"Do you want to know why I’m so passionate about this?” asks Dick Roche, referring to the European Union and Ireland's contentious rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.

“It’s on the wall behind you. I’ll show you why.” He walks across his office to point out a framed black and white photograph. The picture is of some anxious-looking Jewish people being marched out of the Warsaw ghetto by Nazi soldiers. The Minister for European Affairs points to a small boy in the photograph and says: “That little boy is the exact double of my brother. I got this picture when I was about 12. Within two or three days, all of those people were dead.”
After a dramatic pause, the Wexford-born politician, the first Irish citizen to win a United Nations Human Rights Fellowship, continues.
“That was 65 years ago. Europe is a better place now. It’s not a perfect place – but it’s a fucking better place.”
The 61-year-old former UCD lecturer says that he gets “so uptight” when people complain about the red-tape associated with the EU.
“Yes, it can be annoying and irritating and it’s all of that,” he acknowledges. “But the people of Poland will never face that horror again. The people of all of Europe will never face that horror again.”

JASON O’TOOLE: Would you acknowledge that the government made fundamental errors in the Lisbon Treaty campaign?
DICK ROCHE: Yes. The biggest mistake was not engaging the Irish people early enough. The Irish people didn’t say, ‘No – we want to leave Europe!’ They had a whole variety of reasons for saying no. One was a lack of information. The other one is quite clear – people were given a distorted version of what the treaty is about. There were yarns spun to the Irish people about conscription, taxation, and abortion. Things that were untrue. That was mischievous. That was bamboozling the people. It was our responsibility to deal with that – and we didn’t. We have to admit that.
Surely one of the biggest problems with the Lisbon Treaty was the fact it was nearly incomprehensible?
The treaty was difficult enough to read, but oddly enough, I had an experience during the course of the campaign when I gave bits of the treaty to people and they always said, ‘That’s more readable than I thought it was’.
But it obviously wasn’t clear enough for the Irish electorate. What needs to be done now?
I would like to see a citizen-friendly narrative of the treaty. Luxembourg recently published a superb document in English, by the way, as well as in French and German, which outlines what exactly this treaty is about. It runs to about 14 or 15 pages. I don’t think it’s beyond the wit of human ingenuity to produce a truthful, objective citizen-friendly narrative to show what it is the treaty is able to do. And that will help dispel concerns that people – not just in Ireland but elsewhere – have.
Which would leave us where?
Then we’ll have to sit down with our colleagues in the other 26 countries and address the specific issues that the Irish people have. What is absolutely certain is that by the end of this year, 26 countries – all sovereign, all democratic – will have ratified this treaty. And that’s going to leave Ireland isolated. However, talk about a referendum next month, in the Spring, late next year – that’s all premature.
But surely there is going to be another referendum?
I’ve always taken the view that if you’re changing the constitution then you don’t have any option but to go to a referendum. Some people who have a different view. People are talking about a mixed approach of legislating as well as having a referendum. And all of that has to be looked into. No option should be ruled in or ruled out. The one thing we know clearly is that Irish people do not want to be left out of Europe. Irish people do not want to be given some second rate status – and that’s what we would have if the current hiatus were to continue.
Do you believe that the No campaign had an ulterior motive?
I do think that Libertas has a secret agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that the Libertas organisation and its founder Mr Ganley have been mendacious, they’ve been secretive, they have lacked transparency, and they have fed a lot of nonsense to the Irish people. And, of course, they’ve had a vast budget, which they have never been truthful about. Their hidden agenda is that they are influenced by the Right – whether it be the European Right or the anti-European, American Right is hard to know. I think it’s probably a mixture of all of those. They want to reduce the European Union effectively to a trade organisation.
In the last edition of Hot Press, Declan Ganley denied Libertas has connections with the CIA or US military.
What I have is the evidence of my own eyes! And that is that Mr Ganley and Libertas have never told the truth about themselves. First of all, let’s take Libertas – Libertas shares an office with Rivada. Rivada is an American military contractor. Rivada has a board of directors that looks like the Pentagon Who’s Who. It has – if I can remember correctly – two retired admirals on it and at least one general. It also has people who’ve been involved in – or close to – the American intelligence community for a long time. Secondly, if you look at the Rivada and Libertas relationship – you couldn’t put a sheet of paper between these two companies. They share staff, they share headquarters, they share a phone number! It’s a fictional separation, is my view.
In the last edition of Hot Press, Ganley stated that he loaned Libertas €200,000. He also stated in the interview: “I have also structured a loan facility that will allow for Libertas to draw down a higher amount if and when it’s needed.”
Well, that’s bizarre because earlier in the year when he was asked on this specific issue, he said that the only support he had given to Libertas was the maximum amount that any private citizen could give. But now it emerges that he had actually opened a loan facility – €200,000 or as much as they wanted. There’s an issue there that the Standards of Public Office will have to investigate. He also said that he only spent €800,000 – that’s patently not the truth. The Institute of Irish Practitioners showed two months back that they had done research which proved – or suggested – that Libertas has spent over €900,000 on advertising alone. That is an entirely credible figure. Libertas was the best funded political campaign that Ireland or Europe has ever seen.
Matt Copper wrote in the Sunday Times that you have been asked by the EU to investigate Ganley and Libertas. Is this true?
In fact, Matt has it wrong. The EU Parliament’s Presidency group decided to send any material the MEPs have to the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPOC) to assist its work. My name was mentioned in the debate – it was suggested that I should conduct an examination of Libertas’ spend and the President of the Parliament said that he would have every confidence in my doing so. However, I’ll pass on that as it’s the job of SIPOC to examine all referendum spending.
You are very close to Bertie Ahern. Did he confide in you about his plans to resign?
I was with Bertie the night before he announced his decision at the Cabinet breakfast. I was probably one of the last people to see him. I knew that he was going to make some announcement the following day, but I wasn’t sure what it was. I’ll tell you what we were talking about that day (laughs) – how we should energise the referendum campaign. I knew something was wrong because I was asked if I’d hang around. Bertie knows I don’t drink. And it was the first time in years that he’d asked me out for a drink. I knew something was up. He didn’t say, but I knew because some of his very close family – not his blood family, but his family in politics – were around him that night. There was a sense that something was going to happen. He wasn’t whinging or anything. His conversation though was – as a man who’s a very just and decent man – (about how) he felt very aggrieved by the processes in Dublin Castle.
On the subject of the Mahon Tribunal, you participated in Fianna Fail’s internal investigation into the Liam Lawlor affair. Lawlor was a close friend of yours.
I was terribly upset when the revelations started to come out. But there’s no doubt about it – Liam had stepped over the line. We as a party had to deal with that. It certainly wasn’t easy to deal with someone you’re friendly with. It was a real test. I remember the day we actually interviewed Liam. I knew there were inconsistencies (in his testimony). And I pointed out that there were inconsistencies. I said it to him after the interview, in the bar in Leinster House. He actually said to me something amazing – he said, ‘I know you have to do what you have to do. We are not going to fall out over it!’ It was astonishing because here we were sitting in judgment on bringing his political career – and he loved politics – to an end. Yet he knew we had to do that. I was disappointed in some of the things that Liam was involved in. I don’t believe that is what politics is about.
Would you agree that Lawlor, Ray Burke and Charles Haughey damaged Fianna Fail?
Unfortunately, the reality has been – and we have to put our hands up in Fianna Fail and in other parties – that (some) politicians in the ‘70s, ‘80s and in the early ‘90s were operating in a way that is just not acceptable. Charlie Haughey was an extraordinary leader, a wonderful man with tremendous capacity. He was a wonderful Minister for Finance and he was a great leader and he did great things. Unfortunately, that’s not the man people remember. That’s a tragedy.
Do you think you got a raw deal from the media when you were Minister for the Environment?
I tend to be very forthright and sometimes that rubs people up the wrong way. There were certainly issues in the print media when I was Minister for the Environment – and I have often wondered where they were coming from. Certainly there was a lot of briefing. I’ll give you a specific example, one that really annoys me. I was savagely attacked because I said I would not appoint a National Fire Council. And it became a particular issue because, of course, there was a dreadful tragedy in Bray in which two very brave men lost their lives. My view at that time was, if I had money to spare, I wasn’t going to set up another talking shop that would do nothing. I was going to put it into the fire services. So what I did was introduce a changed programme in the fire services that would have a health and safety aspect. I got savaged and now, two years later, what is everybody saying? We have to get rid of quangos. I’m waiting with interest for the day when one or two columnists who had a go at me would actually be decent enough to stand up and say, ‘We got it wrong’. We all get it wrong – including journalists and politicians.
Do you believe that information is being leaked out to the press?
You are talking about politics as a whole and in government, and Ministers and Minister for State and colleagues who are in competition with each other – of course (laughs). Of course.
You signed off on the Tara motorway the day before you stepped down as Minister for the Environment...
Can I just tell you about that? What was involved was a number of potholes. My advice was that these were going to be destroyed by water rushing into them and that the only way to protect the archaeology was by "record". That means you excavate and you record as you excavate. I was persuaded by the material in the submissions. I was very careful, by the way, because the submissions have been subject to FOI (Freedom of Information Act). It was very obvious that it was necessary to act.
It was being suggested that you pulled a fast one by signing this document on your last day in office?
If you think about it, that’s a completely nonsensical argument. If you’re a cute politician, what you do is you put it over for the next fella and let him or her take the hit. I was very annoyed, I have to say, because subsequently it was suggested that the Green ministers weren't aware of what I had done. That is simply not the truth. Now, Minister Gormley – one of my critics on the Tara issue before he became minister – initiated a study afterwards and he found the decision that was taken was the only one that could be taken. But, of course, it has been misrepresented – particularly in the electronic media.
Is it difficult to be in a Cabinet with Gormley considering that he was one of your biggest critics?
Sometimes it’s very amusing because he realises now that there are no instant solutions to complex problems. I’m very happy with the period when I was Minister for the Environment – we actually got Ireland up in recycling; we got the Green Directive put through, which was a challenging one. I put more money than any previous Minister into things like cleaning up the water...
What happened with the water system in Galway?
I’m very angry with what happened in Galway. What happened in Galway was a disgrace. There had been money allocated by Noel Dempsey. It had not been taken up – for whatever reason – and they were pumping water into people’s houses from what can only be described as a scandalously inadequate water system. When this cryptosporidium outbreak came, I went down to Galway and I told it like it was: ‘You people haven’t been doing your job!’ That didn’t win me any favours either with most of the local politicians and the local administration. But the reality of it was that they hadn’t been doing their job. Now the people of Galway have a more secure water system. There are still problems but that’s because of bad planning, because of bad development, and because of bad maintenance.
What is your view on the American military using Shannon Airport?
It’s something that I’m not entirely comfortable with and I’m being absolutely honest with you. But I don’t believe our neutrality has been undermined. I think everybody has to be honest. I’d be uncomfortable with what has happened in Iraq. I certainly think that it wasn’t a foreign policy triumph for the United States. I believe that war is the most appalling aberration. People should do as much as they can to avoid it.
You say uncomfortable, but don’t we have blood on our hands?
No, I don’t feel it’s blood on our hands. I do have some concerns and I would be very angry if I ever discovered that a rendition flight had passed through Ireland. I don’t know why they call the act of capturing people and flying them to a destination – Guantánamo in particular – ‘rendition’ flights. It's a bit like when they had to rechristen Long Kesh 'The Maze'.
Do you not think that Shannon has been used for rendition flights?
I think that there is no evidence. I know that a lot of people think that it has happened but we can’t prove it. The Americans would be stupid beyond belief if they gave undertakings – at the highest level – and then were exposed as having broken those undertakings. I have too much respect for the United States – though I wouldn’t be a big fan of the current administration – to believe that there would be such a conspiracy. I would find it horrific and a dreadful abuse of the goodwill of this country. People said aircrafts that have been used on rendition flights have gone through Shannon – that’s not the same as saying that the rendition flights have gone through Shannon.
You once lost your Dáil seat. How does it feel to lose in a general election?
I was quite disappointed. People had made their decision and that was it. I felt a bit miffed at the time because I had put a huge amount of personal effort into politics. The surprising thing that did happen, of course, was that the Sunday afterwards the first phone call I got was from Albert Reynolds saying, ‘There’s a vacancy in the Senead and I’m going to appoint you. I don’t want to lose you from politics!’ This was wonderful. This was coming from Albert Reynolds! The man I hadn’t supported!
Why would Reynolds appoint you to the Seanad when you supported someone else for the party leadership?
I said to him afterwards, ‘Why me?’ He said, ‘You know when I was going around the place doing the leadership?’ – I think there were 104 members of the parliamentary party – and he said, ‘I was sure of two votes. I was sure I was getting my own vote and I was sure I wasn’t getting your vote!’ (Laughs) And he said, ‘You had the honesty to ring me and to tell me the truth’. I feel that’s a sign of a great man – that he could do that. I always think that Albert Reynolds is one of the misjudged people of Irish politics. It was particularly difficult for me because a couple of Albert’s kids had been students of mine.
Why did you not support him?
It was nothing to do with Albert personally. I always believed that he was going to be misportrayed by the opposition – that he would have been an easy target for people. He didn’t actually have a very good relationship with the media. He had been very strong with them. His attitude was: ‘Write anything you want to write about me but make sure it’s the truth because otherwise I’ll sue you!’ I actually felt that all of that would come into play and that there were a lot of scores out there to be settled. Petty scores that would be settled against someone who was basically a good man. I actually did believe Albert would have difficulties. That was the first point. The second point was that I was strongly backing Bertie. Albert famously said to me, ‘Your horse wasn’t getting into the race!’ (Laughs) He was completely right, but I was still backing Bertie. I was doing back-office stuff for Bertie, keeping his list of people who were supporting him and who weren’t supporting him. The late Brian Lenihan and I were in the back of John Stafford’s place when we finally got the call that Bertie wasn’t running. It was an appropriate place – a funeral parlour – to find out our man wasn’t going into the race.
I know you are a very religious person, but there are rumours that you’re a member of Opus Dei and also the Masons...
I’ve never been a member of Opus Dei. I’m not a Free Mason either. I’m always amused that people whispered that I was a member of Opus Dei. This was apparently because I was chairman of Justice and Peace. There are many decent people in the Masons and Opus Dei, but I haven’t been a member of either.
At one stage it was claimed that you – a married man – were having an affair. How did you handle that situation?
That was a very nasty episode in one election campaign. Thankfully, I’m married to a woman of such strong character that when people were making phone calls – and trying to do something that was beyond contempt – she just laughed it off. The first point is that if you'd ever met my wife you'd see why I’m a one-woman man. She’s an extraordinary and wonderful person. In fact, the day I met her was my birthday – and I was blessed. I remember when I took my (wedding) vows, I decided that that was it – one woman for me.
Speaking of the pugilistic tendencies in the Roche clan, you had a relative, Joe Roche, who actually fought professionally and contested the heavyweight championship of the world.
There’s a very funny story told about it. My granduncle was Irish heavyweight champion and he actually fought the American world champion in a heavyweight bout. Roche was knocked out, I think, in 17 seconds in the first round of the fight. It was fought on the 17th March 1908, if I remember correctly. The characters standing at the back of the Theatre Royal in Dublin – smart people that they were – all ran out and there was still a crowd trying to get in, so they sold them their stubs. It went down in history. Not only because it was very short but also for another reason: in the British and Irish tradition, you actually came out into the ring and you shook hands again with the boxer. The American – not being tutored in the civilised way – gave my granduncle a haymaker and knocked him out. So, from then on in, the legend is that boxing referees said, ‘Gentlemen, return to your corner and come out fighting’. That’s where that comes from. That’s a family story – even if it’s not true, it’s a great story.