Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on 19 November 1985:

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, 1985, between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom which was signed at Hillsborough, Co. Down, on 15th November, 1985 and copies of which have been laid before Dáil Éireann.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland;

recalling the unanimous Declaration of Dáil Éireann adopted on the joint proposition of An Taoiseach, John A. Costello and the Leader of the Opposition, Eamon de Valera, on 10 May 1949 solemnly reasserting the indefeasible right of the Irish Nation to the unity and integrity of the national territory;

recalling that all the parties in the New Ireland Forum were convinced that a united Ireland in the form of a a sovereign independent state would offer the best and most durable basis for peace and stability;

re-affirming the unanimous conclusion of the Report of the New Ireland Forum that the particular structure of political unity which the Forum would wish to see established is a unitary state achieved by agreement and consent, embracing the whole island of Ireland and providing irrevocable guarantees for the protection and preservation of both the unionist and nationalist identities;

while recognising the urgent need that exists for substantial improvement in the situation and circumstances of the nationalist section of the community in the North of Ireland and approving any effective measures which may be undertaken for that purpose, refuses to accept any recognition of British sovereignty over any part of the national territory;

and requests the Government to call upon the British Government to join in convening under the joint auspices of both governments a constitutional conference representative of all the traditions in Ireland to formulate new constitutional arrangements which would lead to uniting all the people of Ireland in peace and harmony."

—(Deputy Haughey).

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick West): As the leader of our party stated yesterday, there are some aspects of this agreement which are good. I have no doubt that the Taoiseach and his officials acted in all sincerity in accepting this agreement and that all concerned believed they were working towards peace and stability in the North. That is a worthy and noble objective but, unfortunately, that is as far as it goes. There is nothing in the agreement which could not have been obtained without reneging on a more worthy and noble objective, that is, national unity. There is no way the Taoiseach can escape from that reality. It galls me and every member of the Fianna Fáil Party, as well as everyone who aspires to the objective of national unity, to see the leader of this country fooled into a formal acceptance of Britain's claim to sovereignty over the northern portion of our country. It is no wonder the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was preening herself when she proclaimed at the press conference that she is both a Loyalist and a Unionist. One could also say that she did proud by her own kind and her own people. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for our Taoiseach. All the Taoiseach got is a room with a view, a room in Stormont Castle which is the seat of British rule in Ireland. The Taoiseach will have a view that might not always be considered by the British Government. It was made quite clear by the British Government and the Prime Minister that any decisions north of the Border would be made by the British Government and decisions south of the Border by the Irish Government. The Taoiseach has responsibility without authority and has legitimised the regime that has been responsible for the strife and bloodshed he is trying to stop.

As the leader of our party said yesterday when replying to the Taoiseach, the whole basis of this document is an acceptance of British sovereignty over Northern Ireland as an integral part of the UK and that what must be done is to smooth out the difficulties which the British Government encounters in ruling this part of its kingdom. Deputy Haughey also said:

The new Conference is designed to achieve this smoothing out; to help in particular to reconcile the Nationalist community with a British administration which they have always seen as alien and oppressive. Our opposition to this agreement is that its thrust is in the wrong direction, the whole trend of these developments is toward seeking to bolster up the existing political structure which in itself is the cause of the trouble, the source of violence and instability, and which always will be as long as it remains.

That says it far more effectively than I could hope to say it. Deputy Haughey highlighted the problems that will affect us as a result of aspects of this agreement. Perhaps worse than that is that the Taoiseach has acquiesed in a massive PR campaign to sell this agreement. The Taoiseach has worked overtime to obtain the support of our international friends for the terms of the agreement. In doing so the Taoiseach was further nailing home the British Government's claim to sovereignty over the North, something that our Constitution expressly denies.

One might also be forgiven for saying that several years ago the present Taoiseach amidst great pomp and ceremony, launched his so-called constitutional crusade. One is tempted to ask at this stage, is this his ultimate aim in setting out on that constitutional crusade? How in future years can Governments, probably Fianna Fáil Governments, claim the right to jurisdiction over the severed part of our island when this agreement is lodged in the UN as an official international treaty? Deputy Haughey referred to this agreement yesterday as a very insubstantial document which was given status beyond its worth. Any agreement that confines itself to legal and security matters and refers to cross-Border co-operation without a reference to the largest single industry on both sides of the Border is indeed an insubstantial thing. It is ironic that the only real cross-Border co-operation this year came in the wake of the disastrous weather conditions this summer which affected farmers North and South of the Border. The British Government representative in the North, having failed to have their case taken up at EC level by their own Government, joined with Northern MEPs, including Mr. Ian Paisley and joined with our MEPs to demand and get concessions on grain for fodder. The Northern farmer suffers under British rule because British agriculture policies apply across the board. These policies are the same for the rich pasture-lands of East Anglia and for the small farmers in the North.

The agriculture post in Dundonald House in Belfast has traditionally been aware of those policies and has been the preserve of dukes and earls who merely administer the policies set down by the London Government without offering any local input. An example of this is in relation to the super-levy milk quotas part of which were transferred from the North for the benefit of the British farmer. Another example was the insistence by the Northern Minister, Lord Lyle from the east coast of Britain, which had not been affected by the weather to any great extent, that British agriculture be treated as a single unit in seeking EC aid. The Minister could not see the need for special measures for the North. Significantly, Lord Lyle refused to contemplate an all-Ireland approach to the EC.

The lack of an all-Ireland agricultural policy is one of the tragedies of Partition. It does not make sense that farmers straddling the Border should be subject to different regulations. It has always been our contention in Fianna Fáil that a united Ireland would lead to progress, socially and economically. This is manifestly true in relation to the agricultural industry. Therefore, in the absence of a joint political approach perhaps the main farming organisations, the IFA, the ICMSA, the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association, could initiate such a move towards this end. For example, at present nobody represents the Northern farmers in agricultural negotiations in Brussels. Their case is Britain's case. What is good for Britain's farmers is not necessarily good for the North of Ireland farmer. Certainly, there is far more common ground between the Irish farmers North and South of the Border than between the British and the Irish farmers. Imagine if we in the South were to accept whatever deals Britain negotiated for her farmers at the Brussels negotiating table. The suggestion is just as ridiculous for the Northern farmers in the context I have outlined.

There would be problems, of course, in achieving an all-Ireland agriculture policy. We all know that the larger Northern farmers are generally staunch Unionists of planter stock and I suppose in a sense they would cringe at any suggestion of unity with the South. Ian Paisley is their champion and, while he might work for their benefit in an all-Ireland context, he would insist that it was merely co-operation with a friendly neighbouring state, nothing more. The SDLP have long advocated a joint agriculture policy with the South or at least a policy based on the needs of the Northern farmer rather than those of his British counterpart.

Therefore, the agreement before the House will not advance that aspiration any further. It will become enmeshed in a gruelling, no win controversy over policing and security, subjects that have dominated the minds of the British and their agents in the North to the exclusion of anything else. Britain has always felt that the problem of the North could be solved by military and security measures, but world opinion prevented the firm application of those measures. Now that the Irish Government have committed themselves to supporting the British regime they have given their imprimatur to their security policies and have guaranteed Britain against international criticism. Surely it would have been far better for Irishmen, North and South, if our Government had spent their energies in promoting genuine cross-Border co-operation in areas such as agriculture without regard to Britain's diplomatic embarrassments. I regret to say that these embarrassments will become ours when this agreement is signed. In conclusion, as my party Leader said yesterday, I urge the House to reject this agreement.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): When this Government set out with the British Government on the difficult path of negotiating an agreement between our two countries following the meeting at Chequers between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in December 1984, we had before us the basic objective of trying to find ways of enhancing the prospects for peace and reconciliation on this island. We believed that, if we were to have any realistic hope of attaining this objective, it would be necessary to find ways of lessening the alienation of the Nationalist community in the North which the Forum in paragraph 5.1 of their report so clearly identified while, at the same time, providing concrete and visible evidence to the Unionist people that their position was not under threat.

I believe that anyone who studies the text of this agreement carefully will see that it reflects fairly these two fundamental principles. For the first time since the establishment of the state of Northern Ireland a formal structure, the Anglo-Irish Inter-governmental Conference, is to be established within Northern Ireland which will be given the specific remit of concerning itself with measures to recognise and accommodate the rights and identities of both traditions in the North.

This represents significant progress because it means that the Nationalist population of the North now have formal recognition in a binding international agreement that their traditions and rights are to be placed on a footing equal to that of the majority population. Nobody should underestimate the importance of this historic development for the Nationalist people of the North. It represents not only formal acknowledgement by the British Government of the legitimacy within the State of those who seek to work by peaceful means for the re-unification of Ireland, but also provides machinery through which matters of major concern to them can be discussed and differences between the two communities reconciled.

When this agreement was being signed, I was already on my way to the United States of America to provide briefings on the contents and implications of the agreement. I believe that some account of my visit there is appropriate and that the reaction of people whom I met there may be of interest to Deputies in the context of their own attitude to the agreement.

I went there mainly to meet two groups. First, I met people in the general news media, with special reference to those based in New York. After that I met various people with Irish-American interests including both people in Irish-American news media and other people active in Irish-American organisations.

In the event, the agreement received very wide coverage. The New York Times went to the extent of printing the text of the agreement in full, as well as giving it editorial support. I believe it can fairly be said that the editorial and other press reaction in the main American news media ranged from favourable to very favourable. Newspapers with a special Irish-American interest, not being dailies, had not appeared before I had left but, in general, the personal reaction I got from those whom I met from the Irish-American area, both in organisations and in news media, seemed to me to be at least as favourable as that shown by the national news media. All in all, I was more than happy.

I suppose it might be suggested that, as far as the Irish-American groups are concerned, I took care to ensure that those whom I met were people I could depend on to give a favourable reaction. That was not, in fact, the case. Where Irish-American groups were concerned, I exercised some selectivity, simply because I did not think it would be helpful at this stage to extend invitations to people whose attitudes in the past have caused serious concern to a succession of Irish Governments. However, I certainly did not set out to speak only to the converted, and to have done so would not have been consistent with one of the main objectives of my journey.

It might be said — on the face of it, not unreasonably — that such a reaction as I have described, emerging in the immediate aftermath of my visit, is of little long term significance. If all I could claim was that the immediate response was good, I would not myself see very much significance in it. I would not be dismissive about it either, because the published reaction of major organs of opinion in the United States is important to us, as is the immediate reaction of Irish-American groups, but we in the Government are concerned with more than the immediate reaction and I am sure the House is also. That is particularly so because, as we all know, for some years there has been a serious problem about misguided financial support for paramilitaries here and it is very likely that the level of that support can be affected one way or the other by the general reaction of Irish-Americans to the agreement. So the question arises: will the immediately favourable US reaction to which I have referred last? I believe it will last.

I believe this, first of all, for a reason I need hardly mention at all, namely, that I am convinced that the agreement is a good one that will be increasingly accepted as being so in the weeks, months and years ahead. However, that is not a reason that will carry conviction to anybody who has a different view of the agreement, so I will pass on to other reasons. And, of them, the central reason I am confident that the American reaction was no flash-in-the-pan, is that it was not the result of any public relations exercise by me because I did not engage in any such exercise. I did not go to the United States to do a "public relations" job. I am sure it would have been very easy for me to do that kind of job if I had set out to do so and to have ensured, in the short term, an even better reaction than has actually emerged.

I could have done that for the very simple reason that the agreement is a carefully balanced document that recognises different and at times conflicting interests, and it would have been easy, though I believe very irresponsible, for me to have given a distorting emphasis to some parts of the agreement rather than others, tailoring my remarks and my responses to the special interests of particular groups. I went out of my way to avoid doing so. In fact I believe I can fairly say that, although my contacts amongst Irish-Americans were virtually entirely with those in the Nationalist tradition, I would not have had to change a word of what I said if my audience were made up exclusively of staunch Unionists and if my only remit were to persuade them to support the agreement. No doubt I would have got some different supplementary questions from such an audience, but that is all.

It says much for the agreement that I can say without hesitation that the case I made to encourage Irish-Americans of the Nationalist tradition to support the agreement is a case that I believe would encourage all but the most die-hard of Unionists to do likewise.

On several occasions — and I am referring now to what I said to Irish-American groups and not only to the general newsmedia — I stressed that, at the heart of the agreement and the factor that I believed offered a new level of hope for peace and reconciliation, was the fact that for the first time there was a recognition of the legitimacy of the identity and aspirations of those in the Nationalist tradition and that this major advance was achieved without diminution whatsoever of the recognition of the legitimacy of the Unionist identity.

Likewise, when issues were raised about the UDR and when some very rough things were said by one or two of my questioners about the role of the UDR and indeed the security forces in general, I took care, even in such circumstances — actually, I would say, especially in such circumstances — to give a balanced answer. By a balanced answer I mean an answer that reflected in full the many grounds that Nationalists have had for serious complaint against the security forces and especially the UDR, but an answer that also recognised the fact that the UDR were genuinely regarded by many members of the majority community as providing an essential measure of protection against a ruthless murder campaign. I repeatedly made the point that, in recent times, evidence of even-handed enforcement of law and order had been given by the RUC in some situations that were difficult for them.

I explained that, in the circumstances that now exist where members of both communities have valid points to maintain, the best compromise currently available in relation to the UDR, and one that would recognise the legitimate interests of both communities, was the compromise that was being announced, namely, that both sides in the new Conference would be urgently discussing further ways of ensuring that as quickly as possible the stages would be reached where, except in very exceptional circumstances, a member of the RUC would accompany the UDR in situations where they would otherwise be in contact with the public.

I think, therefore, that I can confidently claim that in my meetings in the US I presented the agreement as it is, not as some people on one side or the other might wish it to be. That is why I have been able to say with assurance that I did not engage in a public relations exercise. What I supplied to my US audiences was, essentially, factual information. Inevitably, and quite properly, I was of course asked for interpretation and assessment and indeed I offered some on my own initiative; but, as I said earlier, my answers were such that I could and would have given them in the same terms to a Unionist audience. And it is because that is so that I feel confident that the initial response that the agreement has produced in the US will be maintained and that the American response will be reflected in a reduction of funds for paramilitary activity.

I might say, in passing, that my experience in the US has reinforced my own confidence in the merits and the value of the agreement, for it has meant that people have come forward to support something that has been presented to them without any sales-talk in a balanced and even-handed way.

This brings me to a related point. I understand that, in a radio interview yesterday, a member of the Alliance Party, Mr. Glendinning, said something to the effect that I had made statements in the United States that suggested that behind the agreement there were secret deals detrimental to Unionists. I think it is important that I should deal with this.

I am glad to assure this House, and indirectly Mr. Glendinning and any others who may share his fears, that I did not make any statements that carried any such suggestions of that kind in any form whatsoever, as I think should be clear enough from what I have already said. I did not do so and I could not have done so for the very good reason that there are no secret deals, whether detrimental to Unionists or otherwise. While I did not hear the interview myself, I understand that what Mr. Glendinning was referring to was, or at least probably was, a newspaper report saying that I said in a television interview in the United States that the agreement was substantial and not merely advisory so, in effect, the Irish Government had been given a substantial role in the day to day running of Northern Ireland.

I should perhaps say at some point — and this is as good as any other — that, while I tried to be careful in everything I said, I was not reading from a prepared text. I spoke at length, in question and answer sessions and otherwise; and if, as inevitably happens occasionally, I felt that some particular statement or even some phrase of mine was perhaps not happily expressed, I tried to introduce a suitable clarification or balance subsequently.

The particular newspaper report which I have mentioned and which I think Mr. Glendinning was referring to, was an edited account of what I had said. In fact, in the interview itself, my reference to the Government's being given a substantial role came after and was directly linked with a statement that the new agreement provides that determined efforts will be made to secure agreement in the interests of peace and stability. That being so, my comment was, and was clearly recognisable by viewers as being, my own assessment of the fact that both sides were committed to reaching agreement in the interests of peace and stability. That explains the words, "so in effect", which are actually quoted in the newspaper report. Nobody who heard my remarks in full could possibly misunderstand them in the way in which Mr. Glendinning apparently did. And I might add that, in that very same interview, and at a very early stage in it, I also made the point which I have already said I made on several occasions, namely, that the recognition of the Nationalist identity and of the legitimacy of the Nationalist aspirations, which the agreement has provided for the first time, is achieved without any loss to the Unionist community.

Incidentally, the House may be interested to hear a brief word about the fact that on that same programme, and at the same time, Congressman Biaggi was interviewed — in other words it was a joint interview. As the House will be aware, Congressman Biaggi has for a long time shown a special interest in Irish affairs. I do not think I would be introducing any note of contention if I said that his views have on occasion in the past diverged from those of Governments here, Governments of different political complexion, of whom indeed he has been critical.

I would like of course to be able to say that he expressed himself as being enthusiastically in support of the agreement, but I cannot honestly go that far. However, I think it can fairly be said, without risk of exaggeration, that he was moderately supportive of it. He had, earlier that day, on the basis of what I assume was a first look at the agreement, issued a more sceptical — though not a condemnatory — statement. However, on further consideration, he moved to the position I have described. As I have indicated, I would not want to overstate the position. He certainly emphasised, indeed rightly I think, that the real test of the agreement will be how it will be implemented. But, at the end of the day, he left viewers in no doubt that he believed that the agreement should be given a chance to work. I was happy with the assessment from him and grateful for the trouble he had taken, in the interests of this country, to appear on the programme.

I think it right to add that I was also glad to have had the opportunity to meet him. His knowledge of and interest in Irish affairs were indeed very impressive; and if I hope that I was of some help to him in assessing the agreement, I for my part benefited from what he had to say to me on various points that arose in our conversation. With that report, if I may so describe it, I now return to home ground.

As I am a member of the Government and a member also of the party of which the Taoiseach is leader, I know it can seem to be just a sycophantic exercise if I say anything in praise of the speech with which he opened the debate. But, having listened to him last evening, I cannot refrain from saying that few of his listeners can have been unmoved by the ringing sincerity of what he had to say and few can have been unimpressed by the strength of his determination to build bridges where bridges are so desperately needed.

I also listened with great attention to the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Haughey, and I propose to make a few comments on some of his remarks, especially some that impinge on matters in which, as Minister for Justice, I have a special interest.

It will hardly come as a surprise that I disagree with much of what Deputy Haughey said and specifically with his conclusions. But, as the Minister with special responsibility in the area of law and order, I think it is right to begin with an acknowledgment. Although I regretted the tone of his remarks at certain points and felt they were a cause of some concern as to the effects they could have, yet I am glad to place on record my feeling that, in his speech generally, Deputy Haughey was careful about the way in which he put forward his criticisms of the agreement, careful in the sense that he was conscious of the possible effects of statements that might be inflamatory. As I have said, that is a matter in which, as Minister for Justice, I have a special concern and I would now add an appeal that the tone that Deputy Haughey set will be maintained on that side of the house.

Deputy Haughey's criticisms could be grouped under two or three heads and since one of them was security I think it right to respond to what he said on that score. The heart of that particular criticism was, I think, contained in one short paragraph of his script, which was as follows:

In this area also [here he was referring to security] the position will continue to be, that the decisions will be taken by the Northern Ireland Secretary of State and the British Government. This creates a situation where the Irish Government will be locked into a position where it will have to accept responsibility for the undesirable, an unsatisfactory and an unpalatable security apparatus and its operations without having any real control over them.

That paragraph was followed by one which began:

Is anyone prepared to make the claim that what is proposed in this agreement will provide lasting peace and stability to Northern Ireland even in the longer term...?

To that I would reply that it is perfectly true that the agreement carries risks for us in the area to which Deputy Haughey's remarks relate. What he actually says is, I believe, an exaggeration, for it ignores the fact that we will have a role and a substantial role and that there is commitment, which I am confident was given on the basis that it will be honoured, that determined efforts will be made to secure agreement. But, that being said, agreement will at times not be forthcoming without concessions on both sides, and there will be risks. I am certain that the Government would not wish to deny that or to blur it in any way. Rather would we wish to underline it. We recognise that there are risks, and in particular risks of political damage to us. It is a measure of our commitment to the cause of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland that we are prepared to take those risks. No Irish Government can hope to achieve anything, either on behalf of the Nationalist population or on behalf of the population of Northern Ireland as a whole, unless they are willing to take risks and to commit themselves to doing so.

Why are we prepared to take those risks? I suggest that nobody who has read the Forum report would feel it necessary to look beyond it for an answer. The answer leaps from its pages at various points, but if I were asked to single out one paragraph that sums it up, I would suggest paragraph 3.21, which refers to deaths of over 2,300 people, to injury or maiming of over 24,000, to over 43,000 recorded separate incidents of shootings, bombings and arson, to an increase in prison population from 686 in 1967 to 2,500 in 1983. But over and above what is directly represented by those statistics, the paragraph draws attention also to the fact that thousands are suffering from psychological stress because of fear, intimidation and the impact of security measures. I rather think that that reference to thousands is an understatement — I would suggest it must be tens of thousands. And the paragraph makes the chilling point that the effect on society has been shattering — that there is hardly a family that has not been touched by death, injury or intimidation.

Yes, there are risks for us in this agreement, and that is why I believe we should and must be prepared to take risks. And that, too, is the reason why I suggest that when Deputy Haughey asks if there is anybody who is prepared to make the claim that what is proposed in the agreement will provide lasting peace and stability he is not asking the right question. Nobody with any sense of the complexity of the Northern problem could possibly make a claim that any agreement that might conceivably be made at this stage, or indeed for quite some time to come, would provide lasting peace and stability; nor should anybody claim that this one will do so. What we claim and urge is that it offers a serious prospect, and by far the best prospect available, that it will do so. The horror of what has been taking place in Northern Ireland, to which I have just now alluded in my reference to the Forum report, is such that it is nothing less then our clear duty to take that option, with its risks and with its uncertainties, quite simply because it offers real progress — surely major progress — and that the available alternatives ought to be unacceptable.

Deputy Haughey has suggested that we have abandoned our claim to unity and the rights of the Nationalist majority on this island. Of course, we have done nothing of the kind. The British Government know that; the Unionist community know it; and no prospect of temporary advantage in our dealings with either has tempted us to do so.

When I was in the US I quoted more than once from a speech made by a former Taoiseach and Leader of Deputy Haughey's Party, Mr. Seán Lemass, during one of his own visits to the United States. It was a speech in Washington in 1963, so, as I emphasised, it was not today or yesterday. I made the point that, as well as being Taoiseach, he was himself a 1916 man and was also, as a political leader, like our Taoiseach, widely respected across party political boundaries. The following is the quotation, which I gave in full:

We have always based our case for the reunification of our country on the assertion of Irish rights in the matter — our right to sovereignty over all the national territory, our right to reject the claim of a minority to vote itself out of the nation, and our right to have our national destiny decided by the democratic process of majority decision. We have come to realise that the reiteration of rights is not enough and that we also need to have regard to the causes of the divisions amongst our people which were used as a justification for Partition. We see our task now as reuniting the Irish people as well as reuniting Irish territory.

Deputy Haughey devoted much of his speech to a criticism of the agreement in the constitutional context. His central theme is that we have acted in breach of Articles 2 and 3 and that we have thereby abandoned the claim to Irish unity, leaving a political vacuum to be filled by men of violence if it is not filled by Fianna Fáil. I do not propose to embark on an argument about constitutional law. If I were to attempt to do so, I should have to seek legal guidance from constitutional experts about what I might say and I see no reason why I should embark on such a course for the purposes of my present contribution. But I would like to make just a few comments from a layman's standpoint and from what I believe is a standpoint of reason and commonsense on some of Deputy Haughey's remarks about the implication of the agreement.

Certainly, if we had abandoned our aspiration to unity, or even left its existence in some doubt, Deputy Haughey would, I think, have an arguable case in what he says about the dangers of a political vacuum. The answer to him is that, as I have said earlier, that has not happened. Frankly, I do not understand what he is saying about his position in the 1980 communique being misunderstood despite his explanations. If he commits himself to saying that a change in the status of Northern Ireland — and, by the way, his communique, unlike the agreement, actually uses the word constitutional status, though I do not suggest that that adds any problem for him — if, as I say, he commits himself to saying that a change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority in the North, I personally accept without question his proposition that he was referring to what is its constitutional status as a matter of practical reality. What I cannot accept is a suggestion, echoing an interpretation that he placed in a statement in the Forum report, that he was accepting the principle of the consent of a Northern majority in relation to the form of unity but not to unity itself.

At the best of times, it seems to me to be stretching credibility to say that we can differentiate between the principle of consent in relation to any particular form of unity and consent in relation to unity itself. But there is more to it than that. Deputy Haughey did not just say that a change in status would only come about with consent. He said that he agreed with the British Prime Minister that it would only come about in that way. He could not possibly have been in agreement with the British Prime Minister on this matter unless what he actually said was to be given its ordinary meaning.

I have said that I am not making any legal or legalistic analysis and I would repeat that point now. If Deputy Haughey suggests that there is a significant constitutional difference between including a particular affirmation in a communique and including it in an agreement, I will leave it to other people on another day to argue the point. But I will offer a comment from a point of view of political reality on this suggestion that we have abandoned the principle of Irish unity by repeating Deputy Haughey's own language. I strongly suggest that the men of violence, to whom Deputy Haughey suggests we are in danger of abandoning the high ground of Irish Nationalist aspirations, are unlikely to be influenced by arguments that are as elusive as those about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. To them, an affirmation that something would only come about in a certain way is an affirmation that it would only come about in a certain way. On that particular issue, I would be disposed to agree with them.

We have not in fact abandoned anything. We have not asked the Unionists to abandon anything either. That is the strength and the special value of this agreement. I add my voice to the support for it that has already been expressed.

Mr. B. Ahern

First one must note the peaceful course this debate has taken. Regardless of our differences on some important aspects of this agreement, for once in this House, we have succeeded in having a debate where there are fundamental differences of opinion but the debate is still being conducted in an orderly fashion.

I might take up one or two points in the remarks of the Minister for Justice without taking any great issue with him. The battle we have fought from these benches since the Summit has been to explain our position, to illustrate the threat, as we understand it, to sovereignty, the threat to Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution. That is not to say there are not some aspects of this agreement that may be approved. If it transpires that the agreement is approved we would hope it would be useful in the short or long term. Our leader is continuously quoted on some things he has said. He has also made other matters very clear.

It is my understanding — and our Leader stated it yesterday — that there is no wish on the part of Fianna Fáil to impede or inhibit those who wish to make this agreement successful. If it helps the Nationalist population in the short or long term, so much the better. We have no reason to fight this matter in the courts. We have clearly set down our position as a party and I know nobody on the other side of the House would attempt to take that right from us. That is not to say there is not a fundamental difference of opinion between myself and other Members of the House on a position that has obtained for decades in this country. It is a matter in respect of which, in a cool and calm way, we can agree to disagree and await what happens in the course of time.

The penultimate paragraph of our amendment cannot be over-emphasised and I might quote it here again:

That paragraph clearly states that Fianna Fáil are not against any effective measures which may be undertaken under the terms of this agreement. The Minister for Justice has spelled out what he believes to be wrong with our position because of what happened at the May 1980 Summit. There was a paragraph in the May 1980 Summit communique which stated that, while agreeing with the British Prime Minister that any change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could only come about with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach reaffirmed that it is the wish of the Irish Government to secure the unity of Ireland by agreement and in peace. That statement was conditional and non-binding.

When reporting on that Summit to this House, our Leader, Deputy Haughey, had this to say on 29 May, 1980, as reported in the Official Report, column 1057, Volume 321:

We seek an arrangement whereby all Irishmen, no matter what their traditions, would manage the affairs of this island without British participation but with active British interest and goodwill.... Ideally, we would like to see the British Government express an interest in the ultimate achievement of unity.... I would like, therefore, to see the British Government modifying the present guarantee by adding a positive element, a new departure that would open the door to progress... The words of the communique acknowledge our basic position. These words "come about" place the emphasis on the practical realities of the situation. This is entirely compatible with our view that while no part of the Irish nation has the right to opt out of the nation, we recognise that unity cannot be imposed by force, and can only come about by negotiation and agreement.

That was what Deputy Haughey had to say in 1980 with regard to the Fianna Fáil position.

What presents great difficulty to Fianna Fáil is Article 1 of this agreement. Had this agreement excluded Article 1, sections (a), (b) and (c) perhaps the attitude of Fianna Fáil could have been entirely different. We are advised—perhaps our advice is wrong but as a major political party in the country we are entitled to hold that view — that Article 1 is contrary to what our Constitution states and the reason Fianna Fáil were formed as a political party in the first place. I am sure nobody would take away our right to oppose something so fundamental. If it is misinterpreted, so be it, but we shall continue to uphold our right on that matter.

At the very end of his press communique the Taoiseach asked Nationalists and Unionists to look at this agreement for what it is. That is precisely what I intend to do — to look at this Anglo-Irish Agreement for what it is, while not being exactly the same as the Taoiseach may believe it to be, or what many of the less observant national scribes have presumed it to be.

I have no satisfaction in saying here today that the Government have wantonly squandered our deepest aspirations. That is not something I would say too lightly. They rushed into an agreement, as they did on a number of other issues, telling us how much time and effort had been put into this, which I accept. My esteem for those loyal civil servants of the nation who struggled to effect the Government's wishes is unbounded. They have proved themselves worthy of the great esteem in which they are held by both sides of this House and by the nation at large. It is, therefore, most unfortunate that on this occasion — and I must say most disagreeable — to have to come into the House and berate this Government again for gross dereliction of duty.

It is extremely difficult for me to believe that the Taoiseach, even in his wildest flights of fantasy, could possibly think that we in Fianna Fáil would agree mutely to the removal of Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution by sleight of hand. That is what this Anglo-Irish Agreement does. At the stroke of two pens the indefeasible right of the Irish people to the unity and integrity of the national territory has been eliminated. Was the Taoiseach unaware of the implications of Article 1 of the agreement? Or could it be that he and his Government decided to disregard those Articles of our Constitution that symbolise our most dearly held national dreams? Parnell's great dictum that no man can put a stop to the march of a nation has met a sad and untimely end at the hands of this Government. Without any due authority, except the misconceived notions of their woolly thinking, this Government have put a full stop to the aspirations and the de jure rights of the Irish people.

The Taoiseach and members of his Government have been Members of this House long enough to understand well that the desire to achieve national unity by peaceful means lies at the heart of Fianna Fáil as a political party. Though I am of a different generation from those who first differed fundamentally over this issue, I can assure the House that I feel just as strongly and intensely as did the founders of Fianna Fáil regarding the partition of our country. By accepting British sovereignty over part of our constitutional territory, this Government have greatly underestimated the long term damage they have done and may do to bi-partisanship in this House. Hopefully that can be corrected, because it has added enormously to progress made in this country in recent years.

One has heard in the media and in the British House of Commons the loud complaints of the Unionists, that they played no part whatever in the formulation of this agreement, that they were not consulted at all. I find it incredible that this Government did not make the leadership of the largest party in this State and, indeed in the whole island, aware of the nature of the negotiations and the direction in which they were heading. Much damage could have been avoided and much benefit accrued from such consultation. Now that the media hullabaloo has died down somewhat, I only hope and pray that those who inform the nation on these events of great importance will find time to examine closely the precise benefits each party gets from this agreement. I would dearly wish to find in this agreement a sentence that would assure me that the lot of the Nationalist population or the effects on security or the movements towards reconciliation would be enhanced by this agreement.

No sensible Member of this House would allow himself to be made responsible for something that he did not to a great degree control. Is it not obvious even to the most fuzzy-minded that by accepting responsibility for security in the North we are condemning ourselves to supporting the insupportable, to legitimising the illegitimate and to excusing the inexcusable? Too many tragic incidents have blotted the Northern landscape for one to have anything but the firmest conviction that it is the very structure itself that is rotten. Are we now to shore up the rotting edifice of a statelet, condoned by British duplicity, and then be made blameworthy for the unworkability of a system whose birth we resisted from the start?

Even though the agreement legitimises the partition of this country and endorses by its nature future British military and political policies; even though this Government made a major concession of principle and formally surrendered de jure Irish sovereignty; even though the Taoiseach would have us believe that Nationalists can now hold up their heads and that in all of this process there have been no losers, I find it impossible to detect any positive aspects for either the Nationalist population, the Irish Government or the country as a whole.

We already had the right to express our views and represent them to the British Government and, while we always maintained and exercised those rights it was latterly, in 1980, that the British Government publicly accepted them. So there is nothing new in that. There is no additional validity in anything this agreement can propose.

It was already accepted by all consitutional parties in this State that change could only come about through democratic means and according to the wishes of a majority of the people of the Northern Irish State. There is nothing new in that, unless it be the amazing new position pointed out by Deputy Haughey yesterday when he referred to the Taoiseach's statement in the communique that "constitutional Nationalists could only accept unity with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland." I am sure that is not what the Taoiseach meant to say because it would be absolutely preposterous if unity offered by the British could not be accepted as long as some section of the Unionists objected.

There is no undertaking to consult; there is no necessity for differences to be resolved and it will not be a decision-making body. There is no certainty or even mechanism to ensure that our legitimate concerns are taken into account, so we may huff and puff all we like but the British Government will make the decisions in the North, exactly as heretofore. So where is the benefit to us? There is none. The tragedy is that we can now become bogged down in the Northern quagmire, without any certainty that the lot of the Nationalist minority will be bettered in any way.

The stakes are high in this foolish gamble. Whereas before the international community was quite aware of our historic and constitutional claim of sovereignty, they can now be convinced by PR into believing that we are quite content with British administration in the North.

I would like to stress that it is not from any petty feeling of partisan loyalty that I bring these points to the notice of this House. I would gladly have welcomed an agreement that concretely and positively improved the position of the minority. Let no one think that Fianna Fáil would for any reason deny the Nationalist community short-term improvements in their situation so as to satisfy the long-term aim of national unity: no, not at all. But we cannot pretend to see benefits where none are apparent. We cannot pretend that this agreement will improve things, when patently it will not. We cannot pretend it is wonderful when we know it is a disaster, yet another in a long list of Coalition disasters.

In his speech, yesterday, the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party pointed out the international legal implications of this agreement. I hope his reasoned and lucid arguments were heeded by the Government and that this is the end of all that United Nations business. The lodging of such an insubstantial document that could so easily cause major embarrassment to the Government in the future should be avoided at all costs.

The saddest aspect of this agreement is that the very best it can hold out before the people of Northern Ireland is a devolved Government of some sort at some future date, with a gradual withering away of Irish governmental function as the Unionists come to their senses. So the hope of the future is the failure of the past. Devolved government had its day and was swept aside by the dominant factor that has been constant in the North: the Unionist veto and the British guarantee.

It is a pity that the Government had not the strength of character to impress this more vigorously on the British Prime Minister. A unitary state achieved by agreement and consent is indeed the only solution that offers the hope of lasting peace and stability. A gradually increasing intergration is the solution, not a diminution of our role. We invested much time, energy and enthusiasm into the report of the New Ireland Forum, which unanimously reached that conclusion. What a tragedy that the lessons of the Forum were so quickly forgotten by this Government and by a Taoiseach whose main obsession seems to be the removal of Articles from the Constitution, either overtly or covertly. In his press communique, the Taoiseach stated that both he and Maggie Thatcher went to the negotiations with different title deeds. Maybe so. But Deputy Garret FitzGerald meekly handed over the title deeds to our national sovereignty, while Maggie Thatcher was extremely happy to return to London with the Government's undertaking to underwrite the political future of a state that has totally failed.

Minister for Education (Mrs. Hussey)

I should like to deal with some points raised by Deputy Ahern. Any logic there might be in the Fianna Fáil position continues to elude me. I cannot see any logic, even if I delve through all the verbal somersaults, since there are so many changes throughout the Fianna Fáil speeches. These speeches seem to be made without any feeling of conviction. Deputy Ahern has stated that Fianna Fáil are opposing the agreement because they are against the principle of consent being expressed in an international agreement. On the other hand, he objects to the fact that Unionists were not invited to discussions, although anything they would have said would have been opposed by Fianna Fáil anyway.

Mr. B. Ahern

I said the Unionists have objected. I did not say I was objecting on their behalf.

Mrs. Hussey

I am glad of that clarification. It was made very clear in the Taoiseach's analytical speech yesterday that there was a faithful following of the Forum report, paragraph by paragraph, in this agreement, it defies logic to state that the Forum report has been thrown out the window. There is a concrete alignment of each part of the Forum report with the agreement.

The agreement concluded last Friday represents for me the modern aspirations of a modern Ireland for peace and reconciliation. I believe at last this country is dominated by progressive Irish people, men and women, young and old, who do not find a place for looking backwards or beating old drums. The country has at this very momentous time the good fortune to be led by a man who is generally accepted to be extremely quick to think but slow to attack. A year ago after Chequers there were very many people in the country who expressed in one way or another the sentiment that this time we should fight back. There was an unfortunate combination of words and actions which appeared to give unforgiveable offence to what the country felt was an overmild Taoiseach and Government. It is, of course, the mark of a very good politician to be able to look further ahead than short term advantage. That is what the Taoiseach did on that occasion, despite enormous pressures and, one even might say, provocation to do otherwise. Last Friday at Hillsborough we saw the result of that kind of sensitivity and of that dedication to something other than his own political advantage.

Deputy Ahern mentioned his own generation as being somewhat removed from the generation involved in the civil war era. I also am a politician of that later era. I am not what is sometimes described as a politician of the old school. A great many people came into politics in the seventies, as I did, whose impelling force had nothing whatsoever to do with the history of the civil war in this country but with the hope of a breakthrough to a new, social, economic and political scenario for Ireland. In that decade, many new people came in also because they were attracted by a new kind of idealism which was expressed so clearly by the Taoiseach and expanded in that seminal document Towards a Just Society. A great many people also entered politics who felt the need to work for peace in the face of the strife and suffering in Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement has all the elements of a modern Ireland which realistic political parties wish to see. Its very strong dedication to legitimising Nationalist aspirations is tempered by its practical acceptance of present attitudes of Northern Unionists. On the one hand it invites the Nationalist community to raise their heads, to turn to peace and constitutional expression for once and for all, to relate to the Irish and British Governments working together for the good of Northern Ireland. On the other hand, it says to Northern Unionists “Work with us. Co-operation and friendship can no longer be seen as threatening your identity because we have undertaken not to threaten you and never to ask you for more than you freely consent to give. Now you can safely give an inch”.

We are all acutely aware of the work of rebuilding Northern Ireland, and rebuilding stability and peace on the whole island begins now. The signing of the agreement last Friday ended one long period of adjustment and persuasion and of identifying in the Forum where modern Ireland stood in relation to the historical division of this country. The signing marked the end of one phase which was necessary to reach where we are today. Now, as so many Deputies have warned, the real work begins.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Barry, has been given the crucial job of co-chairing the new Inter-governmental Conference. He will have the task of balancing the desirable against the possible; of pushing so far and yet not too far; of demonstrating to every kind of Nationalist opinion that their alienation is over and that they are very much part of the community and country in which they live. I am sure he has our confidence and unstinting good wishes because the Irish Government will undoubtedly face negotiations as difficult and as daunting as any which preceded the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The British Government face no less a task and must carry it out in the face of Unionist opinion which will be ready to condemn at the slightest opportunity. The good faith of both Governments will be severely tested and I believe they will pass that test honourably. The Irish Government have grappled with a multiplicity of problems which no previous Government have ever had to do. Faced with the prospect of rebuilding Ireland's economic confidence in itself, and international confidence in us too, we have had to take unpopular measures. We have had to control spending but not to cut it drastically and to convince the population that our future lies only in responsible management. Despite our successes in those areas we have undoubtedly incurred the wrath of many large and vocal sectors of the community but that is the penalty which responsible Governments face.

Side by side with undertaking this massive task, the Government have also undertaken the slow, delicate and difficult job of addressing our overwhelming political problem, Northern Ireland. That problem, apart from entailing human misery, has taken a heavy toll on economic progress and has greatly contributed to our economic difficulties. It has been inspiring to watch the courage, expertise and idealism of the Taoiseach and his team as they brought not only the British Government but our own Government also through delicate, word by word construction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At this, which might be described as the Taoiseach's finest hour, it is typical of him not to seek credit for a breakthrough or to look for praise. He continues to press for peace and to ask our Unionist colleagues to trust him and Mrs. Thatcher. He and we ask that Unionists believe in our desire for peace and for prosperity for them as much as for the Nationalist community. That demeanour of restraint and resolute conviction appears to be the key note of the vast majority of people speaking in this debate. Indeed, lives depend on it.

We are grateful for the positive support of so many people on this island as well as abroad. We must remain hopeful that the moderate voices in Fianna Fáil will assert themselves sufficiently to soften what appears at present to be implacable opposition. We can look with confidence to the warmhearted Irish-American leadership and to those other huge Irish communities in the western world as well as to our European colleagues to help us in our rebuilding efforts. The statesmanlike vision of the Taoiseach in nurturing for many years, especially in the last few years, such close and friendly contacts all over the world is now bearing fruit for the benefit of peace in Ireland. In this country, which is Europe's youngest, the Anglo-Irish agreement stands out for its faith in and anxiety to see a peaceful future.

Two sovereign leaders have acknowledged their different backgrounds and their differing historical perspectives but have stepped outside those boundaries to accommodate each other. Young people do that all the time and I find it inspiring that the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister were able to shake off those mythical shackles of history in order to give peace a chance. This is a reflection of the way young people think. They have never started wars but have always been the main victims. We do not want any more young victims on this island, Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Nationalist.

I am proud to be part of a Government who have not only the courage to dare but the courage to succeed. Success has not yet come. It will come slowly and with careful encouragement. By success I mean understanding, friendship, peace and prosperity, not the removal of boundaries or borders achieved through hatred or bloodshed. A great deal can be done by the ordinary citizen to achieve this success and by taking every opportunity to reach out a hand to our Unionist co-habitants on this island. Undoubtedly one of the strongest fertilisers of hate is ignorance. There is no excuse for us to remain ignorant of the way of life, convictions and the vritues and qualities of the Unionists. Part of the solid work of peace building should be the reaching out by everyone of goodwill towards our Northern friends. We need to know what they think about us just as they need to know what we think about them.

In the field of education, a very important area of co-operation, we have many instances of outstanding mutual work between North and South. Recently we had a conference in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, organised jointly by the National Economic and Social Council and the Northern Ireland Economic Council on Higher Education and co-operation in that field. We have many instances of that co-operation. Colleges North and South have established warm and friendly contacts which, in some cases, are flowering to full formal commitments. Arrangements are in train between the NIHE, Dublin, and the University of Ulster for a joint course leading to a master's degree in education management. Engineering students of the Bolton Street College of Technology are pursuing their studies in Queens University, Belfast and NIHE Limerick and the University of Ulster have forged special links in the area of peace and conflict studies. A new undergraduate course in peace studies is commencing on the Magee campus of the University of Ulster. I hope this will prove a focal point for the recruitment of students in the Republic. We have co-operation in regard to the in training of teachers and, of course, we have had magnificent efforts by Co-operation North in regard to student exchange schemes.

They are not all, but they are some of the educational co-operation efforts which have been pursued in peace and friendliness between North and South and which we hope will continue to grow and strengthen, bringing together young people who need positive leadership from politicians who will recognise their modern aspirations.

All efforts to get Unionists to discuss Ireland's future at official level have failed, but that is no reason why they cannot succeed in the future. They will never succeed without a great deal of bridge building and without the establishment of a great peaceful period. That is the purpose and the goal of all the hard work by the Irish and British Governments — the establishment of normality, peace and calm. This debate and the tone in which it has been conducted seem to me to pay a tribute to the work of the Government, particularly the Taoiseach and his team, in the past 12 months. I share the pride of many in the House and throughout the country at what has been achieved. I am sure there will be continuing widespread massive support as we put this agreement into operation while we keep our eyes firmly fixed on the goal of peace on this island.

Mr. Flynn

I support the Fianna Fáil amendment to the motion for the acceptance of agreement. Any agreement that sets out to deal with the national question must satisfy and answer two questions: One, can it bring peace and stability to the Six Counties and, two, does it lead to unity? This agreement fails on both counts and exacerbates an already difficult problem.

The agreement fails to recognise the real causes for disharmony on this island and challenges the constitutional rights and aspirations of the majority of the citizens living in the whole island to seek a united Ireland.

Article 1 confirms our worst fears about this agreement when it recognises for the first time in history the Partition of Ireland in a binding international agreement, an agreement that will bind all successive Irish Governments to maintain the Union of the Six Counties to the United Kingdom, irrespective of what the majority wish is of all the people living on this island.

The British guarantee as understood by the Forum report has been the major stumbling block to progress in achieving a settlement of the national question. Is it now to be given full Irish support. This change of stance runs contrary to the stated positions of every Nationalist leader since the foundation of the State. No justification has been put forward to support the new attitude of the Government to the British guarantee, and obviously none exists. Guaranteeing the majority in the Six Counties that their status and Britishness are recognised and can never be changed is one thing, but what guarantee has been given to the Nationalists who want a united Ireland? None, and I suggest that they are one set of losers in this deal. We see nothing in this agreement except a hardening of the position that gives the Unionists a clearly defined veto over any change in the status of the Six Counies.

It is absurd to suggest that the Republic and its Ministers had no means open to them in the past to make their views known on Northern affairs. Statements dealing with every aspect of life in the Six Counties by Irish leaders are well documented. The Irish Government always had adequate opportunity for conferring and consulting and offering advice to the British Government. This agreement regularises an already well established situation and does not warrant or justify the signing and registering with the UN of an Anglo-Irish accord which will be represented abroad as an acceptance by the Republic of the validity of Partition.

It is stated in the Agreement that the people of the Six Counties will gradually be brought to a position of governing themselves in a devolved Government. This has been confirmed by both Governments. What this simply means is a return of the Stormont regime with Northern Ireland continuing as an intergral part of the United Kingdom. This kind of thinking shows that the United Kingdom has learned nothing in 60 years and refuses to recognise that the problems of the Six Counties stem from the creation of the Border and cannot be resolved until the Border is finally dismantled. To start that process the Unionist veto, the British guarantee, must be withdrawn. This agreement does the opposite and perpetuates the situation on the ground, which has caused violence and distress for over half a century.

It is also obvious from this agreement that the British Government will have the right to make demands on our Government to fall in line on security and other matters. This dimension of the agreement will mean that there will be considerable influence exerted on a continuing basis by the British Government in so far as the operations of the Garda and our security forces are concerned.

This fear has to be expressed. We reject a situation where the Garda might be sucked in to be the accomplices and collaborators of the RUC and the UDR in policing Britain's Border and be jointly responsible for acts of harassment of the Nationalist population. We cannot be seen to be giving support in backing up the elements of the security forces operating in the Six Counties which are internationally recognised as notorious and repressive. Demands made by the British Government on the Irish security forces will have to be acted on or refusals for no action defended. This must have a debilitating effect on our Garda and Army.

Refusals to comply with British requests will no doubt be responded to by British intransigence on matters of urgency raised by the Irish side. The British Prime Minister has left us in no doubt where we stand in this matter. She stated in the Commons, as reported in The Times of London on 19 November 1985 in her response to Mr. James Molyneaux, that the Government of the United Kingdom may raise matters of security under the agreement with the Irish Government concerning certain matters South of the Border.

The consequences of such an intrusion into Irish affairs can only be guessed at. It is interesting to note that in that reply Mrs. Thatcher also paid tribute to the bravery and courage of the men and women of the UDR. It is difficult to understand how the Irish Government can accept such a position when it is generally recognised by all Nationalist leaders that the UDR and their activities have led to a significant escalation of violence in the Six Counties.

One of the unfortunate aspects of this agreement is that now every security practice in the Six Counties is legitimised and these include the UDR, the courts, the use of plastic bullets, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, strip searches, British army patrols in sensitive areas, the taking over of the GAA ground in Crossmaglen and every other action that was found repulsive to the Nationalist minority. When we give our assent to the legitimacy of status of the Six Counties as a part of the United Kingdom we recognise all these things as legitimate and, worse still, we will now be perceived as supporting these activities. British Government agreement is necessary for everything and anything. The final decision on everything and anything remains with the British and so the Coalition Government will have the worst of all worlds. They will have to take shared responsibility for every evil deed and evil action of the most disgraced judicial and legal system in the western world.

The inherent danger in responsibility without authority is the transfer of justified criticism from Nationalist hands to extremists. The alienation process that has driven the minority to seek political accommodation outside the SDLP can now operate unchallenged except behind closed doors where argument can supersede condemnation. Britain can now claim that the Republic approves of the details of its security policy on the ground while making it impossible for Dublin to criticise that policy openly when Britain does things which are unacceptable to Nationalists. Internal criticism can only take place after the offensive acts have taken place and arguments as to their propriety will be slow, cumbersome and ineffective in giving an immediate response to the justifiable grievences of the minority. There is no more vunerable position for any Government to find themselves in than having responsibility for actions over which they have no control. To end up in this type of situation shows a failed negotiating strategy on behalf of the Government or a willingness of the Government to take on board anything offered for the sake of concluding the negotiations.

The magnificant obsession of Fine Gael to do something, anything, that was saleable electorally was overpowering and has resulted in an arrangement that talks of potential and short term expectations, but which ignores the root cause of the violence that is the cancer in our Northern society. The root cause is the existence of the Border and the failed political entity known as Northern Ireland which was contrived at more than a half a century ago to maintain a British presence in Ireland for its own purposes.

Under the Anglo-Irish Agreement the Government have responsibilities to the Nationalist minority without the powers to exercise them. This was confirmed by Peter Jenkins in The Sunday Times of 10 November of this year when he stated that the Republic, by taking on a responsible role across the Border effectively endorses the union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

World support was predictable following a determined public relations campaign by the Irish and British Governments but this support should not be misjudged as guaranteeing any success for the agreement.

International leaders will always be happy to support other sovereign states especially if the sovereign states involved are closely associated with them in the ethnic, commercial and security areas. To withhold support especially when pressed to do so would be tantamount to an international unfriendly act. The extent to which verbal support can be transformed into hard cash from both sides of the Atlantic has yet to be tested. Supporting further private investment in the US for Irish development is welcome, but it is also commonplace. It can be expected that any support coming from that quarter will be conditional on the agreement working and being seen to work. The possibility of this is remote. One has to question the validity and expectation of large sums of money in the immediate future from the American source. A much more significant financial response would have been a large sum of money committed by the United Kingdom Govgernment to help the depressed and disadvantaged Nationalist areas in the Six Counties. Money, if and when it appears, will of course be welcome, but it is presumptuous at this stage to be quantifying promises which have no base in hard fact.

One can only wonder at the level of trust the Taoiseach feels exists between the British and Irish Governments. History of relations between the two Governments would hardly be a consolation to those depending on that trust. Understanding of the Irish question has come lately, if at all, to the British Government representatives and to convince the Irish Nationalists on both sides of the Border that Britain can be trusted to do the honourable thing in all its dealings in the Irish question on their behalf is a development about which one can be forgiven for being sceptical. The conversion to sympathy for the minority in the Six Counties by the British Government has not taken place. What has occurred is that the British Government have found a vehicle which internationally enables them to claim that the Irish problem has been solved, that Dublin is effectively underwriting the details of Britain's administration in the Six Counties and that political legitimacy for continued British sovereignty on this island has been made permanent. That is the way it is being pursued by the public relations people this very day. The cruel Border, the basic reason and cause of all violence on this island is being given permanence and while the continued and contrived partition of this island is given that recognition the conditions for a continuance of violence and the progress of subversives will exist. We are in effect helpless and at the mercy of superior British bureaucratic diplomatic and public relations forces.

Even if devolved Government arrived and power-sharing was in place the germ for continuing violence persists. There are substantial numbers in the Six Counties who want the Border removed and no amount of initiatives and power-sharing will dispose of their desire. They will continue to exert pressure and that pressure will cause violent tensions for whatever system of devolution exists. The agreement guarantees the conditions necessary for prolonged and continuing distress for the Nationalist minority. It is a mistaken notion that peace and stability can be restored by this security agreement without recognising that the Nationalists want more and that is a framework for the dismantling of the Border and the withdrawal of British forces from this island.

Can anybody state that the examples of goodwill by the British Government to the Irish position in the past have been happy ones? Had it been intended to show a genuine response from the British Government towards the Irish question several matters might have been included in this agreement as a show of good faith by the British Government. It was widely expected that a decision would have been incorporated dealing with the flags and emblems problem but not even this simple tangible example was indicated to underpin the agreement. It was expected also that reference would be made to the dismantling of the UDR, a sectarian force, formed and staffed by hardline Loyalists, committed to anti-Nationalist attitudes.

It is regrettable that the Forum all-party co-operation on the Nationalist question has been sacrificed by the Coalition. It is difficult to understand why the goodwill of Fianna Fáil was never sought during the negotiations bringing about this agreement. But now that the agreement has seen the light of day it is easy to understand the thinking behind the Government's attitude to the largest political party in the country. The reason is that the Coalition knew that the constitutional position was been undermined in this agreement. They knew that Fianna Fáil would not abandon the Constitution, and Fine Gael, rather than expose themselves to the charge of a sell out of our Constitution, decided to carry on and seek support for their agreement worldwide rather than seeking it first at home and with Fianna Fáil. Our basic position is that the Government are in breach of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution as well as of the conclusions of the constitutional Nationalist parties in the New Ireland Forum report. To continue to negotiate and finalise an agreement which has such fundamental consequences for the Constitution and Nationalists generally without consulting the largest political party in the island is disturbing and shows a lack of sincerity on the Taoiseach's part in pursuance of a bi-partisan approach.

What has the Taoiseach to fear if what he was engaged in was in accordance with the Forum report? It is obvious that he recognised that the word and spirit of the report has been sacrificed in this agreement and the result is a weakening of Irish Constitutional Nationalism and a dividing of Nationalist opinions, the very thing the Forum sought to avoid. The Taoiseach and the Government have done a disservice to Irish Nationalism and have thrown away the bi-partisan approach on the national question by rejecting the Forum report and the unanimous wish of all Nationalists in this island, namely, the reunification of our country.

The Taoiseach's stated position on several matters connected with this agreement must, of course, be challenged. He himself has indicated that Belfast will be the location for the new secretariat, but this has not been confirmed by the British Prime Minister and in fact, it was quite obvious in her response to the question on this matter at the press conference following the signing of the agreement that she believes that it can only be established in Belfast if security permits it. It is strange that this central matter of the agreement could not have had a clear and finalised response from both sides on the day. If the British side question the security of the secretariat for location in the Six Counties, and if they give a qualified reassurance to all concerned on security matters, will that also apply to the security of the officials operating in the secretariat? If the guarantee of security for these people cannot be given by the British Government, will the Coalition Government press the point and put at risk citizens of this State or indeed will the Government be allowed to press this point?

The whole attitude of the Taoiseach has to be questioned following his outburst in Cork this week on his attitude towards Article 2 and Article 3 of our Constitution. When he took office as Taoiseach his allegiance to the Constitution and its provisions was clearly understood and taken for granted by everybody in this country. This allegiance is the universal requirement of all who hold a seal of office under the Constitution. That allegiance must now be in question. It is the natural follow-up and understanding that when a person would prefer to see something removed from the Constitution, he has ceased to give it his allegiance. The question has now to be asked: is there a concerted attempt by individuals in the Government to subvert the Constitution, to minimise its importance in official standing, to weaken its importance in the home environment and to convey a cavalier attitude to its provision in international negotiations?

To uphold the provisions of the Constitution must be the predominant motivation of the legislator and particularly of office holders. One may question the continued wisdom of a particular Article and seek to alter it through the recognised process, but to seek to circumvent the Constitution and to challenge its relevance without recourse to the people is to run in the face of democracy. The Taoiseach and the Government do both in this Anglo-Irish agreement and, regrettably, the Taoiseach has displayed a subversive attitude to the Constitution which is, until altered by the people sacrosanct.

Perhaps this is another phase of the Taoiseach's constitutional crusade. He seems to be preoccupied with the determination to alter the thrust of our fundamental claims of Article 2 and Article 3, and the device of an international agreement to circumvent the sacredness of Article 2 and Article 3 can only be seen as constitutionally incorrect in the absence of a willingness to test those opinions electorally.

Does anybody really believe that the Irish people would reject Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution if they were asked to do so? Whether Articles 2 and 3 are actively pursued or not from one generation to another is irrelevant to the argument today — the lack of interest by political parties is another matter which does not concern us today — the real point is that the Irish people never lost interest and thankfully their interest is enshrined in our Constitution.

However, the question now is; what dilution of the Constitution has taken place because of this agreement when we talk about registering it internationally? It is our understanding that internationally recognised agreements take precedence over our constitutional Articles and if this is the case then the wishes of the Irish people have been submerged in the ambiguity and confusion of Hillsborough. This must be unacceptable to constitutional Nationalists everywhere on this island.

The full significance of the Brussels remarks of the Taoiseach recently is now evident. Unity is no longer to be pursued as our national objective. The sovereignty question must take second place in his thinking. The back burner has certainly been lit by this agreement and will continue to burn until the national aim of unity and unanimous agreement of the Forum report is restored to national prominence and promoted nationally and internationally as the agreed constitutional Nationalist position of the majority of the people living on this island.

There has been an attempt to subordinate the Fianna Fáil Party traditional stance on unity to accommodate a Fine Gael agreement which is objectionable to the fundamental on which the Fianna Fáil Party was founded. We regard this agreement as an affront to responsible republicanism which seeks to bolster up a régime in the Six Counties which has failed politically, economically and socially. To turn our backs on the constitutional Nationalists we represent and to take the soft option of giving acceptance to an agreement we know to be basically and constitutionally flawed would be an unforgivable act of betrayal to our Constitution, our tradition and our supporters. Our principle in the matter of constitutional republicanism cannot be compromised.

The New Ireland Forum report has quite clearly been abandoned. Britain rejected it at publication and obviously has now convinced the Taoiseach and the Coalition Government that it was falsely based and not to be accommodated in the foreseeable future. The Fianna Fáil Party cannot support this agreement because it flies in the face of our constitutional position and does not offer hope for the attainment of unity in the foreseeable future.

We believe that there is a better way forward, a way that would finally address the root causes of the problems in the Six Counties, one which would remove the guarantee which all Nationalist leaders agree is fundamental to the final solution of the Irish question. This could take place at a constitutional conference which would be attended by the two sovereign Governments and representatives of all communities living on this Island. It would be for the Government of Great Britain to declare finally that it has no further interest in maintaining its position in Northern Ireland.

A new Constitution for an All-Ireland Constitution would set out to give the necessary guarantees needed to protect all interests on the island. Once completed it could be registered internationally and all interested parties would then have a vested interest in working towards making it a reality. There would be no back doors for any group, political party or Government. Eventually and inevitably, everybody recognises that the agreed wish of the New Ireland Forum was that a unitary state is the only final solution that will work on this island. We should be concentrating on seeking that solution, not giving support to agreements which can only prolong the agony of the Six Counties and frustrate the aspirations of those who seek a united Ireland.

Our amendment is a carefully worded statement of our position and represents the view of the majority of Nationalists in this country; it agrees with the Forum report; it recognises the great urgency to achieve improvement for the Nationalist minority population; it refuses to recognise British sovereignty over any part of the national territory and it offers the way forward through a constitutional conference. Nobody can deny that the thrust of our amendment is well placed. It deserves your support and I ask you for it.

Minister for Health (Mr. B. Desmond)

I wish to speak in this debate as a Democratic Socialist; I do not speak as a Nationalist, constitutional or otherwise. Deputy Flynn spoke about final solutions. Nationalism has a record of some grizzly final solutions. Nationalism has caused world wars. Nationalism has caused civil war here setting family against family. I speak as one who does not suffer from the paranoia of Anglophobia which is so endemic in our society. I do not profess any hatred towards Unionists and in 17 years in this House time and time again I have opposed sectarian bigotry from whatever quarter it came. As a democrat and socialist the homes, the people, the money they have to buy bread for their children, the jobs they have to go to on Monday morning, their recreation and the Churches to which they wish to go for spiritual renewal are far more important to me than arguments about transient political boundaries and the pub republicanism which passes for politics in this country. It is in that spirit that I approach this debate.

The Labour Party were the first Opposition in this House since the foundation of the State. Since then the Labour Party in Government and Opposition played a constructive healing role in bringing about peace and reconciliation in this island. I do not propose to shirk that responsibility on this occasion. The major attraction for me in this agreement is the acceptance by my party — the long acceptance that did not start in 1969 but went back to the days of Tom Johnston when he was the first leader of the Opposition in this House, when we held that any question of land reunification or any question of people joining together here in a political framework could only be achieved after the Treaty was ratified in this House — that change can only be achieved when there is free consent to such a change by the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. The agreement we are now asked to ratify here is irrevocably and solidly based on that premise.

Apart from Provisional Sinn Fein — and I begin to wonder about the Opposition on listening to their speeches; but I will give them the benefit of the doubt — with their murderous determination to bomb, murder and torture people into reunification, for what it is worth, political parties in the Republic describe themselves as being in favour of that fundamental principal. Tonight our thoughts must go above all else to those families — many of whom I know after a lifetime in the trade union movement going up to Northern Ireland and working with many Northern Ireland trade union members who came South and worked with me — who have lived in Northern Ireland for centuries and who for the past 65 years have lived in a particular entity in Northern Ireland — the post Treaty definition — and who have given their allegiance whether rightly or wrongly to their country. Until such time as we can, in a democratic framework, by human conviction and nothing else, convince such fellow Irishmen and women that we wish to join with them in perhaps a better framework, in perhaps a more democratic framework, we must adjure the pressure of human misery created by political violence. It is important that this be repeated time and time again in this debate.

It is ironic that the framework of this agreement was set up by the leader of the Opposition when he was Taoiseach because the agreement decided on between Deputy Haughey and Mrs. Thatcher in 1980-81 was given formal recognition in the Anglo-Irish Governmental Council which was set up at the end of 1981 and it is based on that 1981 framework that this agreement is now before the House. On 29 May 1980 when he was in Government — and people in Government became enormously more sensible and responsible than when they are in Opposition — Deputy Haughey said that the decision at that time was:—

...to develop new and closer political co-operation between our two Governments is a new and significant development in the tangled web of relationships between the people of these islands. I believe that it is in this context of closer political co-operation that a permanent and lasting solution to the problem of Northern Ireland can be found...An immediate solution to such a longstanding and difficult issue is not of course possible, but steps can now be taken to establish a new framework for a solution. This would take full account of all that has changed in the relations between the two islands and in Western Europe since Northern Ireland was first established.

The contribution made by Deputy Flynn does not reflect that sentiment this evening, but then Deputy Flynn is in Opposition. Deputy Haughey at that time, made it clear that the 1980-81 initiative was firmly in the Fianna Fáil tradition and philosophy. The Deputy quoted with approval Eamon de Valera in 1940 stating that "we want friendly relations with the people of Britain" and led on to his own conclusion that "the philosophy of Fianna Fáil in this particular area is unchanged and unchanging". It has had a very big change since the Taoiseach signed this agreement.

I am proud that my party have been a member of the Coalition Government. Whatever Coalition Governments have done, they have produced the three most substantive and important contributions in many ways to the solution of the Northern Ireland problem since 1921. As a Member of Dáil Éireann since 1969, I have supported these developments consistently. First of all, the Sunningdale Agreement gave promise for positive and peaceful development in Northern Ireland although it was later destroyed, as we know, by intransigence. Indeed, it was destroyed in this House as well when it was given a complexion, an emphasis, which terrified the life out of people, understandably, that Sunningdale meant a great deal more than it was meant to mean at the time. I was in the House then and I was ashamed that that happened because progress in that activity was brought to a sudden stop.

Secondly, there were discussions leading to the New Ireland Forum of 1984, and these discussions were of great value in clarifying the precise views and preconditions for support of all the democratic constitutional parties outside the Unionist framework which, we regret, did not become involved in those discussions. I must point out that the 13 members of Fianna Fáil also agreed fully with the conclusions of that Forum, notwithstanding the fact that no sooner was one signature dry on the paper than Deputy Haughey decided to take a narrow political advantage out of that Forum report. There was no magnanimity and towards Northern Ireland and this Government there is no magnanimity. I regret to record that in this debate.

A Deputy

Read the report.

Mr. B. Desmond

It is ironic that these all happened under Coalition Governments. The Taoiseach stated in his speech at Hillsborough last Friday that the present agreement was in accord with the general principles agreed by all the Forum participants as "necessary elements of a framework within which a new Ireland could emerge." Therefore, we have the third major initiative here. I want to point out that throughout the Forum report the emphasis has been on constitutional Nationalist parties. I have a reserve about that phrase because in a new Ireland we will not have just constitutional Nationalist parties; we will have parties of very different complexions in a democratic structure in the future political parliamentary framework of this island. That is the background to the agreement, and I feel I should make that observation.

Many people have criticised the British and Irish Governments for taking 15 months to produce a relatively short document and for the opportunity which it has given to extremists on both sides to whip up hysteria and fear. We should not apologise for the length of time taken or for the thousands of hours of dedicated work by many civil servants in both countries, legal experts, Ministers and many others. Those of us in both Governments know the intensity of effort which has gone into every aspect of this agreement. Many Deputies have rightly congratulated the Taoiseach.

In particular I want to thank my own party leader, Deputy Dick Spring, and the entire Irish negotiating team for the long and hard work which they undertook to bring this agreement before Dáil Éireann on this occasion. It is clear from comments made by many people that there are difficulties of interpretation in terms of the agreement. I would like to enlarge three aspects of that: sovereignty and the constitutional position, the gradualist, evolutionary nature of the agreement and the structural possibilities for improvement in Northern Ireland which it creates. First there is the question of sovereignty and the constitutional position. So bereft have Fianna Fáil been of any real opposition, they have tried to evoke constitutional questions which simply do not arise.

Mr. L. Fitzgerald

We have never trivialised the Constitution.

An Ceann Comhairle

We have not been having arguments in this debate and I do not want any.

Mr. B. Desmond

It has been argued from both sides of the divide that the agreement diminishes the sovereignty and the constitutional position of both Britain and Ireland. Thus, the Unionists contend that, by specifying a role for the Republic in the future administration of Northern Ireland the agreement to that extent diminishes the current authority of the British Government. Similarly, some Republican opinion seems to imply that, first, by merely accepting closer working co-operation between Britain and Ireland and, secondly, by the firm statements in Articles 1 (a) and (b) of the agreement that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, this Government have copperfastened Partition.

It is difficult to see how both of these views could be simultaneously true. I reassure both traditions in all Ireland, and especially in Northern Ireland, that a sizeable portion of the time spent in discussing and revising the draft agreement was concerned with considering the best legal advice from both countries on the legal and constitutional implications of the wording of the agreement. The constitutional cases brought by some Republicans at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement were reviewed as well as the British legal position, and the consensus from both countries' legal experts was that the agreement was sound and could not be invalidated on legal grounds. Let me quote what one legal expert said since the signing of the agreement. Dr. Kevin Boyle, Professor of Law at UCG stated it quite succinctly in the Sunday Independent of 17 November 1985 when he said:

Irish Governments have always behaved internationally on the basis that our supposed claim to Northern Ireland was in reality an aspiration of the nation to be united and not an assertion that this State claimed Northern Ireland as part of its territory which in some way was illegally occupied by a foreign State. Articles 2 and 3 concern the political theory that the Irish nation should be united some day.

They do not represent a claim to the territory of Northern Ireland.

Professor Boyle went on to say, rightly, that the Fianna Fáil Government — with Deputy Haughey somewhat in a political limbo — in signing the Treaty of Accession to the EC in 1973 accepted that Britain was signing on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, quite in contrast to the position in France and Germany who were in dispute about an area of land and who exchanged notes to express some reservations at the time of their accession to the EC. It is quite clear from the joint actions, be it on agricultural policy in the EC or joint membership of both countries of the EC which is a powerful force in breaking down outdated barriers which divide us, that the allegations made by the Opposition party on constitutionality just do not hold water. There is no conviction behind the statements made by Fianna Fáil in that regard and that refers to the debate from its commencement.

I wish to deal with the gradualist nature of the agreement. Thank God it is gradualist and evolutionary. Much unnecessary alarm has been generated by the idea that the agreement is uniquely revolutionary and imposes enormous, unforeseen changes on the people of Northern Ireland. That is far from the case. As I have already explained, the agreement is a logical development from earlier initiatives on Northern Ireland taken by all the major parties in the Republic. Also, while the possibilities for major change lie within the agreement, the actual pace of change will be determined by those most directly concerned — the people of Northern Ireland as represented by their political parties, and the Governments of Britain and Ireland. This will happen at two quite specific levels. First, the members of the Inter-governmental Conference will consult on a wide range of issues including political, security, legal and cross-Border matters contained in Article 2 (a). This process, as well as permitting the very close co-operation between Britain and Ireland which we have all wanted for years, will also permit representations from the political parties in Northern Ireland dirctly to the UK Government and the parliament there for those with seats in Westminster and, indirectly, with the Irish Government which will be ready to discuss every issue with all the non-violent parties in Northern Ireland.

Second, the process of devolution as outlined in Article 4 enables the political parties in Northern Ireland to take over control of their own affairs at a pace which they can agree mutually. Thus the overall pace of change will be determined by the actual decisions of the members of and officials supporting the Conference and by political representation to them.

After so many years of conflict and violence, of growing polarisation and extremism, it is not to be expected that progress will be dramatically rapid. Support for the middle ground, for the acceptable compromise which this agreement represents will not happen overnight, since all the extremists and supporters of violence have a vested interest above all else in maintaining the status quo. But the combined ingenuity of the teams working on the agreement has been devoted to providing a structure which will, without coercion, encourage and support moderate views while making extremism less successful and less effective than it has been in the past.

In that, regard, I must congratulate my colleague, Deputy Peter Barry, on his appointment as Irish Permanent Ministerial Representative to the Conference. I have no doubt that with the agreement in sight exceptional work will be done. As a person who has gone to Northern Ireland on many occasions throughout my working life I consider it extraordinary to hear the presence of Irish civil servants in Northern Ireland being condemned either as unnecessary collaboration with the British or as an interference by a foreign power in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Those are extremist views. For example, my Departments, Health and Social Welfare, have had for decades — I have encouraged this — the closest of friendly co-operation with officials in Northern Ireland. I, accompanied by the secretaries of my Departments, have visited my former opposite number, Chris Patton, in Belfast and he has also visited me in Barrettstown in the Republic. Chris Patton made a major contribution to the agreement. We discussed matters of mutual concern and that association has been of considerable benefit in improving the services which we give to all the people of this island. I look forward to more such links between North and South in the years ahead under the general auspices of the Conference. That is a positive development.

I should now like to deal with structural possibilities for change within Northern Ireland. Having just argued that the agreement is gradualist and evolutionary, building on what has gone before and developing at a pace determined by the political parties most concerned in the matter, it may seem contradictory to state at the same time that the agreement opens up hope for major improvement in the Northern Ireland situation. In my view it opens up hope for many within Northern Ireland and in Britain who had with depression and sorrow come to feel that there was no prospect of a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland problem. It will take many years of hard work before attitudes will change in this regard.

The agreement must be looked at in a calm and reasonable manner. For Unionists on this island for the first time ever there is confirmation in a solemn and binding international agreement that their presence within the UK is accepted and, indeed, supported unless a majority of those living in Northern Ireland should wish for change. Thus, both the strength of Unionist feeling on their nationality, such as it is defined, and on the importance of democratically achieved decisions is given specific Irish support. Similarly, for the Nationalists by whatever definition one uses — I have qualified that massively — the British Government for the first time in a solemn and binding international agreement have recognised the Nationalist aspiration towards their form of reunification and have pledged themselves to introduce legislation leading to a united Ireland whenever a majority in Northern Ireland should so wish it. They are of critical importance.

I welcome the fact that the SDLP, our counterparts in a sense, and only in a sense because I am inclined to be a socialist in the broad international understanding of that term, support the agreement. I am disappointed that the Fianna Fáil Party, and Deputy Haughey, have adopted a different approach. It is not the approach of Jack Lynch or of Liam Cosgrave, men who made major initiatives. It was Jack Lynch who preserved the security of the State when it was under threat in the early seventies. It was Liam Cosgrave who gave us Sunningdale and at this historic moment in history Garret Fitzerald is giving us a new initiative. On all occasions Brendan Corish, Frank Cluskey, Michael O'Leary and now Dick Spring were with those leaders in total support.

I should like to thank my colleagues in Britain with whom I have a great deal of contact, Neil Kinnock and Lord Hughes, my counterpart in the Council of Europe, for the support given to us in recent weeks. Their bi-partisan approach and statemanship in supporting the agreement when in Opposition is in contrast to the opposition we are facing here.

As one who has opposed sectarian politics I say to the Unionists of Northern Ireland that I understand why they detest having to sit down with gunmen, the Provisional IRA, in the council chambers of Northern Ireland. I understand, sympathise and support their opposition to that. I have refused to allow them inside the door of Áras Mhic Dhiarmada or the Custom House on deputations and I have refused to accept them at my clinics despite intimidation and political opposition. Therefore, I am at one with the Unionist population of Northern Ireland in endeavouring to oppose the gunmen and the torturers who want to bomb us into their fascist variety of democracy. I have suffered in a very minor way in terms of my opposition be it to some Catholic bishops who want to have their version of Catholicism enshrined here and in other regards. I commend the agreement as an honest and hard-worked effort to reach a resolution of some of the problems of Northern Ireland. Let us accept it in the genuine way in which it was formulated and, through careful consideration, see if we can join together in friendship with our fellow Irishmen and women in Northern Ireland. Through careful consideration we should see if we can join the great host of those who have offered support and constructive help in implementing the agreement after it has been ratified here and registered at the UN. I hope it will open up an era of peace and reconciliation. We in this House will have done the right thing for once, in terms of the work of the House itself.

Mr. Blaney

One would be tempted to follow the last speaker but that is for another day. Ireland's right to sovereignty, independence and unity is indefeasible and inalienable. The 1916 Proclamation is there for all to see, written in the blood of our martyrs. The Declaration of Independence by our Parliament signed on 21 January 1919, the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, the 1949 unanimous declaration by Dáil Éireann at that time proposed by the then Taoiseach, John A. Costello, and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Eamon de Valera, are in our best interests and I am sure are accepted by all as what would be regarded as the constitutional approach.

What we need to realise is that Britain has been in this country unwanted for the past 800 odd years. She has never been and never will be accepted, nor has she — and this is rather unique in the world — really assimilated the Irish people into her jurisdiction, despite all those years of occupation, despite teaching us many of her ways. She has treated us abominably over those centuries. By that treatment and the manner of her operation here she has created an inferiority complex-ridden atmosphere, but despite this and much more that we do not have time to talk about here today but which is well known to all, over the ages the spirit of the Irish people has never been broken.

Resistance to the occupier and the occupation by arms and determination to get her out has continued down through those years, resulting 65 odd years ago in the partition of our country. Now we have an agreement, one heralded by perhaps the most outstanding, momentous public relations propaganda campaign worldwide that the world has ever seen, contrived by Mrs. "Out, Out, Out" Thatcher, self-proclaimed Unionist as she is, and a Taoiseach, our Taoiseach, obsessed by the belief that he was born and is divinely ordained to bring peace to our land. I only wish it were true. I should add, peace to our land at any cost, or at what cost?

In this agreement we are giving all and we are getting nothing. In fact, we are paying dearly for the privilege of doing this, as time will show. We are giving the right to and recognising the right of a contrived majority — let us never forget how they were contrived in that majority — to determine the future of this island and of all its people. The Irish role in this new agreement is at best a consultative role, but world opinion is being shaped to accept a big deal being done by what would be made to appear as two equal partners. Nothing could be further from the truth because the UK in all cases is the final arbitrator of any and every iota of what may be determined through this Conference about which we hear so much and which will meet immediately. The two Governments have notified each other of the acceptance of their parliaments of this new great big deal, this new great big sell-out that has taken place in these recent days.

We are committed to signing the European Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Why have we not signed it for the various Governments of different political persuasions since 1977? We are now signing it and that will ensure that extradition will become an everyday element of our society and our life. The Convention so narrows the question of what is a political offence, or is connected with a political offence that, in fact, any question of reneging on extradition is practically ruled out. We should also realise that we are committing ourselves to registering this so-called agreement with the UN. I ask to what purpose, and offer the opinion, for no purpose other than to follow up the great con job that has already been done by a contrived media, not only in this country but outside it and throughout the world, to confirm in world opinion Britain's claim to the Six Counties. That is the only possible result that can flow from registration in the UN

Let nobody have the idea or be conned into the belief that the UN in some way or other will be able to enter into any dispute, argument or differences that may arise in this Conference or arising from it, because registration with the UN dictates clearly, concisely and without question that it is only at the request of and with the consent of the two participating parties to the registered agreement that the UN can even begin to look at, never mind to question or to give a decision on, any dispute. That means that when and if there is a difference, and there no doubt will be, although we might not hear much about it, there is no recourse to the UN as an arbitrator in any sense of the world. If we are aggrieved, naturally the party on the other side who are causing our grievance and our difference will not request with us jointly that the UN be brought in to arbitrate on what is right or what is wrong according to this said agreement.

Extradition, as I have said, is tied to the European Convention that I have mentioned. Having refused since 1977, what are we signing this for now and for whose benefit? What new wisdom have we got in this House, or what new wisdom has the Taoiseach got that his predecessors in office since 1977 did not have? We will be handing people over to the tender mercies of the Six County courts — a Judiciary that we have condemned rightly throughout the world as lacking in any semblance of justice — just as we did, for instance, in that hastily contrived case of McGlinchey versus the State, the Attorney General, or what you will. That was a sad night, because it has eroded very much our faith and belief in the courts of this country by virtue of the fact that it was indecently, hastily done and that it could be seen to have been done in haste for the purpose of giving a sop to Mrs. Thatcher.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Blaney, the Chair cannot allow any criticism of the courts. If your criticism now is meant to be a criticism of a decision of the court, or how the court arrived at that decision, I must ask you to desist.

Mr. Blaney

I shall not take up any of my time or yours in going into that. I just want to say that on the other hand we are talking about security. Security, how are you! Look at the security above at Hillsborough on the very day on which this agreement was being signed. There were 70 extreme, violent Unionists within the walls, as it were, of the little town of Hillsborough and we are told that at least 700 RUC had been in position for days before, to ensure that there would be security. That is the sort of security that we are giving our aid to, purely partisan security. No Republican sat on the inside — that was taken care of — but the others were allowed inside. Security with whom, by whom and in collaboration with whom? Security that is costing this nation between £100 million and £250 million per year. One can take one's pick in between those figures but it is not less than £100 million and could be more than £250 million. We do not have that money; we need it badly for other purposes. We need the police who give their time night and day on that Border — securing it in the interests of Britain, the occupier — elsewhere for the security of our people, our cities and towns, villages and countryside and we do not have the money we are paying.

One has only to listen to the Minister for Finance, and previous Ministers over several years, to know that we have a deficit running into staggering proportions. That is the type of situation we have. That is the sort of crawling, creeping, inferiority-ridden people we appear to be. Object to and show why there should be no occupation. Tell the world about it. Tell them about the lack of justice in the Six Counties. Tell them about the RUC, the Castlereagh Barracks, the hooded treatment people get there, the silent treatment they get there. Tell them about the UDR, which is another name for the B Specials despite the fact that prominent Nationalist elected people at the time of their institution actually canvassed Nationalists to join them. They are now calling for their disbandment. There is not a word about them disbanding. They will not on their own any more create any road blocks during the day or at night, they will be accompanied by the RUC. That is great; that is wonderful. Why do they not cop themselves on as to whom they are dealing with? What are they being retained for? What on many occasions have they been said to do effectively other than carry out patrols, set up road blocks and enforce this security as a supplement to the British occupying army and the RUC which is to say the least, a sectarian force and were condemned in this House year in and year out, and rightly so, for their partisan and discriminatory actions over the years. In future we are going to have the UDR. They are going to be put behind some sort of curtain. I think Mrs. Thatcher, when being questioned at some stage, suggested that they would be there for defence. Defence of whom? For what? How, when and where? They are partisan, sectarian right down to their shoelaces and we know it. Those of us who want to know — whether living near there, in there or outside — can find out if we do not know already.

We are going to collaborate and we are formalising with an Establishment that reeks of injustice. We are going to have the RUC in Castlereagh and all that; we will help them to do that; we will hand over prisoners to their tender mercies. We will have the UDR not stopping us on the roads but standing in the bushes beside us with machine guns, with perhaps the old triggers clicking, just to put the breeze up anybody who might have any thoughts of lifting his head and being Irish in his own land. We are going to have the British army who are the occupiers — do not forget they are the occupiers of this country — to whom we will be handing them over. And we will be handing them over to the Diplock non-jury courts. This is not being questioned. At the end of the day, even those who would not have any regard for any of the other things I have enumerated, will realise that it will cost this State more to do these things and to collaborate more than we have been doing to date.

Then we have talk about human rights, civil rights and a bill of rights, not a bill of rights for the Irish people, of course, but a bill of rights for Northern Ireland — the Six Counties is how I describe it, which is much less misleading than Ulster or the Province as we hear so many people describe it today. There can be no civil rights, no human rights, there cannot be a bill of rights unless and until the basic right of self-determination has been brought to this land of ours. Is that not what it has been all about over these centuries, over recent decades and indeed the last 15 years? The basic right of self-determination must come and be the foundation from which any and all other rights will derive. That is not even mentioned lest somebody might ask some indecent questions about why it is not.

There has been no mention of the plastic bullet ban passed by the European Parliament which we have not yet signed. There has been no mention of it in so far as condemnation of Britain's use of it, solely and only in the Six Counties is concerned. You do not use it on the blacks in British streets; you do not use it on the whites in British streets but you use it on the Paddies, whether it be on the Shankill Road, the Falls Road, the Bogside or the Waterside. We should never forget this and our Unionist and Protestant neighbours and friends should cop on that that is the situation, that they are Paddies in the eyes of the British, have been, are and will always remain, and are merely being used and manipulated to enable the occupation to continue for Britain's own ends.

Repatriation of prisoners — has that been mentioned? Has it been highlighted? It is a humanitarian and compassionate matter which has been raised time without number not only within these shores but far beyond them and nothing has been done. Then there is the Prevention of Terrorism Act which is being used to discriminate against the Irish in particular. What has happened about it? Is there any mention that it will go in this new era now about to dawn as a result of this great con act known as the agreement. What about the strip-searching in our prisons, north of the Border, particularly the strip-searching of our women prisoners? Is there any mention of that, any thought of that? Is there any word of the hooded treatment, the beating up, the silent treatment, the inhuman interrogation treatment in Castlereagh Barracks? What about the Border incursions that take place daily, that are reported and sighted? There is nothing being done about them other than the odd protest which is ignored; very often silenced but ignored nevertheless. Who the hell are we to complain about what Britain or her army does? That is their business. We are an inferior race, we do not belong on the same plain. Is that not what has been the position down the years?

Can we not also take into account that there has been no mention made of Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle when, in recent times, even more frequently patrols in ordinary boats of various kinds, filled with British army, their guns and machine guns, come nearer and nearer to the shores of our side of the Border? I should repeat that the cost, to those who are not terribly concerned or aware of the manner in which these things press down on our people near to these happenings, will go up. We will pay more for the privilege of agreeing to what they want.

Through the Chair I would also ask the Taoiseach and anybody else replying, what about the Emergency Powers Act? What about section 31? Have we not now reached the time when all these matters can be revoked, so that we might do something to relieve our situation down here since we are so concerned about seeing that everybody is fine up above under the protection of the Crown and all that goes with it?

As far as the Constitution is concerned it is being thoroughly ridiculed in regard to Articles 1, 2 and 3. I would suggest that the people who participated in this agreement should also look at Article 9.2. They should be capable of being prosecuted under Article 9.2 for their behaviour in ridiculing and violating Articles 1, 2 and 3. One may come up with all sorts of legal arguments. Indeed even the past case dealt with in this regard by our Supreme Court will be quoted as a reason for maintaining that what I am saying is untrue. They are not identical cases, not that I agree with the findings of that case, Boland versus the Taoiseach. Whatever about the legal status being violated, there is no question but that the spirit of Articles 2, 3 and 1 of our Constitution has been violated and ridiculed by this agreement and we are going to register it at the UN for the world to see. The Taoiseach said something some nights ago to the effect that he was not too enamoured with these Articles and did not think they should be there at all. That gives a clue, no doubt, as to how we have fared and how we will fare under this abominable so-called agreement that has been entered into and signed on our behalf.

The net result of all this will be that we will give everything that is asked. We cannot really refuse because we have no right in the last analysis to dispute anything that may come within the purview of the Conference. Of course it will be given a very high status. This is actually quoted in one Article of the agreement. The high status is assured because of the fact that it will be at ministerial level but not as equals. No way is there any equality in the joint chairmanship of that Conference or in what is finally decided after each Conference meeting. The British hold on to the absolute power to make the final decisions on any and all matters that may come within the consideration of this Conference. We will be seen throughout the world to share a responsibility but with no power. Therefore in the eyes of the world we will be a party to Castlereagh barracks interrogation centre, strip searching in Armagh, the treatment and the segregation of our prisoners in Britain's mainland. Responsibility for these things we will carry jointly with our occupier, with no power on our part to change any of those things.

It is noteworthy for anybody who is superstitious that there are 13 Articles in this agreement. The 13th Article comes into being when the two Parliaments have notified each other that they have adopted the agreement. The 13th is unlucky and it does not need any sage, seer or prophet to say that this one will turn out to be unlucky because it starts from a bad base and cannot but be to our detriment in the future in every sense.

There is this obsession about violence. It has great emotive appeal to talk about ending violence and bringing about peace. I fully subscribe to that emotive plea, totally and completely, but this Government and Taoiseach are restricting themselves to trying to deal with IRA violence while ignoring the root cause — the institutionalised violence of the establishment of our occupiers in the Six Counties. There is the cause. Until that is dealt with you might as well be whistling past the graveyard talking about putting down violence, whether it is UDA, IRA or any other sort of violence. There is no end to it.

This agreement unfortunately will create more violence rather than lessen it. It will create more violence instead of the peace that is expressed as the hope for it because it does not deal with and runs away from the real cause of the violence and the trouble in this country, which is the occupation by the British of this land of ours, to which they have no right, never had, do not have and never will. They will never be accepted by all the people of this land, no matter who sells what out. That will stand.

The denial of our basic right to self-determination must be dealt with. The institutionalised violence of the establishment must be dealt with. We must treat the cause and there is only one treatment. We should be at one, totally united — whatever way we might divide otherwise — in repeating parrot-like here and abroad and especially in Britain that she must find her way out of this country in order that we can begin to talk to our neighbours and our Unionist and Protestant friends about how we are to live together in this country in the future instead of dying together, as nearly 2,500 have done in the past 15 years.

This is what we should be talking about and not this con job which has been welcomed by President Reagan, Tip O'Neill, Senator Kennedy, Senator Moynihan, by the four horsemen. How the hell did they know what was in it before we did? How were they so well set up in this propaganda con job that they were able to be on the air before the ink was dry at Hillsborough? Were they not contrived into that situation? Do not blame them. What were they told? Who conveyed to them what was supposed to be in the agreement which they welcomed without seeing?

Why was the ad hoc Irish committee in Washington not consulted? That committee have been set up across the entire spectrum of the political divide in America. Some of the finest men and women in Congress are there, black and white, in the interests of justice for Ireland. They were not asked. There are 132 of them out of a total membership of Congress of 430. Could they not be found or was it that they were asked and they did not get the right recording back? Perhaps they were ignored because it was felt they would not get the right recording back. Where was the National Caucus? Was it asked? Not on your nanny, for the simple reason that the recording would not be in accord with the agreement in Hillsborough.

Surely this is the con job of all time. Surely the contrived media control applied to this country and outside is evident. In the RTE studios on the night of the signing, 75 to 80 per cent of the entire time of the "Today Tonight" programme was devoted to those who were pro the agreement. Was that an accident? Was it an accident that I was the only one among a group of four who participated in a radio programme at 4 o'clock the same evening who was not clapping hands that the agreement had been signed? Nobody knew what was in it because we were given a copy only as we went into the studio. This is the sort of thing that really sickens me but at the same time causes me to admire the whole operation. The British diplomacy victory of the century has culminated in the signing of this document.

Why is Britain continuing to stay? Britain came here in conquest and remained to exploit and, as time went on, for strategic reasons. Now and in the future our land is to be used by her and NATO as the eyes and ears of those great organisations. That is what this is about but we are too damned blind in this country and in this House to see it. I say that with due respect to the Opposition who have really come good on this. I am delighted to see that we are not yet dead and that we will be telling people throughout the country just what a con job this has been.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 20 Nov 1985

Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985: Motion (Resumed).

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 1985