Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I also thank Deputy Smith for giving way.

I am grateful to Mr. Dorr for his contribution. I would like to hone in on two areas, the first of which is Northern Ireland. I have always felt that partition was a blight on this country and the people who were most adversely affected by it were Unionists. It has made them insular and they feel under threat as a result of which they are defensive. I do not say that sectarianism is a product of partition but it is maintained by it. For those of us who subscribe to the reunification of Ireland, should that be a central part of our policy? It tends to be left in the background. I have reservations about aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. I acknowledge it was a compromise and like all compromises, it was not perfect but the construction of an all-Ireland economy, to which we aspire, would benefit people in the North and in the Republic. I was struck over the years engaging with Unionist politicians, particularly DUP members, who conceded privately that in many economic areas their interests lay in merging with us rather than being attached to England. They dare not say that in public obviously because politically it would not have been prudent from their point of view. Should it be part of policy? What should we do to achieve that?

My experience is that by speaking openly with people as to where I come from politically I am respected more than if I give a different impression. I recall a number of Unionists saying to me in the 1980s that they had much more respect for Charlie Haughey who stated clearly his position than for Garret FitzGerald who they felt shared the same objective but had a different approach. I spent two or three hours in Glasgow one night with one of the current Northern Ireland DUP Ministers. He knew where I was coming from politically and at the end of the night he said, "Look, Jim, I'd have much more in common talking to you tonight than I would with somebody from any part of England." There is an opportunity to build in this regard without, at the same time, putting Unionists in a position where they feel a great threat. How we deal with that threat is an issue.

I am a member of the British Irish Parliamentary Assembly and currently we are examining the issues the Haass report tried to deal with, including the parades. We met people from both communities to deal with the flags and so on. There are great concerns about what is going on with the UVF in east Belfast and the UDA in County Antrim. There is a failure of political leadership to put the interests of Northern Ireland ahead of the interest of political party promotion. I acknowledge the same could be said of the politics in the Republic as well. How do we get beyond that to break down these artificial barriers in an inclusive way?

The second area is the EU. Mr. Dorr mentioned the vision of Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman and Seán Lemass. I was a strongly committed supporter of the Union. I was chairman of the south east European movement committee many years ago and I supported every European referendum but, like many people, I am reappraising my position in light of the troika. The IMF was far more empathetic to the concerns and challenges Irish people faced as a consequence of this depression. The same empathy was not shared by the European Commission or the ECB. If there is no deal on the banking debt, for example, which was a consequence of both domestic and European regulatory failures and policy deficiencies, and if the burden is not shared and a small population such as ours has to bear the full brunt of that without the Community acknowledging its part in the downturn and making a tangible acknowledgment of that through sharing the burden imposed on the people------