asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks which he recently had in Brussels; and the outcome thereof.
24.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC
23.
asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will make a statement concerning his recent discussions in Brussels with the President of the European Commission, Mr. Jean Rey, concerning EEC negotiations for membership.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23 and 24 together.
In my discussions with the President of the European Commission, M. Jean Rey, on 28th April, I had a full exchange of views on the question of the enlargement of the Communities and the forthcoming negotiations. I emphasised the importance from our point of view that there should be simultaneous opening of negotiations and entry with the other applicants and that in the course of negotiation there should be consultation with us on matters affecting our interests which may arise during negotiations with the other applicants. M. Rey fully accepted the reasonableness of our position. He also confirmed that negotiations are now almost certain to open this summer.
25.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether it is now accepted that equal transition period arrangements should be sought for both the agricultural and industrial sectors in Ireland's application for EEC membership.
As the White Paper indicates, the transitional arrangements that will be necessary to enable the Member States and the acceding countries to make the necessary adjustments to the circumstances of the enlarged Communities are matters to be settled in the accession negotiations.
I want the Minister's own opinion on this matter. Is the Minister satisfied? Would he be prepared to accept equal transitional arrangements in the agricultural and industrial sectors? Would the Minister consider there is a fair bargain in the accession talks?
There could be a better situation for us. The Deputy will appreciate that when one is going into a negotiating position one does not like to declare one's final accepting position before going in. That is the reason why I would not say at this time what I would finally accept.
Would the Minister inform his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as rapidly as possible, of the possibility of equal transitional arrangements? It will be a shock to Irish industry if this should be the case.
The circumstances of a very short transitional period would be more difficult for Irish industry, but equal transitional periods do not necessarily imply a very short transitional period.
I do not accept that.
I am sorry if I am not making it clear.
I understand what the Minister has said but I do not agree with it.
26.
asked the Minister for External Affairs whether he will elaborate on his statement regarding the defence implications of EEC membership; the basis for this statement; and whether defence obligations consequent on membership have been discussed with EEC officials.
While the political evolution of the EEC is still at a very early stage, as indicated in the White Paper, I have made it clear in the course of my visits abroad that, as a member of the European Communities, Ireland would be prepared to assist in its defence, if this became necessary, at any time.
Would the Minister explain why there is no reference in the White Paper to defence obligations?
Because the political development of European communities has been quite slow there is no detailed reference. Any difficulties which Deputies could envisage on behalf of Ireland will also be difficulties visualised by people in other countries. It has been made quite clear that the question of the form of the defence of Europe is not now raised in any quarter. We have made it clear that when the Community develops, and if we are members of a fully developed Community, and if the political unity develops to having a common defence force, we will be part of that.
Would the Minister inform the House how he reconciles the statements he has just made with the assurances given by the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 23rd July, 1969? It was stated that it was not our policy to enter into military commitments through NATO and also not our policy to enter into military commitments otherwise than by joining NATO. The Minister would seem to suggest now that it is our policy, when we find it necessary to do so, to enter into military commitments otherwise than by joining NATO. The Taoiseach said we would not do that.
At this time there is no question of making any military commitments at any place. We have not been requested to do so. There is no question of our doing so. In the event of our being part of Europe, and the political unity of Europe developing to where there is a common defence, we will certainly take part in the defence of Europe. This is one of the things about which there should be no doubt. We will have to commit ourselves to taking part in the defence of Europe, if we are a member of Europe.
Against what?
It may never arise that Europe has to be defended.
Is the Minister aware that when the Taoiseach gave this reply on 23rd July last I asked him did he imply that we would enter into military commitments otherwise than by joining NATO, and he said we could but that it was not our policy to do so. Most Deputies in the House understood that as meaning that it is not our policy to enter into military commitments. The Minister is now saying it is our policy to do so at a certain point.
We should be quite clear that as we stand now it is not our policy to enter into any military commitments in our present arrangements. When we become a member of the EEC and it is intended that the unity of Europe be sought within that Community, in that circumstance we would defend Europe if the defence of Europe became necessary. I do not think anybody in the country should be in any doubt about what we are doing.
The position is that we are neutral now but we are prepared to drop our neutrality.
It is not a matter of our neutrality. It is a matter of defending Europe if we are part of Europe. At the moment we would defend our own territory. If we are part of Europe in a fully-developed united Europe we will defend that too.
The Minister appears to have given certain unqualified commitments. In view of the enlarged EEC and our willingness to undertake defence commitments has the Minister entered into discussions with officials in Europe on the kind of army we have? Surely if that was necessary, and if there was any suggestion of our entering without any conditions into a defence commitment in Europe, there should have been even one sentence in reference to it in the White Paper?
I have had no discussion on the method or manner by which we would contribute to the defence of Europe with any of the Ministers I met or with the president of the Commission. This has not been a matter of discussion or negotiation. We have made it quite clear, since our first application, that if we are a member of Europe and part of a European community, we will take part in all the commitments necessary to be part of Europe. We will take on all the obligations. It is not an active thing at this time, but it was not purposely unelaborated in the white paper.
Would the Minister consider issuing a note from his Department explaining his view on the defence obligations?
It was my intention, and still is, to make it very clear to the House and to the country what I see as the obligations we will have to undertake when we become a member of the EEC. The Taoiseach announced that we would have a discussion in the Dáil. It is very necessary that everyone should be clear on all the implications. The implications are not as big as the Deputies might fear.
Did the question of defence arise in any form at all?
No.
Would the Minister say whether, in view of the size of our Army at the present time, he agrees that if the defence of Europe or of any part of it comes into the agreement it would mean conscription in this country?
In answer to Deputy Cosgrave I wish to say that defence was mentioned on the basis of our saying that we had no particular obstacles to becoming a member of Europe. I do not think Deputy Tully should assume that we would be defending all other parts of Europe and not ourselves. We are now defending our own territory. We will participate in defending Europe but, in any decision made about the defence of Europe, if we are members, we will take part in the formulation of these decisions and vote in the making of these decisions. I would not like anybody to get the idea that people will be forced against their will to do something they do not want to do.
So we will take part and we will not take part?
We will take part in the defence of Europe if we are part of Europe.
Successive Governments, over a number of years, have been very equivocal and evasive on defence commitments arising out of membership of EEC. Could the Minister envisage a situation in which, as part of our defence commitment, we would have to concede naval or air bases here for NATO troops and that this might lead to re-occupation of the 26-Counties by British forces as part of the NATO forces, too?
I do not think so. I would see this as very many years away when the development, if it happens—and it has been very slow—of European integration brings out a new State of Europe, and we are in Europe, and we shall be part of the State of Europe and defending that. The defence of such a Europe is something that will develop in the future, if it develops at all. The Deputy's question is hypothetical and perhaps the fears arising out of it are much too immediate in his mind.
Is it a condition of membership of EEC that we participate in a defence policy of Europe?
No, it would be——
The Minister said he will subscribe to such a policy.
The condition has not been put up. You could not possibly envisage an integrated Europe in which part of the territory refused to participate in the protection of it.
I understand that the Minister has, in fact, given a gratuitous assurance, without being asked, that we would enter into defence commitments.
No. We have said we have no——
Is it any part of the commitment of the Treaty of Rome?
We have no commitment except the full acceptance of the Treaty of Rome and the actions taken by the Community to implement the decisions taken under the——
The Minister gave an assurance that we would enter——
No, I gave an assurance that we had no reservations about any part of the Treaty of Rome. But, at some time, if we are members of Europe, and Europe is fully integrated, we will take part in the defence of it. I am giving it here now. I have not given it before. I am giving it through this Parliament, as spokesman of the Government. I think the Deputy should be clear that the Irish people are not going to run into a hole at any time. We had our reasons——
There could be some similar reasons——
Deputies refuse to accept the possibility of a State of Europe? That is what is wrong with them. I have to tell them why they do not understand me.
Could we have immediate clarification as between the Minister and the Taoiseach on our defence obligations consequent on entry into Europe? The Taoiseach appears to have one view and the Minister for External Affairs appears to have another view. As the information is not included in the White Paper on Defence, could we have some material from the Department of External Affairs stating unambiguously the Minister's opinion on our defence obligations?
I think I have stated it here. If there is a real difference between me and the Taoiseach on this matter he would have to say what the position is.