the Chair. Senator Farrell, you had an opportunity to speak and you did not speak. Senator Murphy to continue.

Professor Murphy

As I was saying, Senator Manning said in his contribution that Fianna Fáil cannot be trusted on the North and that was borne out by their lack of interest in this and by the poor level of their contributions. The Minister's intervention followed the same dreary mediocrity as the contributions. The Minister's speech is an attempt to rationalise, and I have a kind of feeling that the Minister does not really believe what he had to read out here. All the Minister was doing was trying to rationalise the attitude of the Taoiseach which is — and I said it last week and I will not go into it again — at once stubborn and evasive. This is what this contribution is all about. The idea that we are nice people because we have Article 3, which does not enforce the claim, and because we have Article 29 we are devoted to friendly principles, that that makes any difference to the aggressive territoriality of the claim does not convince anybody. The Minister in his speech said:

We are prepared to examine and review these arguments in the context of new political arrangements which may emerge on this island.

Big deal. Big deal. We will get rid of them when the Unionists agree to a united Ireland or to a federal structure. So, I would expect the very least the Government might do in response to the Supreme Court judgment is to say, "OK, this claim was made in 1937 in a very different kind of political context. Now at least we can replace them by a genuine aspiration." I would enthusiastically campaign for an amendment which wanted to replace these by a real aspiration to unity without reference to the national territory, which I still say is a highly dubious concept.

I am not convinced, finally, by some of the articles that have been written on the matter during the week, including one today in The Irish Times— for example, the idea that the Nationalist community in the North would be devastated were we to withdraw these Articles. Not so. These Articles never gave any protection to the Nationalist community. What protection the Nationalist community has at all now is the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the existence of the Secretariat and the Conference, not Articles 2 and 3.

May I say, in conclusion, that I would have hoped — and there was some hint from the Taoiseach in the Dáil last week — that if there is sufficient pressure in the Oireachtas on these Articles that there may be reference to an all-party committee. I certainly will settle for that. As I often do, I state matters perhaps more provocatively than I am prepared to fully support; but that is the whole object of debate in the Oireachtas and that is the privilege, I may say, of an Independent Senator and I am very glad to have used it on this occasion.

Finally, I have been thinking a lot about John Hume's oft reiterated sentiments that the Unionists must sort out their relations with Dublin, that they must go to Dublin and talk and really decide what their attitude to Dublin is. I am not sure what he means by that but it is a lesson we should be prepared to take to heart, that we should sort out what our relations with the Unionists are. The Government's attitude is a stubborn refusal to sort out what our relations with the Unionists are. All I can do is hope that the debate will go on and on. I do believe that this one will run; but, if it does, it is not due to any credit on the part of the Government.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 28.