Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

The usual tedium associated with scrutinising and trying to amend legislation in this extremely dreary place can, like today, have its rare moments, in this case offering us an opportunity to debate such an important motion. The Dáil has seldom taken the time to debate what this State needs to do to prepare politically, socially and economically for Irish reunification. The Irish Government has a particular responsibility to commence planning for reunification. That is vital if we are to have a successful transition to the united Ireland the majority of parties in this House profess to support. As Deputy Ó Caoláin said last night, we must strengthen and build upon the all-Ireland aspects of the Good Friday Agreement. Central to that is the need for the Government to initiate and sustain a planned programme of all-Ireland social and economic development that aims to remove the obstacles created by partition.

We must integrate the economy. An all-Ireland economy would serve business and the people of this island better. That is recognised by the business community, including by many Unionists. The IBEC-CBI joint business council is currently promoting 20 key North-South actions to increase our economic co-operation on the island. Those moves are to be welcomed. The Sinn Féin motion is succinct and straightforward. There was not one word in it to which any reasonable person could object, let alone those who claim to be committed to unity. This motion was tabled in a spirit of constructiveness, with the aim of achieving a consensus among the parties in this House that have vowed to support unity regarding how this State prepares politically, socially and economically for Irish reunification.

Why is it that Fianna Fáil in particular is running away from a constructive debate on Irish unity? All reference to unity is absent from the amendment put forward by the Government. Will the Taoiseach live up to the ideals of Padraig Pearse, whose picture adorns the wall of his office? I refer directly to the Government amendment, and in particular "opposes any political move or initiative which would increase tensions between the two main traditions on this island". That absurd notion would see the process stagnate and make it dependent on the response of rejectionist unionism. Arguably, to advocate the restoration of the institutions is enough to increase tensions among some Unionists. Who could accept that element of the Government amendment?

In response to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, there is nothing simplistic about seeking to persuade Unionists of the benefits of a united Ireland. There is nothing simplistic about preparing for Irish unity. I was disappointed by the negative tone of her contribution. In reference to our motion, she used words such as "distraction", "damaging", and "destabilising". I defy any reasonable person who has read the motion to react so negatively.

Last month, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, claimed that Fianna Fáil should not be ashamed of saying that it still wants a united Ireland and that it should not frighten Unionists. From last night's contributions and the Fianna Fáil amendment, he appears to be alone, certainly on the Front Bench if not the entire parliamentary party, in holding that view. In the absence of any strategic preparation for unity, the supposed new-found republicanism of the larger Government party rings very hollow. Although plans for an annual event to commemorate the men and women of 1916 are welcome and long overdue, it would be a greater honour to their memory if this State produced a Green Paper on Irish unity identifying steps and measures that could promote and assist a successful transition to a united Ireland.

I urge grass-roots members of Fianna Fáil to step back and appraise what is being done to achieve their aspirations regarding Irish unity. They should ask themselves whether they are satisfied with the empty rhetoric. It is not matched by actions. Are they happy that the Progressive Democrats and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, have a veto on the Government's Northern policy? Are the Progressive Democrats to be allowed to dump the Taoiseach's proposal for very limited participation by Six Counties MPs in the Oireachtas? I once again urge the Taoiseach to press ahead with that proposal. It seems that, for Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, to seek to unite Ireland by peaceful means is inflammatory and will destabilise unionism. To invite any MPs from the North to participate in the Oireachtas, even in a very limited way, will offend Unionists.

However, it seems that it does not matter that the refusal to work for Irish unity will disappoint nationalists in the Six Counties. It does not matter that Fine Gael, Labour and the Progressive Democrats have slammed the door in the faces of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, the representatives of Northern nationalists. That is what those parties' opposition to the Taoiseach's proposal means. The sensitivities of nationalists mean nothing to them. The contributions made by Deputies Allen and Jim O'Keeffe on behalf of Fine Gael, quite simply, do not merit a response. However, I acknowledge the sincerity of the contribution from Deputy Crawford.

I am surprised that the Labour Party, which claims to follow in the footsteps of James Connolly, is willing to take its policy lead on this issue from a right-wing party such as Fine Gael in opposing even limited Northern representation in the Dáil. I know that many members of the Labour Party aspire to Irish unity and are genuine in their adherence to the ideals of Connolly, who vociferously opposed any partition of Ireland and warned of what he called the "carnival of reaction" that would follow its being cut "to pieces as a corpse would be cut upon the dissecting table". Clearly, James Connolly, like Sinn Féin, is completely at odds with the wholly partitionist view repeated here this morning by the Twenty-Six Counties Labour Party leader.

On demilitarisation, some progress has been made, but the pace is too slow.

See this speech in context