I was making the point before Question Time that the Taoiseach's speech yesterday was almost like that of a captain of a football team leading his side, on a sunny day, on to the pitch for a Munster Final, in the placid manner he looks upon the possibility of EEC membership. He spent quite an amount of time dealing with the changes necessary to bring in a decimal system but did not spend as much time dealing with the matters we mention in our amendment. So far as that part of his speech in which he did concern himself with our amendment is concerned, we consider we have done a service to the country and the House in putting down the amendment and bringing the Taoiseach to the point where, as our Leader said yesterday, for the first time in six or seven years, we had a Taoiseach attempting to grapple with some of the questions raised by us, which are of great concern to the people.
We have made the point that this is no normal European State we are talking about in regard to our application for EEC entry. It is not to be considered normal in its employment figures or in the general management of the economy. No other country involved in the applications before the Community suffers division of its national territory; no other country can be described as having one labour market with its neighbouring country or one capital market, as we have with Great Britain. One economist has gone so far as to say that a better description of this country would be that it is an economic region of the United Kingdom rather than an independent territory where economic decisions can be made. The position of this country in regard to our entry into the EEC is far different from the position of any other European country.
We have far greater problems than any other European country. The relationship we must seek with Europe must be unique and different to the relationships which any other country can afford to have with that large trading bloc. The position might have been different if the conditions we won half a century ago, under the Treaty, had been used to diversify foreign trade and to build up an independent territory. If that had been done our position in regard to the EEC might have been far different from what it now has to be. The opportunity, however, was not availed of and the interval of so-called political independence has been used to maximise our dependence on the British economy.
Compare our position with that of some of the countries which wish to gain entry to the EEC. Norway in the 1930s might have had a gross national product which was less but that cannot be said today. They have their own language and they have built up good markets, both in the Scandinavian countries and Britain. They have also built up a thriving fishing industry. Norway will consider putting the question of its entry into the EEC to a referendum of the Norwegian people before Parliament will commit the people to its entry. That is very different from the kind of secrecy with which this Government seek to surround their own hand in, to use the Taoiseach's words, their delicate negotiations.
In Denmark, there is a pretty sound economy and a highly developed cooperative system. It is a by-word so far as its efficient agricultural industry is concerned and it also has a strong industrial arm. Although bound by land to Germany, nobody can say that Denmark does not have its own distinctive life and in every respect is an individual territory. It has extensive markets with Britain and other European countries. The Danish Government have made it pretty clear that they will wish to maintain their special links with other Scandinavian countries. All these countries have made no secret of their special conditions and their attitude towards the EEC. Only this country has no conditions. The only thing we continue to refer to are the endeavours of our missionaries in Europe 1,500 years ago. We have this kind of ridiculous posturing by the Government, as if it were any secret in the EEC countries that this was an underdeveloped economy, a ramshackle economy in every respect, in its social security and unable to fulfil any requirements of the modern State, but stating its willingness to undertake the implications of full membership. The people of Europe, unlike the Irish people, will not be codded by such nonsense.
Take the case of Sweden. Their form of application for membership will not be known until this week. They are worried about their traditional neutrality, unlike the Taoiseach who is not worried about our neutrality. On the contrary, he has compared the obligations involved in this with our obligations to any international organisation. This is a palpable untruth, not in accordance with the facts. Sweden might well be worried about her traditional neutrality, because adherence or non-adherence might well be the difference between continued survival in the future and nuclear annihilation. Sweden can at least have some options open to her, because she conforms to the standards one would expect in 1967. Unemployment has been unknown there for a number of years. Probably the younger generation do not know what the word means.
Here are some of the countries seeking membership. Compare them with our own. We have a population of 2.8 million. We are divided in our national territory, which can be described, in the language of the economist, as part of the United Kingdom. The only thing we have got after 45 years is a distinctively coloured Tricolour, brought out once a year for national occasions and the psychological feeling we are a free people, but we cannot establish any other sign of being distinctive. Yet the Taoiseach and Ministers of his Government, having had control for nearly 30 years, taunt us by asking: "Where are the alternatives?" We say: "What have you done with the mandate you have had for the past 30 years. What is the result of your stewardship, now that this country has no option but to crawl on its belly into Europe?"
As far as I can see, it is this. I do not have the aid of any civil servants. We can only read the reports and see the situation of Irish industry and the wishes of those whom we represent in this House. As far as we can see it, the only possible alternative before us is, first, an understanding of all the facts of membership and what it will mean. Secondly, going to the Irish people with this picture and putting it before them. From what I can see of this picture as it presents itself to my eyes—I can only judge from my reading of it and go as far as one individual Deputy can to make his anxiety felt in regard to this matter—entry into this European network does not automatically give us prosperity in any branch of industry. The gains it gives in agriculture are gains not synonymous with a greater population on the land. If the future of this country means greater prosperity for fewer and fewer people, that kind of country does not appeal to me, and does not appeal to the political movement to which I belong. Whatever political advantages it may offer to other Parties, it is not the future of my Party or the socialist or trade union movement. We do not share any benefits in that kind of future.
We have done our best to see what the advantages are. So far, I have not come across how we can pretend there are any economic advantages in full membership. The Government and many speakers have laid their chief hopes on extraordinary industrial developments in this country, coming from God-knows-where, from a foreign source. It reminds me of the national struggle for 400 years waiting for help from abroad. We wrote some very nice Gaelic poems about it. But very little did come, and it came in bad weather. We are waiting for Godot, waiting for some international industrialists to come here. We have been waiting long enough and they have not come.
On this kind of faulty premise, the Government seek to present to the House, and ask for full backing for the flight into Europe. It does not have the enthusiasm of the Labour Party, this flight into Europe, with the insufficient information given to us on the question. The entire debate on this momentous question has been marked by the dishonest partisanship by those people committed to it from the very beginning, without worrying about the mass of the Irish people and what their fate might be on entry. For over six or seven years in which this debate has been going on, waning or waxing according as the powers in Europe decided on admission or otherwise for Britain, we have had this kind of dishonest commitment to the European ideal, without questioning its implications for industry here. This House has had very few opportunities of discussing the alternatives. Indeed, some years ago during the last outbreak of European integration when we were supposed to be entering, the twist was given to the debate that those who were against going into Europe were somehow not quite right. Somehow their politics verged on the tulip colour of a pink variety. This kind of dishonest approach was given in the matter. We base our misgivings on the present course on the economic facts as we see them presented in Irish industry. It is for the Government to persuade us we are wrong in these misgivings. So far, they have not done so.
The Press themselves, the Fourth Estate, are not free of guilt in this situation of leading to a frank, full discussion of the implications of entry. If you read today's papers—I have mentioned this already—you will see that an addendum standing in the name of Fine Gael has been offered in the national press as being the alternative viewpoint expressed in this House. I say the Press is infested with Fine Gael fellow-travellers, because the real opposition in this debate has been put forward by the Labour Party in this House. Though we may have friends in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, let it be said that the real opposition to free trade in this country and its development in the future has been that of the Labour Party and the trade union movement. Fine Gael produced an addendum which adds, in the usual Fine Gael Opposition style, that the Government have not done something quickly enough fast enough. That is their kind of opposition.
Let there be no mistake about it. When we go into the Division Lobbies, let us see who is voting for or against this and why we are doing it. Let us see who in this debate brought out the relevant issues facing the Irish people in this most serious matter to face the Irish people. Yet we have to face up to the taunts of the Minister for Industry and Commerce this afternoon, who says that this is a matter on which you have to be for or against, as if the question before us were a question of black and white. We in the Labour Party have done this. If over the past three weeks the business of this House has concentrated on the commas and t's of the Marts Bill, it reflects on every Deputy that we can afford only two days to an issue that commits every man, woman and child, to free trade in the future. It is a poor comment on this House that we can spare only this time for this momentous debate and that only the 21 of my Party saw fit to bring out the relevant issues in an amendment to this motion.
The Taoiseach is quite confident, as are other members of his Party, that we can stand up to the full competition that membership of the Common Market will entail. If one reads Government reports, such as that of the NIEC, one cannot see how this can be accomplished at all. If you look at the NIEC Report on Full Employment, you will see the gigantic nature of the task before us to provide full employment and you will ask yourself how does the Taoiseach think, if we enter the EEC by 1970, by 1975 we will be dealing with full competition from these other countries and by 1980 full employment will be attainable. With what diverse tongues does the official mind speak? On one hand, we are told that by 1980 we will have full employment and, on the other, that by 1975 we will be meeting the full force of competition. What are the full employment objectives set out in the NIEC Report on Full Employment? What are the targets to be achieved in either sector? Over the 15 years from 1965 to 1980, in order to achieve full employment and a two per cent unemployment rate—what we might call structural unemployment— we would have to provide 236,000 new jobs— 168,000 new industrial jobs and 68,000 new jobs in service industries. That is to be achieved by 1980, dating from 1965.
Let us look at the record of achievement over the past few years when we have not been in conditions of complete free trade with other countries, where we have not had to take on the full rigour of competition and where in the experience of people looking over the course of our economy, we have not been doing too badly relative to other periods in this part of our economy. Between 1961—the time we first made application—and 1966 we provided 38,000 new jobs over a period when we were doing extremely well by all accounts. That was one of our best periods. We provided roughly about 5,000 new jobs a year in the non-agricultural sector. But, if we examine these figures more closely, we see an alarming trend emerging. Poor enough as the increase had been, there had been an increase. We see that between 1964 and 1966, we provided only 9,000 new jobs. We were slowing down in that period, providing 3,000 new jobs per year. If we examine the figures more closely, we find that between 1965 and 1966, we provided 1,000 new jobs a year in the non-agricultural sector. Already you can see the rate of providing new jobs slowing down from 5,000 to 1,000. How can one see that by taking on full competition on entry into the EEC, by 1980, we would be near full employment if we follow the plans.
It is quite obvious that we cannot possibly do better in conditions of completely free trade in the matter of the provision of new jobs than we have been doing in the past years in more fortunate circumstances. If the Government have any secret weapon up their sleeves or would be soft-hearted enough to save us worry on our side, would they please indicate the areas that they think would provide new jobs and we will join them in the lobbies any night in voting with them for any political jaunt into Europe if they give us the so-called assurances for the future.
Our problems are unique in Europe and demand unique solutions, not common or garden solutions of the type suggested by the Taoiseach yesterday. It is time the Taoiseach realised that he is not going on to a Munster Final. This is a far more serious situation and requires far different remedies than merely training 15 men and toning up their muscles for a couple of months before the so-called Final. For the kind of planning he has for this country, the toning up would require far more drastic measures than this Government appear to dream would be necessary and far greater preparations than, in fact, have taken place.
If our dependence on Britain is as severe as I have indicated, we are entitled to ask, and we might as well ask, whether, in fact, we would not have done better had the British Government been negotiating for us from the very beginning. Some people may crudely say that our Taoiseach is merely following up the original initiative of Mr. Wilson in London. But, if our suspicion is that our own Government are so unaware, so unworried, about the unique problems of the Irish situation, and have given this House so little information about the areas of their concern that they would be discussing with these countries, one may ask whether, in fact, it would have been better had we licensed the British Government from the beginning to negotiate on our behalf. Remember, the British Government in their application have made known already publicly the areas of their concern. They have mentioned their contribution to the Agricultural Fund. That is one of their concerns. They have mentioned the role of sterling. Everyone knows that is one of their problems. They have mentioned New Zealand butter and West Indian sugar.
On the other hand, Mr. Brown's speech only last week indicated that, despite the travail of bringing in an Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement two years ago last January, in fact, the British Government still go their own sweet way. They still maintain that perhaps the Irish Republic would need a year outside in the cold before Britain, with the EEC members, would decide on what conditions we should enter.
I listened to the Taoiseach's assurance yesterday. His excuse on this score was that Mr. Wilson had assured him recently that he would do anything that was possible. Did anybody in his life ever hear anything more vague that "anything that was possible"? If one wanted to get a formula for doing damn all, that was the formula. I really felt that he capped his reputation for being a saintly, God-fearing man as Taoiseach when he brought forward that as the guarantee received from the British Prime Minister, that he would do anything that was possible.
One might ask whether, in fact, we would not have been better off with some British Minister dealing with the entire question of our negotiations, some Minister who knew the facts of the Irish situation, rather than the gaggle of Ministers we have been sending from one European capital to another in the past few weeks. It occurs to me that they are out to impress their own particular section of camp followers in their own Party as to the number of capitals they have been to in the past few months rather than as to the amount of negotiation put through.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Colley, threw down this gauntlet today, practically seeing treason in the idea that an Opposition Party could ask the questions we have asked, practically saying we were going to rock the boat, attempting to persuade us that the Chancelleries of Europe were looking for the misgivings of the Labour Party and presenting them to the Fianna Fáil Government as serious matters and harmful to our entry. These questions that we have attempted to put to the Government are valid questions. We have yet received no satisfactory answer to them. The reason we have put these questions—they refer to valid cases— is our real concern with the problems behind them. We are aware that there are not many options open to us, as I remarked at the very outset. This Government have had stewardship of this country for practically 30 years and the Taoiseach taunts the Opposition Party by saying: "Where are your alternatives?", after his Government and his Party have led us down the primrose path to complete dependence on the British economy over so many areas of their stewardship.
There are very few alternatives and none of the alternatives provides a pleasant prospect. If our development demands as I think it does, more State planning in regard to the location of our industries and the management of our industries and their expansion, then this means we must seek some kind of economic treaty with the EEC countries that will allow us to survive. It is no more than a request for survival. If people say this Community is not interested in our survival, then I ask: What are our chances of entering into such a Community, if they are not interested in the survival of a tiny country that can do no one any harm? If this is the character of the European Community, then again our fate is as final within as without. Our request is purely for survival. This is a small request to make of the largest marketing arrangement that has ever yet come into existence. If these so-called democrats in Europe live up to the stirring ideals about which the Taoiseach has been telling us over the past two weeks, it is a request they should not refuse.
I have mentioned this matter which the Taoiseach has ignored, the question of the loss of our national sovereignty, the little we have left, that permits us to hoist the Tricolour once or twice a year over the GPO. How much of the little sovereignty we have are we to be left with? The Leader of the Fine Gael Party, with commendable honesty, has told us already we must prepare further to tailor our international policies to the new straitened conditions of existence we may expect on entry into Europe. He has told us in regard to the remarks of the Minister for External Affairs in the past few weeks on the small State of Israel, that the Minister should watch himself in future and be very careful about what he says about Israel. Indeed in a television discussion some time ago, Deputy Cosgrave, again with commendable honesty, said in respect of the few occasions on which the Government have been independent abroad, they had better watch out in future and make sure that they consult the people who matter in Europe before they say anything on any international question. This would indicate some of the sacrifices which we may or may not have to make in respect of national sovereignty.
There are, however, more serious matters with which we shall have to deal. The whole object of our planning will be for survival. There will be the question of the location of industries and the granting of subsidies to industry. All the evidence available vindicates the stand of the Labour Party in this debate. It is regrettable that that stand has not received greater support in the national press. It is regrettable that they have followed the will-o-the-wisp addendum of the other Opposition Party, regarded in this House as being the main mouthpiece of Opposition in this House on the motion. It is regrettable a situation has obtained where a monopoly has been enjoyed by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, and that in pursuing this unnatural political life the Press cannot fulfil the chief obligation of the Fourth Estate to educate public opinion to the realities of life and tell the people who cannot look in on the affairs of this House what the real position is.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce spoke this afternoon about adaptation measures. Like a lot of other Ministers in this debate, he has been preparing an ambitious alibi for future reckoning when we begin to look over the tally of this adventure into Europe. We had the Minister for Labour last night, the Minister for External Affairs this morning, then after lunch today came the turn of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to say his little piece for the record. Like a good little boy, he talked about all the things his Department have done for industry over the past two years. The Taoiseach yesterday again referred to the kind of preparations that had gone on and said: "This is to our credit. Here is what Fianna Fáil have done to prepare Irish industry for the possibilities of free trade." The figure of £14 million was given yesterday by the Taoiseach as the amount of money spent on adaptation. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, this means that, over the past few years, the Fianna Fáil Government, this so-called champion of the worker, have spent £70 per Irish worker to ensure that his job will survive. It shows the real area in which ones affiliations are to be seen. It is interesting to note by comparison what it costs to create a new job. Under the policies followed by the Government over the past few years, it has cost between £2,000 and £3,000 to bring new jobs into new industries. Surely the preservation of jobs is as necessary as creating new jobs?
The thought may occur to people, however, that the Government are preparing to pull back from the industrial worker, that the time has come for the parting of the ways, that the people who now control the party, the Taca people, have come to the conclusion that the honeymoon between the industrial worker and Fianna Fáil is over and that they should devote their attention to the agricultural part of the country. Undoubtedly for some people in Irish agriculture, there will be prosperity in the Common Market. It will also mean greater depopulation of rural Ireland. There will be greater prosperity for fewer and fewer farmers, which will mean that the day of the small farmer will come to an end. Are we to take it that the Government are no longer interested in this important section, that they are no longer interested in the maintaining of our population and its expansion?
It may be that Fianna Fáil have decided that the time has come to pull back, and this may be the real background to their lack of activity on the industrial front, their lack of interest in properly adapting industry and their laziness in negotiating for real alternatives, their lack of interest in any options, which has led them to the unanimous commitment to full membership of EEC. If the Taoiseach and members of the Government can give us so few facts on the kind of factors that will be influencing our negotiations, on the worries they experience and the kind of conditions for which they will be looking, these are valid enough conclusions. It is not enough to scoff at those who are in the unhappy dilemma of attempting to pose the alternative, attempting to think of an alternative course open to us. It is not enough to say: "Where is your alternative? This is a black and white case. If you cannot give an alternative, sit down."
The former Taoiseach was mentioned in our Leader's opening address. Some years ago the idea of association —I do not think the association idea has much to commend it—was definitely mentioned by the then Taoiseach without being scoffed at. It is a pattern followed by other countries but association finally entails full membership and the argument has been made that you do not have the advantages of full membership but you have all the disadvantages of part membership.
All Deputies must exercise themselves on this matter to the best of their ability. They must see the problems in the country and consider what relationship would best serve our real interest because it would be foolish for any of us to lapse into a foolish sort of European enthusiasm without wondering where our own country would fit into the eventual jigsaw. We must look over one of the features that prevents me describing this as an economy on an European scale, that is, the ramshackle state of our social security system. One wonders at the brashness of the Government who would go to Europe and say that we are willing to take on the full commitments of members while knowing what a poorhouse system of social security we have. They know it, and presumably so do those to whom they are talking, and one wonders again at the impudence of a Government who can go ahead on the basis of accepting full membership with only this kind of poor law system behind them.
The kind of redundancy figures before us suggest that the manpower problem will be beyond the reach of anybody's imagination. The problem of most European countries is manpower shortage. In this country it is a manpower surplus. Again, somebody has accurately said that probably our best exports in the long run to the new trading community may in fact be cattle, agricultural produce and our labour. In the past, labour has been, I suppose, one of our most successful export lines mainly to Britain, also to the US and other countries. It has been a never-ending export of ours, varying up and down, but always there and at a rather high figure. This trend may be accentuated in the future. That possibility is there. The provisions made by the Department of Labour in the labour sphere again suggests that the Government are dragging their feet. We still await a redundancy Bill. We had wordy battles on a Marts Bill but we still await the implementation in law of a redundancy measure and this at a time when our Ministers are going from capital to capital in Europe attempting to gain warmth and understanding of our position, while on the home front as regards preparing our work force and giving a safety margin or Plimsoll line to them below which they cannot fall, should they lose their jobs in future, nothing much has been done. Again, one may question the sincerity of a Government and the people they represent and the things they do and intend to do in Europe.
The amount of adaptation that has gone on here is extremely small. The grants have been mainly doled out to existing firms. There has been little checking to know whether these firms are adapting themselves to the ferocious conditions facing them in the future. There has been a constant idea that the only role of the State in industrialising the country is to be the eternal milch cow for private industry and that as long as that milch cow was available, Irish industrialists could take as much as they could possibly get. There was the idea that the State must be forever confined to this role. The State should enter into these industries that have not been expanding as they should, and this not for any doctrinaire consideration but for the welfare and safety of the people involved. The alternative, if this is not done, is a slow rundown in future and a closing down of industry after industry.
The Government have not adequately prepared the country for what may eventuate in free trade conditions. They are a Government who cannot say their responsibility began last year or the year before. They are a Government who once represented a movement that sought to bring this country up to independence status, a Government whose spokesmen see the history and the destiny of the country intimately intertwined with the Fianna Fáil Party. This Party have had 30 years to consider the country's position and all they can say after that period is: "We have no alternative. We have made such a bags of running this country that all we can do is crawl as fast as we can into the nearest large trading bloc.”
We are in a different position from every other European country because these European countries, in coming to a decision about EEC, had alternatives and options. They had sound economies, full employment, decent social security systems and national independence, and looking at their own countries, in their full sovereignty, and looking at EEC, they could come to a deliberate, mature decision. Here we have a panic-stricken Government saying that we have no choice: "Let us get in and let us get this unpleasant business over as rapidly as possible."
We had the Taoiseach saying the House was not entitled to ask the questions we put down in this amendment. I do not know if any effrontery on this scale has been known in any other European Parliament or if any other people would put up with decisionmaking by a Government, with such consequences for their future, on this basis with so little information at the disposal of this so-called national Parliament.
I have said enough to indicate where our Party stand on this issue. The Taoiseach suggested it would have our approval, provided certain information was available. It would depend on the kind of information given us whether it would meet with our approval. We intend as far as possible to interest the public in the issues raised by the accession of this country to EEC and as far as possible, to tease out the rather meagre possibilities open to us and explore as far as possible the idea of seeking—admittedly, a certain relationship with EEC is necessary—a trade relationship which would allow us to survive, and still be free to manage our economy. That is our request, not a fantastic future but one that will allow the country to survive. I am not one of those committed to this enthusiasm for Europe of the Fatherlands or anything else but I am committed to the idea of all European countries being able to live in peace with one another. If EEC is this kind of institution, surely it will allow us to continue to survive here? Surely if it is committed to the idea of democracy, it will allow a small country to pursue its own course and take our products without discrimination, appreciating that our industries represent no threat to large-scale industries in Europe and that we wish to go our way and live as an independent nation?
The suggestion is made that it would not accept such an avenue of escape for us and then I am suspicious, and doubly suspicious, of the European Economic Community. Tonight we will be voting against the Government's decision to re-activate our application. So far, we have received no answer to our questions on this whole matter and we will invite other Opposition Deputies to put equally cogent questions as to the future of our country in European conditions.
We would respectfully ask the Press to consider once more if it is their function to report Opposition versus Government, alternatives versus a certain series of actions, and we would suggest also, respectfully suggest, that they would look, not at numbers but at voices and at policies other than those suggested by mere numbers in this House. We appreciate that we may not be in the majority in refusing to give unconditional acceptance to the Government's decision to re-activate our application for entry to the EEC, but anybody who looks at the facts honestly, who is conscious of the problems facing this country, could not accept the Government's decision and could not follow them into Europe on the information they have given us. Anybody who knows the facts could not be confident that this Government are really conversant with the problems facing the country.
