I was a member of the Committee on the Constitution who reported in December 1967. They suggested at paragraph 12 on page 5 of the Final Report a new provision to replace Article 3:
1. The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its territory be reunited in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen.
2. The Laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall, until the achievement of the Nation's unity shall otherwise require, have the like area and extent of application as the Laws of Parliament which existed prior to the adoption of this Constitution. Provision may be made by Law to give extra-territorial effect to such Laws.
It is interesting to note that so many good and great people were members of that committee. Unfortunately and tragically, some have now passed to their reward elsewhere. The chairman of the committee was the late George Colley, while the membership included James Dooge, Seán Dunne, Denis F. Jones, Seán Lemass, Robert M. Molloy, Michael O'Kennedy, Thomas F. O'Higgins, Eoin Ryan, Gerard Sweetman, James Tully and, as I have already pointed out, mé féin.
Paragraph 2 of the final Report of the informal Committee on the Constitution stated:
It was agreed between the political parties that participation in this Committee would involve no obligation to support any recommendations which might be made, even if made unanimously. It was also agreed that the members of the Committee, either as individuals or as party representatives, would not be regarded as committed in any way to report such recommendations.
It is important to recall that the committee reported on 14 December 1967 and that the troubles began in the North during the period 1967-70 in the real sense. The deliberations of the committee were held at a time when it could not have been anticipated that in the period from 1970 to 1990 thousands of ordinary decent citizens in the North, and indeed the South, including members of the British Defence Forces, the RUC, the Garda Síochána and our own Defence Forces, would be dead 20 years later and many thousands of people would be seriously injured arising from the ongoing conflict which afflicts that part of this green island of ours. I now realise, having been a member of that committee, that what was good for 1967 may not necessarily be good for 1990.
Article 29 of the Constitution, which deals specifically with international relations and peace, states:
1. Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations founded on international justice and morality.
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.
3. Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other States.
The reason I quote Article 29 of the Constitution is that I wish to indicate that the aspirations for national unity are based on a wish that the ongoing problems in that regard be resolved by peaceful means and that the existing Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution present a threat to no one except to those who wish to see a threat contained in them.
I was also a member of the New Ireland Forum who reported on 2 May 1984. The preface to Chapter 1 states:
1.1 The New Ireland Forum was established for consultations on the manner in which lasting peace and stability could be achieved in a new Ireland through the democratic process and to report on possible new structures and processes through which this objective might be achieved.
1.2 Participation in the Forum was open to all democratic parties which reject violence and which have members elected or appointed to either House of the Oireachtas or the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Four political parties took part in the Forum: the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the legitimate and democratic representatives of the Nationalist population in the North, the SDLP. Unfortunately, the Unionists were not represented at the New Ireland Forum. Evidence was given to the committee by the brothers Christopher and Michael McGimpsey but the point that should be made is that none of the Unionists parties was represented at the New Ireland Forum despite a clear invitation to them to participate.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement in Article 1.a. affirms 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, in Article 1.b. recognises that the present wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland and in Article 1.c. declares that if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support legislation to give effect to that wish. Again, a clear view is expressed in Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that a solution to the Irish problem be brought about by consent and by peaceful means. Despite the dreadful efforts of the so-called IRA and the extreme Orange organisations, who seek to bomb and maim people into a united Ireland or who seek the continuation of the union with Britain, at all times the democratically elected Parliament in this community, and in that community, have indicated that they do not wish the solution to the problems of the unity of this island to be brought about by violence.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has indicated, piecemeal tinkering with the Constitution is no answer to the problem. One of the answers to the problem is discussion of the totality of relationships within and without this island. Then we can take a look at Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution within a new agreement or a new Constitution. A legitimate aspiration to unity in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution is not unreasonable. I do not see such aspiration as either aggressive or offensive. In the present atmosphere if we delete Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution we may well be handing over the question of unity to the IRA, who consider themselves to be the only true upholders of the principle of unity.
Yesterday in the Seanad Chamber the leaders of all the main Opposition parties indicated that it was unfortunate that the Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier did not have among its members those of the Unionist tradition north of the Border and that, to this day, there remain two empty seats in that assembly, of which I also happen to be a member. No later than this very afternoon there was strong wish expressed by members of the British side of the parliamentary tier, and the Irish side, north and south of the Border — on the part of those present — to have the Unionists there, to have them before us, have them with us, that they be part of us. Indeed the Taoiseach's often repeated invitation to the Unionists to meet him is unconditional and remains on the table; it is still there. There is now an opportunity for them to take up that invitation. They cannot live for ever in the past, in their hope that the past will represent them in the future. Change must come about. They must face up to that reality. I believe that opportunity is now open to them. Again, returning to what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said, if the Brooke initiative is successful in the context of talk about talks, then what we seek to achieve is sitting down, eyebal to eyeball, with the Unionist tradition of the northern part of this island. That will bring about a real solution to the problems.
I agree with the Leader of the Labour Party, for whom I have very high regard, when he says that the Bill before the House was badly timed. He also questioned the political judgment of its proposers. But that is where I part company with him because he makes these reasonable comments but says, on the other hand, he will support the Bill. Of course that is his democratic entitlement but it leaves me with a sense of suspended ambiguity.
It is ironic that the leader of The Workers' Party should take the opportunity of going to Belfast to criticise the Fianna Fáil position on the Bill, and the Taoiseach in particular. There is nothing I would like to see more than an all-Ireland Assembly with Unionists sitting opposite the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and The Workers' Party, together with the Nationalist parties, all represented. If we do not talk, how can we achieve solutions to the problems daily confronting us, more particularly those presented by the men of violence? If we do not fill the vacuum then it will be filled by those who seek to achieve their ends by force rather than by peaceful means. That is one of the real difficulties confronting this island at present.
The Unionist politicians should sit down with politicians from the Nationalist tradition on the one hand — that is in the North-North talks, then the North-South talks, and finally the third leg of the treble, as it were, the United Kingdom-Ireland talks. I find it very difficult to understand why they consider us a threat to them, or why, when they are invited to sit down to talk unconditionally they cannot do so. They cannot see that we do not represent a threat to them or do not seek to intimidate them.
The Government have been trying for almost a year to get the Unionists into these discussions without any result. Can we repeat incessantly that we do not intend to represent any threat to Unionism, that all we wish to do is to talk to them with a view to setting out a process, an agenda, for the future development of this island in a democratic fashion? That is why I believe the Bill before the House and its intent will not achieve its purpose, that it is badly timed and unfortunate. In the circumstances, the unconditional abandonment of Articles 2 and 3 must be rejected at this time.
The IRA have no mandate whatsoever for their actions. They have continued to treat with contempt the Easter Proclamation which urged those served the Republic not to dishonour its cause by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine. A small group of terrorists who have the gall to call themselves the IRA have hijacked the names of those who fought from 1916 to 1921. We have allowed them to do so by referring to them as such in the media and even in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The revisionists, the merchants of the new enlightenment, might also remember that some of us in this House would be dishonouring the memories of our fathers and mothers were we to disown the War of Independence as suggested by those who seek to revise history in that regard. There is no longer a need to die or kill for Ireland. Yet we are forced to observe, on an almost daily basis, the obscenity of horrific atrocities in the North of Ireland and elsewhere committed in the name, though not with the approval of, the Republic.
Over the past two and a half years I have appeared on television and spoken on radio doing the best, within my competence, to explain Ireland's position in the context of our involvement in the Anglo-Irish Conference, in the overall area of the new Irish relations North and South, indeed the new relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom. I remember having spoken four times on the British and Northern Ireland media one morning between 7 and 8 o'clock. My reason for so saying is to indicate to the House my concern and interest in this whole area. I have been involved also in the cases of the Maguires, the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. I have visited and met all of those individuals over the past ten years or more. Arising out of an accumulation of these experiences, I believe the Bill before the House does nothing to achieve a just solution to the problems afflicting the two communities in the North, or to bring any nearer an era of co-existence between North and South in a final solution to be agreed by all constitutional parties. Where politics fail, violence wins — that is the danger.
I listened to Mr. Séamus Mallon, MP, Deputy Leader of the SDLP — a member of the Nationalist tradition in the North, a man for whom I have the very highest regard and on whose general elections I worked frequently — in Dublin Castle this afternoon, when he made a very interesting point about the Bill before the House. I hope I am not breaking confidences but it is well known what would be Mr. Mallon's view on this Bill. He said that a referendum on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution would cause untold damage, could release passions which have lain dormant for many years. I would like to think I listened very carefully to Mr. Mallon, whom I believe to be one of the authentic voices of Northern Nationalists. He would certainly represent my point of view on the subject about which we are speaking.
The 1967 Constitution Review Committee, the 1974 Sunningdale Agreement, the 1984 New Ireland Forum, the 1986 Anglo-Irish Agreement all have this common thread: they seek to achieve by peaceful means the resolution of this dreadful conflict that confronts this island.
