Shane Ross (Independent)

I thank Senator Quinn for sharing his time at such short notice. I wish to dispel one or two illusions which exist regarding this debate. It is difficult to do so because such passions are aroused when the subject of war arises. Those who believe that the Shannon stop-over should continue do not necessarily believe that war should have been declared. They are different issues and it is wrong that people should be branded as "pro-war", "anti-war", "pro-Saddam" or "pro-Bush", because there are all sorts of mixed feelings and strands which go through the issue which have confused us all to some extent. Being put through the ringer on this debate makes life difficult for people on all sides unless they are extreme and passionate. Perhaps, however, they are not thoughtful about the issue, because we can agree with some aspects of it and not with others. Everyone to whom I have spoken on this matter is torn between passionate opposition to the killing of all people – not just innocents but soldiers too – yet they despise Saddam and many Members on this side despise President Bush. These are genuinely-held feelings.

I was taken with the suggestions of Senators Hayes and Quinn that we should be practical and exert what little influence we have towards good, peace and limiting the killing of people. The justification for war and the arguments on both sides are over. Senator Quinn's is a refreshing approach to the Shannon issue. What would really happen if we told the Americans to stay out of Shannon? I suggest a press release would be issued from Baghdad by Saddam Hussein saying that the brave Irish people were on his side and that he had an ally somewhere between Britain and America. It would say that a brave little island had stood behind Saddam against the wicked Americans. This would not be an announcement we would welcome or a correct interpretation, but it would be viewed throughout the world as an extravagant gesture and a stab in the back for America.

I accept many of the powerfully-delivered arguments made by Senator Norris but there is another side to the story. Would we save any lives by taking this brave stand and, crudely, what damage would we do to Ireland if we did so? The economic damage is something no one in this House could measure, although we might all make a stab at it. Nonetheless, it is irrelevant since it is not going to happen because we ignore our economic closeness to America at our peril. All parties in the House are behind our close economic ties to America and we are grateful for them. We have accepted American industries and capital. The hypothetical opposing argument – that they are only here because of the 12.5% tax rate and because they want to make money – is true, but one must question deeper.

On "Morning Ireland" this morning, it was asked what the response of the Bush Administration to Ireland would be if we made what it regarded as a hostile gesture. To suggest that the Administration, which has twisted the arm of every neutral country in the world, would have no response is unrealistic, given it is at war. America has a lot riding on this war and will win it. Therefore, it is not going to take too much notice of little Ireland if we say we do not want troops travelling through Shannon. Instead, the US will send its troops through Frankfurt and cause economic damage to us. Is that a price worth paying?