Before I——
Membership of EEC: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Tuesday, 23rd June, 1970:
That Dáil Éireann takes note of the White Paper entitledMembership of the European Communities: Implications for Ireland.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To add at the end of the motion:
"and urges the Government to ensure that the terms of membership to be negotiated adequately safeguard the interests of the people of Ireland."
—(Deputy Cosgrave.)
As long as he does not go to Vienna.
There is no fear you will do anything, anyway. You can be absolutely sure you will do nothing.
I will do as much as the Minister anyway. I am not sitting on the fence like him.
I am sitting on no fence. I am right here. The Deputy should be ashamed to be so sure he will not do anything.
Would it not be much better if your Ministers did not do so much harm?
This is very interesting but it is not in order.
It is very interesting to know where the Minister for External Affairs is at the moment.
One certain thing about the Deputy is that he will do nothing.
I will do as much as any other Deputy. I will guarantee you that.
You will guarantee that you will do nothing and you are dead safe.
I will do and say what I believe is right.
Oh, the Deputy cannot do that.
There is nothing to stop him saying things anyway.
There is no harm in saying them if they are true. They have come out very true, unfortunately for the country.
What has come out true?
What I said over the last year.
It will all come out in the wash.
The Deputy is only spitting out accusations.
I do not see how this arises on No. 19—the EEC.
The unfortunate part about it is that we have a lovely negotiating team now. Where are the men of reality now—Deputy Boland, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Haughey?
I was very well received yesterday in Brussels and invited to come later in the year on an official visit.
Where are they now? Where is the stability now?
I was very well received in Brussels yesterday.
The Minister is like the Taoiseach, he is a decent man——
If Deputy L'Estrange is going to continue interrupting I will ask him to leave the House in the interests of order.
(Interruptions.)
Somebody boasted that his achievement in the reign of terror was to survive. It is no small thing.
The Minister admits it is a reign of terror?
No, I am referring to what somebody said.
He is "sacked Jack" now.
Would the Minister make a good Taoiseach?
I have been very good at all the jobs I have had.
(Cavan): Humility.
(Interruptions.)
There is nothing wrong with Vienna anyway. I do not know what the Deputy has against it.
The song about it is all right but not the guns. It is the guns from Vienna we are talking about now, not the Vienna woods or the song.
I was talking about the acceptance of common Community policies by the member states and common action taken in implementing the policies which meant a limitation on their national freedom of action has political significance. The actual progress made in the quest for political unity has, in the 12 years, been really minimal. Views differ substantially in Europe as to how political unification of Europe can best be achieved and what form it should take.
The same as ourselves.
(Interruptions.)
I think I shall have to guarantee to the Community that when we go there we will not bring the budgerigars from the opposite benches, that it will be a serious discussion.
Do not bring them any of the guns from your own benches either.
They are men anyway, not like you.
The Minister can praise them.
Give us a definition of a Fianna Fáil man?
I just said they are men; they served this Parliament; they served this Government well.
(Interruptions.)
Ye are great. Ye are going for the jugular now when ye think they are down. This is the nature of you. That is why you are getting nowhere.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies allow the Minister to make his speech?
What is the Minister trying to do now? Is he trying to get them out or what?
I am trying to make the case for our entry into Europe and to tell the steps we are taking.
(Cavan): How can the Minister have the cheek to take on the responsibility of making such a case?
I am the most experienced man in this House at negotiation. There is nobody else here who had anything to do with negotiation. I negotiated the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Deputy Blaney told us he did it and Deputy Haughey told us he did it.
No, Deputy Haughey was Minister for Agriculture. I was Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Minister is the only one left, the others are all gone. We understand him now.
Is the Minister accepting full responsibility for that fiasco?
Surely to goodness the House would not want anything like Deputy L'Estrange floating around Europe in our name?
I would be better than Neil Blaney with his six-shooter, in any case.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies allow the Minister to continue? This is a serious debate.
How is it serious when he is talking about unity in politics and none in Fianna Fáil at the present time? Unity is the last word he should talk about.
There was some monarch in some country—it is almost dangerous to mention any country now —who reminded his brother that they would not shift him for the sake of putting in the brother and I do not think the people would remove us no matter what bad appearance the Deputy can put on us.
You are whistling now passing the graveyard.
That is superstition on the Minister's part.
I am not superstitious.
Why is it "Sack Jack" now?
Will Deputy L'Estrange please allow the Minister to continue?
I do not think the Minister cares for his brief today.
We were doing very well before Deputy L'Estrange came in.
I will go so.
Do not let me hunt you but I would be glad if you would go, all right.
I will oblige the Minister. He is not a bad fellow. He is decent in any case.
Who was the last man who was called decent?
Now the Minister should get worried.
Deputy L'Estrange is praising me; I should get worried.
You should indeed.
I was talking about the differences in views about how political unification can be achieved and what form it should take. It may be necessary to remind Members of the House that people in other governments in Europe are, like ourselves, politicians, and like ourselves they face the realities of political life. They do not expect any certificate of having been to confession recently or anything and I think Deputy L'Estrange should drop that line of talk. We will do our job all right.
Some of the initiators of the European idea envisaged a unity based on a federal Europe. Another concept of unity was confederation in which the member countries would retain sovereign power and whatever unity on political unity aims and methods was achieved would be by co-operation at government level. This is not far removed from the abortive Fouchet plan of 1962. It proposed a council at Foreign Minister level, a European political commission and a European Parliament. This institutionalisation was to be effected by treaty and all the decisions of the Council were to be unanimous although member countries could abstain without invalidating the decisions. There are other ideas on political unification which envisage a looser form of political co-operation than in a federal or confederal arrangement.
As I have said, progress towards political unification has been slow, but the member countries in recent months have initiated action in this matter. This action is based on an agreement at the Hague Summit Conference in December of last year, under which the Governments of the Six agreed to instruct their Ministers for Foreign Affairs and I quote: "to study the best way of achieving progress in the matter of political unification in the perspective of enlargement."
A group of officials, the Davignon Group, has prepared a report which the Foreign Ministers will finalise for submission to the Governments before the end of July. Ireland and the other applicant countries are being kept informed of the deliberations of the Davignon group. We understand that our views will be sought on the Foreign Ministers' report when they have made it final. There are also moves to bring the applicant countries into consultation on the question of political unification after the enlargement negotiations begin.
The information available is that the Governments of the Six, the Community as already existing, are approaching the question of political unification in a rather tentative manner. It is possible that they will emerge from these deliberations with what will be a preliminary charting of the course which might be set, moving by stages towards the ultimate goal of political unification and the possible elements of political co-operation at each stage. We, as a member of the enlarged Communities, will be involved in the further deliberations by member states in the political field.
It cannot reasonably be expected that any achievements in the actual creation of the substance of political unification will be possible in the short term. The full realisation of the concept of political unification remains an ultimate long-term goal. Given the lack of progress towards political unification to date, it is clearly impossible to give any indication of the forms of political integration and co-operation which may ultimately emerge. The Government have made it clear on many occasions that they accept the political aims inherent in the Treaty of Rome and that we stand ready to work with other member nations of an enlarged EEC towards the goal of political unification, a unification of which Ireland will be an integral part.
The ideal is a political integration in Europe which would reduce even further the barriers between the nations of this Continent and enable Western Europe to play a more cohesive and, therefore, a stronger and more effective role in international affairs, a role which will make Western Europe a potent force for peace in the world. This is an ideal to which the Government fully subscribe and for which I believe—in fact, we are certain—there is a ready response in the Irish nation as a whole.
In the context of the political evolution, the question of the defence of the Communities arises. I have spoken on this already and the Government have indicated in the most recent White Paper of April of this year, and elsewhere, that as a member of the EEC we would be prepared to assist, if necessary, in its defence. This whole question, as I have said, is still at a very early and tentative stage. There are no commitments in regard to defence in the Treaty of Rome. Any arrangements for the defence of the Communities would have to result from further agreements, agreements to be negotiated by the members of the expanded Community. As I said before, I do not see this being part of our negotiations for accession. Any agreements negotiated by the members of the expanded Communities would be in relation to the whole question of the political evolution of the EEC. As a member, Ireland would be directly involved in the shaping of all such future political developments.
I should like to elaborate on what the Taoiseach said on the amendment to the Constitution which the Attorney General's committee has advised and which the Government have accepted will be necessary to enable the State to undertake the obligations which membership of the Community will entail. A number of the provisions of the Treaties of Rome and Paris have direct application in the national law of the member states but, for the most part, the Treaties are implemented by means of Community legislation, that is, by regulations and directives issued and decisions made by the Council and the Commission.
The main part of the corpus of Community legislation, that is, the Treaties and the implementing enactments, could be applied in this country without the necessity for any amendment of our Constitution. Some aspects of the legislation, however, could not be so applied and a constitutional amendment will be necessary to enable this to be done. I should like to emphasise that all the Community legislation deals only with matters covered by the Treaties, matters such as customs duties, agriculture, free movement of labour, services and capital, transport and restrictive practices.
I might mention as examples of Community legislation, the application of which here would require an amendment to the Constitution, certain provisions of the Treaties and Community regulations which have direct effect in the Member States, those which are directly applicable in national law. The constitutional amendment would also be required to take account of and provide for the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice which is one of the institutions of the Communities. Again, I should like to make it quite clear that such functions as the European Court of Justice would have in respect of this country when we join the Communities, would be confined solely to matters relating to the interpretation and implementation of the Treaties and other Community legislation.
One of the functions of the European Court, for example, is to decide, when called upon, whether acts of the Council—that is, the Council of the European Community—or acts of the Commission or individual member Governments in relation to matters covered by the Treaties are, in fact, compatible with the Treaties. This function would include ruling in cases submitted to the Court by national courts for interpretation of the Treaties and their implementing legislation. The proposed constitutional legislation would also have to provide for the possibility of the reference of cases by our Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice for this type of interpretation.
Deputies should know that all present member states have either introduced amendments to their Constitutions to enable the treaties and other Community legislation to be applied in their respective countries in conformity with the Constitution or had originally introduced into their Constitutions suitable provisions which did not require changing. Denmark and Norway already have suitable provisions in their Constitutions which were introduced respectively in 1960 and 1961. Britain has no written Constitution.
We applied for membership and we have reactivated our application in the conviction that this country's best interests will be served by membership. The treaties and their implementing legislation are devised on the Community principle with the interests of all member states in mind. The principle is that of one community. This principle will continue to apply when we become a member. The proposed constitutional amendment will be in the nature of a clearing of the way for the application here of the treaties and Community legislation. Deputies know that a referendum is necessary to change the Constitution. The necessary referendum will be held in due course.
In opening this debate the Taoiseach stressed—as I have done—how important the Government consider it is for this country to become a member of the enlarged European Communities. It is important so that we as a nation can take our place and play a proper role in the building of a greater Europe which is already in the process of being created. As a member of the enlarged Communities this country will be better able to realise her own economic potential and ensure the welfare of her people.
No one has really fully examined the alternatives except Deputy FitzGerald who did it very thoroughly. As I said at the beginning, the EEC is there; it is evolving and we have to decide our policy towards it. Having seen the Government's positive attitude to entry we must now consider the alternatives which would be open to us if we were to remain outside the Communities especially if the other applicants joined. This is what is known as the negative argument for becoming a member. Negative or not, it is an argument of great force. It does not detract in any way from the positive reasons which the Government, Deputy FitzGerald and others have adduced for joining the Communities. The negative argument relates the positive argument to the economic realities. Those who are opposed to our joining the EEC—and I believe they are very few in number—seem to be either unaware of or purposely trying to ignore the economic realities. They say we should stay outside the EEC rather than be swallowed up by the giants of the Community and face economic ruin. They ignore the experience of the present small member states, Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands in the Community. These countries have had as members unprecedented economic growth and unprecedented prosperity for their people. Each of them has a significant say in the Community deliberations and decision-making. I should refer, in this connection, to the fact that most important roles are played by the Foreign Minister of The Netherlands, Dr. Luns, and M. Harmel, the Belgian Foreign Minister. It is also interesting to note that the important committee which has been set up to formulate proposals on economic and monetary union, a union which when achieved will have the greatest significance not just for Europe but internationally, is headed by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, M. Wesnes. It would be an interesting exercise for Deputies to try to conceive how such small countries could have such eminent roles to play on a European scale if they were not members of the European Communities.
The prognostications of economic ruin and the abandonment of our less developed areas made by the critics of membership are based on no real knowledge of the Community, no knowledge of Community principles, no knowledge of Community policies and certainly no knowledge of the application of those policies in the member states at present. I have heard no mention of the Community's Social Fund which operates to promote employment opportunities in member states with the objective of contributing to the raising of the standard of living within the whole Community.
The Minister cannot have checked on that recently.
There has been no mention of the emphasis which the Treaty of Rome itself places on regional development. The aims of regional development according to the Treaty are to reduce the difference existing between the various regions of the Community and to remove the backwardness of the less favoured regions.
It is a dirty word in the Community now.
The critics should consider the massive aid given by the Community's European Investment Bank for development in the less developed regions and for setting up new economic activities or modernising and adapting existing ones. Over £400 million was paid out in the first ten years of the Bank's operations for projects in the Community and notably regional development projects in southern Italy.
Mainly southern Italy.
This is the least developed area in the Community and has experienced a higher rate of economic growth in recent years than the average for the Community as a whole.
Deputy Corish made some more points about the Community which displayed a certain lack of information. He said the EEC was a body which was anti-planning, based on the principles of laissez-faire and that it showed little concern for the Third World. This group, he said, is called an area of free trade but in the eyes of the rest of the world it is a trade bloc. It needs some homework, but he could have found out that all the member countries of EEC are at present engaged in planning and the Community as a whole is striving through its institutions to develop planning at Community level. At the Hague Summit Meeting which I mentioned the governments of member states expressed the opinion that the integration process should result in a Community of growth and to this end they agreed that, on the basis of the memorandum presented by the Commission in February, 1969, and known as the First Barre Memorandum after the Vice-President of the Commission, a plan in stages should be worked out during 1970 with a view to the eventual creation of an economic and monetary union.
I have some figures about aid. The House already knows that the leader of the Labour Party is really exposing himself when he complains about the Community's treatment of the Third World and its place in international trade. In regard to assistance to the less developed countries the Community record compares very favourably with that of other industrial countries. The Community has an association arrangement with the 18 African and Malagasy States and a special European Development Fund has been set up to provide finance for measures aimed at promoting the social and economic development of these countries. It is fed by contributions from the member states of the EEC. Finance for the aid of the Associated States is provided also from the European Investment Bank which was originally intended to handle projects within member states only. The capital for that Bank is subscribed by member states.
Talk to the 16 African States and they will be vastly unimpressed.
They might be unimpressed but the fact is that they are getting this aid——
They are not even allowed membership of the Community.
——which the Deputy's leader said they are not getting. Financial assistance given by the Community to the states I have mentioned averaged $116.5 million a year over five years from 1957 to 1962 and $146 million a year over the five years 1964 to 1969.
About 2 per cent of the primary imports they get from these countries.
A recent agreement extending the Association provides for the increase of financial aid to almost $200 million a year from 1970 to 1975. In a table of the total official and private financial flow of development aid expressed as a percentage of national income, in the first five donor countries if you want to compare performance, there are four members of the Community.
I have digressed a little but only to correct some misconceptions. I do not think anyone will deny that it is in the area of trade that our utter dependence on exports becomes obvious. Trade is the obvious solution to many of our social and economic problems and it is in this area that the arguments for an alternative to membership of EEC become unreal. They more than touch on the unreal and at best they are unrealisable. The economic realities we must face are that we are a very small country with a tiny—by international standards—home market and we are completely dependent on exports for our economic development.
Britain is by far our largest market, taking about 70 per cent of our exports. This concentration on one market may not be the happiest trading situation from our point of view, but it is an economic fact and it will not go away no matter whom you blame for it. Membership of an enlarged European Community will afford us an opportunity of great potential value to diversify our exports in the huge market of continental Europe while retaining our access to the British market with improved conditions. The diversification of industrial exports that it has been possible to achieve in Europe is up to now necessarily limited by the fact that Ireland has been neither a member of EEC nor EFTA and, as far as agricultural exports are concerned, the operation of the Community's common agricultural policy has effectively cut off the potentially very valuable markets of the member states for our principal products.
If we were to stay outside an enlarged Community which included Britain the adverse effects on our exports would be incalculable. Our industrial exports to Britain, which now represent 62 per cent of our total industrial exports, would be subject to tariffs, the Community's common customs tariffs, while the mandatory operation in Britain of the Community's common agricultural policy would make our agricultural exports to Britain, which now represent 77 per cent of our total agricultural exports, subject to Community levies. These levies would operate to diminish drastically and, perhaps, eliminate in some cases, our agricultural exports to the British market.
I could illustrate this by recalling that the operation of the common agricultural policy has had the effect of reducing our exports of cattle and beef to the member states from £14 million worth in 1964—and they were growing at that time—to under £1 million in 1969. I do not think Deputies who are close to reality will forget that other countries of the enlarged Community would quickly avail of the opportunity in the British market which the creation of major disadvantages for our industrial and agricultural exporters would present.
Those who say there is an alternative do not go far in their thinking. It must be asked: "Where would we seek alternative markets to compensate for the disastrous losses in the British market which would certainly be a consequence of our remaining outside an enlarged EEC which included Britain?" The major difficulties of securing remunerative stable and long-term markets for agricultural exports, save through a special trading relationship such as we have with Britain or which we would have within a closely integrated economic group like the EEC, are well-known. We know that whatever the circumstances we must continue to intensify our efforts to expand and seek other markets in places outside Western Europe—Japan and the United States and the state-trading countries and elsewhere—but it is only being realistic to say that whatever we can hope to realise by way of exports to those potential markets could never in the foreseeable future compensate us for the losses we would suffer in the British market and the loss of export opportunities on the Continent if we were to remain outside an enlarged EEC. I should say to the Labour Party that these opportunities which we would lose can be directly translated into job opportunities for Irish people here at home and better living standards for those who are here.
It has been suggested that we should make a series of bilateral trade agreements with some of the countries I have mentioned and maybe others. We are in fact pursuing the question of trade agreements notably with the state-trading countries and with Japan. However, the day is gone when we could hope to obtain specific access for specific products through bilateral agreements. Trade agreements are now mainly the framework within which export opportunities can be exploited.
There is a suggestion by those who are afraid for Ireland to join the EEC that we can obtain some form of association or trading agreement. I think it was Deputies on the Labour benches who said this, that we should seek a trade agreement with the EEC rather than seek membership. Deputy Noel Browne and Deputy David Thornley even charged the Government with being remiss in not examining the possible alternatives to membership. I have said before and I must say again that the Government's original decision in 1961 to seek membership of the EEC and the decision in 1967 to reactivate the application for membership were made on the basis of a searching examination of the options open to us, including the possibility of an association or trading arrangement with the EEC. We did face the realities and we do.
In the years after the suspension of the original negotiations in 1963 it seemed that the prospects of their being reopened in the near future were remote and the question of a possible association or trading arrangement with the Community was kept under constant review. The Government concluded that the likely disadvantages of such an arrangement would, on balance, make it an unattractive economic proposition.
The Taoiseach has pointed out in his speech on this motion that, apart from denying ourselves the opportunity of joining with other countries of Western Europe in creating a meaningful political and economic unity in our Continent, such an association or arrangement would have very limited trade advantages for this country in the industrial field, and that far from ensuring our agricultural exports to Britain, such an arrangement would place these exports in jeopardy. Under an association or trade relationship with EEC we could not hope to participate in the common agricultural policy. That is one of the cornerstones of the European Community, and what agricultural concessions we could gain would be only of marginal value. We could never hope to compensate for the drastic diminution of our agricultural exports to Britain. Loss of export opportunities in the other member states of an enlarged Community, which would be the likely consequence of not becoming a member, could not be compensated for either. Furthermore, we would have no say in the formulation of Community policy, in the industrial or agricultural sector, although Community policy would have a direct effect on our trading relations with the member states.
It is true, as was pointed out here, that certain countries, members of EFTA, who are not seeking at this time membership of the EEC, will be seeking some form of association with the Community or some form of trade agreement. I understand the Community accept the need to conclude such agreements since membership of the EEC for Britain, Norway and Denmark will mean, in effect, the breaking up of EFTA, and the other EFTA countries do not intend to seek membership of the EEC. Their policies in this regard are dictated by a variety of reasons: Austria and Finland because of fundamental political realities; Sweden and Switzerland because of their traditional policies of a distinctive form of neutrality. Portugal is a special case.
What I imagine these countries will seek is to preserve the free trade relationship—that is, free trade in industrial goods—which exists at present between the EFTA countries and to achieve similar free trade with the other countries of the enlarged Community. While certain relatively minor agricultural concessions might be possible in the arrangements to be negotiated by them, whatever free trade arrangements or tariff reductions are agreed upon are likely to be mainly in the industrial sector. As was pointed out here already, none of these countries has, in relation to any of the EEC member states and the other EFTA countries, anything like the concentration of exports that we have to the British market. Neither is a country such as Sweden or Switzerland in an economic situation even remotely approaching the situation in this country where agriculture and agricultural products are of such major importance and likely to continue to be so. In view of certain attempts to equate our situation vis-à-vis the EEC with that of countries like Sweden and Switzerland, it is necessary for these points to be made.
Deputy Corish said we are not economically fit to be a member of the EEC. It would take a great deal more strength economically or export power to stay outside. If we are not fit to go in, we certainly will not survive outside. It might be of value to the Deputies who are honestly worried about this, worried why Switzerland can do something we cannot do, to study the very high economic development of that country and its achievements in crossing tariff barriers with their products. We have to face realities.
With the opening of negotiations imminent, I should mention for the information of the House two matters relating to the negotiations to which the Government attach considerable importance. There is a vital need from our point of view that the negotiations in respect of all the applicant countries should finish at the same time and that there should be simultaneous accession of all the applicants to the Communities. To ensure that this will happen an adequate degree of parallelism as between the applicant countries will be necessary in the negotiations. I think I can say confidently, as a result of the assurances I have received personally from representative members of the governments of the six member states in my discussions with them over the past year, that the idea of simultaneous accession of all the applicant countries is fully accepted by the Community. It is also of fundamental importance to us that during the negotiations there should be a consultation procedure which would ensure that each applicant country would be consulted on matters of concern to that country arising in the negotiations with another applicant.
I have in mind particularly the negotiations between Britain and the Community. Because of the nature and complexity of the problem involved these would be given some priorities in time. What we would wish and what we have to ensure is that decisions should not be taken in the negotiations with the British on matters of concern to Ireland until we have been consulted and our views taken into account when those decisions are being made. The House already appreciates that without such consultations one set of negotiations could arrive at a conclusion which would preclude negotiations towards a different decision for another applicant. I have made this clear in all my visits to the Six and to representatives of the EEC Commission. The idea of simultaneous accession now seems to be accepted by the Communities. On the question of a consultation procedure the position is that the procedural matter in connection with the negotiation has not as yet been settled. I intend to press vigorously for the setting up of a consultation procedure in the coming months.
We shall, of course, be anxious to maintain consultation with the other applicant countries during the negotiations. It was agreed with the former British Government in December last that there should, on this question of application for membership of the Common Market, be close consultation between ourselves and the British at the pre-negotiation stage and during the negotiations. This arrangement has operated up to now through a number of meetings at ministerial level and at official level on EEC matters. We hope for a continuation of this arrangement with the new British Government. We also hope to keep in close touch with the Danish and Norwegian Governments during the negotiations as our interests will coincide on important matters. I know from my recent talks with the Danish Foreign Minister and the Market Minister that they recognise the desirability of close contacts between our two Governments and we have indications in this respect from the Norwegian Government through diplomatic channels.
The visits which I made to the capitals of the Six and to the commission, during the year, the last of which I completed yesterday with a visit to Brussels to meet the Belgian Foreign Minister, were undertaken by me for the purpose of furthering our application for membership of the Communities. I wished to re-affirm to the governments of the member states our Government's continued desire to join the Communities and our readiness to accept the treaties and what has been achieved in the implementation of the treaties. I was also anxious to ensure that our particular interests were fully understood and appreciated by the governments concerned. Furthermore, I was most anxious on behalf of the Government to emphasise our deep concern—this was the beginning of my consultations—about the idea which was current in the latter half of 1969 of a community of Seven, that the EEC should be enlarged to take in Britain only. I received firm assurances on this point. Of course, the idea did not survive The Hague Summit Meeting. I think that the visits were well worthwhile in this connection. I must say that, on these visits, I found evidence of a very positive spirit in the Community on the question of enlargement and the utmost goodwill was shown in relation to our application.
The Ministers with whom I had discussions showed a full appreciation of our particular interests including our position on the question of simultaneous entry of all applicant countries and the setting up of consultation procedures during the negotiations. Special emphasis in these matters, which are of particular importance to us, has also been given continuously by the Head of our Mission to the Communities and by our ambassadors in the capitals of the six member countries in their dealings with representatives of the Governments there and with the Commission. As an important part of our approach over the years and particularly in the past year, very close attention has been given and continues to be given to EEC matters by our missions in Europe. I can assure the House that my own visits to the capitals have been most thoroughly prepared and supported by the essential close contact afterwards at ambassadorial and official level. The Head of our Mission to the EEC and his staff are very much involved in the preparation for negotiations and are pursuing our interests diligently. I have ensured the appropriate co-ordination in our diplomatic contacts with all the member states and with the applicant countries and with the Commission of the European Communities by summoning meetings of the heads of our diplomatic missions concerned in this work at regular intervals. It has been possible for me at these meetings to get first-hand impressions from our ambassadors on the likely evolution of events and on the views of the governments of the countries in which they are stationed and also on the main questions which arose within these countries arising from the enlargement and expansion of the Communities. At these meetings it was possible to brief the ambassadors on the points to which the Government wanted special attention paid and to direct the efforts of our missions abroad on matters related to our application and the Communities generally.
Somebody said we had not prepared the country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will deal with that on his side and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has dealt with it on his side. However, I would point out that all our policies for the past nine years have been calculated to improve our position in negotiations and to make us worthy members of the Community.
Milk! Land reform!
I can recall that when I was Minister for Labour, we introduced the redundancy legislation which at that time was interpreted to the people as an augury of massive unemployment—of course, there were two by-elections on at the time—but the massive unemployment did not materialise. The redundancy legislation was to make provision for workers who lost jobs because of the normal disappearance of jobs and also because of free trade and readaptations. It was to make it possible for them to maintain as near as possible the same standard of living while waiting or training for a new appointment. At the same time we introduced resettlement legislation to make it possible for a worker to become mobile within our own country and to seek employment away from his home. Deputies will know the details of the help towards the cost of transfer and of taking lodgings, and what the legislation was for. The most important thing of all which I did as Minister for Labour was to introduce the legislation setting up the Training Authority. It is as a skilled people we should see ourselves in the European Economic Communities. Membership of the Communities will very quickly help to relieve our unemployment situation.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has spoken and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will speak about their preparations. So far as the preparations in the last year are concerned I think I should put on record the names of the people I met in order to make sure that Ireland's position on her application is clearly known. These are the people to whom I spoke on the need for consultation and on the need for simultaneous accession and the need for negotiations starting and going on at the same time. I met the Belgian Foreign Minister in Brussels in July of last year and I met the Netherlands Foreign Minister in London in the same month.
This was the time when the question of the Community of Seven was being discussed from which Ireland would be excluded and I think I explained to the House that this would have had a very great effect on us. I met the British Foreign Secretary in London in July and August of 1969. I met the President of the EEC Commission in July also and the Federal German State Secretary Jahn in Dublin in the same month. I met the French Foreign Minister Schumann and other Foreign Ministers at the United Nations in New York in September and October of last year. I had a particularly good meeting with M. Schumann. I also met Mr. George Thomson, the then British Minister with special responsibility for the EEC, in London, in December, 1969. I met several Foreign Ministers of the Six at the Council of Europe meeting in Paris in December, 1969. I made a special visit to Rome to meet the Italian Foreign Minister Moro, in January, 1970. I met the Federal German Chancellor Brandt and Foreign Minister Dr. Scheel in Bonn in February, 1970. The Luxembourg Foreign Minister Thorn met me in Luxembourg in February, 1970. I met The Netherlands Foreign Minister, Dr. Luns and State Secretary de Koster at The Hague in February, 1970. In Denmark I met Foreign Minister Hartling and Market Minister, Nyboe Anderson, at Copenhagen in March, 1970. Again I met Mr. George Thomson in London in March, 1970. I met several Ministers at the Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg in March, 1970, and had a full meeting with the French Foreign Minister M. Schumann in Paris in April, 1970. I met the President of the EEC Commission, M. Jean Rey, in Brussels in April, 1970, and I met the Belgian Foreign Minister, M. Harmel, and currently President of the EEC Council, yesterday in Brussels.
I have been accompanied by the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs on all these occasions and on some occasions by Mr. Morrissey, who will now be in Brussels taking care of our negotiations. On the occasions of all these visits our Ambassador was present and members of his staff. I do not think anything more could have been done on the part of the Department of External Affairs to prepare for the negotiations which are approaching. We expect that by September we will be involved in the substance of the negotiations. We shall enter negotiations in a positive spirit which we are confident will be matched by a similar spirit on the part of the Community.
It would be foolish to imagine or to pretend that the negotiations will be easy. They could be lengthy. Certainly, problems posed by the British application and their complexities would indicate that they may be lengthy. We would hope that the approach on the Community side and on the part of the applicants would be, as one commentator recently suggested, a seeking after a mutually satisfactory solution to the serious problems posed. We enter the negotiations accepting, in the words of the member states at The Hague at the Summit Meeting, the treaties and their political finality, the decisions taken since the entry into force of the treaties and the options made in the sphere of development.
Our own interests must of course be the major concern for us. I would like to assure the House and the country that I shall, on behalf of the Government, be increasingly vigilant and continually at pains to ensure that, at all stages of the negotiations, Irish interests are emphasised and taken fully into account. A great deal of effort will be called for over the period of negotiation by myself as Minister leading the negotiating team, by the officials on the team, by our mission to the Communities and by the embassies in the member states and in the applicant countries. Those people who would worry about our negotiating leverage as a small country should take some reassurance from the fact that our interests in the Community will lie in the same place as interest of varying groups of other countries. I think especially as a member of the Community we will be in a far stronger position and in a much better position than we would be in a bilateral situation.
In addition to my leading the negotiations proper I see also the need on my part for considerable activity in relation to the governments of the member states. I must try to continue what I have been doing during the past year at an even more active pace.
During the period of the negotiations there will be much to be done at all levels here in this country in all sectors of the economy in preparation for entry into the Communities. A great deal has been accomplished with the aid and encouragement of the Government. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has a very proud record in what has been done in the nine years since we first started preparing for membership.
There is important work still to be done. The Government are intensifying their own preparatory efforts. We confidently hope there will be a like response from all levels in the country. By these preparations we will be able in the course of time to take full and effective advantage of the opportunities which membership of the Communities will offer. It is not necessary to tell the House that membership of the European Communities will not represent the great panacea. What can be achieved—and the Government believe that much can be achieved within the greatly improved economic environment of the Communities—will be achieved only by our own efforts in the full awareness of the new possibilities and the opportunities opening before us.
The Taoiseach stated it was the Government's intention to maintain continuous consultation with the representative bodies such as the farmers' organisations and those representing industry, the Congress of Trade Unions, the chambers of commerce and others while negotiations are going on. All these bodies have a most important part to play. All the contact with the Community cannot be at Government level only. It seems to me that it would be most desirable that bodies such as those mentioned by the Taoiseach should intensify contact where it already exists or establish contact where this has not been done with their counterparts in the member states and the other applicant countries. We should not have the misconception that contact with such organisations in other countries should be done by the Government. It would be much better done by contact with the corresponding organisations here. These contacts provide opportunities for valuable exchanges of views and for making our interests better known and for getting an insight into the working of the Communities and for finding out all the things which Deputy Dr. FitzGerald felt the Government should be telling these bodies about. There is definite need for all bodies, the lives of whose members will be affected by membership of the Community, to be actively engaged in finding out how corresponding bodies in other countries are affected by EEC membership. If anything arises out of their contacts on which the Government can help, we will certainly do so. I wondered when listening to the extraordinarily learned contribution this morning whether this was a proper function of the Dáil. We were discussing without any prospect of an outcome in the nature of a division on the passing of a motion; we were simply taking note of the White Paper.
I consider that informed debate and discussion throughout the country on what is involved in membership and how best we can prepare ourselves for the opportunities and conditions in the Community can only be of value. This debate in the Dáil can give strong impetus to other debates throughout the country and I hope the facts, and not the fearful imaginings of some people, will be the basis of the attitude of the Irish people towards membership of the European Economic Community.
Since our application to join the EEC was reactivated some time ago the Labour Party have been impressing on the Taoiseach and the Government the necessity to get all possible information and make it available to the people. Eventually the Taoiseach arranged that a White Paper would be published but on reading this paper we realised that the object of the White Paper was not to set out the pros and cons of membership of the Common Market but was simply to see what the Government could get away with without any questions being asked. When this was realised the Labour Party demanded that there should be a discussion on the question in this House.
However, I am afraid this discussion has not been following the lines some of us would like. Instead of the Taoiseach and his Ministers attempting to put the facts of the case before the Dáil, what has happened is that both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have discovered they have a unanimity on most of the matters concerned which they appear to think are in favour of Ireland's entry, and they desire to skate over any unpalatable facts. This was evident when Deputy O'Higgins spoke yesterday, as it was when Deputy FitzGerald spoke this morning——
If that was skating, I did quite a bit.
I was going to make that point. I am not decrying the effort Deputy FitzGerald put into the preparation of his contribution but I am sure when he reads it all—I see he is doing so now—he will realise that most of what he said seemed mainly to be for the purpose of saying how wonderful Fianna Fáil were and, since Fine Gael agreed with them, they were wonderful too.
I do not recall saying that.
I am not surprised. It is inevitable when one speaks for four hours that there will be repetition and contradiction in that speech. It would happen to any of us if we attempted to do that. The major difference between the approach of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and that of the Labour Party is that the other two parties seem to be obsessed with the idea of figures. As Deputy Corish said when opening the debate for the Labour Party, we in this party are obsessed with the idea of people.
It is all right to try to prove that certain things should happen: a percentage increase in one area and a reduction in another, but the plain facts are that, if we go into the Common Market, not alone will there not be a general improvement in our economy but for a considerable period at least there will be a reduction in the number of people employed, which reduction has been put by some economists as high as 100,000 people in a period of less than two years. They have also stated that there will be a most substantial increase in the cost of living. In the reference to improved incomes both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael seem to have ignored the fact that if a person is earning, say, £15 per week and it costs him £14 to live he has £1 over, whereas when a person gets £50 in wages and it costs him £55 to live he is then in trouble.
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy——
If you do not wish to interrupt, please let me continue. I have taken enough today and do not wish for any more even from my friend.
Can the Deputy tell me what will happen if we do not enter the Community?
If Deputy Burke would allow me to proceed. I would have answered that question even without his prompting.
What about the eastern bloc?
Deputy Tully should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
Deputy Briscoe has asked about the eastern bloc. Let me say I almost forgot about that matter.
I would not be so uncharitable as to bring the matter up.
The Deputy may not be in the same section of the Fianna Fáil Party as Deputy Briscoe—perhaps that is one of the things on which they may not be in agreement. Nobody can accuse me of sympathy with the Governments of certain Eastern European countries. In this debate we have heard repeated references to a united Europe but this I regard as a fallacy when even Germany itself is not united. In such a situation how can we speak about the necessity to have a united Europe? In Deputy FitzGerald's speech today he spoke about the Russian and American blocs and said there was a necessity for a third power. When the Deputy was speaking of the two great powers I think he was referring to their military strength and, therefore, his reference to a third power means, in effect, a military power.
This brings us to the unsolicited reply the Taoiseach gave some time ago to a newspaper reporter in Paris that we were prepared to accept all commitments, including defence—incidentally the Minister for External Affairs repeated the reply here today. At the time of the Taoiseach's statement no other country that had applied for membership in the EEC, or any country actually in the Community, had guaranteed the defence of Europe, but the Taoiseach was prepared to guarantee that Ireland would be prepared to take part in the defence of Europe. The Minister for External Affairs has twice repeated that statement.
I do not know if the Deputy will permit me to intervene? My statement was made in the context that we would be part of a Community the defence of which Community would be in our interest.
On reflection, would the Taoiseach not agree that it was rather foolish to guarantee to participate in a military bloc when, in fact, he was not asked that question and there was no necessity to give such a guarantee before applying for membership?
I have said that many times since then.
It was wrong to have made the statement on the first occasion. Once such a statement is made by a person like the Taoiseach it goes on the record and that is that. We have been hearing much about what we are going to get, so far as agriculture is concerned, once we enter the Common Market. Is it not a fact that on 31st March of this year there was more than one million tons surplus of milk and milk products within the EEC? In this country we have a surplus of butter which we are having extreme difficulty in selling even at a low price. In the EEC they have got the butter and cannot even give it away. Yet, our farmers are told "It is all right, once we enter the EEC everything will be milk and honey"—if I may be forgiven the pun.
Milk and money.
The difficulty is that on going into the EEC we are prepared to say that everything will remain as it is under present arrangements within the Community. This is where I would find fault with the Government in particular. They should have spelled out clearly the defects as well as the improvements that could be effected. They should have pointed out in the first place that the milk problem has become so great within the Common Market that the agricultural advisers are strongly considering and, in fact, have a recommendation, to reduce the amount of milk available by the slaughter of milch cows. According to the Government, a dairy farmer in west Cork or in Westmeath or elsewhere would be quite happy if he were told that he will be all right when we join the Common Market because his best cows will be bought from him at a price almost double what they are worth at the present time.
In addition to that the recommendation has been made again and again by the Commission that agricultural prices must be downgraded. I understand that this suggestion has not so far been accepted. Surely this should have been brought to the notice of the Irish farmer because he will be expecting to receive prices as high as those that have been paid up to now. Is it not true that not only are milk and milk products being over-produced but also sugar beet and wheat? What is the substitute? The Minister was very anxious to find out from us what we would suggest should be substituted for membership of the Common Market. Would the Minister let us know what he thinks the Irish farmer could produce instead of the items for which there is no market?
We are being accused here of not having gone to the trouble of checking our information in relation to the Common Market but if the Minister investigates our activities, he will probably find that, apart from himself and his civil servants we have spent more time and more energy investigating the Common Market position than anybody else in this House.
Not on dairy policy.
Deputy FitzGerald being an expert on everything can make comments like that but we are interested in facts and not fantasy. That is the reason why I am now giving the facts to the Minister.
Some of them.
As I said earlier, I should hate to have to check even some of the facts that have been given to us today. To say the least, they were a little hazy. On the question of agriculture generally, the idea is being put across to the Irish farmer that if and when Ireland becomes a member of the Community, everything in the garden will be rosy for him. However, the evidence is to the contrary.
We went to a lot of trouble, also, in investigating what the industrial position would be if we joined. The Minister may contradict this if he considers it to be untrue. It appears that the many foreign firms who have come here did so mainly for three reasons. Firstly, they were offered certain grants and factory facilities; secondly, they were offered certain tax facilities and, thirdly, there was available a good pool of not cheap but adaptable labour.
Recently, some of us were talking to Continental industrialists who seemed to consider that the time was gone when the first two reasons were of any further attraction. They pointed out that if we joined the Common Market there would be no point in our telling them about the grants available because grants to industry would not be allowed under Common Market conditions. They also pointed out that there was no point in promising tax concessions since these, too, would not be permitted under Common Market conditions. Therefore, the third reason was the only one that had any meaning but they considered that, as things stand, the position might be so bad here with regard to employment that they would get the workers in their own Continental factories in any case. This may sound a little odd but it seems reasonable. Apparently these people were satisfied that there was no incentive for them to come here. If that is so and if it transpires that we are unable to maintain our industry against foreign competition, we are in for a fairly rough time.
I was interested in what was said by the two Fine Gael speakers who were prepared to condemn the Free Trade Area Agreement at this stage and who said that Fine Gael did not support that agreement. I should like to repeat what I said earlier by way of interruption that while it is true they did not support it, they did abstain from voting against it so that by default they allowed it to go through almost unchallenged except by the Labour Party. That being so, I fear that something similar is likely to happen now. Fianna Fáil are bent on joining the Common Market under any conditions and some of the Fine Gael spokesmen give the impression that they agree.
I should like to spell out what we in the Labour Party are saying since some people do not understand plain English. In the first place, we believe that if there is any other way out of it, we should not join the Common Market. Secondly, we believe that the question of association rather than membership has not been fully pursued or properly processed. Thirdly, we know that if Britain joins we have no option under present circumstances except to do likewise. This is plain enough for anybody and those people who suggest that we do not know what we are talking about and that we should join under any circumstances are in the same category as a former Taoiseach who was prepared to go it alone. Of course, he was on his own because nobody else agreed with him and he had to change his mind and dodge the issue as best he could.
We are quite clear but we are being practical. That is the difference between our Party and the other two Parties. We should endeavour to get the best bargain we can. There is no use in saying that we have no bargaining power because of the conditions laid down in the Treaty of Rome and that we must stand by these conditions. Neither is there any use in people coming in here trying to give the impression that since we are to have a voice in the Common Market, that voice will be very important and will have the effect of bringing about certain changes because we will be a very small voice indeed. I interrupted Deputy FitzGerald this morning to point out that the numbers he had given, 30 representatives against ten, as Deputy Corish said earlier, and Deputy O'Higgins also contradicted Deputy FitzGerald on this point, were not accurate. The proposal is, of course, that there should be 30, but at present the position is that there are ten.
It is the same proportion.
It makes no difference whether it is ten or 30.
It is 5 per cent.
It makes no difference. At the moment there seems to be nearly as big a split in the Common Market as there is in the Fianna Fáil Party.
The Deputy is fascinated by us, day after day. Deputy L'Estrange has gone home to dream of Fianna Fáil.
I heard Fianna Fáil were having nightmares about him recently.
The Deputy would be lost without us.
While France is sticking to the original idea that this should be a community of countries, Germany wants a federation. We know why. The French make no secret of the fact that they do not want a federation and they do not like the Germans for wanting that, and for other reasons too, and they are anxious therefore to make an ally of anybody else who would be likely to be of assistance to them, particularly voting-wise. Our Department of External Affairs might be a great deal better off if they tried to get as many allies as possible who think the same way as we do on certain issues. That might not be a bad idea at all.
The whole problem is whether or not Britain will go in. I was interested in some of the newspaper reports about the attitude of Britain. I am sure everybody reads the Evening Press; I read it to find out what the other side are saying. This is a cutting from the Evening Press of 24th June:
E.E.C. COST TO BRITISH ECONOMY.
Negotiations between Britain and the Common Market, due to open on Tuesday, will stand or fall on the issue of what joining the community will cost the British economy.
The most pessimistic answer— £1,100 million a year—was put forward in a British Government White Paper last February and is clearly unacceptable. The document also gave £100 million as its most optimistic guess.
One fact, however, has to be faced. Food prices in Britain will rise—by up to 26 per cent if Britain joins the European Community. This would increase overall expenditure on Food by 22 per cent and put the cost of living up 5 per cent.
If Britain joins the Six, she will have to accept the Common Market system under which farmers are paid well above world prices for their produce.
Curiously, the switch to the Common Market system could help Britain's balance of payments by lopping up to £85 million a year off the food imports bill. This calculation is based on the assumption of a large increase in home production stemming from price increases.
These are the facts as Britain sees them. If Britain has not yet made up her mind about accepting the conditions of membership, then the fact that we seem to be nailing our colours to the mast and saying: "O-kay, we are going in" does not seem to be the right attitude and, while the Minister for External Affairs was making great play of the fact that we were seeking accession with Britain, I just could not see the point in it. Britain should first be allowed to find out whether or not she will go in before we commit ourselves because we cannot influence the issue, one way or the other, and I honestly believe this is where we are making a mistake.
I was rather surprised to discover that horticulture and fruit-growing do not appear to be of any interest whatever to the Common Market countries. Is it not something of a coincidence that this year the Department of Agriculture here has let the bottom fall out of the soft fruit industry? Is there any connection between the two? Down in my constituency farmers, who depend for their livelihood on the sale of fruit, cannot even give the fruit away this year. Has that got anything to do with the idea that we might be in the Common Market and the sooner we get these people out of the way the better? It is a heartless approach. There is an onus on the Department of Agriculture to ensure that these people will not find themselves on the breadline when the season is over.
In addition, we have the Mansholt Plan. Deputy FitzGerald said this morning we were making a bogeyman out of Mansholt. I do not think we are but, if anybody suggests that the traditional small farmer, the backbone of this country down through the years, should be removed and replaced with the massive 200 acres, and upwards, farm and our new agricultural economy should be based on that, then I suggest that these people think again. If anybody suggests that the small farmer should be asked to seek alternative employment elsewhere— probably in Europe—then Mansholt's idea, whether he is a socialist or a capitalist, does not suit this country.
The Deputy does not approve of group farming.
I have never found anybody in Fine Gael very enthusiastic about group farming.
I am.
There was one group farm down in the Deputy's part of the country and a dishonest bookkeeper put it out of commission. Another thing I found rather touching today was the desire of Deputy FitzGerald, and other Fine Gael speakers, and some Fianna Fáil speakers—I regard both of them as belonging to two Tory parties—to see the Labour Party row in with what they describe as the socialist parties of Europe. It was very touching to find the socialist parties of Europe supported by everybody, and I hope that will continue, but they seemed to overlook the fact that a French socialist is French first and socialist afterwards and the German socialist is German first and socialist afterwards. The Labour Party here is Irish first and socialist afterwards. We make no apology for that. Deputy FitzGerald and other should remember that.
One of the things which was passed over as not being of very much consequence was the reference to the change in the Constitution. A few moments ago the Minister confirmed my view that he, at any rate, felt the question of what changes had to be made was not very important and there should not be too much noise about it beforehand. If he thinks that Article 5, which states that Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic State is not of importance to the people then I think he will have to have another think about it. As Deputy O'Brien said yesterday, we will find it very difficult in the Labour Party not to try to prevent people voting for this change. Here is where there should be some hard negotiation because, if we are going to throw our Constitution overboard in this manner and admit that we are no longer a sovereign, democratic nation, but just tied on to other countries as a very small unit without the right to make decisions for ourselves, then I do not believe the people will be prepared to accept that.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 30th June, 1970.