When I moved the adjournment of the debate last night, I had discussed industry pretty fully and had been endeavouring to show the House that the Government had not prepared the country for the situation that was arising. I also had shown the House that from information at my disposal, and which I believe must have been available to the Government, negotiations had been going on for some time. I had drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the information given to us by the Taoiseach was tantamount to nothing. The only information we had was that if Britain joined the Common Market, we would join it, too. I had just commenced to give my views on agriculture when the debate was adjourned.
This morning, I want to put before the House some facts from a document I have here, which shows that negotiations have been going on for a considerable time. I believe the Government must have been cognisant those negotiations and I cannot understand why some definite information has not been given to this House. Further, I cannot understand why the Government did not see fit to set up a parliamentary committee, composed of members of this House and probably of the Seanad, to discuss so vital a matter, because it is a vital matter to our economy—probably the most vital this Dáil or any other Dáil has been called on to deal with since we received our freedom.
The document I have here was issued a considerable time ago. It is dated 28th June, 1961. It is an economic report on the situation in Europe, a factual report issued by the Council of Europe—ASCC, 1360— which the Taoiseach or the Minister for External Affairs can get any time they want to. It refers to a dogmatic statement by Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Maudling and Mr. Heath, four important British Ministers dealing with this situation, that the three vital factors affecting the United Kingdom are the Commonwealth, agriculture and their association with their partners in the EFTA group. It goes on to say that it seems the best course for Britain, and the one for which the British Government are preparing public opinion, is to join the Common Market as a full member, provided these three conditions are dealt with and that agreement can be reached in relation to them.
This document, which was issued on 28th June—these negotiations took place some time before this House first heard officially from the Government anything about the Common Market— goes on to say: "Meanwhile, Great Britain has been actively engaged in bilateral negotiations with certain members of the Six, with its EFTA partners and with Commonwealth countries. The advantages of that procedure are evident. Mr. Heath's statement showed that on a number of specific points the talks have already enabled positions to be reconciled and have led, all along the line, to a better understanding and evaluation of the vital interests of the countries concerned."
That is clear enough. On these three vital questions, the United Kingdom has been negotiating over an extended period with regard to joining the Common Market. I stress the United Kingdom so much because the Government have based their policy entirely on what the United Kingdom is doing. When the Taoiseach replies to this debate, I assume he will tell the House he was cognisant of these negotiations and whether in actual fact Ireland has been in on them or not. Even though we are not members of the Commonwealth, we have Commonwealth preferences, and every single discussion that took place relative to agriculture was absolutely vital to us.
We come now to the question of agriculture. There seems to be greatly misinformed opinion relative to it. You have people going around saying that if we join the Common Market or if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, we are going to lose all our trade with the United Kingdom. We buy more per capita from the United Kingdom, with the solitary exception of the Federal Republic of Germany, than any other country in Europe. Therefore, the mutual advantages that exist in trade between the two countries are there for everybody to see. If the United Kingdom joins— as she will join, quite obviously—the Economic Community, it means that we still have our trade with the United Kingdom and will still hold the greater portion of our trade. For that purpose, it is necessary to look at the situation in its wider context and see is the position quite so hopeless as so many people seem to think from the point of view of agriculture.
I mentioned last night before the adjournment that the European Economic Community has the greatest purchasing power in the world today after the United States—170,000,000 people. They are five per cent. short of their beef requirements. It is extremely unlikely that they would be able to get into full production or into any further production on that line themselves.
Further, if the United Kingdom join the Common Market they themselves will have to put up tariffs against the outside world. They will have to put up a common tariff. If we are in the market with the United Kingdom and the E.F.T.A. countries, it is reasonable to assume that the heavy imports of food into the United Kingdom will be stopped with the exception of those coming from the Commonwealth. Therefore, the purchasing power of this European organisation should, from the point of view of agricultural produce, be the greatest in the world. I do not see what this country has to fear from that.
We produce a specialised article in that we produce meat. We produce perhaps better quality beef than any country. All this talk about having to compete with the Danish market and with the only other agricultural-exporting country within the Six, Holland, and that we shall not be able to compete with them is nonsense. I do not see why this country could not be geared to go into full production for this very valuable market. However, to do so, the country requires warning.
I do not know how long the negotiations will take. I do not know how long it will be before it is a fait accompli and we are in the Common Market and the United Kingdom are in the Common Market and we have to put up a common tariff against the rest of the world. Surely the Taoiseach or the Minister for Agriculture— because it is his particular line—or the Minister for External Affairs should have given this House some information? We have had no information about these vital points nor have the Irish farmers had any information to prepare them for the challenge.
The market is there but, to succeed in it, we must have that high quality production which is so essential in the competitive market we now face. It would seem that the farmers of Ireland are not in anything like as difficult a position in the changing course of events as the industrialists. The industrialists have been let down stone cold by this Government. They are the people who should have protected them. The present Taoiseach is the architect of modern industrial policy in this country which has settled down behind high protective tariffs. Literally overnight—without any warning except the few hazy speeches at chambers of commerce functions throughout the country from Ministers to the effect that we should become more competitive—they find themselves let down.
I come now to the political question in regard to the Common Market. Many people have said there is no political issue. There is a world-wide political issue in this Common Market. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the last American Government came to Paris for the express purpose of having conversations with the European powers. The object was to replace the existing O.E.E.C. by a world-wide organisation or an organisation embracing Europe, the United States and Canada to be known as O.E.C.D. He stated that the specific reason for that was to ensure there would be an economic bloc strong enough to face the situation with which every free nation is confronted nowadays—the encroachment of Communism. It was specifically encouraged and desired by the United States that Europe should put its affairs in order as soon as possible and form a strong economic and political cohesive unit.
Of course we have a political interest in all this. We fought long enough to adhere to our historical, cultural and religious principles. As a founddation, we have a deep spiritual and Christian outlook. Anything to do with Communism we hate and loathe and detest. Naturally, we would have an interest in seeing that our way of life is preserved and maintained. The only way in which that can be preserved and maintained is to ensure in the changing circumstances of the world that an economic force will be built up strong enough to deal with the position.
When the United States Minister came over he stressed that one of the great objects of a strong economic organisation, O.E.C.D., was to meet the attempted encroachment of the Communist menace and ideology upon the new nations forming in Africa and also that, with the growing spirit of freedom asserting itself in many of the States of Latin America which were under a dictatorial régime, there were considerable risks of their being taken over by the Communist ideology. For that reason we have a political interest. The Government must know that they are the true facts facing the world.
The Minister for External Affairs has been going to the United Nations now for several years. If he has learned anything he must know the appalling menace that hangs over the world. The Government must know, if they read the documents available to them, that these things I cite are actual facts. For that reason, our interests are widely linked up with Europe. It is not a question of economic isolation. It is not a question of our linking only with Europe but of linking with the whole free world to preserve something that is vital. Surely it would be small satisfaction to any body here if we preserved our few existing markets or gained a few new ones to know that they could be set aside by a Communist menace and that the whole world could be enslaved.
Many Deputies may think I am rather overstating the case. I can assure them in all sincerity that I am not. The risks of war seem to be receding but the economic enslavement of the world is, perhaps, the greatest menace that faces us today. With the United States, Canada and a unified Europe we shall have an economic bloc which will be able to give the aid so essential to the group of nations in Africa and to the South American States which need support to build themselves up.
It is the duty of Europe, with its ancient cultural heritage, come what may or whatever the disagreements in Europe may have been, and America, to give that culture and freedom of thought to the rest of the world. For that reason I believe the Government have failed badly in this case. They have failed badly that they did not study, evaluate and realise those facts. They have not activated public opinion in Ireland so that everybody will know what the Common Market is. Had they done that and prepared the country for this step, we should have made far greater strides in technical advancement and been prepared to meet the situation which now faces us.
I come now to the question of the Six Counties and the unification of Ireland. When a great economic unit, such as the United Kingdom—in spite of its traditional policy of dissociating itself from the European community of nations and remaining an isolated unit and an island—finds itself no longer able to carry on, in the changing circumstances of the world, is it not reasonable to assume, in relation to a small, unnatural, uneconomic unit such as the Six Counties, that out of this may come not only a united Europe but, please God, a united Ireland?