The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Downing Street Declaration

  • Sir John Major’s Speech to the Institute of International and European Affairs – 11 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin, the Republic of Ireland, on 11 December 2018.

     

    The UK and Ireland in a New World

    It’s always a pleasure to come to Dublin, and I’m delighted to be with you this morning … and on such a slow news day….

    It’s an especial pleasure to see John Bruton and Bertie Aherne here: both vital contributors to the Peace Process – and to the wellbeing of the island of Ireland.

    For me, John was an indispensable partner in negotiating the “Framework Agreement” – an essential mid-step between the Downing Street Declaration and the Good Friday Agreement.

    And Bertie, of course, worked tirelessly with Tony Blair to finalise the road to peace, established by that landmark settlement.

    I warmly congratulate them on their joint endeavour, and am honoured and delighted to see them here today.

    * * * * * * *

    There has rarely been a time when International and European Affairs were in such a fluid state, and so it is a uniquely appropriate moment to speak to this Institute.

    I will talk of British, Irish and European affairs shortly but first – not least for context – I would like to range more widely.

    Before I do, let me turn briefly to events last night in the House of Commons.

    Whether a “Remainer” or a “Leaver”, no-one welcomes chaos.

    So it is time for everyone to reflect and consider.

    Time to turn to reality – not fiction. Reason – not ideology.

    We need to calm the markets.

    We need to protect the economic wellbeing of the British people.

    We need to protect our national interest.

    There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that – to do so – we need to revoke Article 50 with immediate effect.

    The clock must be stopped.

    It is clear we need the most precious commodity of all …. time.

    Time for serious and profound reflection – by Parliament and people.

    There will be a way through the present morass – there always is.

    In our national interest we must take time to find it.

    I hope and trust we will.

    Let me now turn more widely ….

    Wherever one looks, a new world is forming: it is vigorous, and often contemptuous of old thinking. For a long time democracy, free trade, and the spread of liberal politics seemed unstoppable: we now know they were not.

    Democracy hasn’t just plateaued – it is in modest retreat. Many democracies have relapsed over the first two decades of this Century, and there is widespread dissatisfaction in others.

    The United Nations reports that, in 2016, over 60 countries saw a decline in civil and political liberties, while only half that number had gains. That trend is continuing.

    This suggests that arguments we believed had comprehensively been won: about democracy and the rule of law, about a liberal system of government, about free trade – must be fought and won all over again.

    There are no limits to change in our modern world.

    This is true of politics, and the structure of world power. It’s true of how we live now, and how we will live in the future. It’s true of health, and the world of work. Globalisation, science, medicine, technology, and public expectations all drive unrelenting change.

    Few things in life are certain, but what we can be sure of is that the world of tomorrow – in which the UK and Ireland must live and trade – may be very different from the world of today.

    Internationalism – co-operation with and the understanding of others – is becoming unfashionable. An intolerant nationalism is raising its ugly head in far too many countries.

    Too often, the art of compromise – consensus politics – is condemned as “weak”. Agreements are more likely to be condemned than applauded, whilst more robust, more extreme, more antagonistic politics is attracting popular support.

    Capitalising on discontent – the worst sort of populism – is thriving. Countries like China and Russia have a history of autocratic leadership.

    Elsewhere, today, so-called “strong men” rise to power – or, if not power, influence – by preaching self-interest, and promising national wellbeing.

    But their idea of wellbeing is often at the expense of minorities, who may not be able to protect themselves. This is alien to the British, Irish and European tradition.

    The risk is clear. It is that the international values-based system is under threat. A selfish form of nationalism is on the march. A trend that proclaims “Forget shared values …. it is time for self-interest”, is a hazardous route of travel.

    That trend is evident across Europe. It manifests itself in xenophobia. It is anti-foreigner; anti-immigrant; anti-Europe. It is careless of the misfortune of others. It opposes overseas aid. It lacks human empathy or compassion. The drumbeat of its motto is – “Self, Self, Self.”

    All this needs to be resisted. There is a better way to go.

    After the last World War, the post-war generation faced the most daunting of challenges but – led by America – rose to meet them.
    World leaders worked together – across national boundaries, and beyond national self-interest – to build alliances and structures to oppose Communism; protect and build democracy; promote rules-based global trade; and – as far as possible – secure long-term peace. It was visionary.

    Out of the rubble of 1945, a new world was built: on shared values, and communal interest. Crude, self-promoting nationalism was defeated, and replaced by inter-national co-operation.

    But this laudable achievement is now being eroded, at the very moment it needs to be refreshed. The post-war settlement is out of date and needs to be updated, yet there is little sign of that happening. No-one is looking beyond national self-interest.

    At the same time, autocracy is thriving – not only in Russia and China, but in Turkey, in Iran, in Poland, in Hungary, in Brazil – and advancing in many other countries.

    Europe is the home and bedrock of democracy. Yet far-right groups are growing across Europe – in France, in Germany, in Italy, in Greece, in Austria, in Holland, in the UK. The concept of crude, intolerant populism finds an echo in many countries.

    Even America, the nation which helped finance the rebirth of war-torn Europe with the “Marshall Plan”, now advances under the nationalist slogan of “America First”.

    America – for so long the most powerful ally to both our nations – is shifting her focus from the West to the opportunities of Asia-Pacific.

    Anglo-Irish and American policies, that have been so closely entwined for so long, are now beginning to diverge.

    We believe in free trade: America introduces tariffs.

    We support the Paris Climate Accords: America withdraws from them.

    We welcome China’s Infrastructure Investment Bank: America does not.

    We support the Iran Nuclear Deal: America rejects it, and threatens sanctions on European and British companies if they trade with Iran.
    Britain, as a full member of NATO, and Ireland as a member of the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council, see NATO as crucial to global security: President Trump is equivocal.

    For the time being, upon these issues, British, Irish (indeed all Europe) and American views are diverging: I look forward to the day when – once again – we are at one.

    That is in both the European and American interest: even the Great Republic needs allies she can rely upon.

    * * * * *

    The most fundamental shift in world power for generations is the rise of China. In many ways that is welcome: a Chinese economic giant in the East – to match the American giant in the West – will better balance the world economy. Together, these two countries may shape the Century to come.

    But, as they do, the UK will no longer be part of a European political and trading block that can deal with both of them on a more-or-less equal basis.

    This illustrates a new dilemma for Britain – and for Europe. For decades, Britain’s overseas presence has been boosted by our close relationship with America, and our membership of the European Union.

    We were a more valued ally of America because of our influence in Europe; and were more valued by Europe because of our close relationship with America.

    But, America now appears to be moving away from us both – at the same time as we are moving away from Europe. Britain, shorn of these longstanding allies, is suddenly seen by the world as a mid-size, middle-ranking power, that is no longer super-charged by her alliances.

    This will surely diminish our international influence.

    Don’t misunderstand me: the UK will still matter – she is an amalgam of four proud and important nations – but she will matter less than once she did.

    But the UK leaving the EU is a double loss: the EU is weakened, too.

    Europe loses its second largest economy, and one of only two European nuclear powers, with a significant military capacity.

    It loses a nation with a worldwide foreign policy reach.

    And it loses the most significant counter-weight to the Franco-German policy alliance – a counter-weight that has often spoken out against policies opposed by smaller European nations reluctant to challenge any consensus.

    Any weakening of a United Europe – whilst China grows in power; Russia misbehaves; and America become more distant – cannot be in the best interests of Europe.

    Let me now turn to the UK and Ireland.

    This week is the 25th Anniversary of the signing of the Downing Street Declaration. The Declaration did not bring peace, but it did halt violence and bloodshed, and was an essential preliminary to the Good Friday Agreement.

    It did not come easily. It was hard pounding, and the outcome was the work of many hands – in and beyond politics.

    But it could not have been done without the vision and commitment of Albert Reynolds as Taoiseach, and I was delighted, last night, to have had the opportunity to pay tribute to Albert in his home town of Longford.

    I hope – and believe – that his work on the Peace Process will have earned him an honoured place in Irish history.

    As Brexit draws near, Ireland must contemplate a range of issues – among them her changed relationship with the UK; life in the EU without her nearest neighbour; and her future relationship with Northern Ireland.

    She must also consider how to re-activate the Power Sharing Executive in Northern Ireland – a core achievement of the Good Friday Agreement.

    It is now nearly two years since Northern Ireland had a functioning Government, and it is an indictment of both the DUP and Sinn Fein that they have not reached an accommodation.

    Few would deny that community relations have deteriorated during this time. And most would agree the causes of the dispute do not merit ignoring the interests of the electorate for so long.

    Everyone must realise that sectarianism has not yet gone: Northern Ireland is still far from a community that votes solely on policy and not identity. History’s legacy is not yet forgotten – or put aside. No-one should forget that.

    I understand the deep wounds of past history, and how they became hard-wired into the philosophies of Unionist and Nationalist politicians. There is hurt on both sides. But those wounds need to be healed and not re-opened.

    But – let me be blunt – if the DUP and Sinn Fein let old wounds, old suspicions, old enmities take fresh root and live again then the people of Northern Ireland will be the first to lose. They may not be alone: subsequent losers may include the culpable politicians.

    Both parties are elected to take up their responsibilities, and every day they find excuses not to do so is a dereliction of their duty to their electors. This is doubly true when the Executive should be jointly considering the impact of Brexit.

    Brexit has already inserted its very own poison into the turbulent politics of Northern Ireland. It begins with the DUP’s support for Brexit, which is flatly opposed both by their business base and by the majority of voters in Northern Ireland.

    It continues with the Confidence and Supply agreement the DUP reached to support the minority Conservative Government at Westminster.

    It may – on occasion – do so, but any formal support has the secondary (and inevitable) effect of undermining the UK Government’s role as an independent and honest broker in solving any problems between the two traditions in Northern Ireland.

    Let me ask two questions. Do the Westminster and Dublin Governments wish to see the Power Sharing Executive return to its duties? Self-evidently, yes.

    And is the British Government helped or hindered in its persuasion to do so by its dependence on the DUP in the House of Commons? Yet again, the answer is obvious.

    I have said before – and continue to believe – that, for this reason, the Confidence and Supply arrangement is a deal that would better have not been made.

    I cannot believe, despite its best efforts, that many Nationalists will accept the Government as a fair and dispassionate arbiter – as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement –whilst being politically yoked to the DUP.

    The enthusiasts for leaving the European Union like to present it as a great and confident liberation. It is not. It is a retreat, not a liberation.

    A more confident United Kingdom would be remaining within Europe, reforming it; not complaining about Europe and leaving it.

    But that is not the view of the Brexiteers. Their apparent belief that Europe “gangs up” against the UK, and that the Commission “bullies” the UK, is not only absurd, it is embarrassing.

    On one day, they boast that a “global” United Kingdom can successfully “go it alone” in the world; the next day, they complain that the UK is being “bullied” by mere officials.

    There is a disconnect in logic here. They really must decide whether we are the United Kingdom or Little England.

    And the European Union they classify as a bully is the same body that gave the UK a budget rebate; that agreed we need not join the Euro, nor sign up to Schengen, nor the Social Chapter.

    That same European Union offered concessions to the UK that left us in a privileged position no other Government has yet enjoyed. Some bully, indeed!

    Of course the European Union protects its own interests – as every country does – but they are activated, as we all are, by self-interest – and not by maliciously wishing to do damage to the UK.

    Nor do they need to do so: the UK has shown we are able to inflict that on ourselves that without any help from the EU.

    During the Referendum campaign in 2016, Tony Blair and I joined forces – not the most natural of partnerships you may have thought – to point out the importance of Northern Ireland, and the significance of the border, if the UK left the EU.

    Following our statements, we were told, in effect, by the then Northern Ireland Secretary and the present Leader of the DUP, that we clearly didn’t know what we were talking about. Subsequent events suggest that we did.

    Any border between North and South risks re-awakening memories of the worst of days; nearby graveyards bear witness to how bad were those days. No sensible person can wish to return to them.

    A border would not just be a trade barrier. It would be a visible manifestation of “us” and “them”.

    In the past, it not only divided communities, it divided minds; it created sides; it was the justification for conflict and murder; and its disappearance was one of the best days in the long history of Ireland.

    Under the Withdrawal Agreement, a new border is deferred while – for the time being – the UK remains in a Customs Union, until a technical solution is available to cope with trade formalities. But the problem is not over.

    The much sought after technical solution may be a mirage and – like waiting for Godot – the wait may be forever. What then? Does the UK stay in a Customs Union for good, or will impatient politics seek to drag us out? No-one knows: we cannot be satisfied unless a permanent solution is agreed.

    There are further dilemmas to face as the UK leaves the European Union, while Ireland remains a Member State.
    In such circumstances, the two sides will no longer be able to bond over common causes in Europe. No longer can they speak for joint interests.

    No longer will Ministers and officials meet daily in Brussels: the loss of this contact is unquantifiable – but profound.

    Some say that familiarity breeds contempt. Our Anglo-Irish experience as partners in the European Union suggests our familiarity is more likely to breed trust, agreement and peace.

    I recall being shocked, in 1991, when I learned from the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, that British and Irish Ministers only met rarely, and usually simply to disagree. We must never return to such a distant relationship.

    I believe it is essential that, post-Brexit, forms of permanent Anglo-Irish bodies be established that guarantee regular and substantive meetings between our respective Prime Ministers, other Ministers, and senior officials. Inside or outside the European Union, we will always have much to discuss with our nearest neighbour.

    Both sides can benefit from institutional engagement; from close ties; from established mechanisms to promote mutual interests; from delivery systems for sectoral issues. Such institutions should be built up and kept in good repair.

    Nor is this just about trade. The relationship between our two countries can be good or bad; close or distant; but whatever it is will have an effect on community relations in Northern Ireland.

    No-one should underplay the Anglo-Irish relationship. The UK exports more to Ireland than to China. Over 7,000 Northern Ireland companies trade across the border to the South.

    Since 2000, UK exports to Ireland have more than doubled: Irish exports to the UK have risen by 80%. We are a huge market for each other.
    We have been neighbours since the dawn of time. A huge Irish community is embedded in the UK. For nearly a hundred years, we have enjoyed a Common Travel Area that also offers reciprocal rights in health, education and employment – which, thankfully, will continue.

    We have offered one another unique voting rights in the host country. Our cultural links are extensive. In sport, we field common North-South teams in rugby, cricket and hockey.

    I could go on: our links far exceed politics and trade – important though they are. As a Briton, I say – Ireland is important to us and – in or out – of Europe that will not change.

    Our duty – if we are to part company from the European Union – is to build on our relationship and not let it fragment.

    We British owe that to Ireland – and we owe it to ourselves.

    We can do this. We should do this. And we must do this.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech at the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture – 10 December 2018

    The text of the speech made by Sir John Major at the inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture held in Longford, the Republic of Ireland, on 10 December 2018.

    An invitation to deliver the Inaugural Albert Reynolds Memorial Lecture was irresistible to me, for Albert was a friend I cared about, an ally who mattered, and a man I miss.

    I’m so sorry that, due to ill health, Kathleen cannot be with us today, but I am delighted that so many members of the Reynolds family are here….

    I have to tell you that walking into Albert and Kathleen’s home in Dublin was like being wrapped into a warm and cosy blanket – while enjoying hot tea and cakes. It was always a treat. And delivering this lecture is a tribute to a very special man.

    Albert was never a run-of-the-mill politician. Some thought he’d strayed into politics by accident, but I don’t agree with that at all. Certainly, his background was atypical – for Taoiseachs.

    Albert ran dance halls, and thrived on the back of 1960s pop music – but he was always fully prepared, fully equipped for politics: he was a deal-maker supreme, a “bottom line man”, a man who demanded an outcome, a solution, to every problem.

    His background – far from being a drawback – was an asset. Albert knew people: how they lived, how they thought, what they cared about.

    And, in my experience, he liked people – forever an asset in a politician.

    He had no illusions about how some could go astray, but no doubt about what they could achieve if given the opportunity.

    And he was an optimist – far more inclined to say “we can do this”, than to rule anything out. To Albert, a deal not made was a failure.

    Some people in politics are no more than ambitious concoctions. But Albert was the real deal – in practice and in spirit. The world saw just how authentic he was at his funeral service at Donnybrook Church, when symbols of his life were carried to the altar by members of his family.

    The Downing Street Declaration was, of course, laid on the altar. But then so was a pack of cards, and a tin of dog food. Even in death, Albert could shock the politically correct. During that Service I may have had tears in my eyes, but I knew that – watching from afar – Albert was chuckling.

    At the very core of Albert was Kathleen and their family, about all of whom he was inordinately proud, and often spoke. I once teased him that “I know you love children because you have so many”, and he replied, “Not enough, John. Not enough.”.

    And that is true, too, of his time as Taoiseach. Not long enough. Not long enough by a long chalk.

    But Albert left an indelible mark on Irish history and will, I believe, be remembered long – and fondly. I know the memory of Albert will always bring a smile to my face.

    In five days’ time it will be the 25th Anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration, which led to paramilitary ceasefires and, ultimately, the Good Friday Agreement. It would never have happened without Albert.

    The Declaration didn’t come easily. In negotiation, you give to gain. Albert and I had a common objective, but came at it from different directions. There were many proposals, many drafts.

    There were advances and setbacks. Mini triumphs and mini disasters. There were frustrations and rows, gains and concessions. And, of course, we both had critical – often hostile – opponents to persuade or to cajole.

    But, with help and advice from many quarters – officials, politicians, the Church – we got there and, for Albert’s sake, I’m delighted you have remembered his own vital contribution to this document, and also honoured me by your invitation.

    It is one of the greatest disappointments of my life that I wasn’t able to complete the Peace Process, but I applaud Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern for doing so. They met all the challenges successfully.

    The Irish Ambassador to the UK, Adrian O’Neill – who is a superb representative of your country – quoted aptly from the Declaration in a recent speech.

    The Declaration had a range of objectives: to heal past enmity; to ensure a peace that lasted; and to encourage the economic and social co-operation that was, and is, and always will be, essential for mutual understanding and, with it, peaceful prosperity.

    The Declaration was born during a private conversation with Albert in the White Drawing Room of Downing Street. As I recall, we were talking of our respective children over a drink, and then – more widely – the children of the Troubles.

    Albert said, “No child should have to face this”, and I agreed, adding “If it were in Surrey or Sussex it would not be tolerated; nor should it be accepted in Northern Ireland.”. So, together, we agreed to try and end it, and I could never have had a more dedicated partner than Albert Reynolds.

    Were we together this evening, Albert and I would be concerned about Brexit; the Irish border; the protection of the Peace Accord; and – perhaps most important of all – the long-term relationship between our two countries.

    As the Peace Process advanced in the 1990s – and especially after the Good Friday Agreement was signed – the Anglo-Irish relationship blossomed.

    Our joint history is chequered, but it was put behind us: not forgotten, perhaps, but no longer used as a weapon with which to attack one another.

    In the last two decades, the Anglo-Irish relationship has been better – and closer – than at any time in our history. Now, once again – as the UK leaves the EU – there is reason to be concerned.

    The Republic – as well as the UK – needs the power-sharing executive to return to its duties in Northern Ireland. It needs to ensure that now – and in the future –there is no hard border dividing the island of Ireland; and it needs a future that embraces what Ireland and the UK have in common.

    Some opinion – including many who believe themselves to be Unionists – has shown a breath-taking ignorance of the likely impact that unsettling the Good Friday Agreement will have on Ireland, both North and South.

    To them, the Irish demand for a “backstop” is a bogus ploy to keep the UK in a Customs Union: in truth, a backstop is of vital national interest for Ireland and for the UK.

    As our own Prime Minister has said, this is not a demand imposed on the UK by Dublin or Brussels – it is an interest we all share.

    Furthermore, the Brexiteers claim that the backstop damages the Union is wholly misguided. The greatest danger to the Union would be a hard border that damaged jobs and prosperity in Northern Ireland, and undermined the Good Friday Agreement.

    If the people of Northern Ireland see a border returned – together with no power sharing at Stormont – will they not look once again at a United Ireland?

    The plain truth is this: the future of the Union is protected, not undermined, by avoiding a hard border.

    If the House of Commons defeats Mrs May’s plans tomorrow, the risk of a hard border once again becomes possible.

    Even if her plans are approved, the problem is not solved, but temporarily put on hold – until a “frictionless” border moves from myth to reality; or until a long-term deal is reached that removes the need for any border at all.

    A hard border – now, or at the end of a long transition period – would be disastrous. That said – whatever may happen at Westminster this week or later – I do not believe a majority of Members of Parliament will permit a hard border to become a reality.

    The reckless few, who are careless of its likely effect, are a clear minority. And with good reason.

    Of course, a new border would not remotely resemble its hated predecessor – with its barbed wire, its listening posts and its Army check-points.

    But any new border – however gentle its intent – would become a symbol, and thus a target. Both physically and emotionally it would present not only a barrier between North and South; between Unionist and Nationalist; but between the UK and her nearest neighbour.

    The fear – that must not be forgotten – is this: any border, be it now or in the future, risks creating an impediment to the excellent bilateral relations of recent years. That, truly, would be a tragedy.

    Peace is at risk if we erect barriers that remind people of ancient disputes: it will only be a way of life we can rely if we create a future in which old protagonists can live and work together.

    Peace is not secure – it never is – and any new border would be a focus for the wild men on the fringes to reactivate old disputes and hatreds that should be laid to rest – for good. Until sectarianism is ended, that will never be fully achieved.

    Some hardline pro-Brexit voices have claimed that European and Irish opposition to a “hard” border is merely a means of frustrating Brexit.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. They are blind to the reality.

    As Sir Hugh Orde, former Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, has said – the political consequences of Brexit “will play into the hands of those who are still determined to destroy the relative peace we have enjoyed”.
    “Customs Posts”, Sir Hugh added, “would be a target for dissident paramilitaries”. Sadly, such dangerous people are still around – in both communities.

    Those who mock and disparage the “backstop” should reflect on the risks of destroying it, and stop relying on uninvented, fanciful, technical alternatives that, for now, exist nowhere.

    At stake is not only community relations, but security – and, with it, lives as well. We should not forget that the “Troubles” began in the 1960s with the murder of Customs Officials at the North/South border.

    A “no deal” scenario would have many damaging repercussions for the UK and Ireland.

    If – by accident or design – the UK was forced to trade under WTO rules, both sides would be forced to apply customs tariffs on imports from the other.

    This would not be optional. Under WTO rules, the UK and Ireland could not reach a bilateral “sweetheart” deal of low tariffs – even if they wished to do so.

    The UK would have to charge the same tariffs to Ireland as to any other member of the WTO worldwide.

    And Ireland would have to reciprocate. The impact on business – and farming – would be instant and profound. This is no way for friends and neighbours to treat one another.

    But, once again – for what it is worth – I do believe wise counsel will prevent this outcome.

    I have made no secret of my own view that the UK leaving Europe is a colossal error. It is a lose-lose decision for both sides. It betrays the internationalist past of the UK, and undermines her future.

    Most of the world believes we have taken leave of our senses, and so, I believe, will future generations. However, that is an argument I would prefer to make in the UK – and not here this evening.

    But what of Europe? How are they affected? That is an argument for now – and for Ireland as a member of the European Union. Is the whole of Europe, including the UK, better off with a strong European Union or a weak one?

    Across Europe, some extreme nationalists believe it would be better if the European Union collapsed and we returned to a Europe of nation states. I believe they are profoundly wrong in that judgement.

    We live in a world in which America – so long the guarantor of European safety – is turning her interest increasingly towards Asia-Pacific.
    China – with the largest navy in the world – is now growing both in economic and military power, and is prepared to use that power for political gain. Russia is, once again, behaving as a rogue nation.

    In the light of these developments, is Europe better or worse off being united rather than divided? Undoubtedly, it is better united.

    Are we all at greater risk if Europe is weakened? Undoubtedly yes – both economically and militarily.

    Is the world order better balanced with America, China and a strong European Union broadly economically equal, or with the European Union minus Britain falling below the economic authority of their two rivals? The answer is obvious.

    And yet the British departure will not only weaken the UK but – certainly more important to the wider world – diminish the role of the EU.

    The EU will lose:

    Sixty five million citizens, and its fastest-growing economy; potentially, the largest economy in Europe;

    It will lose one of only two powers with a nuclear capacity and a significant military capability;

    It will lose the nation with the longest and deepest foreign policy reach; and

    It will also lose the only buffer the EU has had to hold back policies promoted by Germany and France in partnership.

    British pragmatism and caution will be sorely missed by smaller EU countries: on many occasions, the UK was their protector.

    Time and again, it has not been unusual for the UK, alone, to oppose a European policy – while other member states remained silent – and later be thanked for having done so.

    The UK’s departure means that, for the first time, the European Union is contracting and not expanding. This will weaken the EU – especially when set against the superpowers of America or China.

    The British departure is likely to hasten European reform – which will involve Ireland as a Member of the Eurozone.

    Over the next few years, I expect members of the Eurozone to further align fiscal policy to protect the Euro even though – at present – that is not politically acceptable.

    I do not believe – after the Greek experience – that the Eurozone will hurry to admit new members and, if that assumption is correct, a distinct inner and outer core is likely to take shape.

    Other changes – opting in to policies rather than opting out – may be sought by the less consensus-minded countries from Central and Eastern Europe.

    Nothing is certain but – ten years from now – the Union may look very different. Ironically, it may be a Union that would be much more amenable to the UK.

    The Anglo-Irish relationship will change when the UK leaves the EU – but we need to cherish it, and I will talk of that at greater length tomorrow.

    For now, let me simply assert that the relationship should remain precious to us both, and our duty is to ensure that it is.

    My working assumption is that the UK will leave the EU in good order and not in chaos. If so, she has a robust political and economic structure – and should be able to weather the almost inevitable economic turbulence upon leaving.

    However, as many independent assessments have set out – as well as the Bank of England and the UK Government itself – I do anticipate lower growth, lower inward investment, and – subject to the terms of any future trade deal with the EU – a range of practical (and costly) obstacles for British commerce.

    No-one can be certain how long such a trade deal will take to negotiate: or even if aggrieved nations will hold back – or refuse – their consent to any, or all, of it.

    What we can be sure of is that the right deal will be tough to get; and an imperfect deal will be hard to sell – and harder still to justify. But, as grievances cool, a deal is in the best interests of both sides.

    The City of London is powerful, innovative and pre-eminent. But, post-Brexit, we can assume other financial centres in Europe will wish to challenge its present dominance. That is an unavoidable consequence of the British exodus.

    Although I don’t believe the EU can hope to replicate the City in any foreseeable timescale, I do expect they will move towards focusing more financial activity within their own Borders – politics will dictate this as well as long-term self-interest.

    Dublin itself may be a beneficiary of this trend.

    The wider trade implication of leaving the EU is that the UK not only loses her free trade deal with the European market of 500 million people, but also free trade deals with 53 other nations that were negotiated by the European Union – but only for its Members.

    Over time these can be replaced, but, for now, there is a very, very long way to go – and the question arises: are 65 million Britons really likely to get the same favourable treatment as 500 million Europeans?

    The UK lives by her trade – so, we must try. But this process will not be swift – or straightforward.

    Let me summarise. Barring a sudden outbreak of common sense, and a reality check on national self-interest, the UK will be the first nation to leave the EU.

    This will be yet another irony, as the first proposal for a European Union came not – as is generally supposed – from the French cognac salesman, Jean Monnet, but from an Englishman.

    Three and a quarter centuries ago, in 1693, William Penn advocated a European “Diet or Parliament” as a policy to end perpetual military conflict on the Continent. It took 280 years and two world wars to convince his fellow Britons that unity was better than division.

    Forty three years later, the British people reversed that decision.

    It is in the interests of both Ireland and the UK that wise negotiators can now minimise the downside and maximise the opportunities.

    Let us hope they will – and they can.

    Many futures depend on it – both in my country and in your own.

    As I speak, I can hear Albert’s lilting voice pushing us on towards a sensible deal.

    We must all do everything we can not to let him down.

  • Sir John Major’s Speech on the 20th Anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration – 11 December 2013

    The text of Sir John Major’s speech marking the 20th anniversary of the Downing Street Declaration. The speech was made in Dublin, Ireland, on Wednesday 11th December 2013.

    SIR JOHN MAJOR:

    It’s always a pleasure for me to come to Dublin – a city of which I have very fond memories, in a country for which I have great affection.

    Eighteen years ago, I was here to discuss a key piece of architecture in the Peace Process – the Joint Framework Document. That evening, in the margins of my discussions with John Bruton, Norma and I went to the National Concert Hall with John and Finola to catch the second half of Handel’s Messiah.

    On arrival, we received an overwhelmingly warm reception from the audience: This, I am sure, was due to John’s popularity, but it reinforced my determination to end the friction that had bedevilled Anglo-Irish relations for too long. That night is one of the most treasured memories of my years in Office and it’s good, yet again, to be back here in Dublin.

    Twenty five years ago it would have seemed improbable – to some inconceivable – that a former British Prime Minister would be invited to celebrate the anniversary of a political agreement that was a staging post in making the UK and Ireland more contented neighbours than at any time in their long and tortuous history.

    Yet it is so – and British and Irish alike can now focus on our present and future relationship instead of all the disputes, conflicts, rights and wrongs of the past that poisoned it for so long. It’s time to put them behind us. Of course, the past will remain in the memory, but it mustn’t stand in the way of the future.

    Britain and Ireland are the closest of neighbours. Our cultures intermingle: we share a taste for Shakespeare and Shaw; for Milton and Beckett. We enjoy the performances of Judi Dench and Kenneth Branagh; of Maggie Smith and Peter O’Toole.

    Irish citizens with residency qualifications can vote in UK elections. Our trade and investment flows are huge. British exports to Ireland exceed those to India and China collectively or, alternatively, to the whole of Africa – added together: In return, Britain is Ireland’s largest market. We are both members of the EU and share sporting ambitions with the Lions, the Barbarians and in the Ryder Cup. We steal Eoin Morgan, Ed Joyce and Boyd Rankin to play cricket for England, and you send an unending stream of Irish jockeys to ride to victory in our classic races.

    When Ireland faced financial problems, the British Government was swift to help. It is a new (and better) relationship, sealed in May 2011 by the first ever State visit made by a British Monarch to Ireland. And next Spring, President Higgins’ State Visit to England will further enhance our mutual interests.

    The gateway to this new partnership is the success of the Peace Process. This had no single architect, no single event, no single hero. Many people, known and unknown, contributed over a long period – including, above all, the men and women of Ireland who became impatient at the delay in resolving the troubles; angry at the senseless violence that marred daily life; and frustrated by the failure to resolve an essentially political dispute. Their voice and actions made the extremists in both camps realise that the Irish people expected something better from them and, in this, both Protestant and Catholic clerics played a vital role.

    In December 1993, the Downing Street Declaration set out principles that both the British and Irish Governments were agreed upon: no-one could claim that it’s an easy read. In fact, to let you in on a secret, I did win an award for the Declaration which I failed to share with Albert Reynolds. It was a tin of rhubarb … from the Campaign for Plain English – their annual award for gobbledygook.

    But language is important in the land of James Joyce, and the medium was part of the message. The Declaration pointed up agreements, set a direction, and opened up a future that had once seemed impossible to unlock.

    “No heroes”, I said, and I shall stick to that. But I want to say something about my counterpart in agreeing the Joint Declaration. Albert Reynolds is not well now, and his illness is a cruel trick of fate for a man who gave so much to break the Gordian knot of Anglo-Irish distrust. Although I’m sad Albert cannot be with us this evening, I’m delighted that Kathleen is here – and it was a real treat for me and Norma to spend some time with the Reynolds family earlier today.

    I like and admire Albert very much. He is – quintessentially – Irish: most at ease philosophically in the wearing of the Green. One of the most mortifying experiences I endured as Prime Minister was to sit between Albert Reynolds and Dick Spring – both howling like dervishes – at Twickenham in 1994 when Ireland won by a single point [13-12]. In negotiation, Albert fought like that rugby team – fought and fought again for the Irish point of view but, above all, he sought a way to end the bloodshed and open up a new future for the country he loved so much. He came looking for agreement, not an argument, and was prepared to take risks and make concessions to achieve that outcome. The more I saw of him – despite all the hurdles, despite all the frustrations – even the rows! – the more confident I became that we could and would find common ground.

    Albert and I were both helped by some remarkable civil servants – most especially Martin Mansergh in Dublin and Roderic Lyne in London: their work behind the scenes – and with one another – was untiring. Paddy Mayhew and Dick Spring were also crucial to the agreement, and I’m delighted to see Dick here this evening. There are, of course, many more names that merit recognition, but time forbids me from mentioning them all. But they know who they are and what they did – and that is the most important thing.

    Of all nations, the Irish love history – and family. And Albert’s as-yet-unborn great great grandchildren can be proud of their ancestor’s role in building a momentum that gave peace a chance.

    Albert, I see you too rarely, but think of you often: I am proud to call you my friend.

    The agreement reached between the British and Irish Governments was crucial in putting pressure on the violent fringes in both the Unionist and Nationalist communities. It did box them in. It did cut down their support. It did begin to cut off their financial lifeline. In the eyes of many of their former supporters, they were no longer seen as fighters for a political cause but, instead, as a barrier to peace, responsible for so much misery, so many deaths – often of innocent bystanders, unconnected to any political struggle.

    By the early 1990s, a number of instincts were coming together that made a peace process more likely. War weariness was setting in – crucially, even among the Provisionals. Throughout their adult lives they had fought – and achieved nothing towards their cause. Without a political settlement, they foresaw their children and their children’s children facing an equally bleak and violent future.

    Public opinion was swinging in the same direction. Moreover, British and Irish membership of the EU was throwing Ministers from London and Dublin closer together in a common cause. Against that background, Albert and I saw opportunities. He knew violence would not change British policy – indeed, it would only serve to harden it.

    I knew that a British policy of no talks until the Provisional IRA gave up their weapons and ended all violence would very likely mean that the dance of death would continue. And that dance seemed unending: 632 deaths from 1987 to 1993 – including Enniskillen, Ballygawley, Warrington, Shankill Road. It’s a roll-call of horror.

    But the decision to proceed was not a comfortable one, for either side. Easy – because it was right – but not comfortable. We both knew that we were taking a risk. We knew we would face opposition and the profound scepticism bred by two decades of stalemate. Many asked: “How can you possibly talk to an active armed militia?”. Many, looking at history instead of changing circumstances, forecast failure.

    Plainly, success depended on the leaders of the IRA engaging in the process. We believed they would, and were prepared to gamble on it. Let me now say something that may surprise you. Throughout the process, I was acutely conscious that IRA leaders were taking a risk, too: if Albert and I upset our supporters we might – as Albert cheerily put it – “be kicked out”. That was true – but the IRA’s supporters were more deadly than our backbench colleagues – and their leaders were taking a risk too – possibly with their own lives.

    From the moment the process started, I spent countless hours trying to think myself into the mind and tactics of IRA leaders: what were their aims; their constraints; their motives? What would tempt them into agreement?

    We knew we had to agree objectives between London and Dublin. We had to address grievances and contradictory ambitions. We needed to offer an end-product, and reassure two communities that had different fears and different ambitions.

    The Joint Declaration, agreed with Albert Reynolds, did so: it was the beginning of the end of conflict. For the first time, we had a set of principles on which not only the two Governments agreed, but also the leaders of the two largest parties of the day in Northern Ireland, the SDLP and the UUP. Much credit is due to the untiring efforts of John Hume and Jim Molyneux for the courage they showed in lining up with us.

    It was a set of principles strongly supported on both sides of the divide. It demonstrated that there really was an alternative to endless conflict.

    The Framework Documents, agreed with John Bruton – who faced great internal opposition but overcame it – carried us forward – and our political successors continued along the same path. I congratulate them warmly upon what they did. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement condemned the past to history and opened a better prospect for both our countries. Let me now look to that future.

    First, a word about Northern Ireland. While the success of the peace process has transformed life there, the task of building a normal society is still work-in-progress. The British and Irish Governments need to continue working together to help Northern Ireland become the tolerant, inclusive, shared society we all wish to see.

    For too long the “Northern Ireland Question” was the only agenda item between the UK and Ireland: no longer. Last year, David Cameron and Enda Kenny agreed to a future of intensified co-operation across the whole range of Government business.

    Work is progressing with a focus on jobs and growth – both vital for living standards and for the long-term future of both countries. Within a few days, Ireland will be exiting its IMF/EU programme which it has executed with great courage and skill. In her handling of the financial crisis, Ireland has been an example to all of Europe.

    It hasn’t been easy – or painless. Tax rises and spending cuts are not abstract economic potions: they hurt people’s lives, and Ireland can be proud of how social cohesion has been maintained and the country prepared for a return to better times.

    But, in a global market, an open economy such as Ireland’s requires more than domestic economic virtue: in particular, it needs its main trading partners – the US, EU and, above all, the UK – to grow as well.

    The US, despite her huge debt, is in growth and, despite her much vaunted “pivot to the East” will not neglect her Irish market: both logic and affection bind Ireland and the US together.

    The UK, too, is beginning to recover and – I think – may do so faster than expected. For two decades, the swing towards either recession or growth has been greater than forecast, and I believe the present return to growth will out-perform expectations once again. As it does, the Cameron-Kenny agreement will help both economies.

    Europe, I fear, will recover more slowly, and its future policy is less clear. Nonetheless, I do not expect the Euro to collapse – it has too much political will behind it for this to happen – but a Eurozone recovery may be slow and muted. One aspect of UK/European policy is, I imagine, of deep concern to Ireland: will the UK remain in the EU following the referendum on membership?

    The reasons for Irish concern are potent. Would a UK withdrawal diminish UK/Irish mutual interest and undercut the improved relationship? Would the UK pay less attention to Ireland if the two countries were not working together on EU trade and competitiveness issues? And – above all, perhaps – would the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland harden with new border controls for the movement of goods or people? And, if so, would this unsettle the Catholic community in the North?

    These are rational concerns but, I believe, they are phantoms: I do not expect the UK to leave Europe. It is not the moment for a complex explanation of why I take that view but – in brief – departure would hurt, isolate and weaken the UK, and diminish the EU. It’s easy to demonise Brussels. The EU can be irritating and frustrating: believe me, I know! But those in the UK who want us out have never articulated a viable alternative, let alone a better one.

    This is the black hole in their argument – because the truth is that the alternatives would be bleak. As for the EU – it would lose its second-biggest economy; the nation with the longest foreign policy reach; and one of only two member nations with a significant nuclear and military capability. Whilst the rest of the world is binding itself more closely together, if the UK were to leave it would fly in the face of commonsense, self-interest and the drift of history. I cannot believe we would be so foolish.

    Let me touch on one further contentious issue where the UK and Ireland must put right an old injustice. Next year is the 100th Anniversary of the beginning of the First World War. That war prompted the suspension of efforts to introduce Home Rule. It was the backdrop to the Easter Rising, its military suppression, and the moves – eventually abandoned – to introduce conscription to Ireland in 1918; all of which had a profound influence on the course of Irish history once the war ended.

    As we mark this Anniversary, we must be prepared to face the past in as open and honest a way as possible, however uncomfortable some of it may be. As Santayana said, 150 years ago, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. So, in the UK, young people will be at the centre of these commemorations. Our hope is to build an enduring legacy, so that future generations remember the war and how it came about.

    In Ireland, the challenge is slightly different.

    Your former President, Mary McAleese, who did so much to promote peace in Northern Ireland, called the Irish soldiers of the First World War doubly tragic.They fell victim to a war against oppression in Europe. Then, at home in Ireland, their memory fell victim to a war for independence.

    The failure to remember them in Ireland is all the more remarkable when one considers the huge numbers involved. Well over 200,000 Irishmen fought in the British army in the First World War and, of these, some 50,000 were killed.

    Those figures mean that most Irish families will have had a grandfather or a great uncle who fought in the war. It is therefore no surprise that, in these less inhibited times, there is so much interest here in Ireland in finding out more about this lost generation.

    Our two governments in Dublin and London are working closely together on the Great War Anniversaries, which form part of a wider decade of commemorations of the events that led to Ireland’s independence.

    As emotions have cooled with the passage of time, I am hopeful that these commemorations will provide an opportunity to reflect on the tumultuous events of a century ago in a calmer, less emotive way.

    Of course, there is a risk that people of ill will might try to use this opportunity to re-open old wounds and deepen divisions. But we must not let our shared history be hijacked for nefarious purposes when the two Governments are working so closely together in a spirit of historical accuracy, mutual respect, inclusiveness and reconciliation. Twenty years ago, that might not have been possible. But today, thank God, it is.
    Conducted in the right way – and the Taoiseach’s and Tanaiste’s presence at Remembrance Ceremonies in Northern Ireland last month were exactly the right way – these commemorations should allow us to honour different traditions, overcome any divisions that remain, and inspire harmony in our future relations.

    Let me sum up my message with a quote from that great Irish author, clergyman and satirist, Jonathan Swift:

    “A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying …. that he is wiser today than yesterday”.

    At times in the past we have all been in the wrong. And today, I believe we are wiser than yesterday.

    That is why I have such optimism for the future, and why it gives me such enormous personal pleasure to be here twenty years on from those first steps towards peace. The full fruits of this peace may lie ahead, but the path has been set and, I hope, future generations in Britain and Ireland will enjoy a relationship that – although once thought to be impossible – is now fact.

    Ireland’s relationship with the UK and its future – both North and South – has never looked so bright as it does here this evening.

  • Mr Major’s Briefing to Journalists on Northern Ireland – 21 September 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s on the record briefing on Northern Ireland to journalists, held on Thursday 21st September 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me firstly welcome you here this afternoon and I hope we can have a useful exchange.

    Let me just say a few words at the outset about where we are in the process, how we led up to where we are, and I suppose most importantly, where we go from the present situation. And I have no doubt that you will have questions certainly about the third of those points and maybe the others as well.

    Let me give you some personal thoughts about the pursuit of what we have come to know as peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We are pretty close now to the second anniversary of the Joint Declaration. I don’t think many people would dissent from the view that we have travelled a good deal further on the road towards peace since that Joint Declaration than most people imagined at the time.

    A lot of people didn’t believe that Albert Reynolds and I would reach agreement on it. When we did reach agreement on it they didn’t think it would move forward any further and thanks to the cooperation between the governments and others we have, and I think that is a considerable advance.

    When I first came into Downing Street in 1990, I remember very vividly sitting here and listing in front of me a small number of priorities for the future. One of those priorities on the first occasion I came in here was Northern Ireland. At the time I think it is probably fair to say that wasn’t universally welcomed as a wise move. The history, as told by the cynical, was that the burden of history was too great, that age-old animosities were too deeply ingrained for there to be any practical and worthwhile move forward. Too many people had come to grief on the Irish question, was the familiar refrain from very many quarters.

    I didn’t agree with that. I didn’t agree with that then, I haven’t agreed with that on the good days we have had since then and I certainly haven’t agreed with it on the days when things have been difficult either. It was repugnant to me then that people were killing one another in Northern Ireland and beating one another up in Northern Ireland, and it was as repugnant to me in Northern Ireland as it would have been if it was happening locally in Westminster, in Surrey or in Durham or anywhere else. So I felt that it was worthwhile making a fresh and original effort to see how far we could get with a peace process.

    If I ever needed any reinforcing in the belief that that was the right thing to do, I have to say that every single visit that I have made to Ulster over the last five years, and there have now been rather a lot of visits to Ulster, has reinforced me in the view that it was beyond any doubt the right thing to do.

    It is quite striking if you go into Northern Ireland, and one has seen before the external image of the disputes in Northern Ireland, to actually then go into Northern Ireland in the streets and feel the atmosphere and meet the people, whether Catholic or Protestant. And what struck me very forcibly in those early visits was the clear willingness of the ordinary decent people of Northern Ireland, whatever their religion might be, to give their support to a peace effort that they believed was based on fairness, transparency and democracy. I have found that to be a consistent theme whenever I have gone there, whether I have spoken to special interest groups or people with no particular special interest other than being a citizen of Northern Ireland.

    And when things have run into difficulties from time to time, you might perhaps be surprised by the weight of letters and messages that have come here from Northern Ireland from people who by and large in their own different ways have had the same simple straightforward message – stick with the process and don’t be put off by the setbacks.

    If anybody believed that we could move from where we were to a final agreement in Northern Ireland without setbacks, then they are an incurable romantic and a dreamer. It was never going to be that way, it hasn’t been that way and there may yet be setbacks as well as advances in the future.

    One of those setbacks was just a few days ago when we postponed the summit that John Bruton and I were to have had at Chequers. But I think we need to put this in context. It was a setback, it was not a crisis. And those people, whenever there is a setback, who talk as though it were a crisis and the peace process itself were doomed are doing no good to the process and simply talking up their own negotiating position. Setback is one thing, crisis is another. What we have had is a setback and it is a setback I hope and believe that we will overcome.

    Progress is going to be uneven. We are not suddenly going to wake up one morning, rub our eyes and find the whole thing is finally sealed and settled. That is not I believe the way it is remotely likely to be. It will evolve, this settlement, just as it has been evolving since the Downing Street declaration.

    In the year after the Downing Street declaration we made pretty dramatic strides in a whole series of fronts. That will not always be the case, though I think that we will be able to carry this process a good deal forward.

    At the moment, for the last few weeks, we have been in a bit of a pause period. But with patience, a degree of imagination and I think perhaps from time to time steady nerves as well, I think we will be able to move this process forward. If we are going to do that, as I believe we can, one absolutely indispensable element will be the continued close cooperation between London and Dublin. I have found it a very good working relationship, first with Albert Reynolds and subsequently with John Bruton. We haven’t always agreed on everything, we haven’t always approached things entirely from the same angle, but it has been a good working relationship and it remains so with John Bruton as the present Taoiseach.

    Let me add just a couple of points about the future. Firstly, all-party round table talks – the sooner that I can convene all-party round table talks on a constitutional settlement the better, the happier I will be when we can get there. I would be perfectly happy to do so this afternoon if that were feasible. But in the reality of politics, there is no purpose whatsoever in calling all-party talks unless there is a pretty good chance that all the parties are going to be there if we were to do so, and if parties began to absent themselves, perhaps permanently, perhaps in large numbers, then we would have made a mistake in our move forward.

    I can’t force people to the conference table, I can’t coerce them to the conference table, I can encourage them to go to the conference table. The principle of consent, which I think we one stage was not universally accepted, is and must remain at the heart of the efforts of London and Dublin combined. And it applies to all-party talks, just as much as it applies to anything else in the peace process.

    Let me just say a word about decommissioning. Decommissioning is raised from time to time because it is an extremely important issue. What it is not is a British obsession, it is emphatically not a new condition cooked up by Perfidious Albion after the IRA ceasefire, and I think a cursory glance at your cuttings will confirm that that is so. If anybody doesn’t have the cuttings to hand I think it is quite probable that I might be able to find them for you. So it is not something that we have suddenly cooked up and I very much welcome the editorials in some of your newspapers recently which have emphatically made that point.

    As far as decommissioning is concerned, well frankly I don’t care how it is done so long as it is credible and verifiable. I am not looking for surrenders, I am not looking for people coming out, throwing their weapons down at the feet of the British. That is not remotely what I have in mind. All I am concerned about is getting those arms out of commission because that is the key point in getting people to the all-party round table talks that are so essential, and ultimately getting people to accept an agreement that will be willingly accepted by all the people concerned.

    The principle of decommissioning comes smack out of the core of the Joint Declaration. And the plain truth is just simply this. The majority parties in Northern Ireland, representing the majority of the people in Northern Ireland, just will not come to the conference table until Sinn Fein / IRA have begun the process of actual decommissioning.

    Now I can see no other way of generating the confidence necessary to draw the relevant parties into substantive talks. And neither is it just stubbornness by the UIster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists political parties, that is not the situation in the North. I daresay everyone present will have seen the poll in the Irish News recently, I think it was late August, which showed that 90% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, believe that the decommissioning of IRA arms should be a precondition for the inclusion of Sinn Fein in all-party talks. And when you broke that down into party allegiance, not only did you find perhaps unsurprisingly that that was over 90% of the DUP and Ulster Unionist support, but it was I think 73% of Alliance Party support and a substantial figure, I think 33%, of SDLP and Nationalist support. So it runs right across the North, it isn’t simply a fresh condition generated and invented by Unionist leaders in the North.

    The Irish Times I think made that point very forcibly and I don’t generally quote newspapers editorials so perhaps it is a bad principle to start, it wouldn’t always work in my favour. But on this occasion the Irish Times set it out very clearly in April earlier this year.

    So what next from the present situation? I continue to believe that the twin track approach – preparatory talks involving all the parties on one hand, and an international commission on decommissioning on the other hand – offers the best way forward from where we are at present. Now I don’t know, I can’t know whether this approach will get off the ground because the answer to that depends on other people. What I can say is that I will continue to work patiently to try and ensure that it does get off the ground, off the ground with the constitutional parties. I saw David Trimble and John Taylor earlier this week, I will be seeing John Hume and Ian Paisley – separately, not together – some time next week, and I hope to see John Alderice as soon as we can agree a mutually convenient date.

    We will continue to work also with the paramilitaries on both sides in exploratory dialogue, and with our colleagues in America with whom we have remained in the closest touch for a very long time. And of course with John Bruton whom I will be seeing tomorrow and on Saturday in Majorca. We mustn’t expect great announcements at the end of these discussions. John and I talk a great deal on the telephone, privately, in the sidelines of international meetings that we attend. Our points of contact are not just on the great setpiece summits, it is a regular and continuing dialogue, and frankly it is a dialogue on a scale that I don’t believe has existed between London and Dublin at any stage before, I don’t believe that has ever been anything like that. And my office and his office are in direct contact, I think it is fair to say if you add in the contacts between offices, on a daily basis and have been for a long time. So the contact is very close. There will be differences of approach but we try and work them out when we can and the working relationship with John Bruton is one of the reasons for encouragement that we will be able to carry this process forward.

    I am sorry to burden you with that lengthy introduction but I thought it might put one of two things in content before we turn to your questions. I am happy to take your questions, we will see what you have to ask and where I think it is prudent for the process to answer the question, I will answer the question, if I don’t think it is prudent I will tell you it is not prudent and not answer the question.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION (Irish Independent):

    Prime Minister, you referred to your hope that the international commission might get of the ground. Earlier today Mr Ancram remarked that it was not envisaged that the commission would actually oversee the decommissioning of arms. To whom do you envisage that arms would actually be handed up to?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the things that the decommissioning commission will look at will be questions like that. The commission will look at the modalities, the mechanism for actually determining how arms are decommissioned. We can consider late further matters on the basis of their recommendation. We need to take this one step at a time. What I am conscious of, I do understand, perhaps better than people will sometimes give the British government credit for, some of the inhibitions and difficulties that face Sinn Fein as well. I do sit here and try and put myself forward into Mr Adams’s head to see the difficulties that he faces in order to determine what he is going to do. So I understand those difficulties. We are not seeking to pile embarrassment and difficulty upon Sinn Fein. What we are seeking to do is to find a way in which they are able to come forward and accept the decommissioning of arms. I think if we proposed how that was going to be done, that would be less likely to be accepted than if it were done by an independent commission. It was out of that thought that the concept of an independent commission, very probably chaired by a distinguished American, I think that is overwhelmingly likely and a name has been in circulation, I think that is the best way to proceed and I think that we will continue to go down that route.

    QUESTION (Sunday Independent):

    You said in your remarks that progress is going to be uneven, and I think we would all accept that. But winding up the debate in the British/Irish Interparliamentary Union yesterday afternoon, Michael Mates said, “We might even have to contemplate a short term return to violence to break the impasse, otherwise appeasement goes on”. Is that British government policy?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me say, I haven’t seen the transcript of what Michael said and long experience has taught me to be very careful about responding to things that I have not myself seen in black and white or heard. Subject to that, let me set out what the British government’s position is.

    Of course no-one wants a return to violence, no-one wants a return to violence in any circumstances or for any reason. What we do want is a lasting peace. That can’t be a peace at any price because that is the sort of peace that isn’t going to last. And from the moment Albert Reynolds and I first decided that we would go down this route, we were looking not for a ceasefire, welcome though a ceasefire is, but a peace that was going to be enduring. And the reason we need that is self-evident. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland in the last year. You have seen huge economic changes in Northern Ireland. What we have not yet seen in Northern Ireland is a degree of international investment that can come from abroad, into the north and into the south in my judgement, once it is clear we have got over the arms problem and we are moving towards a proper settlement. That is why a short term peace settlement is no good, the prize is much bigger than that. But we don’t want to return to violence under any circumstances and I don’t really think I need say very much more than that, that is the British Government’s position.

    QUESTION:

    Do you then believe that Sinn Fein and the IRA are bluffing when they say that they cannot contemplate handing over arms?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I find their position, I have my own judgement of what is bluff and what is negotiating tactics and what isn’t, but I don’t think it would be helpful to anyone if I was to unburden that thought to you. What I do say is that we do get conflicting noises from Sinn Fein publicly. It is very difficult on one hand to accept that their comments about them being dedicated to look for peace, this is a permanent peace, there is absolutely no doubt that they are determined to have peace, and all the other statements that have been made by Mr Adams and Mr McGuinness, and their view that that represents the view of their movement, and then to find them so resistant to beginning the decommissioning of arms. If they are permanently committed to a democratic future then they do not need an armed army at their back. I can understand that they do not want embarrassment or humiliation, as they would see it, of handing over their arms to the British. I do understand that, and that is why we moved down the route of an independent commission.

    But if what they say about entering the democratic process fully and being permanently committed to peace is truly their position, then I think it is hard for any dispassionate observer to understand why they wouldn’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body. I won’t repeat the point about understanding the pride of their movement, I think I do, but that doesn’t stand up when they are not being asked to hand their arms over to the British but they are being asked to hand them over to an independent commission.

    QUESTION:

    Michael Ancram, speaking to journalists this morning, seemed to be suggesting that both governments are now looking at the issue of decommissioning [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think almost however you answer that question you would be apt to give someone a misleading impression. There is no hidden depth in our examination of decommissioning, it is actually a very straightforward concept. We are interested in decommissioning because without decommissioning we cannot convene successfully the all-party talks that will enable us to reach a proper settlement and put that settlement, agreed by the constitutional parties, including Sinn Fein and including the Loyalist paramilitaries, to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and then legislate for it. I daresay one can keep approaching this from a different angle but it is really rather straightforward, it is as simple as that.

    QUESTION:

    One supplementary. Kevin McNamara yesterday said that he felt it would eventually come to a form of words.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Kevin McNamara has always taken that view. I don’t think that is the view of his party any more and I don’t think that is the view of any – or hardly any – of the mainstream democratic parties in Northern Ireland either. It is, I fear, an uncomfortable reality for some people that the people of Northern Ireland – and I quote again the figures I used in the poll a moment or so ago, it is not just the politicians – do appear to feel very strongly that there is a need for decommissioning of arms if they are going to feel secure in agreements that have been reached and if I may personalise the matter a little, if you were entering into constitutional negotiations with someone would you not wish to know in those constitutional negotiations that they were not going to stamp out of the negotiations themselves and then return to an armed struggle having kept arms for the purpose? I think you would have a certain reserve about that. I think you would want to see some evidence that they were in the business of staying in constitutional politics for good, which is what we wish.

    I have said to Sinn Fein: “the door is open to you as constitutional politicians; you can march through that door as a constitutional party properly recognised and treated in the same way as the Ulster Unionists, the Democratic Unionists, the Alliance Party and the SDLP but if that is to be the case, then you must operate on the same basis as those other parties and you must not have an armed force at your back in the case of dispute!” and I do not think that that is anything other than a statement of plain common sense that most people in the north – almost everybody in the north and outside the north – will accept.

    QUESTION (OTE News, Belfast):

    On the one hand we have your Ministers in Northern Ireland saying that nobody wants a surrender and indeed if I am not mistaken consciously avoiding the use of the word “surrender” in any interviews or speeches and yet you say that you can’t understand why the IRA won’t begin the surrender of their arms to an independent body.

    I live in Northern Ireland, for my part I think it highly unlikely that there will be any surrender. I think there could be some movement on the general principle of decommissioning but why has your Government stopped on the concept of arms actually being handed over, being surrendered?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me correct it. If I used “surrender”, let me make it clear what I mean.

    I don’t care if they are not handed over providing they are destroyed, they are decommissioned. As I tried to indicate vividly, I don’t expect them to come out and throw their arms down at the feet of other people. That has never been my position. All I am concerned about is that the arms are removed from possible use, from circulation. I don’t mind, frankly, whether they decide that they would wish to hand their arms over to an independent body; I don’t mind whether their arms are destroyed in their presence by an independent body or by themselves in the presence of an independent body.

    All that matters to me is that the arms are taken out of use. It isn’t a question of surrendering. If I used that it was an inadequate term and a slip of the tongue. What I am concerned about is to make sure that the arms are not available for use. I am not seeking to embarrass or humiliate Sinn Fein in that fashion, that wouldn’t be a productive or sensible thing to do. I just want the arms taken out of use.

    QUESTION:

    And what the about the argument that you are not prepared to talk to Sinn Fein if they have 100% of their munitions? 95%?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We need to show that they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning. If they are prepared for the principle of decommissioning, then they will begin to decommission. Once they have done that, then I think it is reasonable to ask the other political parties to sit down with them and I think some of the other political parties have said that once they begin to do that there is no reason not to sit down with all the political parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Fein and the Loyalist paramilitaries, to begin to discuss how we move forward. That is what we are working for but I repeat pedantically the substantive point, there is no point in my pretending that they don’t need to move down that route of taking arms out because even if I were to take that position, which I am not, the other parties would not and there would be nobody sitting at the table at all and that is useless for the process.

    QUESTION:

    Are you persuaded from your recent conversations with David Trimble that if Sinn Fein began the process of decommissioning as outlined by the British Government and particularly by Sir Patrick Mayhew in Washington, that if they did that and if they began the process of decommissioning their arms and explosives, that the Ulster Unionist Party would sit down to all-party talks with Sinn Fein?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, Emily, that is a question you must ask David Trimble. I can’t definitely answer for David Trimble or John Hume or any of the others.

    SAME QUESTIONER:

    That was central to your discussion with him presumably?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a whole range of things. I wouldn’t say that any individual thing was central to the discussion. We ran across the whole field in the hour and a half we had and we will have a good deal more meetings in the future to run across more so I don’t think I am prepared to put my words into Mr Trimble’s mouth or anybody else’s mouth. What I can say is once there is clear evidence that Sinn Fein are beginning to decommission, then the probability of all-party talks will be accelerated beyond belief and I think myself that we would get all-party talks.

    QUESTION:

    You don’t think that the official Unionists or indeed the DUP would put further road blocks in the way of all-party talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I hope nobody is going to put further road blocks. I understand the suspicions that have existed on both sides. There has been a long legacy of one political party having a mistrust of another political party, it operates on both sides of the divide.

    In local government a few years ago we would have found it incredible that they would have worked together; they are working together in local government. What has been done as local government can be done at leader level in the parties in Northern Ireland as well and the sooner we are able to get in that position, the better it will be for Northern Ireland and by the “better it will be for Northern Ireland”, I don’t only mean that they will have a more secure reason for believing there will be no more violence though that certainly would be true but that I believe once you have got to that position it is actually going to unlock that avalanche of investment that I think is waiting abroad to come into the whole of Ireland once they are certain this process is going to be irreversible and the difference that is going to make to the living standards of people north and south is going to very remarkable, and one great gain we have had in the last year is that people have seen in the last year the speed with which ordinary circumstances can change as a result of the ceasefire. It is as nothing in my judgement to what will happen when there is a universal conviction that that ceasefire is going to become a permanent end to violence.

    QUESTION (John Cooney, Dublin Correspondent of the Glasgow Herald):

    In your ongoing talks with Mr Bruton, do you believe that both of you can convince Sinn Fein, the IRA, of the principle of decommissioning or do you think you will need the pressure from Washington and the Clinton Administration to effect that end?

    Secondly, just to clarify a point earlier, when you said you are having greater cooperation and contact with Dublin, is your relationship with John Bruton now more intimate than it was with Albert Reynolds?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not quite sure of the way you expressed the question! We had a very close political relationship and that was true with Albert and it was true with John Bruton as well. To give you a very practical illustration, I was in very regular contact with Albert Reynolds as well. To be brutally honest, you cannot conduct this sort of exercise at arms length. You can’t do it through interlocutors; there is a certain amount that can be done but at the end of the day you are going to have to do a certain amount of it yourself so I had very regular contact with Albert Reynolds on the telephone and directly. When Albert first came here, we agreed that we would institute the proposition of six-monthly summits alternating not rigidly but broadly alternating between London and Dublin but with Albert it still wasn’t just every six months.

    We meet regularly in any event at what seems to be an interminable number of European Union meetings and beyond that we have very close telephone contact so it has been very close in both instances, it really has. With Albert we had to sit down and negotiate bits of the Joint Declaration together, to call it a haggle I think would not be an unfair description and similarly with John Bruton with parts of the framework document. I don’t want to give you the impression we wrote all of it ourselves sitting in conclave just the two of us waiting for white smoke to come out. A huge amount of work of course was done by many other people.

    QUESTION:

    Do you think it will require American intervention to get Sinn Fein to accept the principle of decommissioning?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know the answer to that. There is no doubt that President Clinton is clear about the need for decommissioning, he has said so repeatedly. I think the Americans have made that point directly to Sinn Fein, they have said so publicly on a number of occasions as has John Bruton, as have an awful lot of other people, as has Dick Spring and many others.

    QUESTION (Irish Times):

    On the three-stranded relationship, the position of your Government was that nothing should be agreed until everything was agreed under that formula. Is that still the position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, that is still the position.

    QUESTION:

    Can I take you one step back to Emily O’Reilly’s question, if Sinn Fein accept the commission…

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Back to or back from?

    QUESTION:

    Back one step beyond where she… If Sinn Fein accept the commission and the terms are agreed, are you in a position to guarantee that the Unionists would at least participate in the exploratory bilateral and trilateral talks?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    One of the misconceptions there has always been in Sinn Fein’s mind and in many other people’s minds is that the British Government can guarantee the particular position of the Ulster Unionist and the Democratic Unionists parties and the Alliance parties and others; that has never been the position.

    I cannot guarantee that they are going to respond. I can encourage them to enter into the talks, I can point out the advantage of entering into the talks and all these things but it just is not the case, as Sinn Fein so often think, that all I have to do is to say to the Unionists in Northern Ireland: “I would like you to do this!” they would do it. That isn’t the case so I am not in the position of being able to offer guarantees any more than John Bruton can offer me guarantees about the way Sinn Fein or the IRA behave. That isn’t the case.

    What I am seeking is to bring both sides together, to have the talks bilateral, trilateral, more if they wish it on the one hand and to have the decommissioning commission operate. We just talked about Sinn Fein but of course they would be looking at the surrender of arms from the Protestant paramilitaries as well so I am not in a position to give guarantees, I am not the leader of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. I will use my best auspices to persuade them to do so.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what do you make of the change in the Unionist leadership, the Unionists have a new leader? Do you think that is a good sign for the future, do you think that Mr Trimble is somebody who can come and sit round the table and do a deal eventually?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Any Unionist leader is going to have to carry the Unionist parties with him. Mr Trimble has been duly elected by the Unionist parties; he is therefore in a good position if he reaches an agreement, to carry his party with him in that agreement. I have to persuade him if I can that there is an agreement that it is possible to do and I will endeavour to do that. If I am able to persuade him, then I think that he will be able to bring his parties with him. He is an intelligent and an able man. Much of what I read about David Trimble in the last few weeks in the paper I don’t entirely recognise from the David Trimble I know in the House of Commons. He is a very shrewd and forthright politician. I don’t mind dealing with shrewd and forthright politicians, it is part of the way of life in Downing Street!

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, if it is so difficult to form the conditions to allow people to get around the table, is it not going to be impossible to form the conditions for any agreement?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may say so without wishing to produce a smart-alec answer, that is what people said to me when we tried to get the Joint Declaration and it is what people said to me when we tried to form the framework documents. None of this is easy. If it had been easy, it would have been done a very long time ago. That is why I said to you it isn’t going to suddenly come together as a single solution signed, sealed and delivered overnight in a series of dramatic meetings. It is going to be a continuing process of confidence-building and edging forward so that people being to trust those with whom they are dealing more and more.

    The answer to your question is yes, I believe we can. If I did not believe that we could carry this process from beginning to end, then I would not have embarked upon this process in the beginning. It has not always been easy, it has not always been friction-free, but I think it can be carried from beginning to end and I think although people tend to look at the impasse when it suddenly seems to be created between one political bloc and another, there is an undercurrent which people would be very ill-advised to ignore and the undercurrent is the pressure of opinion in the north and in the south that compels the politicians, all of them, me included, to move on towards a settlement. Whomsoever stops this progress in its tracks now will have a lot to answer for to history and will have a lot to answer for to their contemporaries, so the answer is yes, yes, yes, I believe we can carry it forward.

    QUESTION:

    Given that the answer is yes, have you any vision of what that settlement could be or is that a mystery?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it isn’t a mystery, but if this settlement is going to stick it is not a settlement that is going to come out of the mouth of the British Prime Minister. It has got to be a settlement that is going to come out after discussion with the political parties. Of course I can see where I think they will end, but I think we must have their discussions, we have their inputs, we must consider that, we must see what they have to produce. At the end of the day it is going to be their settlement approved by the people in Northern Ireland.

    QUESTION:

    What time-scale do you envisage or when do you think the parties will get down to [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t know. I don’t wish to put a time-scale on it. The sooner the better. I do not wish to see any undue delay but I do not think it prudent at the moment to put a short-term time-frame to something. I don’t think that would be productive at the moment. That is not to suggest that I am expecting a long delay, simply that I think it would be counter-productive for me to suggest short-term time-frames by which certain things needed to be done. What we need now is coaxing and persuasion and encouragement, not the constraint of a short time-frame.

    QUESTION:

    You have been talking a lot about how good the relationship is between the two governments. At a certain point in the week when the summit was cancelled it seemed anything but that; there was a lot of misunderstanding and certainly the spin that came from the British officials and the British media was that John Bruton is running scared of Sinn Fein and that it was the IRA who had effectively vetoed the summit. Would that have been your view of what happened given the British Government seemed determined [indistinct].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I read a lot of that in the press, certainly in the Irish press as well if I may say so. I am not even sure, Emily, that you didn’t write it! [Laughter]. There you are, you see the interest I take in your writing!

    I think John Bruton is a brave and forthright politician. I like doing business with him and I am not going to say anything that going to lead you to believe anything to the contrary.

    QUESTION (Bernard Persil, Irish Independent):

    Are you confident that you can deliver all of your party with this settlement because as you are aware a lot of people haven’t really come this far before, they are quite nervous about that it may entail, there is an awful lot of misrepresentation of positions not least within your own party, not least amongst some of your own backbenchers. Will that be a particular obstacle?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If I may fall back on parliamentary tradition, I refer you to the answer I gave to the gentleman here just a moment or so ago! [Laughter]. If I can move it forward satisfactorily, I think I will be able to carry on.

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick, in his speech last night, said that if the international commission brought forward proposals for an alternative approach on decommissioning the Government would look at those proposals and judge them by their merits. Could that be taken to mean that if the commission proposed that you scrap Part 3 of the Washington test that you would do so?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think Sir Patrick said “on their merits” and we will look at things on their merits.

    I emphasise again that this “Washington 3” condition is not a condition invented by the Government after the ceasefire. I just emphasise that point again. It is a statement of the political reality and one thing we cannot do in these negotiations is avoid political reality and I think Patrick was emphasising that point again yesterday.

    I think unless there is anything terribly fresh and original or anyone is burning with something…..

    QUESTION:

    Can I ask you….

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Twenty-five years in politics suggests to me it is always a mistake to take the last question! [Laughter].

    QUESTION:

    Sir Patrick has also said that he is very worried and very conscious of the fact that the IRA allegedly are recruiting and restructuring all the time. Presumably, that would give you pause for thought and would not be too hopeful?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Of course we are concerned about the IRA’s activities. We are concerned about the punishment beatings that go on. One thing that the ceasefire has done is draw the veil up so that people have actually looked at the punishment beatings that have gone on as well and they have continued during this period and of course we are concerned about activities like that, of course we are.

    I think we had better call a halt. Thank you very much for coming. I hope as events proceed that we have the opportunity of another meeting discuss further progress. I will look forward to that.

  • Mr Major’s Joint Press Conference with John Bruton – 22 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference at the launch of the “Frameworks for the Future” document, with the Irish Prime Minister, Mr John Bruton. The press conference was held at the Balmoral Conference Centre in Belfast on Wednesday 22nd February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is one reason, above all, why the Taoiseach and I have come to Belfast this morning, we wish to offer the proposals that our governments have been working on, here in Northern Ireland, for Northern Ireland’s people and to their representatives. We seek to help peace but we are very well aware that only the people of Northern Ireland are able to deliver that peace. So let me say directly to them at the outset, these are our ideas that I present this morning but the future is up to you. You have an opportunity now which has not been there for many years, an opportunity to work together to build a better future and a lasting peace.

    The proposals that we launch today stem from the talks process that began four years ago in March 1991. It was agreed then by the two governments and the four participating parties that the process would have three strands: it would seek a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland; relations between the north and the south of the island of Ireland; and relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic. We agreed that it was only by addressing all these relationships together that agreement would be found across the community in Northern Ireland.

    At this press conference the Taoiseach and I are publishing the document, “A New Framework for Agreement”, which deals with the second and the third of these strands. A little later this morning I will return to this conference hall and put forward a separate document proposing new arrangements within Northern Ireland, that is of course a matter for the British government and the Northern Ireland parties alone.

    Our proposals this morning are based on several principles – self-determination, consent, democratic and peaceful methods and respect for the identities of both traditions. Consent is and will remain paramount in our policy, it is the democratic right and the safeguard of the people of Northern Ireland. No proposals for the future would be workable, let alone successful, without the consent and the active support of the people of Northern Ireland, it is they who are the people who will carry them out and whose lives would be affected by them. And that is why an eventual settlement must be agreed by the parties, supported by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and approved by Parliament, a triple consent procedure.

    Let me turn firstly to constitutional matters. On constitutional matters each government has offered crucial new commitments to this framework document. As part of a balanced agreement the British government would enshrine its willingness to accept the will of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland in British constitutional legislation. We shall embody the commitments we made in the Downing Street declaration. The Irish government would introduce and support proposals to change its constitution so that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, contrary to the will of a majority of its people, is asserted. This is a very important proposal that I welcome unreservedly. These changes would offer Northern Ireland a constitutional stability that it has not hitherto enjoyed. Its future status, by agreement between the two governments, would be irrevocably vested in the wishes of a majority of its people.

    Let me say a word about the north/south institutions. In line with the three stranded approach, we propose new institutions for north/south cooperation. The north/south body that we outline would comprise elected representatives, chosen from a new Northern Ireland Assembly and from the Irish Parliament. It would draw its authority from those two bodies, it would operate by agreement and only by agreement.

    On the United Kingdom side the north/south body would initially be set up by legislation at Westminster as part of a balanced agreement. It would come into operation following the establishment of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. Thereafter, it would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament both to operate the body and to decide whether its functions should be extended. Like all of our proposals the new north/south institutions will be a matter for negotiation, but the way should now be open for beneficial cooperation between north and south without the constitutional tensions which have been such impediments in the past. We have made suggestions about areas which might be covered in this cooperation to the advantage of both sides, but like all aspects of this document, they will be for discussion and for agreement between all concerned.

    The European Union already operates cross-border programmes between Northern Ireland and the Republic, as it does elsewhere. We propose that north and south could usefully work together in specific areas to take advantage of what the European Union has to offer. But the making of United Kingdom policy, and the responsibility for representing Northern Ireland in the European Union, will remain solely in the hands of the United Kingdom government.

    In the third of our strands we outlined a new broader based agreement to take the place of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. The 1985 Agreement was criticised because the Northern Ireland parties had not contributed to it. Our new proposals are offered for discussion in the talks process, we wish to hear the views of the parties and we envisage that their representatives would be formally associated with the future work of the Intergovernmental Conference.

    The Intergovernmental Conference would allow concerns to be expressed about any problems or breaches of the agreement reached. But there would be no mechanism for the governments jointly to supervise or over-ride either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the north/south body, it would be for each government to deal, on its own, with any problems within its own jurisdiction. This would not be a question for joint decision, still less joint action. It is very important to be clear about this as I know there have been concerns on this score.

    Our two governments have worked for a long time with patient determination to agree on this framework and I am grateful to the Taoiseach, his predecessor and the Tanaiste for their efforts and the spirit of accommodation. And I would like also to express my gratitude to Paddy Mayhew and to Michael Ancram who have worked so hard on the UK side.

    Our proposals seek to stimulate constructive and open discussion and to give a fresh impetus to the political negotiations. The outcome of those negotiations will depend not on us but on the consent of the parties, the people and Parliament. It is not for us to impose, but what we propose is an end to the uncertainty, the instability and the internal divisions which have bedevilled Northern Ireland for far too long.

    For over four years as Prime Minister I have listened intently to the people of Northern Ireland, I have visited them, consulted them, travelled more widely I believe than any predecessor throughout the province, held meetings with political leaders, church leaders, council leaders, community leaders and people from all walks of life. It is my duty as Prime Minister to maintain the Union for as long as that is the will of the people, it is a duty in which I strongly believe and one which these proposals protect. Just as people cannot be held within the Union against their will, so equally they will never be asked to leave it in defiance of the will of the majority. Consent and free negotiation are fundamental to me and they are the foundation stones of this joint document.

    In the four years of the talks process we have travelled a very long way, but not yet far enough. I know that many people will be worried, perhaps some even pessimistic, about the future. But as we look at the hurdles ahead, it is worth considering also where we have come from. The dialogue of the deaf has ended.

    For four years we have been engaged in talks, the three stranded process is becoming a reality, the Joint Declaration has been accepted, the British Government is engaged in talks with paramilitaries on both sides, we have had six months of peace, prosperity and a normal way of life are returning to Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, once accepted only by Unionists and the British government, is today accepted almost everywhere.

    These are some of the gains for everyone in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition. More gains can lie ahead if we have the courage to conduct ourselves with patience, with foresight and with consideration. To reach our destination all concerned must be ready to look to the future rather than to the past. We must put aside old shibboleths, we must show fair-mindedness and we must show imagination. The destination that I seek is a lasting and peaceful settlement. It is attainable and I believe we have taken an important step towards it this morning.

    TAOISEACH:

    Today’s new framework for agreement is a landmark event in the affairs of this island. The two governments are presenting to the political parties in Northern Ireland, and to the Irish and British peoples, a document which is the most detailed expression to date of our views on the subject of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister and I hope that the framework document will receive calm and measured consideration over the days and weeks ahead.

    It is an important and a serious text, offered as an aid to discussion and to negotiation. It presents our best judgment of what might be the agreed outcome of future talks involving the two governments and the political parties. We commend it to the parties for their careful consideration and we look forward to discussing it in detail with them at the earliest opportunity.

    May I, at this point, pay special tribute to my colleague the Tanaiste, Mr Dick Spring, and his officials, and also to the Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and his team. Their determined efforts over many months have brought us to the point of being able to announce this historic document.

    The proposals that it contains are, we believe, balanced and fair and threaten nobody. No party need fear this document. To the Nationalist and Republican people this document first of all reaffirms that the British government have no selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland and that they will uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland. Also to the Nationalist and Republican people this document says that the British government will enshrine in its constitutional legislation the principles embodied in this new framework by either amendment to the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 or its replacement by appropriate new legislation.

    It will also be important to Nationalists that both governments consider that new institutions should be created for the present and future political, social and economic interconnection within the island of Ireland. These institutions will enable representatives of the main traditions, both north and south, to enter into agreed relationships. This is the purpose of the north-south body proposed in the document.

    To the Unionist and Loyalist people I would point out that the document commits the Irish government to ask its electorate to change the Irish constitution. The change proposed will address both Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution in the following ways: to remove any jurisdictional or territorial claim of legal right over the territory of Northern Ireland, contrary to the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and to provide that the creation of a sovereign united Ireland could therefore only occur in circumstances where a majority of the people of Northern Ireland formally chose to be part of a united Ireland.

    It should also be important to Unionists that the document contains a recognition by both governments of the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to their constitutional status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union or opt for a sovereign united Ireland.

    The proposals will thus challenge the two traditions on this island but will do so in an even-handed way. Neither tradition need fear the contents of the document. As I have emphasised at every appropriate opportunity, it is a framework for discussion and not a blueprint to be imposed over the heads of anyone. Its purpose is to facilitate, not to pre-empt, dialogue. At the end of the day the people of both north and south respectively will have the final say.

    The document is indeed our carefully considered response to many suggestions from the parties and others that it would be helpful if the two governments were to set out what they believed might be an agreed outcome coming out from talks, that response to suggestions has now been provided in this document.

    We are asking the parties to come to talk to us, openly and candidly, about these proposals. We believe that taken in the round these proposals offer a basis for structured discussions leading to a new agreement. It is our hope that the political parties, having given these proposals the attention they deserve, will take a similar view. There can be no doubt about the enormous desire on the part of the ordinary public here, in the rest of Ireland and in Britain, for the earliest possible resumption of political dialogue. The ending of all campaigns of paramilitary violence last autumn has created an unrivalled opportunity for such dialogue to take place now with a reasonable prospect of a successful conclusion.

    I join with the Prime Minister in appealing to all the parties concerned to grasp this opportunity. The framework document is our judgement of how things can best be taken forward. We have in our view the best opportunity now in a generation for a lasting political settlement. We owe it to the peoples of both of these islands to put that opportunity to the test.

    QUESTION (ULSTER TV):

    [Inaudible] that this is not joint authority, but considering that most of the leaks in the Times article are actually in the document that you produced this morning, how can you convince the Unionists otherwise?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    What I am inviting people to do is to read the document, to read it in context and not out of context, which is what they saw in the Times document. Let me give you a particular illustration about the way in which fears arose as a result of a partial leak, and often can. One of the aspects of that leak was that responsibility for education would be devolved to the north/south body, and I understand the fears that existed in the north about that, they saw every aspect of education being subsumed in the north/south body and perhaps significant changes to the traditional way in which education is managed in the north. Rubbish, absolute rubbish.

    The sort of thing that is proposed is mutual acknowledgement of qualifications north and south. At the moment a teacher qualified in the south can work in the north, a teacher qualified in the north cannot work in the south. Now that is just one tiny illustration of how, taken without the context, taken without reading precisely what is here in detail, taken without the checks and balances, taken without the explanation, a wholly wrong impression can be created. And the impression that was created was wrong and I hope that when people will study this, this is a big document, in some ways it is a complex document, what I am asking of people in Northern Ireland is to read it, to study it, to think about it, discuss it, to talk about it in their local communities, to their local political parties. Let it mature, make up their mind, think of the overall prize that lies at the end of successfully carrying forward these negotiations and make a balanced judgement on it.

    This is not the time for snap judgements, it is not the time for people to throw their hats in the air and say we have cracked the puzzle, and neither is it the time to say no this will not do. This is the time to look at it coolly, clearly, carefully, let it mature and I believe as people do that the fears that they have will be seen to be illusory. There is nothing to fear in this document, I believe, and the safeguards on the consent principle, the triple-lock of parties, people and Parliament is clearly expressed there, and I believe the fears will be seen to be dramatically overdone and the opportunities for the future are very real as a result of what has been agreed in this document.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wish I could give you a categoric answer to that, but the truth is nobody can. The Taoiseach and I both understand that this matter is only going to proceed with consent, it needs to carry people with it or it will not carry. When I referred to the hurdles ahead I meant the need to persuade, the need to convince, the need for the parties to reach an understanding, the need for the people to accept that understanding in a referendum, the need for debate and discussion over the Parliamentary legislation yet to come, the matters that need to be dealt with in terms of establishing a Northern Ireland Assembly that I will return to discuss in this hail later on this morning. Those are the hurdles that I meant. And of course in parallel to those hurdles there are the discussions that the government are holding at the moment with the paramilitaries on both sides to determine how we can return them properly to legitimate democratic politics and remove, de-commission weapons, for the general safety of people in Northern Ireland.

    They are all big hurdles and I know many people say: “But those hurdles are too big, you are never going to overcome those hurdles”. I would simply say to those people who hold those views, look back two years ago and ask yourself whether you would have been expected to be here today, this morning, with six months of peace in Northern Ireland, discussion with the paramilitaries, a Joint Declaration accepted by everybody issued just over a year or so ago and frameworks for the future that can set out a path ahead, So we are embarked upon the road, a lot has been done but a lot more remains to be done.

    QUESTION (DONALD KELLY, RTE):

    Taoiseach, in this document, is your government proposing to drop Articles 2 and 3, and are you proposing to write into the constitution the [Inaudible] of the Northern Ireland state. And since you are proposing constitutional change, would it not have been better to have the wording for constitutional amendment to be out in the open now?

    TAOISEACH:

    The position is that the government will be putting forward, at the appropriate time when agreement has been reached, proposals to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution, and the effect of those amendments will be to state that they will no longer contain any jurisdictional or territorial claim of legal right on behalf of the Irish state over the territory of Northern Ireland. But they will go on to provide, however, that the creation of a sovereign united Ireland could take place in circumstances where a majority of the people in Northern Ireland formally choose to be part of a united Ireland. Those are the clear underlying principles upon which the constitutional amendment, to be presented, will be based. And they are balanced in turn by the commitment to agree to set up cross-border bodies which will ensure that where issues can appropriately and by agreement be operated on an all Ireland basis, that will be capable of happening. The one balances the other.

    As to the publication of detailed wordings, the position is that there was no final agreement reached by the previous government, who were discussing particular wordings with the British government, there was no final agreement reached on those wordings, and I came to the conclusion, in conjunction with the Tanaiste, that the most appropriate way to proceed would be to state not an attempt at a detailed text, which at the end of the day is really a matter for [Inaudible] Airan and Shanatairan [phon] to discuss, but to state the purpose that we would be seeking to achieve in terms of the constitutional amendment that we would be introducing that would give much greater opportunity for discussion and improvement in terms of the wording is concerned, rather than finding ourselves, as I said in the Doyle yesterday, involved in a hair-splitting exercise about a draft which had been considered between the two governments.

    QUESTION:

    Dr. Paisley has described this document as a declaration of war. Have you any proposals to get him off a war-footing?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I would regard it as a declaration for peace rather than a declaration for war. I had an extremely worthwhile, constructive discussion with Dr. Paisley and his colleagues last evening, I look forward to more in the future, there is a great deal of discussion to come. I don’t anticipate that Dr. Paisley will welcome every dot and comma in this document immediately, we will need to discuss that over a period of time, I think that is undoubtedly the case, it is always going to be the case.

    This is a balanced document but nobody – Unionist or Nationalist – is going to like everything that is in this document; there will be people who like it because they appreciate the balance that is within it but if you had asked someone who was a Unionist or someone who was a Nationalist to write down specifically what they wished to see, they would not have produced this document so of course there is a great deal of discussion; that will take time, it will take patience. Dr. Paisley, like every other political leader in the North wants, if it is at all possible, to enshrine a position where Ulster’s prosperity can grow without the troubles and difficulties of the last twenty-five years. I don’t have the slightest doubt about his commitment to that and I think on that basis we will be able to talk.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would like to add, if I may, in response to that last question and to a number of other questions that have been put in regard to this matter that it is important in looking at the cross-border institutions to refer to the precise wording of paragraphs 25 and 30; they refer specifically to the various designated functions of these bodies occurring by or as a result of agreement. The emphasis throughout this document is on reaching agreement. The purpose of the document is not to create a fait accompli but to give parties who previously wanted to know and were asking what the governments’ ideas were and who were perhaps using the absence of a clear statement from the governments as to their ideas as an excuse for not coming forward with theirs. That excuse now no longer exists, the governments have set out clearly their ideas.

    These are ideas which the governments intend to proceed with on the basis of agreement reached and I am glad to say that news of the impending publication of this document by the governments has encouraged a number of other parties to put their ideas on the table in recent days and we hope there will be many more suggestions put from other parties on the table for discussion in conjunction with this framework document.

    What we are seeking is to challenge people to think, to challenge people, if they don’t like what is in this document particularly in regard to a special matter, to ask themselves what is the problem that this document in that regard is trying to solve and then, having identified the problem, say: “Well, I don’t like the framework document’s suggestion for solving it; here is my alternative!”

    It is very important that everybody who offers a criticism of an aspect of the document should ask themselves first the question: “What problem is this aspect of the document trying to solve?” and secondly: “Have I a better way of solving that problem?” That is what we mean when we say we are challenging the parties in this document; we are challenging them to either go with this or come up with something better.

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible but regarding the triple lock]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not proposing to change the order of the locks. I think those are the natural and sequential order. We have learned before in the troubled history of the last few decades in Northern Ireland that unless you carry all the people with you then you don’t get where you seek to go; that often means things go more slowly than you would ideally wish, it means a great deal of patience and sometimes a touch of frustration but i think that has to be the way it is and I have set out the way in which we propose to deal with it and I don’t propose to change that.

    QUESTION:

    Mr. Major, will these North-South bodies be in place before the next general election and if not, in what sort of time-scale do you anticipate they could be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It is up to the parties. As the Taoiseach has just said, we were asked to put forward proposals for discussion. We have put forward some proposals. These may not be the only proposals. If the parties don’ t like what is in here, then the parties can produce something else. We have the clear indication of where we all wish to get; if they don’t like this, put forward something else. We are prepared to discuss that.

    As to whether we will get there by the next general election, I can’t at this stage know how soon the parties will engage in bilateral discussions, after they have examined the document how soon they will sit down collectively, how soon they will reach an agreement so I can’t give you a clear indication about that. We will not unduly delay but I would rather take things securely and be sure of the progress that we have made than try and rush things ahead too fast and let the process fail so I am afraid it isn’t possible to give a date but what we do want is measured progress and we want measured progress in the peaceful atmosphere we have had recently.

    NICK CLARKE (BBC “WORLD AT ONE’):

    You have suggested over and over again that this is a consultation document. Will you not be trying to persuade people of its value and will you not in fact be a persuader for change?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We have set out, as we were asked to do, some ideas for the parties to consider but I go back to the point that I have made and the Taoiseach has made this morning: the whole thing rests on consent and on carrying people with us; if they don’t like it, they will change it, Of course, we think these are workable ideas or we wouldn’t have produced them, that is self-evident but they are not ideas where we are going to say: “Stick to that! We don’t want your alternative!” If they have an alternative that will work and will lead to the objective that every sensible person in Ulster and beyond seeks, then we will look at those alternatives.

    To the extent that we are persuaders, we are persuaders for people to come together and examine these propositions and bring forward other propositions if we wish to that extent, we are persuaders but beyond that what we are seeking is to draw from the people collectively what they believe would be a workable proposition for the future and that is a point that the Taoiseach emphasised a moment ago; it has to be by consent, it has to be by agreement, slow, difficult, painful but the only way.

    QUESTION:

    Given the facts of the Sunningdale Agreement, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Downing Street declaration and this framework document today, is it not reasonable for Unionists to consider that you are thinking ultimately in terms of an Ireland coalition as a solution to this particular problem?

    Secondly, did you ever think about throwing in the towel amidst all this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I most certainly didn’t. You may call it old-fashioned but I have a rooted objection to people killing one another and we have made some progress and it has stopped. Things have changed in Northern Ireland, you know Northern Ireland well. Everybody in this room knows that Northern Ireland has changed in the last few months. I don’t just mean the political atmosphere, I mean the atmosphere out on the streets; people aren’t searched when they go into stores, they don’t have the same worries in the morning, they don’t pick up their morning newspapers or listen to the media each morning with a new outrage. There is a different sense, a different attitude. To that extent, there is a better chance of progress for the future than we have had in the past.

    I don’t underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead but I do believe that with care and patience those difficulties can be overcome and the prize is really very great, isn’t it and doesn’t really need spelling out. The prize is so great as to be worth the effort, whatever the effort itself might be.

    As to the first part of your question, I cannot do better than to reaffirm the consent principle. I made the point a few moments ago that I am a Unionist, of course, but I am a Unionist who wants peace and a prosperous future for Unionists. It is a matter of choice: for so long as the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United Kingdom, they will remain in the United Kingdom with my full support, with the full backing of the British Government and with the full support of everything that that means. If their choice is to do something different, we will accept it but it has to be their choice.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I just want to stress that the whole document right through stresses the three strands, the three sets of relationships. It is not therefore all Strand 2, all a matter of looking at the relationships in an all-Ireland context. There is Strand 1, which is a very important part of the settlement which is the internal settlement in Northern Ireland; there is Strand 2, which is the all-Ireland dimension; and there is also the East-West dimension. It is quite important that once we can normalise our relations between Britain and Ireland by reaching agreement on the outstanding differences in regard to Northern Ireland, that we can then move on to a much richer cooperation on an East-West basis between the whole of Britain and the whole of Ireland and that is something that has been stunted by the conflict here in the last seventy years and it is important to stress in that context the importance of strand 3 as well.

    QUESTION (NEW YORK TIMES):

    Could both of you say what you think the odds are that some day Sinn Fein, the major Unionist parties and of course the SDLP, will actually sit at the same table?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am not a bookmaker but they are improving. The fact that the Government are now engaged in talks with Sinn Fein is evidence of that; those talks still have some way to go but progress is being made, I hope further progress is going to be made in the future.

    Once it is clear that Sinn Fein have renounced violence for good, once it is clear that action is taken on the decommissioning of weapons, then Sinn Fein becomes a democratic, legitimate political party and will be able to sit down with the British Government and with the other political parties. That day is much closer than it was a year ago.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    I would say the odds are about 5-1 on. I would say it is very likely that we will see that happening, I can’t say when. It may take quite a long time. There is no point in understating the serious issues that the Prime Minister has referred to that still remain in regard to the decommissioning of arms and also there is the sense in the Unionist community that they have been the victims of a campaign waged over twenty-five years in which so many of them lost their lives but I think there is a recognition on the part of both parties and their supporters that if there is to be permanent peace within Northern Ireland and in these islands, a relationship must be struck up between those two parties and I believe the inevitability of that is very strong and I think it is simply a question of finding a process of healing the wounds sufficiently so that the people concerned can sit down together. I am therefore specifically very confident that that will happen. I won’t tell you when the race will take place but I have quoted the odds!

    QUESTION:

    [Inaudible]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    They will decide in the discussions the extent of these bodies. That is the point we have repeatedly sought to make this morning, that these are ideas and proposals for discussion with the political parties; they will be discussed with the political parties; they will then be put to a referendum; only then will there be legislation; that broad legislation about North-South bodies will only be – if I can put it in shorthand terms – in headline terms and then further details will actually have to be agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    The position is within the hands of the political parties by agreement right the way through and once the North-South bodies are confirmed, the North-South body will be answerable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Dail respectively.

    The fear I know exists that someone externally is going to impose all sorts of draconian things on the North-South bodies but that is not what we have in mind, What we have in mind is putting forward these ideas for discussion.

    There are obvious areas where it is very sensible to cooperate. There is cooperation that goes on now and has gone on for the last twenty or thirty years. There are areas where cooperation is self-evidently common sense and what we are asking is for people to consider those areas and consider what is in the interests of everybody in the North-South bodies and in other things as well.

    I believe in the politics of persuasion and I believe in the politics of reason and I think we will be able to let people discuss these matters and draw out the joint advantages of proceeding as we have proposed.

    PRIME MINISTER BRUTON:

    Could I answer that question directly by saying that what weakens the Union is the sense amongst the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland that the state doesn’t recognise their loyalty, that it doesn’t recognise their aspirations, their sense of Irish allegiance. It is that alienation of the minority community in Northern Ireland that creates the tension that in turn means that issues of the Union are constantly being questioned and raised.

    What this document is designed to do is to create new structures to which both communities in Northern Ireland will be able to give an equal sense of allegiance, that both communities will feel equally at home in their own place. If that happens, all of the issues that prompted your question will cease to be problems, people won’t see the need to ask that question any more because it won’t be a relevant question because a framework will have been created in which both communities will feel equally at home. That question is only asked out of a sense of insecurity.

    The purpose of the document is to create a comprehensive new dispensation in Northern Ireland in which both communities will feel equally at home and that is the security that can be offered to both of them, the security that there is an arrangement in place that their neighbours are as happy with as they are. As long as there are arrangements in place that their neighbour on the street or in the next housing estate is not as happy with as they are, then there is no security for anybody. That is the purpose that we are seeking to achieve in this agreed framework, a new dispensation where both communities would feel equally at home.

  • Mr Major’s Broadcast to the Nation on Northern Ireland – 1 February 1995

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s broadcast to the nation on Wednesday 1st February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Just over a year ago, the Irish Prime Minister and I signed the Downing Street Declaration.

    In the months that followed, many wondered what it would achieve. Some attacked it.

    But the Declaration led to a ceasefire. Five months ago, the IRA halted their operations. The Loyalists followed. This was not the result of secret deals. There were none. But there was a promise. It was a promise of fair treatment and a place in democratic politics for those who abandoned violence for ever.

    Peace has been a tremendous blessing for Northern Ireland. People can lead normal lives. They can go out without a fear. Day by day the prospect of more jobs and more prosperity is becoming a reality.

    My aim is a lasting peace. For the first time in 25 years, we have a real chance of achieving this. It should not be thrown away by fears that are unreal and accusations that are untrue.

    For the past four years, we have been working for a fair and lasting settlement in Northern Ireland.

    With the Northern Ireland parties, we have discussed possible new arrangements for Government within the Province.

    We have searched for better relations between North and South.

    We have worked for closer cooperation between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.

    We are now discussing proposals with the Irish Government, in what we call a Joint Framework Document.

    These talks continue. I can’t guarantee their success. But fears have been raised that the Document will be a blueprint to impose unity in all Ireland and a betrayal of the promises we have made.

    Those fears are wrong. In every respect. And I want to explain why, because peace in Northern Ireland is too important to be put at risk.

    Let me say to you tonight; nothing is going to be imposed on Northern Ireland. Peace cannot be secured by coercion. New arrangements will only work if they are agreed by the people of Northern Ireland – supported by them and operated by them.

    What we are doing is developing proposals for them to consider and for their political representatives to discuss.

    The Framework Document will be a consultation paper. Its sole purpose is to help the constitutional parties reach agreement.

    But when they do, that will not be the end of the story. The outcome will be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum.

    If they believe the agreement is fair, if it respects their democratic rights, if it offers a peaceful future, they will vote for it. If not, they will reject it. But, in either event, their future will lie in their hands. And we will respect their decision.

    As one element, we shall suggest areas for cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic.

    Cross-border cooperation is not a new idea.

    People on both sides of the border and both sides of the community can see the sense in this.

    But there is one crucial point. Any new North/South bodies must be accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. They will not be run by London, and they cannot and will not be overridden by the British and Irish Governments.

    If there are people who don’t want the talks to succeed, they should be clear about the consequences.

    But I believe the people of Northern Ireland want a better future.

    So let me address them directly:

    The horrors of Enniskillen and Greysteel are behind you.

    After five months of peace, surely it is time to look ahead.

    Judge our proposals as a whole. There is nothing you need fear.

    Northern Ireland has come a very long way since the Downing Street Declaration.

    It must not drift backwards.

    I wish to see this process succeed. Arms decommissioned. Talks going ahead.

    Every honourable avenue to a settlement explored. Then the outcome put to the people.

    For it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether fear can given way to hope.

    The Government is working for a peaceful future in Northern Ireland.

    Tonight, I ask for time.

    And I ask for trust.

    And I promise to pursue – a lasting peace.

  • PMQT – 13 January 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 13th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mrs. Gillan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mrs. Gillan : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein calling for the clarification of the Downing street declaration is just a sickening attempt by the IRA’s apologists to shuffle the responsibility for their evil campaign of terror and fear? Is it not time that they faced up to their responsibilities and grasped the challenge of adopting the democratic path?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many millions of people in this country and throughout the island of Ireland. I welcome in particular the recent statement by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), making clear that he sees no excuse whatever for continuing violence and appealing for people to devote themselves exclusively to the democratic process. As the Taoiseach and I have made clear on a number of occasions, the joint declaration is not an invitation for renegotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have gone to great lengths in this House and beyond it to ensure that the joint declaration is fully understood and we shall, of course, continue to do so. We still await a positive response from the IRA.

    Mr. John Smith : Will the Prime Minister unequivocally condemn the gerrymandering and wilful misconduct which has cost £21 million of taxpayers’ money in what his party has described as a flagship council?

    The Prime Minister : Let me say unequivocally to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if the reported allegations about the council turn out to be true, of course I condemn such activities just as I would condemn malpractice in any council, wherever it occurred. It would be wrong to comment on this case while the auditor is still considering it. The auditor operates independently of Government, has full powers to pursue his inquiries and I have no doubt that he will continue to use them to the full. We should wait and see precisely what the outcome may be. Otherwise, we are in danger of assuming that people have committed malpractice until they are proved innocent. I would think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a barrister, would recognise that that is no way to pass judgment.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the Prime Minister recollect the frequent endorsements that he and his colleagues have offered to Westminster city council, in particular the comment by the Secretary of State for Employment, that Westminster council was one of the Tory’s stunning successes and a source of cheer for every Conservative? Taking everything into account, does the Prime Minister think that those endorsements were wholly wise?

    The Prime Minister : I have just made it perfectly clear to the whole House that the district auditor’s report contains a number of serious allegations. At this stage, they are allegations. There is now a perfectly proper legal process by which the allegations will be examined in depth and the truth arrived at. The district auditor has been at pains to stress that his findings are provisional. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should wait until those findings are confirmed before he is so swift to judge.

    Mr. John Smith : Does not the Prime Minister appreciate that the matter has now been investigated for four years, and what is revealed is a devastating example of financial corruption and an abuse of power by senior members of the Conservative party? Cannot he at least condemn that?

    The Prime Minister : I have already made it clear that if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly. But, as has been made entirely clear, this is the start of the legal process. Unlike the right hon. and learned Gentleman, most people will prefer to wait until that is completed and not find people guilty until and unless they are proven to be guilty. That is a cardinal principle of British law which I commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

     

    Q2. Dr. Spink : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Dr. Spink : Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday’s sharp fall in unemployment? Does he recall that one year ago the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) predicted that unemployment would rise month after month? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend invite the hon. Gentleman to make another such prediction?

    The Prime Minister : Most people would probably settle not for another prediction but for an admission from the hon. Gentleman that he got it wrong again and again and again. I very much welcome yesterday’s fall in unemployment, which means that the number of unemployed people has fallen by nearly a quarter of a million over the past year. Of course, it is still too high, but the fall of nearly 47,000 on top of the falls in recent months suggests that we are now seeing a continuing downward trend in the level of unemployment. We are the only western European nation to have low inflation, an economy that is growing and unemployment that is falling significantly.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. The House must come to order. There is impossibly bad behaviour today.

    Mr. Ashdown : Does Lord Justice Scott still enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister?

    The Prime Minister : It was the Government who set up the inquiry and gave Lord Justice Scott the freedom to pursue it as he thinks fit. I have no adverse comments to make on the way that he is doing it.

    Mr. Streeter : Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £20 million contract won by Plymouth-based British Aerospace (Systems and Equipment) Ltd. in December, further boosted by a share in the £50 million contract announced by the Ministry of Defence yesterday? Is that not a fine illustration of defence contracts boosting and sustaining British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Liberal policy on defence were followed, those defence jobs would simply not exist and many people in the west country would be out of work?

    The Prime Minister : I am, of course, delighted at the contracts to which my hon. Friend refers. It is certainly the case that if the reductions in defence expenditure advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition were carried into force, the implications not only for our capacity to defend ourselves but for British industry, not least in the west country, would be very profound. It would be a reassuring change if the Leader of the Liberal party were to say the same thing in the west country as he says elsewhere.

     

    London Hospitals

    Q3. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to make an official visit to a London national health service hospital.

    The Prime Minister : I shall be making a series of visits around the country, during which I intend to include NHS hospitals, as I have in the past.

    Mr. Corbyn : In his visits around the country, will the Prime Minister undertake to explain to Londoners why more than 150,000 people are on hospital waiting lists? Beds are being closed and wards are being taken out of operation, and one night in Bart’s hospital more than 30 people had to sleep on floors or on trolleys because there was not sufficient space for them. Are not the Prime Minister’s policies of the internal market leading to more and more closures and losses of bed space as the crisis and the chaos get worse? Is not it time for him to intervene to scrap the internal market and give Londoners the health service which they need, deserve and demand? Is not that a basic right?

    The Prime Minister : We are certainly seeking to give Londoners the health service which they deserve. In addition, we are seeking to improve dramatically primary health care in the capital and that has been evident for some time.

    The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention in his catalogue the dramatic reductions in the times which patients wait for hospital treatment. Since the reforms have been implemented, the number of patients who have been waiting for more than a year has fallen from around 120,000 to just over 70,000, and that figure is on a declining trend. The hon. Gentleman will know of expenditure which has been made in his own area’s district health authority. He ought not to underestimate the work that is being done to improve the health service for all the people who live in London.

     

    Engagements

    Q4. Mr. Milligan : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Milligan : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work that is being done in Eastleigh to develop a safer door lock for trains? Such a lock could have averted some of the 300 deaths which have occurred during the past 20 years when passengers have fallen out of trains. Will the Government encourage British Rail to invest in the new technology which would not only save lives on the railways but would also save jobs in my constituency?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend may know that British Rail is actively considering the technical feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of the system to which he refers. I know how important the decision is for my hon. Friend, and I know how hard he has worked on behalf of his constituents. British Rail is examining the matter at the moment.

    Mr. Kaufman : On November 10 1992, the Prime Minister, together with the Attorney-General, announced the appointment of Lord Justice Scott to conduct his inquiry. Will the Prime Minister now express his full confidence that Lord Justice Scott is conducting the inquiry fairly, particularly since he is due shortly to appear before Lord Justice Scott? Is the Prime Minister confident that he will be treated fairly by Lord Justice Scott? Will the Prime Minister repudiate the scurrilous attack on Lord Justice Scott by Lord Howe?

    The Prime Minister : I know that it has been a quite noisy House this afternoon, but I seem to recall answering that question a few moments ago. I will reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government appointed Lord Justice Scott to conduct an independent inquiry. It is therefore for him to draw up his own procedures and it is not a matter for the Government to comment on those procedures. I have no adverse comments to make upon those procedures, as I indicated a few moments ago.

     

    Q5. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 January.

    The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued incarceration of Ron Arad is quite unacceptable? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their efforts to secure his freedom?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly give that assurance, and we will continue to support efforts to free Mr. Arad. We have raised the case on innumerable occasions with the Iranians, the Syrians and with any others who may be able to help. On his visit to Israel earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary met members of Mr. Arad’s family and assured them that we will continue to do what we can to help. My right hon. Friend gave them our warm sympathy for the pain and suffering which they must feel at present.

    Mr. Beggs : Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that whether or not the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic proceeds to interpret, elaborate, explain or, indeed, encourage Sinn Fein-IRA to respond to the Downing street declaration, he will stand by it and that he expects members of Sinn Fein-IRA to cease their campaign completely and indicate that they will lay down their arms so that they can enter the democratic process?

    The Prime Minister : I certainly wish to see them unreservedly and permanently end violence and then enter into exploratory talks that can lead to them taking part in the democratic process. I reiterate again : we are not in the business of clarifying the declaration. The declaration is clear. What is intended by Mr. Adams in his present activities is to seek bit by bit to draw the Government into negotiation upon the joint declaration. That is not on offer to Mr. Adams now. It will not be on offer to Mr. Adams in the future. If he wishes to enter into discussions, he knows how he may do it. He can decide to give up violence. After three months he can enter into exploratory talks. Then he will be able to enter into the democratic talks process itself. That is the route ahead. The only question that needs to be asked is not of the British Government or the Irish Government but of Mr. Adams. Will he stop the violence and enter the democratic process or will he not? Everything else is fudge.

  • Mr Major’s Statement on Northern Ireland – 4 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement issued on 4th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Joint Declaration which Albert Reynolds and I agreed in Downing Street nearly three weeks ago sets out a clear challenge to the provisional movement, If they renounce violence – for good – and show they mean it, then Sinn Fein have the clear prospect of entering into the talks process with the other constitutional parties. But the onus is on them. They must choose whether they have the courage to end violence and enter into democratic politics. If they decide to continue their campaign of violence, they will do so in the knowledge that they are isolated and will face opposition from the two governments, from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and from the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland.

    I very much hope that the provisional movement will see sense and renounce violence. Regrettably, they have not yet done so. They continue to seek “clarification” of the Joint Declaration – a tactic which should be seen for what it is: an increasingly desperate attempt to avoid facing up to the clear choice that confronts them. And, after a brief pause over Christmas, the IRA have continued their campaign of violence, as the murder of a young soldier in Crossmaglen last week reminded us only too clearly, together with the attempted murders and firebombs over the weekend.

    The provisionals face this choice at a time when there is increasing determination among the people of Northern Ireland to end 25 years of violence and see peace restored. Over recent months, both Patrick Mayhew and I have had many talks with political leaders from Northern Ireland, with churchmen, with community leaders, with businessmen and with many others. I have had an opportunity in three recent visits to Northern Ireland to meet a wide variety of people. All these contacts will continue. I have been impressed and heartened by the support we have had for our efforts to work for peace and for a political settlement. That encouraged me in the negotiations with the Irish government over the Joint Declaration. If we all continue to work together, we can keep the momentum going.

    The Joint Declaration sets out the framework for bringing about peace and reconciliation. In the name of both governments it restates in unequivocal terms the fundamental principles and guarantees that mean so much to all sides of the community in both parts of Ireland. In terms more comprehensive than ever before it sets out the philosophy which underpins the actions of both governments. It places great emphasis on the need to respect the different traditions of the communities in Northern Ireland.

    I understand the concerns of those in Northern Ireland who are cautious when faced with an initiative of this sort. But I strongly believe that when they read the Joint Declaration – as I hope everyone will do – they will find that the interests of all communities are fully recognised and protected. Suggestions that the document is a sell-out to one set of interests or another are nonsense. Not only does the Declaration repeat in the clearest possible terms the British Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee – that no change can come about without the consent of the greater number of people of Northern Ireland – but it also sets out the Irish Government’s acceptance of that principle, while no less importantly recognising nationalist ideals.

    The fact that the Declaration has the full support of the British and Irish Governments should make it clear to all that there is no way forward except through the democratic process. There is no place for terrorism, whether loyalist or republican. There is nothing that the men of violence, whatever cause they may claim to represent, can seriously believe they are able to achieve. They have achieved nothing worthwhile in 25 years of violence, and would achieve nothing worthwhile if it were to continue for another 25 years.

    But with a permanent end to violence, and a commitment to the democratic process, Sinn Fein can enter into exploratory dialogue within three months. Without a permanent end to violence, the terrorists and their supporters will be isolated, with the British and Irish Governments and all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland united against them.

    Isolated, while the rest of us get on with our agenda for bringing about a political settlement via the talks process I am determined that, come what may, we will pursue those talks with renewed vigour. The Taoiseach and I have already reaffirmed our support for the objectives of the talks process, involving political dialogue between the two governments and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. That is the three stranded approach which made such progress in 1992: we must now make it a priority to reach agreement in 1994.

    Strand 1 of the talks is concerned with setting up new forms of government within Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland needs a form of government that people can identify with, and where they can participate. A form of government that is fully accountable and commands support in all sections of the community. We are determined to restore properly based local democracy in Northern Ireland.

    Strand 2 of the talks concerns relations between Northern Ireland and the South. I know there has been fear and suspicion that these parts of the talks involve giving the South a direct role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. They do not. It would be extraordinary if, as part of an overall political agreement, two countries sharing a border on an island did not look for ways to work together where that made sense to both. We each have so much to gain from co-operation across the border. That is what paragraph 9 of the Joint Declaration means when it talks of the two governments and the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland creating through a process of political dialogue “institutions and structures which, while respecting the diversity of the people of Ireland, would enable them to work together in all areas of common interest”.

    I am under no illusion that it will prove easy to reach agreement on all these issues. But there is now a clear will on all sides to try to do so. And there is a positive benefit in the large task we have set ourselves. It is that once agreement is reached, it will be comprehensive, leaving no room for uncertainties or concerns about hidden agendas – uncertainties that can breed doubt, fear and instability. The prize at the end of the process is great: so great that we are all determined to succeed.

    The prize lies not just in a political solution. But also in the economic transformation that that in turn would bring. Northern Ireland is already well placed to benefit from the economic upturn that is taking hold throughout the United Kingdom. But the prospect of long term political stability would bring renewed confidence in Northern Ireland as a site for inward investment, as a destination for tourism. Confidence that would itself encourage existing firms to invest and to expand. Confidence that would help accelerate a reduction in unemployment. There are huge opportunities, and great international goodwill.

    So the British Government will continue to work towards achieving both peace and political reform in Northern Ireland. The opportunity is there. But at the same time, while terrorism continues, we will use every means we can to defeat it and bring those responsible to justice. The police and armed forces in Northern Ireland perform a difficult job with great skill, courage and sacrifice. They will continue to have our full support and backing in upholding the law and protecting the community.

    We will continue to work for peace. But not peace at any price: there will be no departure from the fundamental principles we hold to – in particular that change in Northern Ireland can only come about with the consent of the greater number of the people. The Joint Declaration makes it clear that it is above all for the people of Northern Ireland to shape their future. There is now a framework which reflects the concerns and aspirations of both sides of the community. It is a framework that can shape a better future for Northern Ireland in 1994. Peace is there for the taking.

  • Mr Major’s Commons Statement on the Downing Street Declaration – 15 December 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Commons statement, made on 15th December 1993, on the Downing Street Declaration.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major) : With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister.

    As the House will be aware, the Taoiseach and I agreed a joint declaration this morning. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I know that the whole House will wish to hear what lay behind this declaration and what it may mean for the future.

    For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilised community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems. We must care as much about violence in Northern Ireland as about violence in any other part of the Union.

    When the Taoiseach and I met at Downing street two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We were both well aware of the pitfalls and dangers which have wrecked so many previous attempts, but we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement.

    The declaration that we have agreed today shows the commitment of the two Governments for peace and democracy and against violence. Its objective is to set a framework for peace, a framework that reflects our responsibilities to both communities in a way that is fully compatible with the undertakings that we have both given and with the objectives of the talks process.

    Copies of the joint declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I urge all hon. Members to read it carefully. It deserves careful study. It has required detailed and painstaking negotiations between the two Governments. It addresses the concerns of both sides of the Community and it is totally consistent with the principles that this Government have repeatedly confirmed to the House. It may help the House if I set out the main elements of the declaration. I will, where possible, quote directly from the text of the declaration so that there can be no misunderstanding about what it says.

    First, paragraph 2 expressly reaffirms the British Government’s commitment to Northern Ireland’s statutory constitutional guarantee. This guarantees that, as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, the Government will uphold their right to do so. That pledge is rock solid. That is set out most clearly also in paragraph 4, which reaffirms that the British Government will

    “uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.”

    Later in that paragraph, the British Government agree

    “that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.”

    This is a crucial sentence, and one about which there has been much misleading speculation. So let me repeat that it says that a move to a united Ireland can take place only

    “by agreement between the two parts respectively”

    and

    “on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South”.

    This fully protects the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, and means that change could come about only with their consent.

    In line with previous undertakings, the British Government also reaffirm that if a future majority in Northern Ireland desired a united Ireland, we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.

    For his part, the Taoiseach accepts in paragraph 5 that “it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”

    Later in the same paragraph, he accepts that

    “the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland”.

    Those are important commitments by the Taoiseach which I know will be widely welcomed by the House. The House will also welcome, in paragraph 7, the Taoiseach’s confirmation that, in the event of an overall settlement of the talks process,

    “the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.”

    The joint declaration fully backs the three-strand talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments. It says that it is the two Governments’ aim

    “to foster agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands.” I believe that the passages that I have quoted, and the other language in the joint declaration, set out a clear framework under which differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means. But that can come about only if the men of violence end the killing and commit themselves to the democratic process. The joint declaration sets out the way in which this can be brought about.

    Paragraph 10 says that both Governments

    “reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.”

    Let me make it plain on behalf of the British Government what that undertaking means. If there is a permanent end to violence, and if Sinn Fein commits itself to the democratic process, then we will be ready to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with it within three months. But, first, it must end violence for good.

    I understand the fears and concerns of Unionists about the prospects of the British Government’s entering into talks with Sinn Fein. This period has been a worrying and uncertain time for them. Although they have the primary interest in seeing an end to violence, they are rightly concerned lest this be achieved by selling out the fundamental constitutional principles which the Government have always upheld. If they fear that, then they should be reassured by this declaration. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee in the clearest possible terms. The Taoiseach fully accepts the principle that any constitutional change could come about only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland.

    In summary, let me make it clear what is in the declaration and what is not. What is in the declaration is a renewed commitment by the British Government to Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee ; an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland ; a willingness on the Taoiseach’s part to make changes in the Irish constitution if an overall settlement can be reached ; and a confirmation that if Sinn Fein renounces violence, it will be able to participate in future democratic discussions. What is not in the declaration is any suggestion that the British Government should join the ranks of persuaders of the “value” or “legitimacy” of a united Ireland ; that is not there. Nor is there any suggestion that the future status of Northern Ireland should be decided by a single act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole ; that is not there either. Nor is there any timetable for constitutional change, or any arrangement for joint authority over Northern Ireland. In sum, the declaration provides that it is, as it must be, for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future.

    All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will wish to study the document very carefully. I should like today to extend an offer to meet each of the parties regularly in the future, so that I can hear at first hand their concerns and ambitions, and can set out to them the British Government’s position. If we can work together to quell ancient fears and suspicions, we can help to build a better future for Northern Ireland.

    I have made it clear that if it renounces violence, the way is open to Sinn Fein to join in legitimate constitutional dialogue. That is a political route which it now has no excuse not to follow. That is the opportunity offered by this joint declaration–and it has been obtained without compromising any of the constitutional principles that this Government have consistently espoused. The onus is now on Sinn Fein to take advantage of that opportunity : I urge it to do so.

    Mr. John Smith (Monklands, East) : On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the joint declaration with enthusiasm. We fervently hope that it will be an important first step in a peace process that will lead to a new political settlement. It was necessary for the two Governments to take the lead, but it is vital that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now take part in new discussions which the British Government should promote.

    There was never any excuse for violence and terror on the part of any paramilitary organisation, but there is now an opportunity for both the permanent cessation of violence and the involvement of Sinn Fein in constitutional dialogue–provided that it is clear that the path of violence has been abandoned. We hope that the new opportunities that the declaration creates are seized by both traditions in Northern Ireland.

    May I ask the Prime Minister two questions about the detail of the declaration? First, in paragraph 9, both Governments commit themselves to seeking to create institutions and structures which would enable the people of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest. What kind of institution, and what areas of policy, have the Governments in mind?

    Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as the “crucial sentence” in paragraph 4, about consent being “freely and concurrently given, North and South”.

    Does that passage mean that a constitutional settlement arising from the talks process could be put to the people of Northern Ireland and those of the Republic in separate referendums on the same day? Finally, may I endorse the appeal for an end to violence that the Prime Minister made in his concluding sentence? That must be the overwhelming desire of all the people of the British Isles–not least those in Northern Ireland–who have suffered the appalling violence of the past 25 years.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman both for his support for the joint declaration and for the continuation of talks which necessarily must proceed beside it. I believe that he is right that it is an opportunity to move from a violent path. It is an opportunity which no one can compel the men of violence to take. It is an opportunity which lies there and it is in their hands now to decide whether to take that opportunity and move towards a legitimate political path in future. I repeat : I hope that they will take that opportunity.

    As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s two specific questions, the reference in paragraph 9 refers specifically to the three-stranded talks that are continuing at the present time, and there would be a large number of areas of common interest that are being identified in these talks that would be the subject of the structures referred to. So far as “freely and concurrently given” is concerned in terms of referendums, it certainly need not necessarily mean referendums on the same day. What it does mean is that that could be the situation. It is a matter for agreement in the talks and beyond, but they certainly need not necessarily be on the same day. It does imply that consent would need to be given separately north and south.

    Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley) : Has the Prime Minister noticed that this morning’s statement is already being termed the Downing street declaration? Those of us who remember the earlier Downing street declaration in the time of the Government of Lord Wilson will remember that it was very specific in saying that the affairs of Northern Ireland were an internal matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. May I, in a constructive fashion, ask the Prime Minister to assure us that the drift from that position over the past 20 years will be halted under his premiership?

    Whatever the eventual conclusions that one may draw from this rather tortuously worded statement with its many contradictions–I am referring to the statement, not the one just made by the Prime Minister–it appears to give some finality to the secret discussions that have destabilised the Province over recent months and which the Prime Minister has recognised just now. Does the Prime Minister share my expectation that we can now proceed to govern Northern Ireland in accordance with the wishes of 85 per cent. of the population–Protestant and Roman Catholic–who were greatly reassured by his remark to the House that

    “The future constitutional position of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine.”–[ Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 29.]

    Finally, can the Prime Minister confirm that the joint declaration does not assert the value or legitimacy of achieving a united Ireland without majority consent; commit the people of Northern Ireland to joining a united Ireland against their democratic wishes, establish any form of joint authority over Northern Ireland, even by phasing; establish any joint mechanisms such as a permanent convention; or give Sinn Fein an immediate place at the talks table? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the statement does not sideline the very valuable round of meetings between the parties convened by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland–the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)–which are now drawing towards a successful conclusion and which have been supported just now by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition?

    The Prime Minister : On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point at the end, I can confirm to him that the joint declaration does not assert the value of achieving a united Ireland; does not assert the legitimacy of a united Ireland in the absence of majority consent; does not either, for I think that it was implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, commit the British Government to joining the ranks of the persuaders for a united Ireland. That is not the job of any British Government. It does not set any timetable for a united Ireland. It does not commit the people of Northern Ireland to join a united Ireland against their wishes, and it does not establish any arrangements for joint authority. I can confirm each of those points to the right hon. Gentleman.

    As to the talks process undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we anticipate and expect that they will continue and intensify. They are, I believe, becoming extremely valuable. We wish to proceed with them with all speed so that we can make further progress in the talks, which will run alongside the declaration that I have just set out to the House. As far as the consent principle is concerned, I reiterate again, because I wish no one to be in any doubt about this, that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland lies now, and will continue to lie, within the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. For so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the Union, they will have the total and complete support of this Government in doing so.

    Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North) : Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the fact that the great difficulty and the field of controversy between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic–Northern Ireland being a member of the United Kingdom, although the document never once mentions the United Kingdom; that phrase has been entirely jettisoned from the document – involves articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution? Surely that is the very nub of the controversy. Why does this paper not even mention that?

    A member of the Government said to me outside, “Oh, yes, but look at page 5.” I have read the document carefully. In fact, I was able to receive from Dublin 24 hours before this document was available to other people all the information that I put in my letter– [Interruption.] It is very important that the Prime Minister should answer this question. He confirms that, in the event of an overall settlement, according to the Taoiseach, “the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.”

    But it is not the principle of consent in Northern Ireland that has anything to do with articles 2 and 3; it is the principle of the territorial claim. However, that most important matter has not even been referred to.

    Will the Prime Minister tell us what the statement on page 2 really does to the present position? Paragraph 4 states that the British Government agree

    “that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self- determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.”

    How is that different? Is it not different from the present situation when the entity of self-determination in Northern Ireland is the people of Northern Ireland? Why must the people of Northern Ireland now be linked with the Irish Republic on a question of their own right to remain within this United Kingdom?

    Finally, may I say to the Prime Minister, that, as a public representative, I find it very offensive to be told that, in three months’ time, if the IRA ceases its violence without any conditions for handing over its weapons or its bomb-making material or any of its military prowess, the IRA will be invited, as constitutional politicians, to sit down at the table. That goes to the very gut of the resentment of the people of Northern Ireland who have been slaughtered, butchered and murdered– [Interruption.] I do not mind what the hon. Gentleman says. His constituents have not been murdered or butchered. Perhaps he would like to sit down with the godfathers of the IRA and others who have done such things. What I have described goes to the gut of the people of Northern Ireland. They look on this as a sell-out act of treachery.

    The Prime Minister : Let me touch on the last part first. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that some of his constituents have been murdered by terrorist activities over the past 25 years. I acknowledge that and I understand the misery that that must have caused to his constituents, their families and to the hon. Gentleman himself.

    I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. On the hon. Gentleman’s three questions, the declaration does not specifically refer to the United Kingdom; it specifically refers to the Union, which I think that the hon. Gentleman himself cares about. If he reads the document carefully, which, alas, he had not done when he made his remarks this morning and issued his letter, he will see that reference to the Union. As for articles 2 and 3, the quotation answers the hon. Gentleman’s own question. That is clearly intended to refer to articles 2 and 3 in due course, and does so refer. On the hon. Gentleman’s third point on paragraph 4 about freely expressed consent, the specific point of paragraph 4 is to mention the freely expressed consent north and south respectively. It is saying to the hon. Gentleman that he, his constituents and all the other people in Northern Ireland have themselves, by their own actions, in their hands the future constitutional position of Ulster.

    Mr. John Hume (Foyle) : May I express to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Reynolds my deep appreciation for the enormous amount of energy that they have put into trying to grasp the hope of peace–a hope which is shared by the masses of people on both islands? Having read the joint declaration, I think that it is one of the most comprehensive declarations that has been made about British-Irish relations in the past 70 years. My appeal to all sections of our people is to read the entire statement in full and to have no knee-jerk reactions but to study it carefully and in full before responding.

    As the House will be aware, it has been the consistent position of my party that the British-Irish quarrel of old, the quarrel of sovereignty, has changed fundamentally in the evolution of the new interdependent and post- nationalist Europe of which we are members, but the legacy of that past is the deeply divided people. I welcome the fact that the declaration identifies the problem as the deeply divided people of Ireland. I also welcome the fact that it recognises that that division can be healed only by agreement, and by an agreement that earns the allegiance and agreement of all our traditions and respects their diversity. I welcome also the fact that the Government have committed themselves to promoting such agreement and to encouraging such agreement, and whatever form that agreement takes, the Government will endorse.

    Does the Prime Minister agree that the joint declaration is a challenge to all parties to come to the table in a totally peaceful atmosphere to begin the very difficult process–it will be a difficult process–of reaching agreement? If it takes place in a peaceful atmosphere, we will have much more chance of reaching such an agreement. My appeal to everyone who comes to that table is to come armed only with the strength of their convictions and not with any form of coercion or physical force.

    Let us remember at this time that it is people who have rights, not territory, and that humanity transcends nationality. May the House share with me at this moment the hope of all our people that today will be the first major step on a road that will remove for ever the gun and the bomb from our small island of people.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive support. He is right; the declaration is a challenge to all parties and to all people concerned with finding a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I have to say to all parties that I think that we have no moral alternative but to take up that challenge and see whether we can find a satisfactory outcome. The hon. Gentleman has shown his personal commitment to a settlement in Northern Ireland for many years and, on that basis, his support today is doubly welcome.

    Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater) : May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the genuine and serious work that he has done in producing the declaration for the House? Is not it evident that no such declaration could give everybody everything that they wanted? Is not it evident also that there is nothing in the declaration that genuinely and seriously threatens anybody’s vital interests in the matter?

    Is not there a heavy responsibility on all hon. Members, including the elected Members in Northern Ireland, not to react in a way which could destroy the best opportunity for peace that we have seen since the trouble began? Is not the message from the House–we hope that it will be repeated later from the Dail Eireann–to those who have been responsible for violence that, because there is now a joint offer from both Governments of access to the democratic process, violence should cease immediately?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He speaks, of course, with the experience of having been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is right that this is a balanced document which now offers opportunities that were not there before. I share my right hon. Friend’s hope that those opportunities will be taken up.

    Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : Will the Prime Minister note that he has our sincere and heartfelt good will in all his efforts and in the personal commitment which he is devoting to the task? Does he note also that we welcome the concurrent referendum possibility and the emphasis on human rights in the Taoiseach’s own statement? Is not the real question for the terrorists? Why should anybody else die and why should any more families be torn apart when it is possible to seek change without obstacle by a peaceful process, and when there are guarantees, which are underwritten by both Governments, that those changes cannot be enforced against the will of the majority in the north of Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is now no justification whatever for terrorism. There is now a clear and identifiable alternative for those people who seriously wish to engage in discussions in Northern Ireland. If terrorism were to continue after the statement and after the declaration, with the support that that has been given, it will be clearly understood by everyone that those people who engage in terrorism do not in any way genuinely seek a settlement, but simply wish to inflict murder and terror continuously.

    Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) : May I ask my right hon. Friend to be encouraged by the fact that the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body met in London today, and British and Irish Members of Parliament alike asked me on their behalf to welcome the joint declaration and to give it their support?

    May I further ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that the declaration is a framework for peace that represents in many ways an opportunity for a new beginning? Will my right hon. Friend, together with the Irish Taoiseach, continue with all of his strength in his historic work, the end of which can mean only the peace which we all want?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The declaration certainly is a framework for peace. It is an opportunity, but whether that opportunity is taken does not lie in my hands or in the hands of the Irish Prime Minister. It lies in the hands of the people who have bombed and killed for so long. It is they who must come under pressure to make sure that the violence ends.

    Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : May I, as someone whose constituency suffered from the bombers, ask the Prime Minister to accept that now is the time to give peace a chance? Will he also accept that if anybody involved fails to take that chance, they will never be forgiven?

    It is time for all paramilitaries to lay down their arms. If they do, will not that be a fitting memorial, not only to the two small boys who lost their lives in Warrington, but to all who have lost their lives needlessly because of the actions of the people of violence? Let us hope that the words that have been spoken today will be heeded and that peace comes at last. Is not that what is needed if we are to avoid debates about violence in the future?

    The Prime Minister : I cannot improve on what the hon. Gentleman said; I simply endorse it.

    Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : Does my right hon. Friend ardently wish that people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom? Otherwise, is there not a danger that people will say that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is careless with regard to the integrity of the United Kingdom? In that case, would it be inconceivable that anybody could have said that without the events of the past 25 years?

    The Prime Minister : If my hon. Friend looks at the joint declaration and at the words I set out so clearly at the last general election, he need have no doubt about my views on the Union; they are well known and on the record. I have gone to great trouble to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is firmly enshrined in the joint declaration, so that there can be no doubt that those people who care about support of the Government, to remain within the Union for so long as that is their wish.

    Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Is the Prime Minister aware that so strong is the desire for peace that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have long favoured talks among all the parties concerned? Will he confirm that a round table conference on that basis offers a better hope of a durable peace than simply talks between two Prime Ministers, neither of whom has been responsible for the violence? Would I be right in assuming that the significance of what he said today about the future of the island of Ireland being in the hands of the Irish people is that the British Government are no longer laying claim to an interest in the maintenance of the Union if the people of the north are ready to seek alternative arrangements? Is not that an important statement which ought to be underlined, clarified and emphasised in order to end the violence?

    The Prime Minister : On the first point, talks between the two Governments have a place and the joint declaration is the outcome of those discussions. It lies alongside the main talks process with all the constitutional parties, who must play their part in determining what happens, as they are most directly concerned. Self-evidently, that is the best way to proceed. As far as the Union is concerned, I reiterate the points I made a moment ago; my views about the Union are well known. I said some time ago at the election that it would not be appropriate for any Government–I was talking about Scotland–to hold Scotland within the United Kingdom if a majority of its people wanted independence. The same must apply to the people of Northern Ireland. That does not exclude the fact that I have my own personal views; it illustrates the fact that, ultimately, it must be for the people themselves to determine.

    Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke) : While warmly welcoming the joint declaration as a potential positive way forward, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that, during the weeks it was prepared, violence continued in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that there is no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in Northern Ireland as chairman of the committee particularly concerned with Northern Ireland. I give him the categorical assurance that there will be no let-up in the security action against terrorists. The co-operation with the Gardai and the security forces in the north is today at a more comprehensive level that we have ever known.

    Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford) : As I almost lost my life at the hands of IRA terrorism, I fully understand the message inherent in today’s declaration and to whom it is directed. Obviously there is much emphasis on Irish nationalist aspirations. However, the Prime Minister will know that 95 per cent. of people in my constituency are more interested in British aspirations. Although he has given some assurances today and specifically referred to paragraph 2 of the joint declaration which states that both Prime Ministers reaffirm “Northern Ireland’s statutory constitutional guarantee”, the trouble is that both Prime Ministers interpret differently what Northern Ireland’s constitutional guarantee really is. Therefore, with the purpose of giving confidence to the British people of my constituency, will the Prime Minister assure us, first, that the declaration in no way weakens Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom and, secondly, that it in no way gives Dublin any further role in the internal affairs or administration of Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : First, the whole House knows that the right hon. Gentleman was on one occasion very badly wounded by the IRA, and that he showed bravery then and subsequently. I am grateful for what he said. I give him both the assurances that he seeks. The declaration in no way weakens the constitutional guarantee that was first set out in the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. There is no weakening of that constitutional guarantee and nothing agreed today in the joint declaration gives the Government of the Republic of Ireland any additional say in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

    Sir James Kilfedder (North Down) : Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no talks with Sinn Fein until the terrorists, the IRA, hand over not only all the guns, ammunition and explosives that they have in Northern Ireland, but the material that they have in the Irish Republic?

    The Prime Minister : It may be rather difficult in practice to find out precisely where it is and who has it ; that is the practical difficulty that we face. We have said, beyond any doubt, that there must be the clearest possible public renunciation of violence and then a decontamination period– [Hon. Members :– “Both sides.”]–so that it is clear that that renunciation of violence will be held and there will be no violence. Then one can determine whether Sinn Fein can enter into discussions.

    Hon. Members : Both sides.

    Madam Speaker : Order.

    Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Dail Eireann today, there will be a similar reaction to the joint declaration. I welcome that, as I welcome the reception that it has received in the House. Does the Prime Minister accept that the intrinsic value will be recognised only if the same acceptance is gained where it counts–in places like my constituency in west Belfast, on the Shankill road and in the districts which have been beset by the violence of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitary groupings?

    The Prime Minister said in his statement that the British Government’s role will be to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement among all the people who inhabit the island. Does he include in that the further persuasion of those in the IRA who are carrying out violence? He has recognised that there are channels for achieving that. A logical conclusion of that part of his statement must be to pursue that type of persuasion with those people, to try to ensure an end to violence.

    I am consistently impressed by the reassurances that the Prime Minister gives to Unionists in the House. Those of us of a nationalist persuasion believe in pursuing our objectives by peaceful democratic means. When the Prime Minister speaks about the north of Ireland, he should recognise that 44 per cent. of the population follow that view and are entitled to some prime ministerial persuasion and reassurance at some time.

    The Prime Minister : I do not think that there has been any occasion when I have suggested that everyone who held nationalist aspirations was inclined to pursue them in a violent manner. That is certainly not my view. The IRA has pursued its activities in a wholly unsatisfactory and brutal manner. That patently does not apply to every nationalist and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought that any hon. Member could conceivably think that it did. As for persuasion, it is not in my mind to offer concessions to people. What we have to say to all parties is now said clearly and in the open. They know what lies there; they know what opportunity awaits if they are prepared permanently to renounce violence. That is what lies there and there is nothing further to be offered.

    Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) : Now that the brave efforts of both Prime Ministers and of the Ministers and officials, who worked so hard, have brought the declaration to a successful conclusion, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest cause for hope and satisfaction is that although there has never been the slightest excuse for violence, killing and bombing, if that course is pursued by the terrorists it will only show that they are not the slightest bit interested in any part of the democratic process? Has my right hon. Friend further agreed with the Taoiseach that if violence continues, both Governments, working together, will make concerted efforts to do whatever must be done to defeat the terrorists?

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend speaks with special knowledge of Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that there is no conceivable excuse for a continuation of violence. If it were to continue, I do not have a shred of doubt that we would continue to receive good and enhanced co-operation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland in tracking down those engaged in terrorism.

    Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Do not we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) whose dedicated work for peace should be appreciated by all? Many attacked him, and I hope that they will realise now what he set out to achieve. Would it be useful to let friendly western democracies know what has been agreed between Ireland and the United Kingdom not least the United States, where there seems to be some misunderstanding of the long and justified campaign waged by this country against terrorism? Should not the people of western Europe know and understand that the joint declaration has the overwhelming support of the people of Ireland and Britain and that continuing terrorism from either side has no support from the people whom the terrorists claim to represent?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to add the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle. I have paid tribute to him in the past for the work that he pursued for so many years, and I am glad to reiterate it today.

    I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in respect of the United States and Europe. I believe that there will be overwhelming support for the proposals set out in the joint declaration. We must hope that that transmits itself to those people who have the power to stop the killing, and that they choose to do so.

    Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that whether or not this welcome declaration leads to an end to violence, it finally strips away the remotest pretext for violence and for international sympathy or support for violence? It also broadens the political base for the repression of violence from whatever quarter, should it continue.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend touched on a most important point when he said that the declaration strips away any pretext for tangible support. That is true within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and in respect of the tangible support that has come from other sources from time to time.

    Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West) : Although there is widespread hope that today’s declaration will form the basis of a peaceful settlement, does the Prime Minister agree that much remains to be done to ensure a lasting peaceful settlement? As to talks with various parties, will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance that no party will be able to use a boycott or veto to scupper the peace process and that the Prime Minister will not be deflected by his Government’s desire to secure the support of Unionist votes in the House?

    The Prime Minister : I do not believe that the participants in the talks would put up with a veto, which is the most practical point arising from the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, if the talks procedure itself is to produce a lasting outcome, it will need to carry the consent of people in Northern Ireland. I shall seek, therefore, to encourage the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland at which the hon. Gentleman directed his remarks to play a full part in the constitutional discussions. They have done so thus far; they have done so very constructively. A great deal of progress has been made and I believe that they will wish to continue to make progress, as was indicated by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) a few moments ago.

    Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : As a committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s total commitment to peace. All Members of the House join him in hoping that the declaration will produce peace. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the strength of the United Kingdom is composed of the component parts of the United Kingdom–England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales–and that any breach of the Union will weaken the whole? Will my right hon. Friend, as I did some years ago, go to Northern Ireland and campaign for the Union and support those who are in favour of the Union, should the necessity arise?

    The Prime Minister : My views about the Union, as I indicated a moment or so ago, are well known and I do not believe that they can be seriously challenged by anyone who considers the record at the general election, before the general election, or subsequent to the general election, or considers the detail of the joint declaration. I also hold to the belief, however, that in the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine the position. I believe that that is the right way to proceed and I think that in due course that is the way in which we must proceed.

    Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : In welcoming the statement and wishing its ideals and its aspirations fair wind, although I recognise the many difficult days which still lie ahead, may I re-emphasise, on behalf of the constitutional nationalist parties in the House, the importance that we attach to achieving our aims through the ballot box, through reasoned arguments and through the democratically expressed views of the people of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, be that through a referendum or through a general election?

    I also congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle on the bravery that he has shown for many months, along with other people whose names perhaps are not so well known in this context, and I hope that the efforts that have been made will bring about a lasting settlement. Finally, I remind the Prime Minister that in Europe there is a great opportunity for the diversity of nations to be recognised as equal partners.

    The Prime Minister : On her first two points, the hon. Lady will carry almost everyone with her, and I believe that she deserves to. The third point was rather more elliptical, but I think that, in principle, I can agree with the hon. Lady.

    Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those who have helped in the making of this historic agreement. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that no commitment–explicit or implicit–has been made for any form of amnesty for those people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, and that the judicial process will pursue, with utmost diligence, those who have continued with their crimes of violence in recent weeks?

    The Prime Minister : I can give my hon. Friend that absolute commitment.

    Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) : May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is appropriate at this time that we remember two brave and dedicated men from my constituency who made the supreme sacrifice as members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the weekend? Drew Beecom and Ernie Smith were fine men. Those are the sort of people who must never be betrayed. I have experienced at first hand for more than 20 years the treachery of the IRA. Is there implicit in paragraph 10, which deals with a possible permanent end to violence and the way in which the men of violence can in due course enter the democratic process, provision by both Governments for a process of verification? Will he assure us that that process includes the surrender of arms and explosives and that it requires those who have been involved in violence to declare, by drafting a new manifesto and seeking approval at the ballot box, that they totally eschew violence before they can fully enter the democratic process?

    The Prime Minister : They will certainly be required to give evidence of sincerity in a renunciation of violence. That is the purpose of having a gap between the renunciation and the entry into exploratory preliminary talks, so that we can examine the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. The dreadful murders of the two brave men that he mentioned at Fivemiletown are the latest in a long catalogue of the wholly unnecessary and wasteful actions that have destroyed so many people’s lives in Northern Ireland. If the options that are opened up as a result of this declaration are to be taken up, there is a possibility that perhaps no more brave men need join them.

    Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread welcome for the third paragraph of the declaration, which emphasises the key role of the European Community? Does he agree that the development of the single market will break down economic barriers and build up trust between the two communities? Does he also agree that it is important to have greater sporting links, as they also break down barriers and could build up the links between the two traditions? Does he agree that it would be an excellent idea if there were an all-Ireland soccer team?

    The Prime Minister : An all-Ireland soccer team would be a great loss to many people who have watched Northern Ireland play the Republic on many occasions. Those of us who like watching the five nations rugby championship would also rather miss that clash. Beyond that, however, my hon. Friend is right about the impact of the single market.

    Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : None of us have doubted the Prime Minister’s commitment to the Union, but perhaps in drafting the declaration it might have been wiser to put in Great Britain, because then we would have kept Scotland within the Union.

    Mrs. Ewing : No, thank you.

    Rev. Martin Smyth : May I explore a little further whether, having offered the carrot, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has made any commitment to join in applying the stick if it is necessary and the offer of peace is not accepted? As I understand it, the two Governments and the two nations are not at war. May I also clarify a misunderstanding that may have gone unnoticed in this place today? Sinn Fein has a democratic place and has been elected, but its representatives did not take their places in this House and it has not been prepared to act as a proper democratic party.

    I shall give three simple illustrations. Having made a declaration that they would not support violence, as they would not then be eligible to be councillors, one of Sinn Fein’s elected councillors has gone to the United States to defend the acts of the IRA. The other evening in my constituency, a 1,000 lb bomb was placed by the IRA in a nationalist and predominantly Roman Catholic area. It could have devastated new houses and a Roman Catholic controlled school and one woman died. Representative McKnight of Sinn Fein refused to condemn the IRA. Is it not near time that we stopped that mollycoddling and laid down the terms under which Sinn Fein can be represented as a proper democratic party?

    The Prime Minister : On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, if the offer that implicitly lies there is not taken up, I have no doubt that the two Governments will continue to work together in intensified mode on security matters against men of violence, whether from the IRA, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Ulster Volunteer Force. The relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is well understood, as is the pseudo-constitutional position of the president of Sinn Fein. Therein lies the link–the necessity for a complete renunciation of violence before there can be any intention of accepting the representatives of Sinn Fein in any constitutional talks.

    Several hon. Members rose–

    Madam Speaker : Order. May I remind hon. Members that we are not in the middle of a debate but asking questions on a statement. I am sure that if I call a few more hon. Members, they will co-operate with me and ask brisk questions, and perhaps we could have a brisk exchange.

    Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) : Can the Prime Minister tell us what loyal Ulster has done wrong to have this further betrayal visited on it? When he talks to the House about the consent of Northern Ireland being required, will he remember, because the people of Northern Ireland have not forgotten, that their consent was neither asked for nor given for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Their consent was neither asked for nor given for this declaration. It seems that their consent will be required only for the final act of separation.

    Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his stomach is no longer turning at the prospect of sitting down with the IRA? Can he tell us why he has taken away the unfettered right of the people of Northern Ireland to have an act of self-determination and why he has included it in the self- determination of the island as a whole? Why is it that Prime Ministers from this House who protest the most that they are Unionists are always the ones who do the greatest harm to the Union?

    The Prime Minister : I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that was intended to be a wholly destructive intervention. There is no question, and the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question, of betrayal in any sense. I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the joint declaration and then read it again and again until he understands it, because he cannot justify what he has just said.

    The constitutional guarantee and the consent principle are writ large in the statement. In the letter which the hon. Gentleman published this morning, with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Gentleman claimed that I had

    “given the Prime Minister of a foreign and alien power joint jurisdiction over part of Her Majesty’s dominions”.

    That is what the hon. Gentleman wrote this morning. He was utterly and totally wrong about that. I have done no such thing, as the joint declaration makes unambiguously clear. The declaration states that self-determination must be

    “exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland”.

    The hon. Gentleman should read the declaration before he comments on it, and not mislead people about it. I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will not always put himself between actions that will bring peace and that peace.

    Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loyalist paramilitaries will also be expected to lay down their arms? Can he tell us what he means about the concurrent referendums? For instance, we now know from questions that he has answered that the referendums may not be on the same day. If the decision of the referendum in the south of the country is in favour, and the decision of the referendum in the north is against, do they add them up? [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister explain what will happen in those circumstances? Does it mean that there will be no further progress? I should like to know the answer.

    The Prime Minister : I sometimes despair at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone is expected to lay down their arms–that is perfectly clear. As I said, I despair at the hon. Gentleman’s understanding. I have made it clear almost times beyond number at this Dispatch Box over recent weeks and now that there must be a majority in Northern Ireland. If there is no majority in Northern Ireland, the constitutional guarantee stands.

    Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : In view of paragraph 4 of the declaration that the British Government “have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government still have a “strategic or economic interest” in Wolverhampton? [Interruption.]

    The Prime Minister : Well– [Interruption.] Don’t tempt me– [Laughter.]

    Let me explain to my hon. Friend : we shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland, but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union, and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast- iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy, and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland, because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned, from both communities, can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility.

    Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East) : Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed from the Irish constitution–

    Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : Removed?

    Mr. Beggs : Removed. Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed will my constituents recognise that, for the first time, an opportunity has arisen to seek to develop new relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Will he bear with me when I describe the great disappointments that my constituents and people elsewhere in Northern Ireland have had over little things, such as the £7 million defrauded by a citizen of the Irish Republic in Dublin out of the people who invested in International Investments Ltd? Despite the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland on that little issue, we have had no satisfaction. Therefore, we have great doubts whether we shall get satisfaction on the greater issues.

    The Prime Minister : I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I freely confess that I am not familiar with the particular case that he mentioned, but I am sure that if he brings it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter to see whether anything can be done.

    Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that no rational Unionist could fail to give the declaration a cautious welcome, but does he also accept that it is sensible that the declaration has not been made in an atmosphere of euphoria, as though it would bring “peace in our time”? However, it is an opportunity. I take sides with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in asking whether my right hon. Friend also agrees that those who may have some persuasive influence, although no direct influence, over the loyalist paramilitaries should persuade them to lay down their arms–before the IRA men lay down theirs, in my view.

    The Prime Minister : We all wish to see the men of violence lay down their arms, whether they claim to represent the loyalist or the nationalist cause. In my judgment, both groups of people involved in violence betray the causes for which they claim to speak. My hon. Friend is right about the status of the document. It is an opportunity for peace, but it cannot be guaranteed by the two Governments; I do not guarantee it. It lies there to be taken up if the people who can deliver peace will take it up. It is not a certainty, but it is an opportunity.

    Mr. Trimble : The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) referred to euphoria. Does the Prime Minister recall the euphoria years ago when the House foolishly endorsed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has blighted the politics of Ulster ever since? If we are suspending judgment on the statement today, it is in the hope that it will lead to a way out of the cul-de-sac to which the people of Ulster have been condemned for the past eight years.

    Will the Prime Minister comment on the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland? At his press conference today he said that his object was to increase the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Does he realise that it lies uniquely within his hands to remedy that democratic deficit, and will he give us an assurance that he will not be held to ransom by other parties in other countries that are trying to block that remedy for their own selfish motives?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will suspend judgment and study the document. I am sure that that is the right thing to do. The document is complex, and genuinely deserves and will reward careful study. I hope that when he has studied it he will be reassured. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, I am keen to proceed with the talks process. I look forward very much to examining the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to me on strand 1. We shall examine those quickly and pursue the discussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been engaged in for some time.

    Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : May I say to my right hon. Friend that it was a remarkable achievement to have received such an unambiguous statement to convince the IRA that, even by the standards of its own perverted logic, when neither Government will give it any succour or support, it has no alternative but to come to the bargaining table.

    The Prime Minister : My hon. Friend is entirely right and I see no need to reiterate his point.

    Mr. Clifford Forsythe (Antrim, South) : Is the Prime Minister aware that while the House has generally accepted his statement, the people of Northern Ireland will not perhaps look at it in the same light because for years and years and for election after election, they have voted to show that they are part of the United Kingdom? They will hardly regard the agreement as further copper fastening because they already felt that they were part of the United Kingdom. Do the Prime Minister and the House realise that the people of Northern Ireland require every encouragement to see this statement and the agreement in that light because they have always felt that they were part of the United Kingdom and they do not understand why we need an agreement to point that out?

    The Prime Minister : In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the point when he said that the people of Northern Ireland have shown that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they feel strongly about that. The fact that they feel strongly about it and the debates that so frequently ensue in Northern Ireland mean that there is a need for reassurance and that reassurance is offered by the joint declaration today. They have shown, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom. As long as they continue to show that, they need have no doubt that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.

    Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth) : My right hon. Friend may not be aware that 25 years ago I was serving with the Army in Northern Ireland and had the task of helping build the peace line that divided the Protestant and Catholic communities of the Shankill and Falls road. Does he accept that the initiative is not just the best chance of peace, but the only chance of peace in the foreseeable future? Does he further agree that we are talking not only about peace, but about prosperity, jobs and trade for north and south Ireland to improve the standard of living of all the people?

    The Prime Minister : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that has not yet been made this afternoon. Were we able to end the violence that has scarred Northern Ireland for so long, it would make a remarkable difference to the business prospects of Northern Ireland, to the prospects for tourism and to the prospects for the flow of inward investment into Northern Ireland. I can think of no single event that would raise the quality of life and the standard of material prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland than an ending of violence.

    Mr. A. Cecil Walker (Belfast, North) : I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the constitutional parties. Will he confirm that the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly is still on the table?

    The Prime Minister : I can confirm that that is still part of the strand 1 talks.

    Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real importance of the declaration is that it removes any pretext for terrorism, violence and murder and that now the onus is clearly on the men of violence to give up their arms and take the peace process further?

    The Prime Minister : Yes, that is entirely right. It is their decision and we hope that they will make it.

    Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : It is hoped that Sinn Fein will respond positively to the joint declaration and persuade the IRA to end its armed struggle. However, some issues in the joint declaration may worry responsible Unionism in Northern Ireland–the issue of articles 2 and 3 has already been suggested. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on paragraph 11 of the declaration which deals with the establishment of a forum for peace and reconciliation? It seems that that forum is to be established by the Irish Government, although they will talk to other parties. I am not clear whether that forum is to be for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic. Is not it the case that Northern Ireland really needs a forum for peace and reconciliation and that it should be developed in that area?

    The Prime Minister : The forum to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an initiative of the Irish Government which I understood would be launched after an announcement that violence had ended. That is certainly what the Taoiseach said this morning. It would be open to all constitutional parties in the north and south, but would, of course, be entirely optional. There would be no compulsion on any party to attend.

    Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : In giving the joint declaration a cautious, but heartfelt welcome, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in seizing what is potentially a poisoned chalice? May I press him further for crucial detail? Does his definition of a cessation of violence include the handing over of at least some weapons and explosives and will he assure the House that convicted murderers in Northern Ireland will serve the whole of their sentences?

    The Prime Minister : I can certainly confirm that not only do I not have any notion in my mind of amnesty, but there is no suggestion of a reduction in sentences awarded by the courts. That is a matter for the courts and not something in which I wish to interfere. Were there to be an end to violence, the crimes that are currently being investigated would still be the subject of investigation in the future–that is the way our criminal justice system operates and it will continue to operate on that basis. We hope that there will be a surrender of some arms. The sine qua non is the absolute assurance that there is a renunciation of violence and that that renunciation is shown to be carried out.

    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Does the Prime Minister recognise that the basis of a lot of the talks that have occurred in the past few weeks is the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in meeting Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein? In the spirit of expanding democracy in Northern Ireland and in the whole country, what consideration has he given to the repeal of the prevention of terrorism Act, to a lifting of the ban on Gerry Adam’s movements to this country and to the ending of the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein so that the peace process may be further hastened in Northern Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I have not given consideration to those particular matters. Indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, there is a tougher ban, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. I indicated earlier my admiration for what the hon. Member for Foyle has done over many years, not only over recent months. The Taoiseach’s initiative did not begin a few months ago, but commenced in February 1992, at our first meeting in Downing Street, soon after he became the Taoiseach.

    Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : The Prime Minister must be pleased and proud to put the offer for peace on the table today and I, like most hon. Members, am happy about it. However, will he bear in mind that the active elements of terrorism in Northern Ireland will not wish to see a cessation of violence–the element that have what I call a gangster mentality who have been making a good living from what is going on? Some of those men will want actively to perpetrate further acts of violence under the guise of someone else. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will carefully scrutinise any transgression that may threaten the agreement so that we know who is the guilty party? While a referendum is being–

    Madam Speaker : Order. I have asked for brisk questions. I am allowing the statement to run a long time because it is so important to the House. I wish that hon. Members would not abuse my tolerance and put one question so that I can call all hon. Members who wish to speak.

    Mr. Cook : It is a most important question.

    Madam Speaker : I am sure that all questions are important. The hon. Gentleman must determine the priority of his questions.

    Mr. Cook : On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

    Madam Speaker : Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question speedily. I have pleaded for short questions so that other hon. Members might be called. I think that that is a fair and just way to proceed.

    Mr. Cook : Concurrent with the concurrent referendums in north and southern Ireland, can we have an appropriate and complementary referendum in the United Kingdom to find out what mainland Britain thinks?

    The Prime Minister : I had not contemplated a referendum of that sort on this particular issue. On the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think that he is right. In terms of the criminal aspect that so often runs alongside terrorism, he touches on an important point. There is a possibility that terrorists might give up terrorism but that some might decide to continue with what one might call freelance gangsterism. The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, and I am glad that he did so.

    Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : Will the Prime Minister clarify the final sentence of paragraph 7, which contains the important commitment from the Taoiseach that

    “in the event of overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward proposals for changes in the Constitution which would reflect the principle of consent”?

    May I take that to mean that it does not preclude a change of that nature in the constitution in advance of a final settlement and that we might still hope that the Irish Government might, of themselves, grasp the nettle of articles 2 and 3?

    The Prime Minister : It certainly does not preclude that. The hon. Gentleman has read it entirely correctly. It is a rather allusive way of indicating the fact that articles 2 and 3 might, at an appropriate time, be put forward for changes in the Irish constitution. The hon. Gentleman has read it accurately.

    Ms Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : In paragraph 4, the Prime Minister reiterates on behalf of the Government that Britain has no “selfish strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland.” Even if hon. Members do not like it, they must accept that many people in Northern Ireland will regard that as a betrayal, even if we think it is wrong. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by that sentence? Does not he, as a British Prime Minister, think that British citizens, many of whom lost members of their families fighting for this country in the war, might feel a little sad? Will he say what he really means by it?

    The Prime Minister : The essence of it is that our interest is benevolent, not selfish. I set out a series of ways in which I felt that that should be interpreted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The essence is that we are not going to impose our views on the majority of the people in Northern Ireland against their wishes. That is the essence of what it is about, but it does not mean, and should not be interpreted as meaning, that we are indifferent to their concerns or their future. We are not indifferent to their concerns or to their future. That is why in terms of economic support and, for the past many years, military support to preserve security, we have shown our concern for the people of Northern Ireland–all of them, both communities– in the most tangible way possible.

    Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I fully understand why the declaration concentrates mainly on finding ways of persuading Sinn Fein and its paramilitary allies to stop murdering people, but, as the majority of recent terrorist incidents have been the result of so-called “loyalist” paramilitary activities, does the Prime Minister agree that the whole House would never forgive people who went on carrying out such acts in the name of loyalty to the House and the state and nor would they forget politicians who condoned such activities?

    The Prime Minister : The House wants no one to murder and kill on the basis of loyalty to the Union except perhaps at a time when the country might be at war with another nation. That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is quite right–the actions of those who call themselves loyalists besmirch the Unionist cause and are not accepted by constitutional Unionists. Their activities are as malign as those of the IRA.

    Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I hope that my reaction is not cynical, but, given the document’s emphasis on the Government’s commitment to honour

    “the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland”,

    the island of Ireland will surely remain divided in the foreseeable future. Is that not a reasonable assumption? Is it not also fair to assume that significant interested parties will seek to put on the agenda the hugely important issue of a united Ireland?

    The Prime Minister : I think that I have made it clear repeatedly over the past 1 hour and 25 minutes that we believe in the principle of consent and that is what, rightly in my judgment, is enshrined in the document.

    Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) : Will the Prime Minister list to what extent the British Government’s policy has been changed as a result of the joint agreement? Does he accept that merely to bring the parties to the conference table does not necessarily lessen the chance of violence? Does he recall that the last time a comprehensive peace treaty was under discussion, which all major parties had sought election successfully to support, a civil war and bloody carnage followed, the like of which we had not seen before and have not seen since?

    The Prime Minister : The joint declaration is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier.

    Mr. Field : What has changed?

    The Prime Minister : It is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in the past, but it is rather a counsel of despair. I think that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would wish to see us make a move that may end violence and lead to a constitutional settlement. That is what we are doing. In no sense do I believe that it is going to be easy, and in no sense do I believe that we can snatch at it in a second and change the whole way of life in Ireland, or even in Northern Ireland, but it is presenting an opportunity to take a first step towards securing a long-term constitutional position by ending violence. While that violence continues, no progress can be made economically and only limited progress can be made politically so it is a wholly desirable step. We are seeking to ensure that violence ends so that we can begin the further discussions that will have to take place.

    Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East) : I should like to add my congratulations to those who brought about this joint declaration and I am very pleased because it is, of course, Labour party policy that there should be a united Ireland only with the consent of the people in the north. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the chill of the horror of violence in Northern Ireland goes across the border? Although we bow to the experience of Northern Ireland Members, it does not go down well to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) claim that it was only in his fiefdom. Is he aware that I lost a relative in 1973 in a pub bombing in Belfast?

    Is he aware that last night there was a peace vigil at St. Martin-in-the- Fields at which hon. Members of all parties stood with people from Northern Ireland calling for an end to violence and killing for Christmas and, we hope, onwards in Northern Ireland? There were people there from the Ophsal Commission and members of Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Does he know that people in Families Against Intimidation and Terror are saying that they are underfunded? Does he not agree with me that the civil society will have to be built in Ireland, not just political initiatives, before the people of Ireland who are against violence can come into the light and drive the men of terror into the darkness?

    The Prime Minister : I think that the hon. Gentleman is right on the question of violence. Clearly, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have had far greater experience of violence over the past 25 years than those of us with mainland constituencies. The hon. Gentleman cited his own case, and many of us will have had friends involved in the violence in Northern Ireland. In later years, perhaps most noticeably recently in the dreadful events in Warrington, that violence has spilled over to the mainland. While the brunt has been borne in Northern Ireland, I think that an understanding of what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered has increased in recent years and I think it is desirable that it has done so. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the violence spreads beyond an individual constituency, however bad things may have been in that constituency.

    The hon. Gentleman’s second point returns to a point made by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago : nothing will do more for the economic well- being of Northern Ireland, in the short and the long term, than an end to violence.

    Hon. Members : Hear, hear.

    Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : Bearing in mind the wide international interest in the whole of the island of Ireland, will my right hon. Friend seek the support of the Republic of Ireland in explaining the present initiative in the United States and elsewhere?

    The Prime Minister : I think that my hon. Friend will see that we will have that support.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Joint Declaration – 15 December 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the Joint Declaration, made in 10 Downing Street with Albert Reynolds on 15th December 1993.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    If the provisionals will end, and renounce, violence for good, the British Government is prepared to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein within three months when cessation of violence has been clearly established.

    And the Joint Declaration reinforces very strongly the three stranded political talks which have made significant progress within the last two years, a process that involves both of our governments and all of the constitutional parties.

    The Joint Declaration is designed to strengthen the position of elected constitutional politicians throughout the community. It is a declaration for democracy, for constitutional behaviour, for dialogue, for consent and freedom under the law.

    I can’t promise you today that the Joint Declaration will bring peace, that doesn’t lie within my hands. But those who don’t respond to it will show that they prefer violence for its own sake for they are now offered a democratic alternative.