I am grateful to have an opportunity to bring to a close this series of statements on the Framework Document. I am particularly happy to do so because the tone of the discussion in the Dáil since yesterday afternoon, from the Taoiseach's opening statement onwards, recognises the historic significance of the event. There was also a keen sense of the importance of a responsible and balanced approach to the most delicate and vital process of seeking agreement on this island.
The Framework Document is of pivotal importance as a statement of where the two Governments believe agreement can eventually be found through dialogue and negotiation. As has been said by many speakers, it is not a blueprint to be imposed, but it has been carefully considered. It marks a watershed in the search for a lasting political settlement of the underlying problems which would balance and reconcile the interests of both traditions without threatening or compromising either.
It also inaugurates a decisive new phase in the peace process by launching political debate on the nature of the political structures and arrangements needed to consolidate that which has been achieved over the past months, and gives practical expression to the principle out in the Joint Declaration. It signposts a path to lasting peace and stability on this island. It is not necessarily the only path but it seems to the two Governments to be the most promising.The widespread welcome given to the Framework Document should not blind us to the obstacles that lie in the way before we can confidently say that peace is irreversible or that stability has been achieved.
Nearly 16 months ago in the immediate aftermath of the Shankill massacre I made a speech in this House in which I tried to speak of the revulsion and sense of despair which that massacre had inspired. It seemed at the time that not only had the massacre wiped out innocent lives but that it had also spelled doom for the peace process that was then only beginning to take definite shape between the two Governments.
The speech, which became known as the "six principles speech", was widely welcomed at the time. I like to think it provided new impetus at the moment of near despair. I mention that speech now because among the people who most warmly welcomed it were the Unionist people of Northern Ireland through their political leaders. Not only did they welcome the speech for its tone, but they broadly endorsed the principle it sets out. Those principles were not intrinsically new but drawing them together in that speech seemed to give a helpful and reassuring focus to many who were sorely troubled by the direction in which matters were heading at that time.
I mention them now for two reasons. First, as far as I am concerned, those principles have informed and underpinned everything I have done since the negotiation of the Framework Document.Second, I have found it surprising that those who welcomed the assertion of those principles at the time, especially those who welcomed them from a Unionist perspective, appear unable to see that A New Framework for Agreement seeks essentially to translate those principles into practice.
Since I began negotiation on A New Framework for Agreement and in all the many meetings devoted to it I have tried at all times to keep the need for balance to the forefront in every calculation.The balance I have had in mind is the balance between two legitimate and equal sets of rights. I could not preserve that balance by setting out to undermine Unionists' rights anymore than I could have done it by selling Nationalists' rights short. I do not believe that A New Framework for Agreement does either. If it did it would not have been consistent with the first principle I asserted then, namely that people living in Ireland, North and South, without coercion or violence should be free to determine their own futures.
The balance that has been struck in A New Framework for Agreement, especially the constitutional balance, is true to that principle. It seeks to vest the future of Northern Ireland in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland and no one else.
The second principle I asserted then was that this freedom to determine their own future can be expressed in the development of new structures for the government of Northern Ireland, for relationships between North and South and for relationships between our two islands. That principle is fully reflected in the structural suggestions contained in A New Framework for Agreement.
The third principle set out the fact that no agreement can be reached in respect of any change in the present status of Northern Ireland without the freely expressed consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland — free, as I have said, from coercion or violence. I do not believe there is a significance body of opinion anywhere in this State that would dissent from this principle. It is the most solid safeguard that Unionists can have and it is freely offered and given by the people here.
The overwhelming majority in this State and, indeed, of Nationalists in Ireland generally repudiate all notions of an Ireland united by force or coercion, or by deception or underhand methods. That is not just out of deference to the Unionist position. They believe that to speak of Irish unity other than unity arrived at by freely given consent is quite simply a contradiction in terms. It is for that reason that so many recognised at the time the force of the fourth principle I set out in that speech.
If we would wish the majority at some time in the future to say yes we must and do recognise the right of the majority to say no. If we allow themselves the freedom to persuade and to seek consent by peaceful means we must and do recognise the freedom of the majority in Northern Ireland to withhold that consent unless and until they are presuaded by democratic political means only. We must recognise also their right and freedom to resort to democratic persuasion on their side also in favour of their own vision of future relations in Ireland and between these islands.
It is for that reason also that the fifth point was clearly recognised as an essential part of the package, namely, that our belief and consent as an integral part of our approach must be included at the right time and in the right circumstances in our fundamental law. I would ask those who now object to elements of A New Framework for Agreement to look again at those principles which they accepted and warmly welcomed at the time and to ask themselves in what way we have departed from them.
I would also ask them to look at the sixth principle which promised a place at the negotiating table for those who renounce violence and to ask themselves how much longer it will be before the really important work begins — the work of building a lasting agreement which reconciles the rights and aspirations of both traditions and founds those rights in a new dispensation for Northern Ireland. That dispensation will be free of threat and that is a central goal of the Framework Document.
As the document makes clear, we are offering it for consideration and we are strongly commending it to the parties and to peoples North and South. We hope there is a new beginning in our relationships. It means addressing fundamental issues in this way; inevitably it requires movement on all sides.
We have long been told that the territorial claim in Articles 2 and 3 was profoundly important to them. Deadlock on the issue was a serious impediment to the 1992 talks. When I spoke of this issue shortly after taking office, I could only say that the relevant provisions were not cast in bronze. The Framework Document gives an explicit and unprecedented commitment in this area.
It is not true, by the way, as some Unionist spokesmen have alleged, that offers were made in the past to change these Articles and then reneged upon. Sunningdale and the Anglo-Irish Agreement were indeed explicitly designed not to require such a change on our side. That change is on offer now in the most forthright terms. It would be wrong for Unionists to underestimate the difficulties which we may face in honouring that objective. If they are sincere, they have a duty to help rather than hinder us. It is not encouraging to find that once offered, this change is now dismissed by some as of no value.
Unionists have always insisted that the wish of the people in Northern Ireland must be the ultimate test of legitimacy in their eyes. The principle of consent suffuses the Framework Document.The guarantee of a referendum within the confines of Northern Ireland was always in the past set out as a critical criterion. It is now on offer. Yet it seems utterly disregarded in the reaction which some Unionist leaders have given to the document.
Prime Minister Major has referred on several occasions to a triple lock where the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is concerned. I have said publicly elsewhere, and I repeat it here, that where North-South bodies are concerned, there is a fourfold lock. Let me explain what I mean.
First, it is common ground for everybody that a North-South body must operate by unanimity. That is the strongest defence mechanism it is possible for anyone to imagine. It protects all of the interests represented in the body and, in particular, the Unionist interest. It is the most absolute possible guarantee that the body must always work exclusively by agreement, and that there can be no question of any interest having overruled. If there is a Unionist objection to such a body, it cannot possibly be on grounds of loss of control.
Second, is the problem that the body might be used to override the constitutional or democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. That might be alleged of some other North-South models envisaged in the past. Unionist representatives made clear their strong views on this issue in the 1992 talks and elsewhere. We intend to do our utmost to meet these concerns. A New Framework for Agreement sets out to ensure that this accountability should be to an assembly representing the people of Northern Ireland themselves. In short, if there is a Unionist objection to such a body, it cannot be on the ground of threat to the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.
Third, is the objection that the North-South body would deal with matters which might be of interest to the people of Northern Ireland. On the contrary. It is accepted that the agenda of the body would be sharply focused on matters of mutual interest. That these exist in abundance is evident from the testimony of a formidable array of economic, professional and cultural organisations which have, in recent years, discovered the potential and value of such co-operation. The North-South body will therefore meet the criterion of enlightened self-interest, for North and South alike.
Is the objection that the North-South body might give the South a say in some aspects of activity in Northern Ireland? The answer is that it may do so, by agreement, but also on the basis of reciprocity.There is no question of the South gaining a partisan influence over the North or indeed vice versa. Our vision is rather that both North and South would combine their resources, on a basis of equality, and agree to do together some things which can more effectively be handled in that way than either could achieve through isolated efforts. There are many areas where the co-operation can give us an overall impact far greater than the sum of the parts. If there is Unionist objection to a North-South body, it cannot be because it does not make economic sense.
Four generations since its foundation, Northern Irealnd remains divided in a way that has no parallel elsewhere on these islands, and indeed few anywhere. The two communities there disagree profoundly on the most fundamental issues of identity, allegiance, and national aspiration.
The Nationalist tradition in Ireland has evolved to the point where the principle of consent is now firmly established as a central tenet. It recognises that a solution will never be found simply by substituting one coercive relationship for another. There will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of a majority of its people. Any Nationalist leader who sought to proclaim the contrary would be disavowed by the Nationalist tradition as a whole.
But, as Seamus Mallon and others have pointed out, consent is a coin with two sides. If, as I believe, Unionists have a perfect right to invoke it against any imposition of a united Ireland, they must not disdainfully deny its relevance to the Nationalist community within Northern Ireland. They sometimes hint that most Nationalists there secretly prefer the Union. At the last European elections — where tactical voting is at a minimum — almost 39 per cent of the electorate voted for parties whose commitment to a united Ireland ranged from the explicit to the vehement.
The Unionist quest for external legitimacy is inextricably bound up with the question of internal legitimacy. The persistent failure of Unionist leadership to acknowledge this central reality is a key to the sense of isolation which the Unionist community finds so baffling and hurtful.
There is no consent across the communities in Northern Ireland at present for either of the sovereignty options open to them. Perhaps there may never be. That reality can be handled in one of two ways. We can say, as Unionists tended to, that "Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom; there is a Unionist majority there. Let Nationalists knuckle down to this reality. If or when they become a majority, it will be their turn to play winner takes all." That formula was in place for more than 50 years, and, ultimately, produced thousands of dead.
The alternative approach is to accept that the central political reality in Northern Ireland is, precisely, its fundamental division and majority-minority tensions. Why should dogmatic read-across from either Westminster or Dublin prevent us from putting in place a pragmatic new dispensation for Northern Ireland which manages that reality? Why not jointly sponsor a culture of mutual respect rather than mutual denial by both communities there?
The Northern Ireland problem is intractable because as I have already said it is about two sets of legitimate rights, not a Unionist right and a Nationalist wrong, or vice versa. Any attempt to assert one and suppress the other will end in disaster. A relationship of mutual respect and equality is not just the best basis for agreement. It is the only one. There can be no victory that is not a victory for all.
That means acknowledging that there are Unionist rights which must never be subject to Nationalist veto, just as there are Nationalist rights which must never be subject to Unionist veto. Unionists would rightly scorn a Nationalist approach which said, "We are totally respectful of all your rights, provided, of course, you do not mention the British connection." They must understand in turn that the self-definition of a Northern Nationalist is someone who identifies with the wider Irish framework.
Unionist offers of decent treatment on an exclusively internal basis in Northern Ireland quite simply miss the point. The Irish dimension for Nationalists, like the British dimension for Unionists, exists whether the other side likes it or not. The only question is whether they can be given due political expression in new structures. If we can succeed, for the first time, in creating arrangements which actually match the complex realities in Northern Ireland we shall be well on the way to stability, which is ultimately only another word for agreement.
The Northern Ireland conflict reflects unresolved issues in the wider British-Irish relationship. It is wrong to throw the entire onus of finding a solution on the Northern parties, who are in a situation not of their own making. It is unrealistic to expect them, unaided, to have the room for manoeuvre to do so. That is why the two Governments must give the lead. The Framework Document is not intended as a rigid blueprint to be imposed. It is intended above all to give an impetus to creative political thinking.
The Framework Document is of course intended as an aid to comprehensive negotiations, and not a substitute for them. The two ceasefires mean that, for the first time in more than a generation, the Governments and political leaders in Northern Ireland can set about the search for agreement free from the immediate shadow of violence on either side. Subject only to a common commitment to democratic procedures, these talks should be as inclusive as possible in participation and as comprehensive as possible in agenda. The issues at stake are too important for any significant group to be excluded. They are also too important for any group to exclude themselves. The definition of stability in Ireland is agreement between the main currents of the Nationalist and Unionist traditions. Unionists must however address that reassuring reality in a spirit of opportunity, rather than of veto.
Northern Ireland was born in conditions of the most bitter controversy and is still marked by it. It is self-evident that each community there has the capacity and the determination to resist coercion by the other, if either side ever sought to impose it. The only alternative to the politics of accommodation is the politics of mutual frustration. Irrespective of how the choice of sovereignty ultimately falls, the people living in the area, and whatever Government exercises jurisdiction there, will in either case face the challenge of ensuring harmony, trust and co-operation in a deeply divided society. The Northern Ireland framework was in the past seen as a contrivance to enable one community to dominate the other. The goal now — and especially, I would have thought for Unionists — is a new dispensation for Northern Ireland, across all its relationships, in which both communities can feel an equal sense of ownership and involvement. It must seek to encompass and reflect as fully as possible, rather than to curtail or deny, the differing identities and aspirations in all their diversity.
Without prejudice to either aspiration, it would be an act of great statesmanship to remould Northern Ireland structures to serve, by agreement, a continuing need of equal importance to both sides. They could be developed as a framework specifically dedicated and adapted to expressing and reconciling the rights of both communities. The area could be endowed with institutions and arrangements designed to cater for the unique requirements and sensitivities of a society as yet deeply at odds on fundamental constitutional issues.
Such an approach would not solve the conflict of sovereignty, but it might greatly diminish it as a polarising influence.The stark hopes and fears invested in it would be lessened, since it could be accepted by all that the structures to guarantee rights and ensure political expression for both communities in Northern Ireland would continue irrespective of who filled the majority of minority roles, or where ultimate sovereignty might lie. Peace in Northern Ireland will not be consolidated by limiting the horizons, but by raising them. If the Northern Ireland conflict could have been resolved by tinkering at the margins it would have been done long ago.
The Framework Document offers a new and better alternative. The Members of this House have been generous in their tributes to the Framework Document. In turn, I wish to express my appreciation for the support which the Government has consistently had from the Opposition parties while the document was being negotiated. We all have the same end in sight — a new dispensation on this island which will permit the rights of both main traditions to be safeguarded and brought into balance with each other.
We all want to see a new Ireland in which neither identity feels threatened or oppressed by the other and each can live in peace with the other. We all want to see an agreed Ireland in which anachronistic fears and suspicions are laid to rest and co-operation replaces confrontation once and for all.
Many of these points have been made to great effect during this series of statements. I echo the recognition by many Deputies of the deep fears which exist in the Unionist community. With yesterday's publication of the Framework Document, the Government has confirmed its readiness to address these fears in early and wide-ranging dialogue with the Unionist parties. We want the Unionist population to know that we understand their concerns and are ready to seek ways of allaying them in frank discussions with their elected representatives.
The essential issue is trust. The two Governments have outlined what we consider would be a fair and balanced settlement. We have strongly commended our proposals to the parties for their consideration. We have equally made clear that what we offer is merely a discussion document and that nothing in it will be, or could be, imposed. Agreement and consent are the key and will always be the key.
We have no hidden agendas or ulterior motives. The face of the document tells it all. Our commitment to consent is absolute and unqualified. We do not question for one moment the right of people to say that they disagree with our conclusions or that they will not consent to a certain proposition.
All that we ask them to do is to accept our good faith, to recognise that a serious and honourable effort had been made to suggest a possible accommodation and to sit down with us with open minds and tell us what they like, or dislike, about our proposals.
The way forward, as the Framework Document so clearly signals, lies in frank and sincere dialogue among all concerned with this problem. If there are disagreements over the document, let us hear about them. Let us hear counter-proposals for the achievement of the same objectives. We cannot overturn past failures. We cannot undo mistakes which have been made by both traditions on this island in their dealings with each other. But we can begin a journey together towards a new future. I ask the Unionist leaders to set out with the two Governments and the other parties on that road.
Prior to the publication of the Framework Document concern was raised by many as well as by those across the water and there was a very serious attempt made to blow the Governments off course. I refer to the malicious and selected leak of parts of this document to the London Times some weeks ago. That was a very serious leak by persons who had no interest in securing peace on the island of Ireland or in allowing progress to be made in securing peace. It presented difficulties for both Governments but, as I said at that time, if somebody had set out to maliciously leak in the other direction and select parts of the document it could have been done and one could have brought the same response and reaction from the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland. Both Governments were determined, however, not to be thwarted in their efforts or to be blown off course and I commend the British Prime Minister and his Government for their pragmatism in dealing with the malicious events that took place at the time of the publication of those leaks.
We set out to convince people that this document had to be looked at in its totality. As we said on many occasions there will not be winners or losers in regard to this document. Many Members said there are aspects of the document which on the one hand the Nationalist community will not be 100 per cent satisfied with but, as we said at Question Time today, they have, in fairness, responded in a pragmatic and realistic way to the document. They said they will give it the time and consideration which I believe it deserves. Obviously we are disappointed with the reaction from other quarters and that is why I itemised at the beginning of my contribution the basic tenets of the six principles. I genuinely believe that if the Unionist community give this document the consideration it deserves they will see that it is non-threatening, that it will not be imposed on anyone and that was never the intention of either Government.
It is worth recording what the Governments set out to do originally and how we tried to bring this process to a conclusion. The three strand talks which took place in 1992 came to an end in inconclusive circumstances. Many people were critical at that time. Despite the fact that they did not come to a conclusion those discussions were encouraging. It was the first time in many years that the parties both North and South were in a position to go to the negotiating table. In their own way, they created a momentum for the discussions.
It was not possible to bring the parties back to the table for various reasons. For the last two years, the Dublin and London Governments were ready to go to the negotiating table, as was the SDLP, but the Unionist parties, for their own reasons, said they would not go back to the negotiating table. We have to find a way to break that log jam. On the one side, we had the development of the peace process and on the other, the development of the Framework Document.
One of the most important events to take place in recent years was the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. That gave a new impetus and momentum to the process. Last autumn we had the IRA cessation of violence, followed by a cessation of violence by the combined loyalist military command. These events were of major significance towards attaining the goals we set out to achieve. It had been profoundly held by many people that if we could bring an end to violence it would make finding a solution to the problem somewhat easier.It obviously would still not be a simple matter but it would be made somewhat easier. One of the conclusions of the Opsahl Commission, correctly expressed by the late Professor Opsahl, was if you could end violence in Northern Ireland you could make progress in ending the political conflict. The combination of the Downing Street Joint Declaration and the cessation of violence by both sides was of major significance.
I pay tribute to the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, for his unprecedented and invaluable work in regard to the conflict on this island. The cessation of violence changed the atmosphere.It has presented us with a challenge to bring the process to a conclusion and that will require parties on all sides to come to the negotiating table. Some parties have said they are willing to do so and it is important that the widest possible spread of parties should be represented.
There are recognised difficulties which have been stated in recent days, for example, the Unionist party say they will not negotiate with Sinn Féin and see no way to change their minds on that at present. Whereas the British Government is having pre-negotiation talks with Sinn Féin, it is not prepared to have meetings at ministerial level with them, over the last number of months Sinn Féin has participated in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation and made a considerable contribution to that body. It has said it wants to enter into negotiations with the British Government and we have been encouraging the British Government to provide the facility to allow for an historic meeting to take place at ministerial level between it and Sinn Féin. That is an important part of the process we are undertaking and it is essential that that happen in the near future. It would be a recognition that the campaign of violence is over, as is widely accepted. We must ensure there is no going back to that campaign.
I have detected from people on both sides of the Northern divide a strong yearning to ensure that the peace established in recent months is not squandered.That is the biggest challenge facing the British and Irish Governments and all the parties in Northern Ireland. We have a duty and an obligation to ensure that everything is done to preserve that peace. It is a reality that there can be no going back to the violence, divisiveness, hatred and bitterness which we have seen in Northern Ireland for the last 26 years.
It must be accepted that there are differences and those differences will persist but the people in Northern Ireland want their politicians and leaders to make themselves available for discussions and negotiations between the parties and with both Governments. Despite the fact that we were criticised in recent weeks for attempting to produce a Framework Document, the Governments have been responding at all times to statements made by political leaders in Northern Ireland over a number of years. When the leaders found they were not in a position to come to the negotiating table they put the onus back on the Governments. It had been accepted by both Governments that we would want to give the lead in what would happen. In giving a lead we have sought to achieve a balance in the document presented yesterday.
If people are reasonable and fairminded and try to overcome the baggage of history which we all inherited they will find the document is balanced in all aspects. We are trying to address the divisions and background which have made Northern Ireland a divided State. They are complex issues and need to be catered for carefully. That is the Government's intention. We set out to allay the fears on both sides. There are serious issues on both sides. There is the proposed constitutional amendment by the people of the South. That is a matter of great importance to the Nationalist community in Northern Ireland and to the community in the South. The Government is prepared to deal with that in a way which I believe fulfils the commitment given to the British Government and which will be accepted by the people in the Republic when the time comes to put a referendum to them.
It has been said that we should have published the wording of the proposed amendment to the Constitution. I do not believe that would be the best course of action at this stage, not that there is anything to hide or run from. What is important is that the main components of the Framework Document consist of a number of major elements. On the one hand we have the constitutional issues where both Governments have obligations. The Irish Government, with the concurrence of the majority of the people in a referendum, have an obligation to bring forward amendments to Articles 2 and 3. That is a commitment which has been fairly given and will be honoured by the Government and, hopefully, by the people. From the tenor of the debate it appears it will be supported by the vast majority of Deputies. The British Government also has an obligation to bring forward change, be it in the Government of Ireland Act, through amending legislation or new legislation.
Many people of the Unionist persuasion have great fears about the imposition of cross-Border bodies on this island. I should like to dissipate some of those fears. In the way the Framework Document is structured it will be evident to anyone who cares to study it with an open mind that we are trying to bring about co-operation between North and South in areas where we have neglected it in the past, for example, the economic area, tourism, trade, education and health where it is obvious and practical that it would be far wiser for us to deal with these matters on a cross-Border basis. That does not undermine sovereignty in the South or in the North, and should not be seen as threatening. I heard some responses already today demonstrating that the Framework Document does not mean an awful lot to the unemployed and marginalised people in Northern Ireland. I accept that, in terms of its formulation, dealing with constitutional and other issues, it does not seem to have an immediate impact on those seeking better prospects for themselves and their families. Nonetheless, within the arena of economic realities covered by its contents, their prospects would be far better.
I hope that the conference on investment to be held in Washington in May will be a first and obvious indication of the economic benefits that will follow from peace on this island. It will afford the Government, the parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government an opportunity to address that major conference, to be opened by President Clinton, as further testimony of his interest in finding a resolution to the conflict on this island which will be attended by many large corporations, those interested in investing in Ireland and within the European Union. In that respect, I hope it will afford us, as a Government, and the parties in Northern Ireland, an opportunity to convince potential American investors, those in corporate America interested in entering the large markets of the European Union, that Ireland is a very attractive place for investment within that Union. I hope that conference will be the first obvious indication to people in Northern Ireland asking the very obvious question, apart from the politics, what is in this document for those who want work and better educational opportunities, accompanied by better prospects in Northern Ireland.
The last aspect of the Framework Document is its European Union dimension. On many occasions in this House we have discussed the various programmes emanating from Brussels, of major importance to cross-Border counties, North and South, which will be coming on stream, coupled with the most recent package being discussed in Brussels, representing its direct response to the peace process. I pay a special tribute to the former President of the European Commission, Jacques Delors, who, when the British and Irish Governments approached him in the aftermath of the cessation of violence in Northern Ireland, was immediately forthcoming in his willingness to ensure a package would be devised by the Commission, for approval by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, now coming to fruition. That too will be extremely important.
Nobody in Northern Ireland should feel threatened by the Framework Document. If they take the time to look at it in a reasonable manner they will see that both Governments have set out to present, in a balanced and fairminded way, our best understanding of the present position in Northern Ireland and a framework for possible development of its future, one in which people, of whatever tradition, persuasion or political affiliation, can find a balanced accommodation within which to live their lives. The cessation of violence over recent months on this island has brought a great sense of relief, very obviously reflected in Northern Ireland, its people having borne the brunt of the difficulties but is reflected in the South also because we too have borne some of the brunt of that violence. For many years events on this island have brought a sense of shame to the people of this country. We are given an opportunity now of lifting that sense of shame, of developing peace on this island. It is my belief that, only when we have permanent peace, agreement on Northern Ireland and vis-à-vis the future of this country, the island of Ireland will continue to develop within the European Union, as committed Europeans, to bring about the economic prosperity we all seek. It will be then only we can fully develop this island economically, culturally and throughout the many other aspects of life. That time is long overdue.
