Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Oct 1984

Vol. 105 No. 10

Report of The New Ireland Forum: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Senator McGuinness on 12 September 1984:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report of the New Ireland Forum.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

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

"welcomes the Report of the New Ireland Forum and accompanying documents as forming an important contribution to any resolution of the political issues posed by the division of the island and as providing an authoritative basis on which the realities of the political, economic, social and security problems can be considered and resolved."—(Senator Dooge.)

Mrs. Honan

I welcome this debate if for no other reason than to bring it to the notice of the nation that England, and its Prime Minister, have taken such little notice of the Report of the New Ireland Forum. I thank sincerely the members of the Forum and staff who assisted them throughout the deliberations. We now have an important statement of constitutional nationalist opinion. Senator Dooge, the Leader of the House, when speaking on this debate, seemed to think we would get great results. He quoted Mr. James Prior, but I do not share Senator Dooge's optimism with regard to what Mr. Prior said on leaving the North. Senator Dooge when speaking on this debate in the House said that Mr. Prior, before leaving the North said that the Dublin Government were still going on about this United Ireland business. I do not know where Senator Dooge got the view that Mr. Prior, having left the appointment, had great hopes that a lot of things were going to happen. In column 74 of the Official Report of 12 September, Senator Dooge said:

nobody should be allowed to quote individual paragraphs from the Forum report because taking an individual paragraph out of the Forum report may lead to misunderstanding, may lead to dangers of emphasis falling in the wrong place.

Yet in column 78 of the Official Report of the same date Senator Dooge went on to say:

The whole point is that the model of joint authority does not affect our sovereignty. These words are, I think, and I certainly hope, words that have been carefully chosen. It may well be that the only immediate way forward is through the question of Joint Authority...

While Senator Dooge says that we should not opt for one model he has opted for the model he would like. Maybe I misunderstood the esteemed Senator, but, again, maybe I did not. Our purpose is to make certain that whatever course we take will, in the end, give us the reunification of the island, a sovereign State equal in all status to all others, organised to provide for the social and cultural betterment of all our people — I deliberately use that phrase "all our people" in my contribution — and contributing in our international relations with every other worth-while movement for human betterment. I am keenly conscious of the fact that winning political independence would not mean economic independence in the same degree. I also understand quite well that we would have to move cautiously to see if we could all work together. By "work together" I mean North and South.

In Fianna Fáil we will at all times help the restoration of the unity of Ireland. Before our entry to the EEC I had to be clear that it would not damage the prospect of the eventual reunification of this island. Irish unity by agreement for the benefit of the ordinary people who comprise this island, North and South, must be the desire of all in the same way as we desire freedom because it is that alone that will bring happiness to us.

Fianna Fáil took a stand on this matter a long time ago even though in recent times in other places some people were confused. I was never confused at any stage and I am a long time a member of my party. When we talk about the unity of Ireland we were talking about a 32-county Ireland by peaceful means. I repeat that this was to be achieved by "peaceful means" because one has to be so careful nowadays. People do not read what one says but read between the lines. I am quite clear in what I am saying and if other people are confused it is their tough luck. Nobody can with confidence predict the future but surely we can define the future we desire. As elected people we have that responsibility. Without apologies to anyone we should make reference to the sacrifices that were made in the past by people who thought it was for a 32-county nation that they were paying the great price.

I have stated one of the aims of the party which I am lucky to be a member of and I will now quote the late Eamon de Valera, who, when speaking on a radio broadcast to the United States on 12 February 1933, to mark the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, specifically rejected the federal model of the United States and said:

Ireland is more than a political union of states. It has been a nation from the dawn of history, united in traditions, in political institutions and in territory. The island is too small to be divided. It does not need and cannot afford two Governments.

Senator Catherine McGuinness in her opening speech said very definitely that she did not want any other Member of the House to stand up here and say what a great person she was. In her absence I pay a tribute to Senator McGuinness although she asked us not to do so. She is an excellent Senator. She is a wonderful and very sincere friend. Therefore, I listened with care to her contribution and I was a little bit upset — perhaps she was not aware of what she was saying — that she was not at times happy with our attitudes down here. I find this a little bit strange. I want to put this on the record of the House that some of my greatest friends, and Derry's, in Clare are Protestants. In our long years of service together in voluntary organisations, on school boards and elsewhere we never thought they were any different from us. Perhaps I took Senator McGuinness up wrongly, but I thought she was saying that we would have to have a lot of changes down here or that there was a difference between them and us down here. I would argue that point with Senator McGuinness. That is not so and I am speaking from long years of experience.

I understand quite well that young people today do not have strong feelings about the Forum because they have much more on their minds. Indeed, I include not alone young people but a lot of other people also. They may not have the feeling some of us have; a united Ireland may not be so important to them as it is to us. Of course, after the magnificent document last night they will probably start thinking in positive terms again. The Coalition Government have done a marvellous job in giving jobs to everyone so perhaps they will take a look again at the way in which we think of a united Ireland.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator has departed from the motion.

Mrs. Honan

Senator Robb in his contribution mentioned our neutrality. I want now to raise the question of our neutrality in relation to the findings of the Forum report. Ever since our neutrality found such forceful expression under Eamon de Valera in the war years, we in the South cherished our neutrality. These days in the world of nuclear weapons we hear a lot about the importance of our neutrality.

From a purely practical point of view the question has to be asked, how would our neutrality be affected by the three options in the Forum report? In my view it is clear that any sharing or lessening of our sovereignty — as envisaged in varying degrees in the federal and joint authority options, particularly the latter one — would lead to a weakening of, if not doing away with, our neutrality. Under either of these options you could hardly have one part of this country — that is the Six Counties — remaining in NATO while we in the South remain neutral. Accordingly, it would be unworkable. The setting up of any structures under either of those options would mean that one of the sides would have to compromise: either the Six Counties would have to withdraw from NATO and join us in our neutrality or, more likely, we in the South would have to surrender out neutrality and join NATO and I do not think that is on. If we can believe press reports our neutrality at the moment can apparently be bartered to some degree with the British Government. Of course we only see little snippets of that but obviously it has been discussed. Let the people of the country take that issue up and we will see.

Accordingly, one can see, from a purely practical point of view, that the unitary State offers the best protection for our neutrality, and problems associated with shared sovereignty do not arise. As a unitary State the sovereign Government would have little difficulty in responding to the desire of the vast majority of the people for the retention of the neutrality of this nation. For these reasons, as well as neutrality, should there be any negotiations other than for a unitary State? When we are talking about neutrality and the three options of the Forum there is only one which would be consistent with our stance while remaining neutral.

I understand that the Forum reached one clear political conclusion, that the structures of a political unity which the Forum would wish to see is a unitary State, achieved by agreement and consent. This conclusion was subscribed to not alone by Fianna Fáil but also by Fine Gael, Labour and the SDLP. There is no use coming here weeks afterwards and saying that we were the only ones who said the unitary State was the option which was agreed. I could go back to the option of a federal Ireland and to the other option. I do not know the answer and I am sure my colleagues here in the House do not have the answer to this awful problem. In public and in private and at every place where I got a platform I have made one request, namely, that no matter how long it takes, the British should announce their withdrawal from the North. They should withdraw the army from the Six Counties of this nation. I cannot understand, with the murders and the killings by both sides, by everybody who uses a gun or uses violence, why there is not some announcement of withdrawal, even in 20 years time.

While we are talking about subversives and about people killing and shooting and sadness and death — we have heard quite a bit about it here in the last few days in another Bill — there are two sides in the Six Counties who are creating the problem. To me the person in British uniform who uses plastic bullets is as wrong, as bad and as deadly an enemy to the whole country and to peace in all our times as any of the other people of violence. The urgency of making political progress has been recognised by the New Ireland Forum. The Nationalist parties have expressed this, but alone they cannot resolve this awful conflict. Britain must act decisively and must act now to avoid further sadness and death. I only hope that there will be some response from the British Government, but I do not hold the hope that some of my colleagues in this House hold about a positive response from the present Prime Minister of Great Britain. While she is there, I do not feel that we will have any announcement or any positive reaction to a very worthwhile, magnificent exercise and the report here before us today.

Debate adjourned.