When Deputy MacDermot was speaking on this Motion condemning the Government for its neglect to secure a quota for the export of cattle to Great Britain adequate to the needs of our agricultural industry, he said that he was convinced that the only reason we did not get a bigger quota was because of the sham republicanism of the Government. Now Deputy MacDermot said that with verve and indicated that he was convinced the thing must be right. He made a suppositious speech about the opinions of a suppositious British statesman. He gave us no facts to show why the Government could get a bigger quota. But he said he was convinced that the only reason was the sham Republicanism of the Government. That was enough. Now Deputy MacDermot is convinced at the present time according to his speeches that General O'Duffy is a foolish man and that he has been flirting with Fascism; that he would become a Mussolini or a Hitler, if he could. But it is only a couple of months ago that he was convinced in his own words taken from the Irish Times that General O'Duffy was a decent, God-fearing, straightforward Irish gentleman. He commended him as being a man who always ran true to form and the brains of the Fine Gael Ard Fheis, according to the Irish Times, applauded.
In Committee on Finance. - Cattle Export Quota.
They what?
They applauded, strange as it seems. Deputy MacDermot was convinced of that and the Fine Gael people applauded.
And most of them do so still.
Deputy MacDermot commended General O'Duffy as a "decent, God-fearing, generous, straightforward Irish gentleman," and "well qualified to lead their Party to the victory that awaited it." He was convinced that General O'Duffy did not aim at a dictatorship.
I think the Minister has quoted sufficiently for his purposes.
I just want to give one more quotation.
The Minister has already quoted sufficiently.
These quotations will keep him away from the subject—what he wants.
He said that nothing more nonsensical had ever been said by the Fianna Fáil propagandists than what they said about the danger of Fascism. Such a thing could not be thought of; he was convinced of that.
You, Sir, prevented the Minister from quoting from the document. I would much prefer he would quote me to doing what he is now doing—giving his version of what I did say.
Just two more sentences from Deputy MacDermot.
At the request of the Deputy.
He said:—
"The last thing General O'Duffy would think of would be to try and rush himself into the position of a dictator to the Irish people. Nothing more nonsensical had ever been said by the Fianna Fáil Party,"
and the brains of the Fine Gael Party applauded that statement according to the Irish Times. Then he proceeded:—
"Let them go forward unitedly under the leadership of a worthy leader, to perform that great and honourable task."
Again, the brains of Fine Gael applauded.
Now my difficulty is this with that kind of talk: Deputy MacDermot's conviction is absolutely there, but he will have to show me reasons for his conviction before I will accept the statement. I cannot accept him when he talks as being convinced that General O'Duffy is all that a good man should be and I cannot believe him the next day when he says that General O'Duffy is all that a good man should not be.
I have said neither one nor the other.
I will leave the House to judge of the Deputy's opinions and expressions about General O'Duffy.
They have nothing to do with the motion before the House.
Only this thing, that Deputy MacDermot said that he was convinced as to what was keeping this country from getting a bigger quota. I will quote him. In column 864 of the Official Debates——
Anything about the cattle to-day?
This is what Deputy MacDermot said about the quota for cattle on the last day on which this motion was discussed in the Dáil. He said:
"What then is the real cause of these quota restrictions? Why have they not been avoided? They have not been avoided for a reason which was mentioned by Deputy Coburn— that the Government insist upon keeping up the sham of republicanism."
He went further and said:—
"It is that sham republicanism which gets us nowhere ... that has brought about the disasters and discouragements which are at present afflicting the Irish farmers. I confess that I see no cure for the present situation—for the quotas and many other ills from which we are suffering. I see no cure for these things until that sham republicanism is once and for all abandoned."
Then, the Deputy says:—
"I find that what I am saying is, at any rate, convincing to myself."
It was convincing to Deputy MacDermot, but it is not convincing to me.
I think that that last sentence has been put entirely out of place. It had reference to something else.
Was Deputy MacDermot not convinced of what he was saying?
That inference is not justified. I was referring to a rather painstaking argument and not to a peroration.
Were you not convinced about the peroration?
I am convinced about everything I said.
Deputy MacDermot was convinced on the last occasion that the real cause of the quota restrictions was our sham Republicanism, and that if we had not that sham Republicanism we would get anything we liked from the British.
If you had not had that sham Republicanism you would not have thrown away the opportunities you did throw away.
That is Deputy MacDermot's conviction, and I take it that it is a genuine conviction. I want to warn him that he is liable to be convinced very easily, and that in future, in regard to Irish political affairs and Anglo-Irish relations, he should be somewhat careful when making up his mind. Sham Republicanism, so far as I can see, has nothing whatever to do with the trade relations of England and Ireland. Neither has real Republicanism. It has no more to do with them than the anti-God policy of the Russians had to do with the recent reciprocal trade treaty which the Russians made with the British. We have been quotaed going into the British market. So have Australia, New Zealand and all the other countries.
To what extent?
New Zealand is being kept to the 1933 figures. Australia is not being allowed to send in any meat products in the month of December or next month. Is it because of their sham Republicanism that Australia and New Zealand are restricted? Take up the British Trade and Navigation Statistics, published in October, and look at the figures representing the meat imports into England. In chilled meat products England imported from the Argentine for the ten months ended 1st October £9,690,000 worth, and from other British countries they only imported £270,000 worth—or about 1/28th. If you combine all the meat products, you will find that, from countries outside the British Empire, England imports 83 per cent. of her total requirements. Is it because of the "sham Republicanism" of the Dominions of the British Empire that England takes only 17 per cent. of her meat products from them and that she takes 83 per cent. from the other free countries outside the British Empire? I should like Deputy MacDermot to address himself to that question.
I should like the Minister to address himself to the real point I raised, which was that we were in a far stronger position than any of these Dominions and that arguments existed in our case for not applying a quota which did not exist in respect of any other Dominion.
I shall deal with every essential point that Deputy MacDermot made. If, when I shall have finished, I have not dealt with any point made by him, he can put me leading questions and I shall deal with them. I want to show Deputy MacDermot that the statement he has made here, a statement made by every Fine Gael speaker throughout the country, following his example—that the reason we are quotaed is because of sham Republicanism, or Republicanism—is absolutely false and without foundation. Nobody could be convinced about it except persons like Deputy MacDermot and his friends, who know nothing about the matter. Deputy MacDermot gave us what he wanted us to believe was a typical statement of British statesmen in dealing with this question. He did not give us an actual quotation from British statesmen on the matter. The reason, Deputy MacDermot said, we were quotaed was because of our sham Republicanism. What reason did British statesmen put forward for the quotas? I shall give a few quotations. I cannot find anywhere in the speeches of Mr. Walter Elliot that it is because of our sham Republicanism he has put on the quotas. But he puts forward a very good reason for the British point of view. On February 16th, 1934, he said:—
"If the Government had not restricted the Free State exports in December, it was absolutely certain that there would have been a catastrophic decline in the price of British home-produced live stock. The Government were accused of endangering the relations between Britain and the Free State. The measure was not dictated by any desires of political expediency but by the stern facts of economic necessity."
There is no talk there about our "sham republicanism," but there is a reference "to the stern facts of economic necessity." That was what Mr. Elliot, the British Minister of Agriculture, said was the reason for the quotas. If Deputy MacDermot would get that into his head and not be imagining reasons why British Ministers put on the quotas, it would do us all good. The sooner we have an end of this "blath-fum" and face the facts of the position the better for everybody. Mr. Walter Elliot, again, said:—
"What is the justification for the admittedly drastic steps we are taking? The justification is the supply position and the supply position alone. Let me repeat that there is not in these proposals any hostile or penal action towards any part of the world and, certainly, not to any part of the British Empire."
This is what another British Minister, Mr. Ormsby Gore, said:—
"Without tariffs, regulations and quotas, he did not think there was any branch of British agriculture which could survive."
What is the Minister quoting from?
From a speech by Mr. Ormsby-Gore on April 10th. I have dozens of quotations from the speeches of British Ministers on much the same lines. They say that the reason for the quota restrictions is "the stern facts of economic necessity and that, without them, they did not think that there was any branch of British agriculture which could survive." I am quite prepared to admit that you cannot rely on what the British themselves say. All we have got to do is to examine the situation for ourselves and ascertain if it is "the stern facts of the economic situation" in England and the desire to safeguard British agriculture which are at the bottom of the quota restrictions. When I was dealing with this point the last night, some Deputy said that we were in a much better position, for strategic reasons, to bargain with Britain for a bigger quota than Australia or New Zealand was. I quite admit that, for purely strategic reasons, the British should, in the first place, grow everything they can and then import from countries close to them, from which they could get supplies in time of war. From the purely strategic point of view, that would be the proper course. There are, however, three reasons which, in my opinion, actuate the British in dealing with imports. There are, first, the strategic reasons. Quite a number of influential men in England put forward the case that, from the point of view of British security in time of war, they should produce all the essentials of life which they can on British soil. Another set of men in England are principally actuated by the motive of selling as much as they can of their own produce abroad in order to make a profit. A third set of men want to import goods from countries in which they have investments. A Government in England is representative of all three classes. In my opinion, the people who are dominant in England and have been dominant, except at times of very severe national crises, are those who are principally interested in foreign trade. They want to get a return on their investments. I do not say that without having something to go upon. If there was ever an urgent case, from the strategic point of view, for cutting off supplies from the enemy, it was during 1914, when the British sent out a very small and comparatively unorganised force to stop the German advance. What happened then? Those who were interested in the export of coal, in order to make a profit, actually continued for a year after the war commenced exporting coal to Holland, enabling the Dutch to sell coal to the Germans. In that year of crisis, the British coal interests were actually enabling the Germans to get coal from Holland.
Therefore, I say as against the people who want to develop their strategic point of view, those who have trade interests are usually dominant except in cases of very grave crises. But the people who have investments abroad are still more dominant than even the trade interests. Let me give an instance. Quite recently the British coal people were complaining that, notwithstanding the fact that the Argentine had a favourable trade balance to the extent of £9,000,000, they were importing coal from Germany. Hundreds of thousands of British miners were idle, capital was lying idle and the Argentine people refused to take their coal from England and were importing 100,000 tons from Germany. And the reason is that that £9,000,000 of favourable trade on the side of the Argentine represents British interest on investments in the Argentine. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia and New Zealand are trying all they can, and making play with the fact of their loyalty, in order to get a favourable trade agreement with the British, the British last year took £9,000,000 worth of meat from the Argentine and the Argentine people had a favourable balance of £9,000,000.
These are things that Deputy MacDermot will have to take into consideration. When he examines these facts he will have to show what sham Republicanism has to do with all that. New Zealand has neither sham Republicanism nor real Republicanism. They announce their loyalty to the British. They are even as loyal as Deputy MacDermot, yet the British calmly go on restricting New Zealand in their imports of meat into England, and continue to take meat from the Argentine. Australians are as loyal to the British almost as Deputy MacDermot, yet their loyalty does not compel the British to give them free import for their meat into England. The British still continue to buy from the Argentine. So I must say that even if Deputy MacDermot is convinced that our sham Republicanism is responsible for the quota restrictions imposed upon us, I am not convinced, and I am not convinced because, first of all, what British Ministers say does not tally with what Deputy MacDermot thinks they should say, and their acts do not tally with what he thinks they should do. They are quite hard-boiled about it. Deputy MacDermot may be as sentimental as he likes about the British and their relations, but they are not as sentimental as Deputy MacDermot. They are hard-boiled and would drive a bargain with the devil.
If it was in the British interests to make a trade agreement with us in the morning, and to enlarge our quota they would do it. If it was in their interests to restrict our quota they would do it, but they will not be motivated by sentiment in trade matters. I hope Deputy MacDermot, the next time he talks down the country, will drop this cant about our sham Republicanism having anything whatever to do with trade restrictions. But he has got to show me before I believe him that it has something to do with it. He has to show me that the British are restricting Australia and New Zealand because of their Republicanism while they are importing millions of pounds' worth of meat from the Argentine. He has to show me the reason why the British, importing 83 per cent. of their meat products from outside the Empire, are motived because of the sham Republicanism of these other people.
The Minister invited me to put questions to him at the end of his speech. I do not propose to put any questions to him. I do not consider that he has dealt with my arguments at all and I hope to have an opportunity of replying to him with more enjoyment to myself on the motion for the adjournment.
I would like to ask Deputy MacDermot what arguments of his I did not deal with.
I listened with amazement to the speech delivered by the Minister for Defence. I listened with equal amazement to his speech upon this particular motion last week. If the farmers of Ireland could listen here to a Minister of an Irish Government, standing up in an Irish Parliament and making an elaborate and vehement defence of British policy in destroying Irish agriculture, I wonder what they would think of their representatives? The Minister's speech, from beginning to end, was a defence of John Bull's stranglehold upon this country. It was a justification of the British efforts to ruin, financially and otherwise, the people of this country, and it was a speech that would be more fitting and more in place if made by a British Minister in the British House of Commons. I think, no matter what Parties people in this Assembly belong to, that it is rather humiliating, when there is all this hardship and unjust quotas imposed by a foreign country upon the people of this land, that we can throw up nothing better, in the shape of a Minister, than a man who sets up as a shambling apologist for the people who are exterminating the farmers in this country. We had the whole wail and tale of last week repeated practically verbatim this evening, in a long laboured effort to justify the British quota system as applied against the Irish people. Can anyone visualise the position of a Minister in any other country, suffering under the British quota system, standing up in the Parliament of that country to justify that quota system? Can anyone picture a Minister in the position of the Minister for Agriculture, who should be the champion of the farmers of this country, doing such a thing? Yet we have had the Minister for Defence pointing out the fact that the Minister for Agriculture in the present Government considers that the British quota as applied against the Irish farmers is not only reasonable but fair.
What hope is there of relieving the Irish farmer, or increasing the quota and increasing the volume of trade from this country to England, if the people who should argue against the British case and who should fight against the British action can do no better for the farmers than the people over there? What hope is there of relief when they can do nothing better than to get up and defend British action and justify it, and not only remove the Irish case in their time but remove the case that might be made by their successors for getting more favourable treatment in that market?
We had one Minister talking about the reduction in the amount of cattle in this country, and we had his colleague getting up in the same evening to tell us that we were actually slaughtering more cattle this year than ever before, and that if the free beef scheme succeeded we would have to slaughter 220,000 additional cattle next year. That particular speech, delivered by the Minister for Agriculture, was just what we have become accustomed to —a statement made by a Ministerial Front Bencher to serve a temporary purpose, to get over an awkward corner in a debate, without official knowledge behind it. We had the Minister for Agriculture telling us that if the free beef scheme developed according to expectations we would actually be using in the coming year 150 per cent. more beef than we consumed in 1931; that 2½ lbs. of beef would be eaten to every lb. of beef that was eaten in 1931. That was to happen if the free beef scheme developed according to their expectations—free beef issued to the unemployed and to those in receipt of home help and to nobody else. If that scheme develops according to the expectations of the Minister, we will be consuming two-and-a-half times more beef than last year; in other words, one-and-a-half as many recipients of beef as there were beef-eaters last year; that the number of unemployed in Dublin City, if the Minister's expectations are borne out, will use—one-and-a-half times the amount consumed by beef-eaters in Dublin last year.
That particular section of his speech goes on to indicate that we will require 220,000 more cattle for slaughter at home next year than last year, and that the British quota only restricts our cattle by 120,000. That is either a correct statement or an incorrect statement. Either it is a genuine, honest and sincere Ministerial pronouncement, or it is merely a reckless statement made in order to get round an awkward corner. Let us assume that it is a sincere and honest statement that in spite of the British quota we will require 200,000 more cattle for consumption at home or abroad than we required last year. Does not that mean that we will require more cattle? And how can that be made compatible with all the other statements about the necessity to reduce the cattle population of the country? How can it be reconciled with the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Bill, or with the statements of the Minister's colleagues to the effect that we will have to get out of cattle and get into wheat? If it is true, it means that we must carry more cattle in this country than ever before. If it is not true—if it is not a sincere and honest expression of what the future holds for us—then it should never be made from a Government Front Bench.
All that I want to know is: which is Government policy? Which is the estimate of the Minister—either that we will want more cattle or less cattle? He states that we will want more. Why, then, all the efforts to reduce the cattle population, and why, later on, in the same speech, when he has forgotten that portion of his speech that the encouragement for the slaughter of calves may have been insufficient and that he hopes that in the future it will be carried out on a greater scale than in the past, do we have his statement that it is his policy, and the policy of the Government, that we should continue to carry as many cattle as heretofore? Is it a strange thing that nobody outside or inside this House, listening to those statements, knows what the policy of the Government is in relation to the farmers? We have that elaborate and humiliating defence of British policy, as far as it hits, and hits hard, at us, made by one Minister. I wonder was there any Deputy over there listening to that speech that did not feel sadder than ever he thought he would feel when he heard one of his own Front Bench men get up to defend the British quota system as against the Irish people and Irish farmers. Even if it were an honest case, and even if it were the fairest thing that could be done in the circumstances, it would be the duty of an Irish Minister to fight it to the last ditch and to oppose it as long as there was one hope in a million, either in his time or that of his successors, of remitting that injustice.
I wish again to make the point—not merely for the immediate effect or for the cheap glory of answering a Deputy opposite or scoring a cheap point— that there is a responsibility on Government Front benchers to think of how their words will be used. Suppose that any Front Bench men— Fianna Fáil or others—go over in the future to argue with British Ministers against British quotas; neither British officials nor Ministers need labour to make up a case to meet our case, nor need they waste any time to meet and answer allegations. They have only to turn up the debates of Dáil Eireann and those allegations will be met and beaten by the speech made last week by the Minister for Defence. I do not consider that that kind of thing is fair play. I believe that it is in a reckless and irresponsible spirit that that type of speech is made. I believe that if he had considered the effect of that speech on the country's prospects, or if he had considered the weapon it was putting into the hands of those with whom we are supposed to be fighting an economic war, he would never have made that particular type of speech.
I believe with the Minister for Industry and Commerce that if the British market is restricted or removed it will be something like a national calamity for the people of this country. I believe with him that it is not only the best market, but that it is our natural market, and I believe also with him that any statesman worth his salt has got to make it his prime object not only to hold but to develop that market. I will quote the Minister for Industry and Commerce so as to show that, in spite of the speeches made by the Minister for Defence and by the Minister for Agriculture, there is at least one Minister on the opposite side who at all events held the view that this country any more than any other could not live without trade. Mr. Lemass, speaking at Navan on the 13th December, 1931, is quoted in the Meath Chronicle as follows:—
"There could be no doubt that for a very long time to come trade with Great Britain would be of enormous importance to this country. At present 80 per cent. of the goods we export go to the British market. No matter how we may seek to revise the economic system in operation here, British trade will always play an important part in it, and it will be a serious thing for the people of this country if whatever advantages can be secured there are lost to us."
I would call the attention of the economic war lords to that particular statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who went on to say:—
"Fianna Fáil had no intention of interfering with that or any other market. They would develop to the fullest extent that market, which was their natural market, too."
Speaking at Carrickmacross, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is reported in the Irish Independent as saying:—
"Trade with Britain must always be of prime importance to this country. They were entitled to demand and to get facilities in the British market."
And again, at Rathangan, the Minister said:—
"The policy of Fianna Fáil involves the getting of a preference in the English market in return for the huge volume of British goods bought by Ireland every year."
Now, what is the policy at the moment?
Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce speak for the present Government? Is he an Imperialist or a West Briton? Is he an enemy of the Irish people because he pins his faith to the necessity of the Irish people having an outlet for their goods? Is he a traitor or a knave because he stands up on a public platform and tells the people that the British market is of prime importance? Is he a knave or a traitor when he lays it down as a fundamental matter of policy that a preference must be got in that market: that the position that was there when he was speaking was not just good enough, and that we had to get further preferences in that market? Is that the policy of the Government or does the Minister for Defence, in his new rôle of champion of John Bull and defender of all their pronouncements and actions, particularly against their own people, represent the policy of Fianna Fáil? Is the Minister for Agriculture stating the agricultural policy of the Government when he says that we must maintain our cattle population, or is he stating the agricultural policy of the Government when he urges that we must reduce the number of cattle in this country, that we are not doing it sufficiently rapidly, and that we must provide other and extra inducements to the people to reduce the cattle population? Which of all these statements represents Government policy? Which of the three Front Bench members is speaking for the Party or the Government?
Personally, I line myself up beside the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hope that the influence that he has in the counsels of his Party and of the Government will extend and grow. I hold with him that that market is of prime importance, and that it would be a national disaster if we lose our grip in it. The quota system has been applied against us, cutting down our exports into that market, which is of prime importance, by 50 per cent. I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce and anyone in the Party who believes with him to realise that our farmers cannot exist without an outlet for their goods, and that if the farmers go under then sooner or later we all go under together. I would ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce and those who believe with him to go into the Lobby in support of this motion.
It always seems to me rather a pity that Deputies opposite do not put their speeches on gramophone records. It would save them an enormous amount of trouble having to repeat the same stuff and the reporters having to take it down at considerable expense. Deputy O'Higgins has delivered his usual speech. He has started in the way in which he always starts. I ask the House to go back and look up a few of his speeches. "Of all the speeches that have ever been delivered in this House the worst, the most disgraceful is the speech to which he has just listened." Now that is invariable with him, and it does not matter who delivers them. In every case his soul is torn with sorrow and horror at the level to which humanity can possibly sink as expressed by the last speech, whatever it is, of his opponents. Now, it does get annoying when you see a man getting up and when you know exactly what he is going to say and the way he is going to say it. There was a man once who had this habit, when he came home at night to the little hotel in which he lived, especially if he looked on the wine when it was red. When going to bed he used to take off his boots and slam them on the floor. Bump! bump! This began to get annoying, because he looked on the wine when it was red fairly often. They used to be waiting downstairs for the bumps. One night the proprietor remonstrated with him. The man said he was very sorry and that, of course, he would not do a thing like that if he thought about it and that he would not do it any more. For a few nights he did not do it, but then again he came home in the usual condition. He took off one boot and bumped it on the floor. Then he remembered. He got into bed and a few minutes afterwards there was a knock at the door. "Well," he asked, " what is it?" A little voice outside answered, "Father says will you for God's sake please throw down the other boot, the suspense is awful." That is exactly the attitude and atmosphere of mind in which we wait to hear Deputy Dr. O'Higgins say that the last speech he has just heard "is the most disgraceful speech he has ever heard in his life." Perhaps he will get a new opening for his speech on the next occasion. There has been an idea among—I forget what is the name this week——
United Ireland.
Oh, United Ireland. There used to be an idea among the A.B.C., B.A.D., U.I.P., or whatever it is, when the quotas came on that they were a continuance of the economic war. They said: "Look at what you have brought to us now; first a 20 per cent. tariff, then a 30 per cent. tariff, then a 40 per cent. tariff and now the quota." That used to be the doctrine preached all over the country but gradually, apparently, the statements of British Ministers, men of unquestionable rectitude, men whose identity with truth will not be questioned on the other side, have permeated apparently into the consciousness of the people opposite. Or perhaps it is that they have decided that there are certain tactical advantages in changing their faces. The quota is no longer regarded as part of the economic war. It is now supposed to be something separate and distinct, something that we can deal with without dealing with the economic war, something that we can deal with apparently without dealing with the causes of the economic war. That is, I think, a purely tactical development and it has a result to-night in the new formula. I want to give you the new formula. The solution is to seek a trade agreement with Great Britain even if you cannot get the economic war settled.
Who made that statement?
Well, it was not by any one of the triumvirate. It was by Deputy Curran. Deputy Belton is no longer responsible for the conscience of Deputy Curran. This is a quotation from the speech delivered by Deputy Curran. He will find it in column 482 of the Debates of the 28th November, 1934. The new theory is that we should seek a trade agreement with Great Britain if we cannot get the economic war settled. Right. Now there is a good deal of hope in that. If you turn to column 485 of the same Deputy——
This is good.
——he says—this is a hopeful sort of statement, but he does not take the responsibility for it himself: "You have the statement of Mr. Thomas that the door is still open."
What is wrong in that?
I have only gone so far in the Deputy's speech.
Our President says the same thing.
Yes. I agree that the contribution of the Deputy is entirely hopeful. He says that the solution is to get an agreement with Great Britain. Both sides are willing. The door is open. That is very hopeful.
Which side of it is open?
It is one of those revolving doors, and I am afraid before we have finished——
It is always shut as well as open.
The shirt is also revolving. We move on. I am going down these pleasant paths hand-in-hand with the Deputy as far as I can.
We would not agree long together going down any path.
Wait. The Deputy is going to agree a great deal better with me than with any of his leaders. I promise that in advance.
I do not subscribe to it at all.
Wait a bit. What is the real difficulty, according to Deputy Curran? "There are more cattle than we can consume in the country." That is the difficulty, according to the Deputy.
Ask the Minister for Agriculture.
Leave it to me. I can tell you all you want to know. That is column 485. Now we move on to column 490, and again the Deputy is walking hand-in-hand with me down this pleasant little boreen.
We have got to be great friends.
"Human nature," says the Deputy, "being what it is, we all know that a person goes into a market to buy any commodity of which there is a surplus, and he will avail himself of that surplus in order to get the commodity at as cheap a price as possible."
That is what is happening.
Full agreement.
It is a good job we agree on something.
We are going, under the aegis of Deputy Curran, to negotiate on the basis that the door is wide open, that we have surplus cattle, that human nature being still what it was —this is only a week ago—that human nature still surviving for the whole week in the same condition—a person who goes into that market will see the existence of that surplus for the purpose of buying as cheaply as possible.
What is the point?
The Deputy still agrees.
Would the Deputy allow me for a moment? I made that statement in reference to the situation which is existing at the present time.
Human nature being as it is!
I think if the Deputy read a little further he would be interpreting my views better than by quoting a small bit here and there.
I am not quarrelling with the Deputy at all. I think the Deputy is inspired from heaven.
I am not inspired by you, anyway.
Full wisdom was born and will die with him. I want the Deputy to move on from column 490 to column 491. Now we get one of the real marvels. Deputy Triumvir Plenipotentiary Dillon talks about the surplus, a surplus which, if properly used, could be made the foundation upon which prosperity could be built up in this country, which would provide enough for everybody, a surplus in virtue of which, human nature being as it is, any man will go into a market and effectively buy the goods as cheaply as possible.
Now we move on to column 506. I do think that this volume will be valuable later to the historian. It is still Deputy Triumvir Plenipotentiary Negotiator Dillon: "... the fundamental wealth of this country—the agricultural surplus ..." Now the Deputy may understand why I quote. In virtue of there being an agricultural surplus, in virtue of the fact that we go into a market to sell a perishable product which is surplus to our requirements, human nature being as it is, that will be sold at the cheapest possible price.
Why?
Because, human nature being what it was, the fundamental wealth of this country is that agricultural surplus.
Oh, no; a country sells nothing but what is surplus. England sends over machinery because it is surplus.
If the Deputy was responsible for the later edition——
If he was he would close you up very soon.
No. He would if he were irresponsible.
He is so irresponsible that he cannot close himself up.
If the Deputy were responsible for the later edition of the United Ireland, since scurrility was removed from it when his present leader, apparently, also was removed from it, I would say: “Get back to blazes, ye curse of the country.”
To where? To Liverpool?
No, to blazes. That is what the courteous, non-scurrilous organ of the United Ireland Party says. Or, if the Deputy prefers Deputy Triumvir Dillon, I would say to stop his damn fool blatherskite; I would ask him to stop his pudden-headed reasoning. I am quoting words which passed in this House from Deputy Dillon—damn fool blatherskite. Deputy MacDermot says he does not like scurrility; in fact, he notices that scurrility has disappeared from the Party with General MacDuffy. Deputy Belton is coming back; Deputy Belton likes damn fool blatherskite.
Deputy Belton is getting a surfeit of it now.
The Deputy is getting a great deal that is much too good for him. Now, as to the second negotiator, Dillon. I remember that very eminent people, when they were quoted in the newspapers making speeches got oratio recta, and perfectly ordinary people got oratio obliqua. Deputy Dillon, in his humility, is always oratio recta. He says: “I would set before me,”“I would think,”“I would convict any politician,”“I say it is nothing short of,”“I would like to make available,”“I would like to leave it to every citizen,”“I would recognise,”“I would hasten to augment,”“I would turn my mind to,”“I would like——”
I would like to hear something from the Deputy about the motion.
I quite agree. I am trying to get through all this mass of egotistical stuff from Deputy Dillon to the Motion. As a matter of fact, they seem to have run out of I's and possibly they will have to put crosses for them instead when quoting the speech of the Deputy. What I am getting at is this. Deputy Dillon, when he tells us about the negotiations which are going to take place, not merely envisages himself, as he says: "If I were in the President's shoes"—he not merely envisages that possibility, but he starts by putting himself in the President's shoes and he tells us exactly what he is going to say. So, with all these "I woulds" and "I wills" and "I would leave alones," I will come down to refer to the actual negotiations which, in spirit and imagination, Deputy Dillon is actually engaged in at the present moment.
We will cut out most of the preliminaries and we will get down to the stage where he says: "I would go and make the case with them that we ought to put an end to whatever financial difficulty separates us." That is very easy—it means just a wave of the hand. They would all understand one another. Deputy Curran and myself would walk down these alleyways together. Deputy Dillon and Mr. James Thomas would walk along arm in arm and Deputy Dillon says: "I would go and make the case that we ought to put an end to whatever financial difficulty separates us and so let us get rid of it." Having got into the President's shoes, he would do all that. In so far as the land annuities are concerned, the Deputy says: "If I were in the President's shoes, I would say perfectly squarely to them that without yielding my position I would not ask them to yield theirs." Are you coming with me, Deputy?
This is a nice example of a debate in Dáil Eireann.
Thus is Deputy Dillon going to negotiate and he first of all says to Mr. Thomas: "Let us get rid of all the financial difficulties that separate us." Now, listen to this. Imagine him saying perfectly squarely: "Without yielding my position I would not ask them to yield theirs." Now, what the devil is going to happen? You may think, and Deputy Curran, I suppose at the moment does think, that we are up against an impasse, that we are up against the irresistible force, Deputy Dillon, and the immovable object, Mr. Thomas. You may think that is the position, but it is not. Here is what Deputy Dillon is going to say to him: “You are just as much entitled to feel strongly that these moneys are due as President de Valera is to take the other view that they are not due.” You know, we are getting on. Do you not think so, Deputy O'Neill? It is just like one of these things when you ask: “Under which thimble is the pea?” I mean that it is there and the only man who knows where it is is Deputy Dillon.
Listen to where it is. This is what Deputy Dillon is going to say to Mr. Thomas. I want you now to strain your imaginations to find the last thing which it is possible for him to say. I will give you two or three minutes to think it out. Now that you have thought it out, listen to what he is going to say. This is what Deputy Dillon is going to say to Deputy Thomas: "Surely the matter could be argued before a court of international justice." Can you beat it? Deputy Dillon, having said perfectly squarely and standing in the President's shoes, to Mr. Thomas that he would not ask him to yield up his position says: "Surely this thing can be settled in an international court of justice?" What is the contest to-day between the Free State Government and the British Government? It is whether or not this thing shall be argued in a court of international justice. Is there anybody denying that? That is the issue. Deputy Plenipotentiary Triumvir Joker Dillon goes over and, after two years of contest on that precise issue, says to Mr. Thomas: "Surely the matter could be argued before a court of international justice."
Now, we know, of course, that Deputy Thomas has been well brought up. He does not lapse, as Deputy Dillon does, into the vernacular, as he calls it, but I do think that he would be tempted to say: "Stop that damn fool blatherskite." He would say: "What have we been arguing about all this time? What is the difference between the Opposition and the Government in all this period in Ireland? What have the Fianna Fáil Government been doing wrong all this time? What has been the cause, in the declarations of the Opposition, of the whole of the economic war?" It is because we contend, as Deputy Dillon now says, that this matter could and should be settled in a court of International Justice. That is your negotiator. Now, you know how far you have got, Deputy Curran. Deputy Curran knows the door is open, and the door is open by the magic key of kicking Jimmy Thomas through it. That is what Deputy Dillon says. It is not a question of "Could we not come together on some compromise?" or something like that. Not a bit. He says: "Surely you will get out of this. Surely you will admit that you are wrong. Surely you will admit that everything you have done—all the tariffs you have put on, all the quotas you have put on, all the economic dislocation you have caused, all the political trouble that has been caused by your refusal to accept the verdict of an International Court—was wrong and, surely, Mr. Thomas, you will give way."
We will move on now. We will move back to that again. I would not lose it for worlds. I think that quotation ought to be put up in letters of gold, but I am not quite sure over which political headquarters. You have seen Deputy Dillon negotiating on the financial side. Now I want you to see him negotiating on the economic side. His talents are so extraordinarily wonderful that I do not know why there should be any other member in that Party at all—I think he could do it all himself. Deputy Dillon, in column 506, says: "I would go into that market suffering under no inferiority complex." Deputy MacDermot used to say: "Let us use some commonsense," and that solved it for nearly three months for Deputy MacDermot. Deputy Dillon is going, remember, into a market to make a negotiation. He is not going to have any inferiority complex, and what is he going to bring with him into that market? We go back to Deputy Curran. He has gone into the market without any inferiority complex, carrying with him an exportable surplus, a surplus in virtue of which he must take the lowest price possible in that market—and he is going into that market with no inferiority complex. All I can say is that he is a fool. The man who goes into a market with a surplus of which he cannot dispose otherwise, and does not know that he is in an inferior position, is a fool.
Every seller is a fool, then.
The Deputy must have sold a lot.
I would not buy you for a fool.
Let us analyse this for a moment—a man with no inferiority complex and a surplus of a perishable product in the market, and only one possible customer. What happens if that only one possible customer refuses, not even permanently, but upon any particular day for any particular week, to buy that product? Would Deputy Curran feel that he had an inferiority complex if he went into a market with a whole lot more stuff than the market could absorb and he could not hold the stuff? I want this doctrine to get home on the new Cumann na nGaedheal— U.I.P.-A.C.A.-Young Ireland-League of Youth members who, for a brief period, are here until the dispensations of Providence and a general election remove them to another sphere. I want them to get the fundamental doctrine of an exportable surplus of perishable products. A labourer who has only one possible employer must take as his wages from that employer— what?
What the employer must give.
A labourer who has only one possible employer must take from that employer as his wages—what?
What the employer must give.
What the employer must give?
Yes.
What must the employer give to the employee who has only one possible market for his labour? The bare cost of continuing to be in the physical condition to perform that labour.
In what state of society?
In every state of society in which a man has only one possible employer.
In different states of society it will be different.
Will the Deputy wait a minute? I am quite willing that the Deputy should come on after me. There is nobody in this world I shall be more grateful to than the man who will upset this argument. A man who has only one possible employer must take as wages for his labour, whatever the quality of the labour and whatever the amount of productivity of the labour, the bare cost of being able to continue Monday morning after Monday morning in the condition to go on with his work.
Does Deputy Norton subscribe to that view?
We are dealing with an economic proposition. We are not saying whether it is right; we are dealing with facts. Again, if Deputy Curran will show us what is wrong with that statement, we shall be very glad. Remember, we have got to assume that there is only one possible employer.
How many workmen are required?
You keep quite, for heaven's sake. Now we move on. The man or the nation that exports a perishable product to a market in which there is only one possible buyer is in precisely the same position relative to that buyer as the labourer who has only one possible employer. A country which exports a perishable product to a market in which there is only one buyer, whatever the amount of that product and whatever the quality of that product, must take for it the bare cost of continuing to produce that product. How can he get any more?
He sometimes does not get even that.
How can he compel that buyer to pay any more for it?
It depends on the number offering the article. It depends on the competition.
Very well; I will take that as an example. I thought so; I have tried to believe so, but I am going to prove to the Deputy that it is not so.
He will find it hard to do that.
I may find it difficult to prove it to the Deputy; I will not find it difficult to bring it to demonstration. I want the House to go back in spirit to the last regime and to imagine upon these benches the greatest Minister for Agriculture in Europe and the Irish Times.
We will have to imagine that!
Yes. I want you to imagine the greatest Minister for Agriculture in Europe and the Irish Times—Deputy Hogan of Galway. Deputy Hogan, among the other things he decided to reform, decided to reform the butter trade of Ireland. He found it, as he thought, disorganised and disjointed, sending no doubt to a single market goods of an inferior and perishable character. They were getting in that market a low price relative to the price for the butter of other countries. Deputy Hogan, who at that time had not come to a full understanding of the beauties of economic philosophy—he had to be taught by two general elections and one county council election—thought that that was due to the variability, the poor quality and the poor presentation of the goods. Now, I am not saying this as in any sense derogatory to Deputy Hogan.
What were the exports then compared with now? Tell us that.
Queen Anne had a kitten named Mary. That has got exactly as much to do with the debate as the Deputy's interruption. I am going to praise a great man. I am going to put his achievements on record. I am going to give him every credit which he deserves, and he does deserve credit for what he did in the matter. He took the mixed creamery and farmers' butter trade of Ireland and he recoganised it. He provided a uniform, clean and unimpeachable packet. He provided a uniform, clean and practically flavourless butter product of a high quality. He provided the British market with exactly what it wanted, exactly in the form it wanted it, and of the highest possible quality that could be obtained by organisation. That is some tribute to pay to a political opponent, and I mean it. He destroyed the farmers' butter trade; he destroyed the old farmers' butter as we used to know it and loved to eat it. He provided a neutral butter paste of uniform quality, upon which British proprietary butters could be uniformly blended as they now are, just as vaseline is used in chemists' shops for blending ointments. He provided them with uniform goods of exactly the quality and of exactly the texture they required. What happened? Did the price of Irish butter rise? There were quite a number of buyers in that single market. He had given them a better product. He had given it to them a better condition. He had presented it better. He had given them the quantities they wanted at the times they wanted them. Did the price of Irish butter rise? It did not. The price of Irish butter fell, and fell from the day on which Deputy Hogan had brought that system into operation.