I do not want to show any disrespect to the House but I think it would be more appropriate if we had the Minister for Foreign Affairs here for this debate. I think the Minister present is an extremely good Minister but perhaps the Leader of the House could make an effort when we have items of importance ——
Amendment of Constitution: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair has no control over the matter and I request that Senator Murphy proceed.
Senator Ross took the words out of my mouth; I am about to make the same point. While I am very glad to see the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food in this House because we were nursed upon the self same hill and he is a former pupil of whom I am very proud, nonetheless the fact that this debate is being taken by him and not by anybody from either the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Justice I regard as a slight to this House and as a slight to myself. It is a slight to the seriousness of the motion before the House.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann, noting the implications of the Supreme Court judgment in the McGimpsey case, calls on the Government to initiate the necessary constitutional changes to end the State's territorial claim on Northern Ireland.
I refer to the section of the Constitution on the nation, Articles 1, 2 and 3. I phrased the motion deliberately so as not to refer to any one of those Articles specifically. There are nuances here into which I do not wish to go. This is the section of the Constitution which postulates a single Irish nation inhabiting the one national territory on the one island, coterminus with the island. I think these Articles taken together are a fraud and a deceit and have been from the beginning. They are tacked on, as it were, to the rest of the Constitution. If they were taken away unconditionally and unilaterally, they would be no loss to anyone on this island. I have held this opinion for years and years.
I remember a television debate with the now Tánaiste Deputy Brian Lenihan, in which I pointed again and again to the territorial emphasis of Articles 2 and 3; the word "territory" or "territorial" occurs five times in ten lines. The plain citizen, let alone the judges of the Supreme Court, can be in no doubt about their territorial intent. I am not deterred by the Taoiseach's dismissive head-in-sand attitude in the Dáil yesterday when this matter was brought up. I am concerned to ascertain Seanad Éireann's opinion on a question which is sometimes referred to glibly as a hoary old chestnut but which is of crucial national importance — a life and death matter in the context of the Northern conflict and now a matter of renewed topical interest.
It was understandable perhaps in 1937 that the makers of the Constitution should be concerned with sovereignty and territoriality, with the kind of historical background, disappointment over partition, the collapse of the boundary Commission and so on, but even then it is interesting to observe that there was a substantial dissenting voice within the Nationalist camp about these articles. The then Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Mr. W.T. Cosgrave, described them as "make-believe" which is what they indeed always have been. The No. 1 civil servant — if I may call him that — J.J. McElligott, the Secretary of the Department of Finance, objected strenuously to these Articles. He described them as "a fiction and one which will give offence to neighbouring countries with whom we are constantly protesting our desire to live on terms of friendship." He continued, "It is not clear whether we are on safe ground in claiming sovereignty and jurisdiction over land recognised internationally, de jure and de facto, as belonging to another country.”“These Articles.” he concluded, “will not contribute anything to effecting the unity of Ireland, but rather the reverse.”
That was a remarkably perceptive and astute observation in 1937 and nearly 30 years later those remarks have lost none of their relevance or forcefulness. I am sorry, nearly 55 years later! I said 30 years in a slip of the tongue because 30 years after the Constitution was drafted, when Nationalist passions had cooled, when there was a more liberal atmosphere an all-party constitutional review committee of the Oireachtas suggested that these offensive, territorial-orientated Articles, certainly Article 3, be replaced by a more generous sentiment and one, I may add, more in keeping with true united Irish republican tradition. What that review committee recommended was that instead of Article 3 there should be a clause saying:
The Irish nation hereby proclaims its firm will that its territory be re-united in harmony and brotherly affection between all Irishmen.
The name of Seán Lemass is generally associated with this progressive new departure and rightly so. He should be given due credit but it is unfair and untrue historically to suppose that the main Opposition were deficient in this respect. Indeed, Liam Cosgrave gave this new departure his full support and it appears that the person who drafted this new version was none other than the distinguished constitutionalist, former Attorney General and Member of these Houses, John Kelly. So it was, we may say, a bi-partisan situation and not exclusively a Lemass initiative. However Article 3, this mischievous and baneful Article, was used in 1977, despite the progressive suggestions made ten years earlier, by certain political troglodytes to wreck the Sunningdale Agreement which, you will recall, had been so agonisingly arrived at in the context of such Irish slaughter in 1972-73. Article 3 was used deliberately to wreck the Sunningdale Agreement. That alone, in my view, would prove that this Article is a disaster.
Despite all our professed greater understanding of the Ulster Unionist position, which our predecessors did not have in 1937, we now seem to have gone backwards since the suggestion of the 1967 committee. At least Fianna Fáil have gone backwards since that liberal, proposed version in 1967. The Taoiseach's stubbornness no later than yesterday is proof of that regressive attitude in Fianna Fáil.
For some years now we have been pretending, in a typical Irish solution to an Irish problem manner, that this bombastic and aggressive clause does not really mean anything, that it should not be interpreted territorially. That is the point the Tánaiste tried to push on me in that television debate some years ago, that it does not really mean territorially, despite the evidence of our eyes, or if it does mean a territorial intent we do not really mean it. We are told: "Do not take any notice of that; we do not really mean that at all but it would be too difficult to get rid of it." Besides it would be electorally disastrous to try to get rid of it, so they think. So there is this pretence which has now been blown sky high by the Supreme Court yesterday. That is the significance of the Supreme Court decision: they have blown the gaffe on that piece of hypocrisy and it cannot now be used again.
I do not have to explain the circumstances of the McGimpsey case for the House except maybe to summarise that the McGimpsey brothers who are moderate and, perhaps, somewhat eccentric, in the best sense, Unionists, for their own Unionist reasons, took the court action to prove that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was incompatible with the Constitution. On 1 March the Supreme Court made a ruling on this in which they turned down the McGimpsey case but put paid to the notion that what we have in Articles 2 and 3 is a lovingly aspirational expression of our ardent desire to consummate our union with our separated brethren. That fiction was put paid to for good on 1 March.
The court said deliberately, and it did not have to spell it out, that Articles 2 and 3 constitute a claim of legal right which the Government have not only the right to pursue but the duty to pursue. It is a constitutional imperative. The territorial claim is the law, is the Constitution, irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. So what are we going to do about that? What does the Constitution say? It says that:
... without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution...
In other words, the Oireachtas is involved, so how do we react to what the court has said in this historic judgment on 1 March? It is not good enough for the Taoiseach to put his head in the sand. He should ponder, for example, on the impartial and learned conclusion of a highly respected commentator on constitutional matters, my colleague in University College, Cork, David Gwynn Morgan who, following on the court judgment, said in The Irish Times of 5 March in a highly significant article:
The significance of all this is plain: ...The Government lacks the capacity to renounce the de jure claim on Northern Ireland. If these articles are matters of law, then an Irish Government is simply not legally competent to reach certain kinds of compromise with the unionist majority.
The net result is that the Government are rather constrained in any future bargaining with the Northern majority.
Their hands are tied and tied in an aggressive territorial direction by the ruling of the court. In political terms, the court's ruling confirms the Unionist belief that these Articles were always aggressive, that they were always territorial in intent and that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was only a stalking horse for these territorial claims.
Let us look at the reaction we have had along the line over the last week or ten days or so. Again it is all moderate reaction. These are not the wild men of Unionism talking, they are people like the McGimpsey brothers and Ken Maginnis, than whom there could be no more moderate voice. If we do not talk and listen to Ken Maginnis we might as well throw our hats at anything like an accommodation with the rest of the Unionists. The draft proposal which was leaked, and which we have no reason to suspect is other than genuine, for a new British-Irish agreement, which was the submission of Ian Paisley and Mr. Molyneaux and which was published in The Irish Times of 27 February, again pinpointed Articles 2 and 3 — and this was before the Supreme Court judgment — as a main source of Unionist fear and grievance.
Frank Miller, former secretary of the Unionist Party, who now writes on an occasional basis for The Irish Times, in an article only yesterday pointed up the significance of the court in the same way. The Presbyterian Synod yesterday again put Articles 2 and 3 to the forefront of any agenda that attempts to achieve reconciliation in Ireland. If all the moderate voices articulate this fear and this resentment of the territorial claim, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, are we going to listen to them? Will the Taoiseach listen to them? He is always talking about how generous they will find him and about how he would like to allay their fears and their concerns. This is the stock rhetoric he goes on with. Does he mean any of that? What they are telling him if he will listen is: “We are telling you what our fears are; hands off Northern Ireland; knock off the territorial claim”. Is he going to listen to that? He shows no sign so far of doing so. This motion is aimed at getting him and his Government to face up to this demand. Will he go to Belfast next month as the head of a Government which has aggressive territorial intent on the people of that area, or will he have the imagination and the courage to release a new dove of peace on that occasion?
I am proposing this motion in the first place — and the first reason may not command the assent of some of my colleagues, even those of my colleagues who support the general sentiment — because I do not believe that the national territory concept is authentic at all. The whole idea of a national territory is becoming increasingly dubious. Who said that "the whole island of Ireland" who first ordained that the whole island of Ireland is the national territory? There was never, by the way, a united Irish State embracing the whole island of Ireland under native Irish rule, and that is something we should think about. I believe that Northern Ireland, in terms of jurisdiction and sovereignty, is a kind of a no-man's land. I would submit that the British, though originally claiming exclusive sovereignty — though even then you have to keep in mind that the British never really wanted a partitioned island — in regard to that British claim which was enshrined in the 1973 Constitution Act, the British have now waived that claim by their agreement to Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The British in effect have said this is not exclusively and unconditionally our territory any more. So, I am saying it is a kind of a no-man's land. I am also saying that the idea of a nation in the abstract having a right to unity is meaningless and cannot really be substantiated — apart altogether by the way, from the arrogance of people living in this part of the island in the comfort and smugness of places like Cork and Kerry making bombastic demands about the national territory, where people are suffering day in and day out because of the conflict that all that concept entails.
Another argument is surely that the State which incorporates three-quarters of the nation has forfeited much of its right to a territorial claim in any event because of its purely partisan and denominational behaviour on great public issues. But people might not agree with me on that. People might prefer to tread the middle ground of the Progressive Democrats or of Jack McQuillan, who has proposed, and as the Progressive Democrats have similarly suggested, that we should have an aspiration to a peaceful unity and have that replace Articles 2 and 3. But, even though people do not follow me in this, maybe unpopular, belief that the national territory idea is erroneous, I then appeal to them on other grounds. I am saying that the territorial claim is bombastic, unhelpful — that at least it is bombastic and unhelpful and that at the worst it can, as was proved with Kevin Boland's initiative in 1975, be disastrously invoked to oppose the real welfare and the real harmony of the people of Ireland.
I am saying that the territorial claim is invalid because it is made in the name of "We, the people of Ireland", but the people who enacted the Constitution in December 1937 did not include the Northern majority against whom the claim is now made. I am saying that the territorial claim limits and damages the work of such excellent bodies as Co-operation North and the Ireland Association. In other words, all the good work that could be done by cultural bodies for creating real links between people are compromised by the fear and the aggression implicit in the territorial claim.
The claim is as offensive to progressive opinion down here as to the Unionists. Let me quote from an editorial in The Irish Times on the very day of the 50th anniversary of the enactment of the Constitution, 29 December 1987, a year in which I think we in this House debated the Constitution in an anniversary context. What The Irish Times said on 29 December 1987 is this:
It is a claim which is expressed in a dangerously simplistic idiom, in terms which are suggestive of a desire for conquest, subjugation indeed, and which can have no place in the dialogue which must come about with the Unionist majority in the North. The concept of territorial occupation, of the Gael flying to the sea before the conquering might — military, social, or cultural — of the Gael may well have had its place as part of a necessary political or cultural mythology 1937. It has none today. And it contradicts the declared desire of the great majority of people on this island for the achievement of unity by peaceful means alone.
That surely is now further confirmed by the Supreme Court judgment.
I suggest that if we have the vision to lift the territorial claim we will ease the whole pressure on Northern Ireland, pressure on the Unionists. We will make it easier for them to consider an internal accommodation, a lasting internal accommodation. We will improve dramatically North-South relations. It will help us, as I said, to develop cultural links instead of meaningless political claims; and I think also that if we lifted the territorial claim it would put the onus on the British to be more responsible in all kinds of ways. Then it would be their Border exclusively and they would be responsible for it in the eyes of the world, more than we would. In fact, it would enhance our moral standing in the world perception of this problem if we backed off from the territorial claim. In time I believe that, if there was no longer a territorial claim, the endemic hatred between Protestant and Catholic would diminish. It is arguable at least that the reason why Catholics are the unfortunate victims of Protestant bigotry and sectarian hatred is because they are seen as the fifth columnists of an aggressive and unfriendly State.
Another central advantage perhaps of pressing this change in the Constitution would be that we would be dissociating ourselves not only from the methods of the Provos, which we all deplore, but from their aims as well. In the existing state of affairs they can argue that they have the courage of our casually held convictions, and in a way they are right. They are right when they say, and they scribble it as graffitti on various public walls, that "Ireland is Irish soil". If they believe that all of Ireland is Irish soil, meaning that it is subject to the central control of one united regime, then they are right to regard the Unionists as foreigners and aliens and to drive them out by force. We cannot have it every way.
Finally, it is in accordance with the new spirit of Europe that we should disown the territorial claim. That is how peace is going to be established in the new Europe — by people not insisting on old shibboleths and where borders are drawn and so on. Of course, it is arguable that as a member of the Community we have no right to make a claim on part of a neighbouring state. Of course, there will be objections to what I am saying tonight. It will be objected, for example, that we are abandoning the Nationalists. Well, I submit that the present constitutional clauses give no protection or no assurance to Nationalists and since the drafting of the Anglo-Irish Agreement I submit that article 1 does guarantee the Nationalist aspiration of the Northern minority. Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution are absolutely no use to them whatsoever.
I do not think that a referendum on this question would be divisive. In fact, Fianna Fáil are the only ones out of step. The Progressive Democrats, Fine Gael — if you look at what was said at the Ard-Fheis and at Deputy Dukes' own personal reaction to the question and answer session — they also, as far as I can read them, would have no objection to the dropping of these Articles. The Workers' Party similarly. I am not sure about the Labour Party; but certainly only Fianna Fáil refuse to budge. Only Fianna Fáil are out of step.
I submit that in this as in other matters the referendum would not be divisive. There is a strong tide of public opinion out there which is favourable to radical constitutional change if it thinks it would help to promote peace: all the public opinion polls at least suggest that. Such a referendum would be an occasion for a radical declaration of our own peaceful interests vis-á-vis the North. It is despicable that we should be told we must keep these claims in reserve as a bargaining counter, hold them over the heads of the Unionists, until they see sense. That is what that means. That is what the Taoiseach was saying again yesterday — change only in an all-Ireland reshuffle.
What that means is blackmail. It means that he is saying to the Unionists "If we take our hands off your throat, what concessions will you make to us?" That is what that means. It is as despicable as the Cardinal's similar piece of blackmail a year or two ago that divorce is on the table as a trading point in a United Ireland. That is not the way of the future. That is not the aspiration of peace and brotherhood we are talking about.
In recent years we have kept on saying ever since the New Ireland Forum, ever since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that territory is not what we are interested in, that unity of hearts and minds is what we are after, that preoccupation with territory is an outmoded shibboleth. Do we really mean that? If we do, then we have a chance to show it in supporting and promoting the spirit of this motion. I am proud to propose this motion. If we support it, it would be a first step in an historic compromise that will help greatly towards peace on this island.
I am very proud to second this motion on Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I should say at this stage that Senator Murphy and I and one or two other Independent Senators have ploughed a fairly lonely furrow on this issue for many years now. It seems to me a source of great encouragement that, whereas this very issue before the McGimpsey case was voted on in its plain, stark, naked condition some time ago in the last Seanad, and we were defeated by, if my memory serves me right, 27 votes to three, with Fine Gael abstaining, that now for the first time we will have the main Opposition party and we will, without consultation, have the Progressive Democrats on board for this issue. Senator Murphy is right when he says what we are starting here today is isolating Fianna Fáil as the only major party who can defend these absurd aggressive territorial claims and that the other parties in this House have now come to take the point of view which we have led them to take.
One of the reasons I am proud to speak on this motion is that Mr. McGimpsey is a constituent of mine and Mr. McGimpsey represents the sort of modern Unionist whom I am proud to represent in this House. I see no shame in such representation here. I am delighted that one of the benefits of being in this House and having Unionist constituents is that I have to and must keep in touch with their point of view almost weekly. Those people have in the past day received an incredible knock to their attitude to the Republic as they see it. Not only has the Taoiseach slammed the door on Articles 2 and 3 in the past day but also we have had a Surpeme Court judgment on extradition which they cannot comprehend and which I cannot comprehend either.
It seems absurd that the Government here should come out — and I understand this happened this evening — in support of that decision by the Supreme Court. What is understood up there is that IRA men are once again — and I am not saying this now to be provocative; it is what is understood and I have checked this today — using the courts of this country to escape from justice which they would receive somewhere else. That is the perception and I find it difficult not to say that is the reality. What has happened is that people sentenced to long sentences for serious offences in the North and who have escaped have, because of legal niceties and political reasons, because they pleaded political offences, escaped the justice which they undoubtedly deserve. Nothing is more calculated to offend and alienate the Unionist mind.
It is time the politicians here faced up not only to the fact that strange decisions are being made by courts here which cannot be understood outside the country, but also that Articles 2 and 3 are possibly the most divisive areas of our constitution and that there will be no friendly communication between the two parts of this island so long as they remain there. I say this in the full knowledge that Fianna Fáil, the most Republican party or Nationalist party — I correct myself — in the traditional sense are the people who do not like the people of Northern Ireland very much, do not know the people of Northern Ireland very much and do not want to know the people of Northern Ireland very well or very much.
Articles 2 and 3 as they stand at the moment — as Senator Murphy has said so much more eloquently than I can — are purely and simply territorial claims which are wheeled out at convenient times to rally the Republican backwoodsman in the party. I am not sure that the leaders of Fianna Fáil really care terribly about this, but what they do use it for is quite simply as a call for annexation of Northern Ireland which unites the party when they are in difficulties. There is an old saying — I think it is from Henry IV — which is, if you want to unite your party you declare war on someone abroad. It is quite simple. If you can find the lowest common denominator, something like the fact that there is on our border a territory which we claim but which we cannot get, you just wheel it out that claim as a rallying cry at the right time, even if you do not believe it and even if you know it is not practical and it is not going to happen.
We often say in this part of the country that the Unionist mentality is unrealistic because it is a siege mentality, because they are a small and as people say, almost an non-viable unit, that they are, as the Taoiseach is fond of saying, a failed entity. That may or may not be true but it does not give us any right to annexation against their will. Secondly, how can we blame them for having a siege mentality when we are constantly making threats against them amd claiming territory? I suggest that the sine qua non for actually relieving that siege mentality is that we abolish this claim and take it out of the Constitution.
I do not believe the governing party really want Northern Ireland. They want the spectre of taking Northern Ireland over for domestic political reasons and the embodiment of that is Articles 2 and 3 in our Constitution. I do not believe either that the governing party really want a united Ireland but they want to say they believe in a united Ireland because it is an old Fianna Fáil tribal war cry which keeps their backwoodsman happy. If they were faced with a united Ireland in the morning they would not know what to do with it. But they know what to do is to threaten them with a united Ireland day and night when it is convenient.
What I would suggest as the most constructive proposal — and I would be interested in what the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture passes on to the Minister, who I presume is going to reply next week on this — is that we have a referendum not only in the South on Articles 2 and 3 but that we had an all-Ireland referendum on unity and that all-Ireland referendum on unity should include as far as is possible a summary of the cost that it would be to the people of the Republic of Ireland, because I suggest that the people of the Republic of Ireland no longer care very much whether there is a united Ireland or not in the abstract. I suggest it would be a very useful test to put to them if you spelled out the cost, because I have rarely seen Northern Ireland or a united Ireland or unity of any sort become an issue in a general election. I know what people vote for in general elections — they vote for what will make them better off. They do not vote for whether or not they want a united Ireland.
I suggest that an all-Ireland referendum on unity itself, which would of course include the uncomfortable fact that it starts with one million people against the proposal, would be a very interesting exercise and it might not result in the outcome which would be anticipated. I challenge the Government to think of doing this in consultation and in tandem with our Northern friends, or some of our friends in Northern Ireland, in order to see the sort of result we would get because if it were defeated, which it might well be, it would be very difficult for Fianna Fáil from what would then be a minority position to say "We still want that territory up there. It is ours by right" if the majority of people in the North and South of Ireland have rejected it.
I think it is in that context that we have to talk about and look at the Fianna Fáil attitude to Northern Ireland, and their record and their sincerity on it, because not only did they do a U-turn on the Anglo-Irish Agreement but also they now seem absolutely adamant in pursuing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Nothing was more opportunist than the Taoiseach's refusal to countenance the Anglo-Irish Agreement when he was in Opposition, but now he wishes to enforce it with more vigour than the Government at the time; and the reason he enforces it now is because it is a convenient vehicle for him for putting the boot into the Unionists.
I have yet to hear Deputy Collins protest about the killings of UDR men, of RUC men or of anybody on the Unionist or Protestant side. Why is it that he consistently calls for meetings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement when the killings and atrocities are committed on one particular side? Nothing is more guaranteed to make us seen as partisan, one-sided, aggressive and enemies. We have got to come off that particularly prejudiced Nationalist pedestal and we have got to come forward and call meetings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement about something which is not just simply a Nationalist issue.
We should also consider the calls from the Unionist population for the suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. At this stage there is no doubt whatsoever that that is the largest obstacle, and not only to talks. It is the largest immediate obstacle to talks and to changing the Unionist attitude. While that is intact, while Articles 2 and 3 are intact, while other noises are made and there is sabrerattling from the Republic, we will simply not be able to change their attitudes.
I think as well we can do things down here, besides the abolition of Articles 2 and 3, which would prove or start to prove that we are serious about our fight against terrorism and about our need and our wish to live in friendship with the Unionists of Northern Ireland. I think we should look again at the position of Sinn Féin in our society. We should look at the position of Sinn Féin as a political party. Senator Norris and others quite rightly recently picketed the Mansion House, because it was utterly abhorrent to them, as it is to me, that the Mansion House — Senator Murphy protested as well — was being used by killers and Provisional IRA men to hold a political rally. How does that look to people abroad? How does that look to the propagandists overseas when we allow them to do this? There they are, the Provisional IRA, parading in an official building and obviously getting the blessing of those who control it. That is utterly wrong.
I think we should go further. Why should we allow those people who are preaching killing and hatred to sell books, to open shops, to have what they call community workshops, or even to exist as a political party? As a society we have to take decisions on certain things as being right and being wrong within very broad democratic parameters. One of those decisions, which I think we should have the courage to make, is that any political party that preaches the gospel of killing, slaughter and hate should be banned, that there should be no room for ambivalence about Sinn Féin and the IRA, Sinn Féin groups and community workshops — the whole lot — and those who masquerade under such banners should all be forbidden not only from broadcasting but from existing as a group.
In addition, we should consider other areas which will prove not only our wish to combat terrorism but the fact that we were prepared to take concrete measures against it. Like it or not, because of the Supreme Court decision yesterday and other such decisions, the UK and the Unionist population believe we are ambivalent towards the IRA. It may be, if we continue to make decisions of that sort, that it will be necessary, not only for practical reasons and practical military reasons, to introduce internment North and South so that people like those who were released yesterday do not come out and mix as ordinary members of society when they are wanted in the North for appalling crimes.
What we need to show is that not only will we abolish Articles 2 and 3 but that we will take the necessary measures to show that we are not ambivalent, that we do not keep Articles 2 and 3 in place which give legitimacy and encouragement to the Provisional IRA. We need to show we care about the people of Northern Ireland, that we do not necessarily want unity, but we want peace; and there is only one way of doing that and that is by joining together with them in taking the necessary domestic and internal measures which this motion encompasses.
I rise to oppose the motion, but before I do so I would like to welcome the Minister, Deputy Walsh. I regard him as an intelligent and capable Minister and it is no slight to me that he is here to take this motion.
Articles 2 and 3 have been described as bombastic and unhelpful, but I do not think we would be debating this matter were it not for the recent Supreme Court decision. There is no better way of refuting some of the arguments that have been made than by looking at that decision and some of the interpretations that were reached by the Supreme Court.
As Senators will remember, a case was brought by Christopher McGimpsey and Michael McGimpsey as plaintiffs against Ireland and others as defendants. The essence of it was that the agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom made on 15 November 1985 — in other words, the Anglo-Irish Agreement — is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. We need to look at the people who brought this case, these two brothers, both of whom were born in the Six Counties and who now live in the Six Counties. In the course of his judgment, Judge Barrington described the political ambitions and activities of both the plaintiffs in the following words and I quote:
Both plaintiffs are members of the Official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Both are deeply concerned about the present state of Northern Ireland and of all Ireland. Both reject any form of sectarianism and both have been involved in peace movements working to accommodate people of various traditions who live on the island of Ireland. Both gave evidence before the New Ireland Forum and in oral and written submissions attempted to explain to the Forum how the problem appeared to men fully committed to unionism but interested in finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Northern Ireland and of Ireland. Both believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has aggravated the problem, instead of solving it the problem has become part of it.
Having heard the expression of their opinions and their attitude to the problems with which the case is concerned, the judges acknowledged that they were both sincere. However, had they succeeded in their claim, and to deal with some of the ways they tried to support this claim, it would have supported their own political agenda, indeed the agenda of many Unionist politicians. First, they claim that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution were not compatible with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is worth looking at Articles 2 and 3 to see why they should not be removed.
In his judgment Mr. Justice Finlay said:
I am not satisfied that the statement that this national claim of unity exists, not in the legal but political order and as one of the rights which are envisaged in Article 2, necessarily means that the claim to the entire national territory is not a claim of legal right.
That claim as you all know, according to Article 2 of the Constitution is "the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and its territorial seas". He went on to say that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution should be read with the Preamble and that he was satisfied that the true interpretation of these Constitutional provisions were as follows:
1. The reintegration of the national territory is a Constitutional imperative.
Article 2 consists of a declaration of the extent of the national territory as a claim of legal right.
Article 3 says:
Pending the reintegration of the national territory and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution to exercise jurisdiction over the whole of that territory the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws of Saorstát Éireann and the like extra-territorial effect.
He said in his judgment:
The enactment of the laws in any greater area or extent of application or extra-territorial effect than the laws of Saorstát Éireann and this prohibits the enactment of laws applicable in the counties of Northern Ireland.
He also said that the restriction imposed by Article 3 pending the reintegration of the national territory in no way derogates from the claim as a legal right to the entire national territory.
The McGimpseys also claimed that there was inconsistency between the Agreement and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Their main submission on this was that article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement states that the two Governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland; (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; (c) declares that if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in their respective parliaments' legislation to give effect to that wish.
Mr. Justice Barrington said:
It appears to me that in Article 1 of the Agreement the two Governments merely recognise the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland, from a political judgment about the likely course of future events and state what their policy will be should events evolve in a particular way.
Mr. Justice Finlay said:
I find myself in agreement with this economical but precise analysis of the provisions of Article 1.
He went on to say:
The learned trial judge then concluded that on any interpretation of the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution these provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not in any way inconsistent with either of those two Articles.
With that conclusion I am in complete agreement. There can be no doubt but that the only reasonable interpretation of Article 1, of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, taken in conjunction with the denial of derogation from the sovereignty contained in Article 2 (b) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is that it constitutes a recognition of the de facto situation in Northern Ireland but does so expressly without abandoning the claim to the reintegration of the national territory.
Mr. Justice Finley went on to say and I quote:
In so far as they accept the concept of change and the de facto status of Northern Ireland as being something that would require the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, these articles of the Agreement seem to me to be compatible with the obligations undertaken by the State in Article 29, 1 and 2 of the Constitution, whereby Ireland affirms its devotion to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation and its adherence to the principles of the specific settlement of international disputes.
Article 29 of the Constitution 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 McGimpseys had another claim, which was, that the fettering of the power of Government to conduct external relations was in breach of Article 29 but that is not true because, as Mr. Justice Finlay pointed out, the framework contained in the Agreement and structures created by it provide a method of carrying out these activities, it can be argued, in a manner most likely to make them effective and acceptable, namely, constant mutual discussion.
Article 2 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement sets out that the two Governments should deal on a regular basis with political matters, security and related matters, legal matters, including administration of justice, the promotion of cross-Border co-operation.
Mr. Justice Finlay goes on to say:
The Government of Ireland at any time carrying out the functions which have been agreed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is entirely free to do so in the manner in which it and it alone thinks most conducive to the achieving of the aims which it is committed to. A procedure which is likely to lead to peaceable and friendly co-operation at any given time must surely be consistent with the constitutional position of the State that affirms its devotion, not only to the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation, but to the ideal founded on international justice and morality.
Again, the case was made that it in some was disregarded the interests of the majority community in Northern Ireland. I do not think there are any ground for that because, as Mr. Justice Finlay said, the suggestion that there has been any invidious treatment or any discrimination between the two communities in Northern Ireland by virtue of the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not just true.
One of the previous speakers said it was an aggressive territorial intent but surely the aggressor is the person who occupies the territory at the moment, hardly the person who intends to occupy it or to re-unite it, as I would say. It was said that Fianna Fáil were the only party out of step. Yet, there is a large proportion of the Irish population who are continually out of step with us, nearly 50 per cent of the population in every election. We do not have the following of some pseudo-intellectual left-wing west Brits but we do represent the decent people of Ireland.
One of the previous speakers attacked the Cardinal and made some reference to the Cardinal which is not true. The record will show that it is not exactly what the Cardinal said.
It is difficult to know what the Cardinal says.
Another speaker referred to another decision that was recently made in reference to extradition. People whom I have heard in this House and the other House and indeed in public giving out about British justice that allows cases like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Winchester Three and allows torture to be used in Northern Ireland should be satisfied now because two people have not been extradited to British jurisdiction or a jurisdiction under British control. That is not the way some people look at these things.
Somebody said that the Taoiseach was stubborn. How could the Taoiseach be stubborn? We have only to look at some of the comments he made yesterday in reply to questions in the Dáil. He said:
I would like to repeat my statement, that I made at the time of the New Ireland Forum, that was, that if we had a situation where both parts of Ireland could be brought together in some way it would certainly call for an entirely new Constitution.
That is hardly stubborness. Again he said:
I think it will be necessary to bring forward an entirely new Constitution in the context of unity or some other arrangements.
That is hardly the comment of a stubborn man. Finally, he said:
My invitation to the representatives of the Unionist tradition is permanently on the table to discuss anything at all that they would discuss with me.
That is hardly the comment of a stubborn, unhelpful man. In fact, he has been more than open in his dealings with people and willing to receive them at any time.
I wish to refer to the final statement on Mr. Justice Finaly's judgment:
I am satisfied, therefore, that all the grounds of the appeal brought by the plaintiffs must fail. I come to the conclusion from an analysis of each of the submissions that have been made both in the High Court and in this court. I would also point out, however, that there is, looking at the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its totality, looking at the entire scheme and thrust of the Constitution of Ireland, a high improbability that a clear attempt to resolve the position with regard to the reintegration of the national territory and the position of Northern Ireland by a process of consultation, discussion and reasoned arguments, structured by constant communication between servants of each of the two States concerned could ever be inconsistent with a Constitution devoted to the ideals of ordered, peaceful international relations.
There is no doubt that this appeal failed and the two Articles of the Constitution stand. The Anglo-Irish Agreement stands. The Government are determined to pursue the reunification of Ireland by peaceful means and I do not think the existence of either of these Articles of the Constitution in any way inhabits that process. The Taoiseach is open in his attempts to reunify the country by peaceful means and, as he has said and I will repeat before I finish, he is at all times willing to meet with the Unionists and to discuss anything they wish to discuss. Nobody could be more clear in his aspirations than that. Nobody could be more clear in his statements than that.
I hope the motion will fail because I see nothing wrong in trying to reunify a country. It has been an aspiration and I am glad to see it is now legal. That is the way in which I have always thought of it. The Taoiseach said something similar yesterday. I see nothing wrong with that. What should be wrong with looking for a united Ireland or a reunited Ireland? Nothing. This is what got us our freedom in the first place — the part that is free — and if we continue holding out the hand of friendship, as we do in a peaceful manner, then perhaps we can achieve this in the not too distant future.
First, may I compliment Senator Murphy especially on his opening speech here this evening. It was an extremely courageous, generous and thoughtful speech and it has put the problem we face into fairly clear focus. I would also like to congratulate Senator Ross on his contribution although I would not agree with everything he said.
In relation to his opening remarks when he said that Senator Murphy and himself especially on this issue over the past number of years have been ploughing a very lonely furrow that to a certain extent is true but I do not think at the beginning of this debate I have to put the Fine Gael credentials on Northern Ireland on the record. Of all parties in the Republic we certainly have sought to discover and isolate the underlying causes of the problem on this island and of all parties we have sought to bring together groups, especially groups within Northern Ireland, and have sought to put before the body politic new and at times radical structures for tackling the problem. One can go right down through the years from Sunningdale, which perhaps is one of a number of great lost opportunities in the history of this island, to the New Ireland Forum.
Sometimes when I hear Fianna Fáil Senators quoting the Taoiseach on the New Ireland Forum as somebody who was a member of the Forum, I have to take some of that with a pinch of salt because what the Taoiseach tried to do with the New Ireland Forum was to hijack it; what he tried to do was to impose on the agreed findings that the only solution was a unitary State. He did that blatantly at the end of the workings of the New Ireland Forum. He did not get away with it but he almost did.
Again, when I hear the great reverence about the Anglo-Irish Agreement from the far side I have to put on the record that the Tánaiste was despatched to the US before the agreement was signed to try to persuade leading members of the American Congrees not to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement and we were told then that it was copperfastening Partition. I am not saying this out of any bitterness. I am saying it simply because Fianna Fáil on Northern Ireland cannot be trusted. Fianna Fáil on Northern Ireland speak with forked tongues and what is said at the Cumann meeting, at the comhairle ceanntair, is not what is said in the Dáil Chamber, or in the Dáil Chamber when the party are in Government. I could spend all of my short time this evening talking about the way in which the party opposite tried to sabotage the Anglo-Irish Agreement, tried to misrepresent it and now we are told that this is the cornerstone of Government policy.
Again, I recall what Fine Gael did in an attempt to move towards a greater understanding, while making the country more acceptable. It was Fine Gael who brought in the divorce referendum. It was unsuccessful. It was Garret FitzGerald who launched the constitutional crusade. Senator Ross has been a courageous speaker on many issues but there has been very major political movement in all political parties except Fianna Fáil.
Indeed, if you were to look at the party from which I find myself at the greatest distance in this House — The Workers' Party — they, too, have grappled very painfully with their own colourful past. They have through hard analysis come to views on Northern Ireland which are fundamentally different from what they held in their early stages and for that I must give them full credit. It appears the only party who have not changed in their attitude to Northern Ireland have been the Government party. I am interested tonight and I applaud the Progressive Democrats on their decision as I believe, to support the motion here this evening.
I will come to the central part of the motion, which is, the place of Articles 2 and 3 in our Constitution especially since the outcome of the McGimpsey case. I think the case for the removal of Articles 2 and 3 hardly has to be made; it has been made very effectively by Senator Murphy. If we go back to the enactment of Articles 2 and 3 in 1936-37 when the Constitution was been enacted, the most benevolent interpretation one could put on their presence there was that they expressed an aspiration for some sort of Irish unity wherein the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland would, in some great flash of light, be converted to a belief that their destiny lay best in a sense converting to green republicanism and we would have one green republican Ireland. The subtlety of analysis which now at least allows us to define two separate traditions each with an equal right to its own aspirations and to co-exist was not very evident in 1936 and 1937.
When W.T. Cosgrave said, as quoted by Senator Murphy this evening that this was a case of make-belief, that it meant nothing, he was simply expressing a truth which had it been grasped then might have saved a great deal of trouble in the years subsequently. It was Cosgrave back in the 1920s who said that there was no way in which we could ever bomb or shoot a million Unionists into Irish unity and that the only way we could every hope to persuade them that Irish unity was worthwhile was by building up a State here which was a model of what a small civilised State should be in terms of economic and social development. Again, if only his own party and other had been able to follow that piece of advice as given then. At best, in 1936-37, the benign aspiration meant that the Unionists would be expected to submerge their identify.
I accept, and all of us must accept, that the presence of Articles 2 and 3 can represent a very malign scenario as far as even moderate Unionists are concerned. Senator Murphy mentioned Ken Maginnis who is a very close friend of mine and is one of the Unionist politicians who has worked tirelessly to engender good relations with politicians and people in this part of the country. He has travelled to all parts to speak at meetings and so forth, not in any sleveen way, to say that things are different but he has taken us sufficiently serious to come and tell us the truth, to tell us how he as I think a reasonable, moderate, honest, authentic Ulster Unionist, sees our politics and the way in which things could develop. He has told me, as I am sure he has told everybody else, that Articles 2 and 3 are seen by him and by his people as constituting a threat to him and to his people. We talk about the round table and listening to everybody and all approaches being open but surely we have to take seriously what people of the calibre of Ken Maginnis, the McGimpseys, Mr. Ferguson and other moderate Unionists who have shown consistent goodwill towards us over the years, are saying.
Senator Murphy pointed up the sort of the wink and the nod approach to Articles 2 and 3 that even if they are there, they do not mean anything anyway and they could go on the day. A constitution is a very serious business. Articles 2 and 3 are very explicit as to what they mean and given the strong evidence that well-meaning Protestants and Unionists see Articles 2 and 3 as constituting a threat, then we should take them at their face value, believe what they say and, indeed, act on it.
Again, Senator Murphy referred to the failed opportunity of the all-party committee in 1967. If we look at Sunningdale as a great lost opportunity, so too was the failure of politicians here to grasp the challenges of that all party committee to go ahead and do what is proposed there on Articles 2 and 3, and indeed, imperfect as it was to go ahead and seek to implement the proposals there on marriage. But, again, that was failed opportunity.
I have concerns about how we would in a practical sense go about giving effect to the removal of Articles 2 and 3. Having been through two very bruising referendums I certainly would be loath to embark on that process without a great deal of thought and preparation. Having perhaps been one of the people most involved in my own party in the divorce referendum, I am now very firmly of the view that it is unwise to get into a referendum without a fair deal of knowledge that one will be successful. I have a feeling that a referendum at this stage on Articles 2 and 3 could let loose all sorts of ghosts around the political countryside maybe living ghosts like Paddy Ryan and the 30,000 votes he conjured up in Munster. Was this a sneaking regard to vote for the Provos? Was it just having a "go" at England? Was it simply some sort of sympathy for the underdog? I do not know. We have seen and we know enough about the darker side of our society to know that a referendum campaign can unleash some very nasty and vicious elements into the political ether. I would be slow but nonetheless if the people of the Twenty-six Counties decided that they wanted to keep Articles 2 and 3, then so be it. Then we should simply stop talking to the Unionists in Northern Ireland, accept that we are a partitionist State and get on with our business. My own view, in fact, is that if there were a campaign on Articles 2 and 3 it probably would succeed even if Fianna Fáil, as is its wont in referenda, were to sit on the fence and play whichever side would most embarrass the other parties. I believe that in the country as a whole there is now a growing view that Articles 2 and 3 represent nothing, constitute a threat and that fair-minded people would care very little if they were removed and it would be seen as a gesture towards genuine progress in Northern Ireland.
I wonder, as well, if Articles 2 and 3 really are as central to progress at the present time perhaps as has been represented by the proposers of this motion this evening. We had a chance a few years ago on the question of the divorce referendum to put to test our willingness to change, to look after minorities then. Senator Murphy quoted the Cardinal and I think he was right to quote the Cardinal. Whatever flexibility is shown by the Cardinal now, and I am not sure what is being said by the Cardinal now, was certainly not evident during the time of the divorce referendum. Certainly, during that time when we turned a major moral question into a discussion of property rights — and that is what it became — we did ourselves very little credit.
There are other areas of our Constitution and of our law which perhaps might be an even clearer signal that we are prepared to change. I suspect especially in the context of the present day, that a serious attempt to tackle the problem surrounding extradition would be the clearest signal of all to the Unionists of Northern Ireland that we are serious, that we are people of our word, that we mean what we say. It is inconceivable to most fair-minded people that in over a period of 15 years two sovereign Governments have not been able to get right a system which guarantees proper extradition, with proper safeguards of people who are wanted to face charges in another friendly jurisdiction.
There is not much point in our saying, as I have said and many others have said frequently in the past, that the fault has lain with the British, their inability to process warrants correctly, their sloppiness in delivery, their frequent arrogance in not making the attempts to understand our legal system. All of those things have been said and all at their time were valid. It beggars description to think that at the present time two sovereign Governments cannot get their act together, get the thing working properly, on an issue which is simply a matter of straightforward international law. If we want to show a gesture, that perhaps is where we could start.
Again I come back in my closing remarks to say how much I appreciate the words of Senator Murphy tonight but I also say that the only way in which we can persuade the Unionists of Northern Ireland that we are serious is by deeds not by words. There are areas where we can do things which will show we are serious. I also believe — I will not have time to develop this — that perhaps the best thing we can do if we want to see progress in Northern Ireland is to put pressure on the parties in Northern Ireland to work towards some form of devolved government, to try to begin the process whereby parties will begin to talk to each other in a meaningful way. I do not think I am alone down here in feeling that none of the parties are making sufficient efforts in this regard. In the Unionist Party there is a veto which Ian Paisley holds; there is the unwillingness of Mr. Molyneaux to really get involved. He almost seems to be happy with the status quo. On the SDLP side, I personally would like to see a great deal more movement, a great deal more evidence of serious intent in talking to the other parties. While I support Senator Murphy, while I would like to see a great deal of movement in other areas I think the most useful thing we can do is to try to put pressure on our friends in the various parties in Northern Ireland or those inside and outside politics to move towards the position where the parties will at least start talking to each other in a move towards devolution.
We in Fine Gael will certainly support this motion this evening. I would like once again to congratulate Professor Murphy and Senator Ross on the timing and wording of the motion.
When the Progressive Democrats were established just over four years ago, a key aim was the desire to bring new realism and maturity into political debate in this country at every level and on every issue. That desire for realism and maturity is particularly keenly felt where the problem of Northern Ireland is concerned. The very act of our formation signalled the desire of a significant group of people in the Republic to turn their backs on the catchcries and empty rhetoric which for too long had passed as an acceptable policy on the problem of Northern Ireland.
This debate on the constitutional claim to Northern Ireland touches the very heart of our attitudes to its problems. Each one of us in this country shares responsibility for events in the North. This island is too small and the problems of the North too tied up with the politics of the Republic for us to seek to claim ignorance or indifference about what happens in that small province. Each and everyone of us must examine our conscience as to these terrible problems, our role in them and any possible contributions which we could make to their alleviation.
The majority of people in this country have now spent a great part of their daily lives living in the shadow of death and destruction only 60 miles from this House. We cannot get away from the fact that the Sinn Féin IRA movement seek, in part, to legitimate their murder campaign by claiming that they are seeking to reunite this country as per Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Their's is a campaign which seeks to bludgeon one million Unionists against their will into a united Ireland. That has to be the essential backdrop against which any debate about Articles 2 and 3 of the 1937 Constitution must be conducted.
There is little doubt that for the vast majority of Nationalists, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, that territorial claim expressed in those Articles amounts to nothing other than a deeply-felt aspiration to see the two parts of this island united at some stage by peaceful means. Indeed, if we could simply regard Articles 2 and 3 in that light they would be a matter of little concern, but it is precisely because they play an important role affecting matters of life or death on this island that we cannot be indifferent to their effect.
Why are they so important? I want to give two good reasons why this is so. First, as I have already indicated, they can be invoked, however mistakingly or maliciously, to seek to justify the IRA murder campaign. To the extent that Articles 2 and 3 can give even a scintilla of comfort or endorsement to the IRA, we simply must re-examine them. Secondly, it is quite obvious that these Articles of our Constitution give offence to the Unionist community on this island. However much we protest that they are misguided in this view, the fact is that the Unionist community regard the territorial claim in our 1937 Constitution as a desire to annex or dominate them and to force their absorption into a United Ireland.
I am not concerned here with the stance of extreme Unionist politicians, like the Rev. Ian Paisley who would always tend to find fault with things in the Republic. However, when responsible moderate Unionists voices like those already mentioned by Senator Murphy and by Senator Manning, of Ken Maginnis and the former General Secretary of the Official Unionist Party, Frank Miller, plead for changes in these Articles, we must take them seriously, if all of our rhetoric about being sensitive to the Unionist case is to have any meaning whatsoever. To this extent it is obvious that last week's Supreme Court declaration that Articles 2 and 3 of our Constitution constitute a legal claim on the North does, understandably, heighten Unionist fears and objections no matter how much we might contest to the contrary.
It was precisely to address such concerns and to face up to the practicalities of North-South relations, rather than continue to take refuge in the verbal republicanism that has so dogged the debate on Irish unity, that the Progressive Democrats proposed a redefinition of Articles 2 and 3 in January 1988 as part of a new draft constitution for the Republic. I would like to state to this House the precise wording on this matter which the Progressive Democrats favour:
The people of Ireland hereby proclaim their firm will that the national territory, which consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas, be reunited in harmony and by consent.
There is absolutely nothing wrong in aspiring towards unity. We do. This is a clear expression of an aspiration towards unity to be achieved by consent, which words also acknowledge the agreement between the Governments of the Republic and the United Kingdom in Article 1 of the 1985 Anglo-Irish agreement. That agreement makes it explicitly the policy of both Governments that Irish unity, if it is ever to be achieved, can only take place with the agreement and consent of the Unionist community.
Clearly the challenge posed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement for all Irish Nationalists is to work for and to win the consent of the Unionist community for new constitutional arrangements on this island, which most of us would wish to correspond with some form of Irish unity. Obviously you cannot win that consent or even to pretend to be serious about working for it if you steadfastly refuse to take on board or entertain one of the most fundamental Unionist reservations about the Republic's attitude to them. Clearly our credibility and credentials, so far as reaching accommodation with the Unionists is concerned, are on the line here. Are we serious about trying to address their fears or are we to remain deaf to them?
Of course, the question of constitutional reform in this Republic is a subject wider than the form and intent of Articles 2 and 3. It is the view of the Progressive Democrats that we need an entirely new Constitution and not merely for some form of unity between Northern Ireland and the Republic. We need a new Constitution for this Republic to reflect fundamental rights for our own people. To this end, in January 1988 the Progressive Democrats, uniquely among the political parties in the Republic, published a complete draft constitution for this country. It is clear that we would prefer complete, rather than piecemeal, reform of the Constitution. In so far as this debate questions our credentials on the specific issue of Articles 2 and 3, I emphasise that we favour redrawing them. I would remind this House, however, that the idea of such a redrawing is neither new nor revolutionary. We have already been reminded about this to some extent.
It is important to note that as long ago as 1967 the Oireachtas All Party Committee on the Constitution, which included my colleagues in the Progressive Democrats, the Minister for Energy, concluded that the present wording was defective and proposed that the Articles be redrawn. Indeed, our own proposed wording draws heavily on the proposal of that committee for both its wording and logic. If there was such agreement on the need for redrawing then in what were far more peaceful times, can we not now, after all the turmoil, horror and tragedy of the past 20 years, see the need for such changes much more clearly now?
I commend this motion to the House.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this motion as it is not clear to me whether I will be in a position to speak on it next week as I understand that there is a possibility of an attempt at my expulsion tomorrow from the House.
That is not a matter for the House now.
I understand. I welcome the opportunity to speak which I had really given up hope of doing. I have just a few points to make, the first being to refer to something Senator Murphy said in his learned contribution, that was that the ground had now been cut away from those of us who favoured a gradualist approach. This is perfectly true. I would like to take this opportunity to serve notice on Seanad Éireann that I hereby withdraw Item No. 38 from the supplementary Order Paper in the name of myself, Senator Brendan Ryan and Senator Carmencita Hederman, which reads:
That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to hold a referendum with the intention of adding after Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution the following words: "that in any attempt to realise this aspiration the use of force shall be prohibited".
Persons like myself of a moderate disposition in the South who have consistently struggled against the use of force now find themselves isolated and now find that our position of moving gradually towards the position of good neighbourliness has been completely eroded.
Acting Chairman
Before the Senator gets into his stride perhaps he would give the Leader of the House one minute, I will call on the Senator afterwards.
There is a misunderstanding. The Senator has one minute of debate left this evening.
I understood that this is for the Acting Chairman to say rather than the Leader.
Acting Chairman
I did not realise that that is what the Leader of the House was going to say. Senator Norris, to continue.
I believe it inappropriate for people in the South to presume to speak on behalf of the majority. This occurred from the Government benches this evening, regrettably. It is also regretable, in my opinion, that phrases such as "west Brit" were used this evening. I do not consider this to be helpful. I would like to ask the House in what sense is it good neighbourliness to make such an aggressive claim? Let nobody be under any misapprehension, this, as a result of the McGimpsey judgment, has been clearly demonstrated in the Supreme Court to be a direct, aggressive, territorial claim upon a section of the island.
I would like to suggest that, if this referendum is held, it be held throughout the 32 counties of this island and that it does not just take into account the wishes of the people living south of the Border. This suggestion, which is unlikely to be taken up, exposes the very real fraudulence of our claim. We do not actually believe, nor have any Government ever attempted to implement the real ramifications of this territorial claim. May I remind the House of very simple elementary things such as the customs provisions? If the Government were really serious they would not engage in the kind of antics they do with regard to sustaining tariff barriers against a section of the country which they believe they have jurisdiction over. It is these precise forms of fraudulence and of dishonesty that must be combated.
I have sufficient knowledge of, and respect for, the Unionist tradition in the North not to take a simplistic view of it and not to believe, as some people purport to, that by dosing in a million unwilling extra citizens into this country who happen to come from a different religious background that we will automatically create a pluralist society in the South. The obligation on us is far different — not to be threatening, not to be coercive, not to be bad neighbours, but to be good neighbours, if you will, to seduce our Northern colleagues into joining with us in a united Ireland.
For that reason I believe that it is very important we recognise that after the McGimpsey judgment it is no longer possible to pussyfoot with regard to this question of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. I very much regret that this is the case, because I was always someone who believed that it was possible, that it was helpful, to be moderate, to move towards a situation which would be attractive to the people in the North of Ireland. This clearly is not the case in the light of this judgment.
Reference has been made to judgments in the Supreme Court in other matters, particularly in relation to extradition. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in any great depth upon the learned judges of the Supreme Court but I could not help but notice that one of the judges in a section of his judgment, in which he was not fully joined by the other judges in this extradition case, invoked, among other things, the European. Convention on Human Rights, although that very same court ruled out the European Convention on Human Rights as being a persuasive argument in a case in which I was involved. The restatement by the Taoiseach of the hard line position with regard to Articles 2 and 3 in the Dáil yesterday was less than helpful when taken in conjunction with the Supreme Court judgment on extradition and with the general context within which this debate must take place.
I have great pleasure in unexpectedly being afforded the opportunity to strongly second this motion. I would like to conclude simply by pointing out that it is of interest that Seanad Éireann provides an opportunity for Members of a minority tradition to speak and that those Members have spoken in this debate and have spoken in favour of the abolition of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. If Senators are serious about listening to the voices of minorities, they should start listening.
Debate adjourned.