I move:—
That the Dáil censures the Executive Council for its continued failure satisfactorily to adjust the differences between it and the British Government and condemns it for pursuing a policy which has caused grievous injury to the agricultural industry, serious damage to the export trade of the country, heavy losses to the community and gravely increased unemployment.
As Deputies will have realised from a perusal of its terms, the motion which I have the honour to move asks the House to censure the Government for its failure to secure a satisfactory solution of its disputes and differences with the British Government and for its pursuit of and persistence in a policy which has brought material loss and spiritual degradation to this country.
A vote of censure on the Government is a normal incident of Parliamentary procedure; the moving of such a vote is part of the routine duty of a Parliamentary opposition. This motion of censure is, however, in no sense a formal one. It is brought forward in this solemn hour of the State's misfortune in deepest earnestness and with full conviction that if the country is to be saved from appalling suffering and perhaps irreparable loss the people must be rid of the present Government. No Government ever had such opportunities for advancing the interests of their country as had the present Government. No Government were so neglectful of their opportunities or wrought such havoc in such a short period of time as the present Government.
At the last General Election the Party from which the Government is formed appealed to the people for a chance. With a bare majority they were enabled to form a Government and were given the chance for which they craved. Their supporters, with the election cries of peace, prosperity, work for all and the end of starvation still ringing in their ears, believed they saw their dreams realised and the promised land, flowing with milk and honey, spread before their delighted eyes. The people and the representatives of the people who were in opposition to the newly-formed Government saw it enter on its career with feelings of apprehension, but with no feelings of ill-will. The Eucharistic Congress was at hand. The Ottawa Conference was shortly to be held. True, the deep depression which for some time had settled on other parts of the world, but which had hitherto left us practically untouched, was moving towards us. But had not the new Government their plan? Was there not a wizard at its head by whose wiles all dangers would be dissipated and all ills be cured?
Swiftly came disappointment, disillusionment and, unfortunately, disgrace. The plan was mislaid, miscarried or never existed. The magic arts were but the conjurer's bag of tricks, and the idol had feet of clay. The wonderful manifestation of a people's faith occasioned by the Eucharistic Congress and the diginity and solemnity of the social functions attendant on it were marred by the indiscretions of the Executive Council. By their neglect of the ordinary canons of international decency and their obstinate insistence on unilateral interference with the Treaty, they involved themselves in vital disagreement with the British Government and, by breaking the pledged words of Griffith and Collins and of the Irish people, brought discredit on the honour and reputation of this State, subjected their representatives at Ottawa to public humiliation, and made it impossible for advantage to be taken of the unique and timely opportunity afforded by the Commonwealth Economic Conference.
By their action in repudiating agreements honourably entered into by representatives of this country and of Great Britain and honourably acted on by both countries and by the Parliaments of both countries, they precipitated a dispute with Great Britain fraught with disastrous consequences to all sections of the people. By their blundering incompetence in the handling of that dispute they not alone involved this country in a terrible economic war of attrition with a rich and powerful nation but they have, by their actions, precluded themselves from seeking or making an honourable settlement. Through neglect, incapacity, lack of statesmanship, want of foresight, the Executive Council allowed themselves and permitted the country to slip into a wholly unnecessary and wretched struggle which, in order still further to mislead the country, they tried to dignify with the name of a "war," while they were without a plan, without an intelligence staff, and without an adequate supply of war material.
Since the inception of this war their handling of both the internal and external affairs of this country has been so reckless and irresponsible that the country is now facing political and economic disaster. By their proceedings and procedure they have put us into bad relations with our neighbournation, destroyed the principal industry of the State, ruined the valuable and only market for our agricultural produce, prevented us from securing beneficial preferences and trade agreements with Great Britain, made this State, whose credit and reputation had heretofore been so high, the laughingstock of the nations, swelled the ranks of the unemployed, impoverished if they did not entirely ruin the farmers, and brought anxiety, suffering and loss to every section of the community. The tale is a sorrowful and sordid one. That this country, until recently the envy of larger and longer established States, could in the space of a few short months be brought to such a disastrous and deplorable condition is almost incredible. That it has been brought to such a condition, even the Government themselves cannot fail to realise. Such is the state of the country and its people now, such is the menacing prospect now before it, it is the duty of every Deputy, unless he is utterly callous to the sufferings of the people, to insist that this tragic state of affairs will be ended and the country spared from irreparable damage and disaster.
An examination of the procedure and methods adopted by the Government in reference to the relations between this country and Great Britain discloses on the part of the Executive Council inefficiency, lack of preparation, want of any clear or wellthought-out plan, neglect of the accepted principles of international courtesy, and utter disregard for the real interests of this State. In the case of disputes or serious differences of opinion between individuals or business firms ordinary courtesy demands and normal practice requires that they should communicate to each other the fact of and the nature of their disputes and differences and endeavour by personal contact or private correspondence to adjust their differences. So, too, in international relations the ordinary decencies of international life demand that disputes or differences of opinion between States shall be communicated and conducted through the medium of a well-settled and wellregulated diplomatic procedure.
But our Government, who pride themselves on and who take such care to advertise their good manners, their adherence to international standards and their respect for Christian principles, have violated them all most flagrantly, and instead of adopting the usual and normal international procedure, started last March in a moment of political exaltation to tell the world of their disputes and differences with the British Government and of how they proposed effectively to twist the lion's tail. Instead of acting as other Governments would have acted, they initiated a new method of diplomacy. Instead of sending, as they ought to have sent, a courteous, even a firm dispatch, to the British Government informing them that they had, if they had, a reasoned legal case for the retention of the land annuities, summarising the considered views of the Executive Council and their recommendations as to the manner in which the questions at issue should be resolved, and indicating a desire for a just and amicable determination of the points in dispute, they broadcast their case and their plans. They did not broadcast their designs to the Irish people, whose representatives they were. They did not broadcast them to the Irish farmers whose industry was to be vitally affected, they did not broadcast them to the British Government who were to be the other party to the dispute. They broadcast them to the United States.
Broadcasting is an expensive modern invention. Somebody paid for the Message broadcast by the President of the Executive Council. But the farmers, labourers and business people are still paying and have not yet paid in full for the folly of that transaction. Apart from the question of a breach of international good manners by that broadcast, they were guilty of an even more serious blunder. The Executive Council gave the British Government three months' notice to prepare for the conflict which was so obligingly foreshadowed by them. The British Government took notice of the information and employed the three months in making their preparations. The members of the Executive Council employed this time in denouncing the Irish Opposition, piling on taxation, increasing the number of the unemployed, stifling industry under the pretence of saving it, watching with indifference an increase in the number of persons in receipt of home assistance, and counting the Land Commission annuity moneys which they would have available for spending when the British would come to their senses and apologise for having taken them for the last ten years.
The British, although they received no official intimation of the Government's intentions of retaining the land annuities, were obliged to take notice of the publicly announced intentions of the Irish Government, and the matter then passed into the stage of inter-governmental despatches. But the Government were not apparently yet accustomed to the practices of international intercourse and though they had placed the land annuities which they had collected to a Suspense Account they did not inform the other party to the dispute of that fact, but ungraciously allowed them to discover it through the extraordinary channel of a communication by a private Deputy of this House to a private Member of the British House of Commons. The Irish people heard of this Suspense Account through an announcement made in the British House of Commons and have since been vouchsafed no further information in reference to it by the Irish Government.
The subsequent stages of the matter are still fresh in people's minds and no detailed recapitulation of them is necessary. Discussions took place between British and Irish Ministers and though we were told that these discussions failed by reason of an inability to agree on the personnel of an Arbitration Board which would determine the legal question of the destination of the annuities, the people were left in a state of bewilderment as to what really was the point at issue between the Governments. They did not know, and from the confused utterances of Fianna Fáil spokesmen they were unable to ascertain, whether the Government were standing on their supposed legal claim and were insisting on retaining the annuities until the British proved their legal claim to them, or whether the discussions were in the nature of negotiations for a friendly settlement irrespective of strict legal technicalities. In any event the Irish people found themselves plunged into an "economic war" for the ostensible reason that, though both parties to the dispute agreed in principle to arbitration, and to be bound by the results of arbitration, a form of arbitral tribunal, or rather the personnel of such a tribunal, could not be agreed upon. As commonsense people in this country were unable to see in such a failure any justification for the Government's action in allowing such a dreadful calamity to overtake this country some steps had to be taken to avert the country's anger. False analogies were made to the Feetham Commission, in an endeavour to mislead the people into believing that the British Government were putting forward a claim to nominate the chairman and, indeed, to pack the tribunal. We refused, and still refuse, to believe that that problem was insoluble. We were convinced, and now are still more firmly convinced, that a way out could have been, and ought to have been, found, and that the insistence of the Government on their claims in this respect was wholly unjustified, and certainly was not a matter of such weighty principle as necessitated the Irish farmer and the Irish people in general paying such a heavy price as they have paid and are still paying because of it.
The endeavour to distort the facts as to the real cause of the economic war having failed, an endeavour was made by Fianna Fáil to work up in the country a jingo feeling, a spurious war spirit. We refused, and the country, approving our refusal, also refused to have any act or part in any political trick, designed to convert a sordid and unedifying dispute between two Governments into a war between two peoples. This country should not have been plunged into an economic war. It should never have been involved in an economic war with Great Britain, nor with any country whose trade with us was of such magnitude that interference with it would cause havoc to our commerce and our main industries, dislocate our trade and bring about widespread unemployment. If, however, wiser counsel was of no avail, and the Government were determined to persist in their attitude and so cause the war, they ought not to have allowed that war to start in the month of July, or in any month prior to the period of the annual dispersal and disposal of our cattle. We have ministerial authority for assuming that the Executive never, during the months from March to July, seriously considered the possibility of such a war coming upon them. Indeed, had not Fianna Fáil, prior to the General Election, assured the farmers that their policy of retention of the annuities would not involve them in any serious dislocation of their business, and that Great Britain could not afford to do without the Irish cattle trade? But the Dáil is entitled to know whether the Executive Council ever considered that they should have so arranged their plans as to insure against the possibility of such a war being started and carried on during such a critical period. Even a casual consideration would have enabled them to see that dislocation of our cattle trade in the late winter months would have had a less serious effect on our economy than such dislocation would have during the months of Summer and Autumn.
If the Government were determined to precipitate this war they should have, and could have, so handled the situation as to secure that the war could not have started during the vital months of Summer and Autumn. Those months could have been employed in a serious endeavour to find a solution, and, if the Executive Council were determined on war, in perfecting the country's preparations. The annuities could even have been paid without prejudice and under protest. We have lost much since the 15th July and we are further away than ever, not merely from victory but from even the hope of a satisfactory settlement.
Finding themselves unexpectedly faced with the accomplished fact of an economic war, how did they seek to cope with the situation? How did they seek to preserve the Irish people's interests? They used the only methods known to Fianna Fáil—retaliation, extravagant expenditure of money, misleading or false propaganda, and frantic denunciation of their critics. They rushed through this House a measure conferring on the Executive such extraordinary powers of taxation as were never before conferred on a Government. They demanded those powers as an indispensable weapon with which to fight the British. They cannot complain that they were denied any powers they sought. The Irish taxpayer, the Irish consumer, the Irish trader, the Irish farmer, the Irish worker, the Irish unemployed, have all long since felt how that weapon has been turned against themselves. The British Government, in order to recoup the moneys they were obliged to find at the expense of the British tax-payer, by reason of the witholding of the land annuities, imposed taxes on Irish products which, of course, the Irish producer had to pay. The Irish Government retaliated by putting fresh taxation on the Irish producer and consumer. They sought for, and obtained, a vote from this House of a huge sum of money without disclosing how they proposed to raise it. They affected satisfaction with the advent of the economic war which they told the people was a blessing in disguise, enabling them to rid themselves of their appalling dependence on one market and one industry. Then they proceeded to subsidise, by means of bounties, exports to that much despised market. It is not easy to determine whether the cattle bounty was a recognition by the Government of the importance of the hitherto despised cattle trade or whether the giving of the export bounty was merely an underhand method of paying the land annuities. They endeavoured to delude the people by assurances of alternative markets and of the injury which the economic war would do to England. It was only after the British had taken the retaliatory steps, which it was obvious to any sane man they were bound to take, that we had the cynical and belated confession that no alternative markets were available or to be found. Sometimes, they advised the farmer to sell his cattle and sometimes they advised him not to sell. They held out vague hopes of a settlement, always a few weeks ahead. Histrionics, posturing and posing took the place of constructive action, and denunciation of their enemies at home and abroad took the place of charity and goodwill. After months of anxiety, suffering and loss, came the news that the Government had achieved a Conference with the British for the purposes of discussion and negotiation. It seemed as if the Government had, at last, realised that their pride was a matter of only minor importance compared with the interests of the Irish people. For months the Cumann na nGaedheal Party had persistently and consistently advocated a settlement of the outstanding disputes with the British by means of friendly negotiation based on changed conditions, inability to pay, and the publicly announced desire of British Ministers to deal with the Irish claims in no ungenerous spirit. Speaking in Ballinamore on the 8th July last, before the economic war had started, Deputy Blythe recommended negotiations as the proper and only secure method of dealing with the disputes. On the 15th July, Deputy McGilligan, in a speech which Deputies will remember, indicated the way of negotiation as the safest as well as the most honourable way out of the morass. Indeed, every Deputy of our Party urged the Government to adopt that way out, and preached it as the policy of this Party to the people. Because of our advocacy of that policy, we were dubbed knaves and traitors by Government spokesmen and accused of playing England's game. We could afford to ignore these manifestations of incompetence and hysteria, calm in our conviction that all decent people in this country realised that we have always kept faith with the Irish people, that our policy and our actions were always actuated solely in the interests of the Irish people, that we could afford to dispense with vituperation of the British because we had kept faith with them and they had kept faith with us and because we were Irish and were conscious of no inferiority.
On every occasion we urged our policy of abandonment on legal claims and a settlement by friendly discussion and negotiation. We took pains to make known as clearly and forcibly as possible our conviction that no hope lies along the lines of legal argument for the retention of the annuities or for remission of any part of the liability to pay them. We made no secret of our want of confidence in arbitration as a method of settling the disputes. In our view, the soundness of the legal opinions which we had obtained when we were a Government remained entirely unimpaired, and we were convinced that arbitration proceedings could have but one result, a result adverse to the Government's claims. We were not prepared to stake the State's chances on a single throw of the dice. It was with feelings of satisfaction and hope that the country learned of the projected conference for the settlement of the disputes which was to be held in London on the 14th October. Although the people generally regretted that such a step had been so long delayed, the Government delegation went to London backed by the wishes of the overwhelming mass of the people of this country that the negotiations should be pushed to a speedy and successful conclusion. The failure of those negotiations, or discussions, or whatever they were, came with unexpected and startling suddenness. The reason for the failure soon became apparent. The Government's demands from being untenable had become absurd. Their idea of negotiations for a settlement corresponded to those of the litigant who, when approached to settle with his opponent, agreed to do so on the terms of being paid the full amount of his claim, with all his costs and with a written apology from his opponent for having defended the case.