Mr. Brendan Halligan:

It is a great pleasure to be sitting beside Baroness Joyce Quin again in a parliament building. We were both members of the socialist group which at the time was the largest in the European Parliament. We were present in the chamber in Strasbourg when President Mitterand made his famous speech in April 1984 which effectively relaunched the European movement and led to the creation of the Single European Act. Senator Terry Leyden has said the Act was brought about on foot of publication of the famous Cockfield White Paper which contained, I think, over 330 proposals for various directives to create a single market. He was British and had been appointed by Mrs. Thatcher. The Single Market is most assuredly the creation of the United Kingdom, about which Jacques Delors was always very clear. Senator Terry Leyden’s point that the Conservative Party, in particular, should be reminded of its own history is very important and one it should celebrate. In the most recent conversations with senior figures in the Conservative Party the exact opposite is the case. Unfortunately, the reputations of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Heath have suffered a great deal as a consequence of their having initiated the process of joining.

Psychologically, I am not too happy about what is going on in the United Kingdom. The Baroness called herself a “sad nerd”. I join her by saying that in preparation for this meeting I re-read parts of the memoirs of Jean Monnet, probably the political autobiography of all time which I read frequently. The section I read last night was a page and a half in which he analysed the British psyche. It is very well worthwhile reading it. It was written over 30 years ago and deals with the psychology of Britain's history and the special role it has conceived for itself. He was always quite relaxed about how to approach the United Kingdom. He said eventually it would follow the facts but that the facts had to be created. I am not so sanguine.

For Deputy Joe O'Reilly when he reads the report on this debate, I could not overemphasise the significance of the point about culture. When we go to lists to read something particular about the movement of this or that or the size of something in the context of the trade relationship, it is completely missing the point.

The second book, Blair's Britain, England's Europe, says that the problem for the United Kingdom and Europe is England's problem; it is not the Scottish problem or the Welsh problem or clearly, not Northern Ireland's problem. It is an English problem and for that we require to understand the psyche, the psychology of England and in particular, of English politics. There are not too many people better attuned and equipped to do that than the Irish, for all sorts of reasons. The answer to the question about what we should be doing to bring about a resolution of this dilemma, is that we should be both explaining to our friends in the United Kingdom what we think the rest of Europe is looking for of them or is prepared to give them, and we should also be speaking to the rest of Europe about what the UK is looking for. We should act as an interlocutor, an interpreter, going both ways. That means we have to be very careful about ourselves.

In conclusion, Deputy O'Reilly raised the point about the Border. At my age I can think back to when the Border actually existed and when one had to physically go through it. I remember visiting Belfast for the first time as a teenager in the 1950s. I do not think any of us wants to get back to that time because what would happen would be that the physical border would be reimposed for a start. That would mean no free movement of people or, indeed, of animals, except those that can be moved across the Border in ways which are not completely legal. There would be a new fiscal border. All the customs formalities would be reinstated at a huge cost. There would be a breakdown of the joint island economy which has emerged and it would be again separated into two economies. Supply chains would be broken. It would be catastrophic.

I note with interest that Deputy O' Reilly used the expression that the clock would be turned back, which is actually the term used in our report. I am afraid that turning it back would lead to a situation where the two communities in the North of Ireland would neither communicate nor co-operate with each other. The fragility of the Northern Ireland solution is one of which we should be very conscious. I completely agree with Deputy O'Reilly's point that in circumstances where Britain were to withdraw, the whole context for Anglo-Irish relations would be profoundly changed and brought back to what it was before 1973. We are now in a win-win situation, we are both on the same team and we are trying to work out solutions in common. We often take the same point as Deputy O'Reilly made.

Our bilateral relations are influenced by multilateral relations. I am old enough to remember what it was like dealing with London before we were part of the European Union, especially in the 1960s. I can only tell members that it was not always a happy relationship. As a young general secretary trying to establish for the first time a working relationship with my dear comrades in the British Labour Party, we were not always warmly received. Joyce Quin, Baroness Quin, was one of those who warmly received us but it was hard going. We were reminded from time to time just how small we were in relation to our partner. It was not a very happy history.

The biggest loss would be in the area of Anglo-Irish relations. For that reason, we have got to do something daring and imaginative to make sure it does not happen. That calls for a special role for Ireland inside the European Council because it will be inside the European Council room, presided over by Donald Tusk, that the solutions will be worked out. The key person is the Taoiseach of the day, as well as in the General Affairs Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We need to have a very clear idea of selling to other member states that we must do a special deal with the United Kingdom that does not apply to anyone else. We will all have to swallow it because the alternative is so awful.

Deputy O'Reilly and others asked whether this does not create a precedent. That is the danger because without question it does and we will have to deal with that question. What is termed Euroscepticism had better be renamed and I hope the chairman will be very clear about terminology. What is called Euroscepticism is really nationalism. It is the rise of nationalism in a virulent form in many of the member states which we had succeeded in eliminating until very recently. What we are really battling is the rise of nationalism in the United Kingdom which is English nationalism. It is not very attractive in some of its formats. We need to explain to our continental colleagues that there is profound danger within England, in particular, which we will need to help both the Conservative Party and the British Labour Party in overcoming.

I thank members for their questions and for their interest. Like Gay Byrne on the "Late Late Show", all I can say in respect of the book is that there will be a copy for everyone in the audience. Members can have a soft copy almost immediately and the hard copy will be available within two weeks. If members want to know anything further about the book they should ask the editor, Paul Gillespie.