I thank the Taoiseach for his brief statement on his visit to Prime Minister Barre and his lunch with President Giscard d'Estaing. He has confirmed in his statement the long-standing relationship and cordiality with France which is more than a cliché. I know from my own period as Minister for Foreign Affairs that it is a reality based both on common interests, which within the EEC are strong and binding, and a genuine kind of sympathy. It is a good thing that the visit the Taoiseach paid was to this neighbour of ours with whom we have such close bonds. I am glad that such visits are to be a regular feature in future and they will be a useful development of our relationship with France.
The Taoiseach in these discussions naturally raised, and had raised with him, questions affecting the EEC and in particular the problems arising from the British requirement for a second renegotiation effectively of the Treaty of Accession. The Taoiseach has not said much on this subject and it may be that it is not possible to say much on it at present. In view of the fact that the British claim is based on being the third poorest country in the EEC and was made despite the favourable balance of payments situation of the UK, I would trust that the Taoiseach in his discussions sought to ensure that, in so far as measures are taken to reduce the burden on the UK as the third poorest member and despite their favourable balance of payments situation, equivalent appropriate measures will be taken in relation to this country also, which of course is the least well off member country with a balance of payments deficit probably the worst in relation to its GNP of any member country.
I hope that if any part of a solution that may be proposed at the forthcoming European Council—or more probably at a later one—involves special measures such as financing a channel tunnel, an equivalent and parallel arrangement will be made for similar projects in this country whether they be cross-Border or other projects. It is important that we should not allow British diplomacy to create an impression that Britain has a special problem greater and worse than that of countries less well off than themselves and whose external payments position is worse. The nature of the campaign waged by British politicians on behalf of their country, as is appropriate for them to do, calls on our part for a presentation of our position realistically and factually so that in any solution we should not be left at a disadvantage. It would be very ironic indeed for a country less well off than Britain—although we have caught up with Britain to a degree over the last 20 years—because of the nature of our historical relationship with that country, if we were called upon to provide subsidies to aid a country significantly better off than we are. There would be no logic or justice in that, and a degree of charity beyond what is called for even between friendly neighbours such as we are, with Great Britain next door to us.
The Taoiseach referred to the proposed super levy on milk production and he said that this was something "to which we expressed our total opposition". I was a little disturbed by this phrase because it is a unilateral expression of our opposition and I would have hoped that the Taoiseach would have been able to say that this was a matter on which the French Government and ourselves jointly expressed total opposition. One of the primary purposes of this visit should have been to secure from the French Government a clear commitment that they would oppose any form of super levy, which is the equivalent in its effects of a quota restriction on the output of Irish dairy products and which would run against and undermine the most basic principles of the Community—the principle of comparative advantage based on fair and free trade—and would prevent our agriculture from making up the leeway lost over several centuries of an essentially exploitationary relationship with a neighbouring island.
The expression here does not suggest that the Taoiseach on this issue secured complete support from the French Government. I hope that my interpretation of his words is incorrect and that on this issue we will have the complete support which we thought to have, not because of any special claims that we wish to make by special pleading on our behalf, but because of the fundamental principle involved here of allowing comparative advantage to operate. We have allowed it to operate in regard to industrial products with the result that the EEC countries on the Continent have increased their exports to this country much more than twice in volume terms since we joined and they will continue to do so with no restrictions of quota, controls or super levies on them. By definition we on our side should not be inhibited or impeded from developing our natural advantages here. We should ensure that there is no question of a freezing of the present pattern of milk production with in the Community, which is distorted by historical factors, with a much lower output in this country than would be the case if free competition were allowed to operate within the Community over an adequate number of years for us to overcome the disadvantages of our history.
I note what the Taoiseach has said about taking the opportunity of outlining to the President and the Prime Minister of France our policy on Northern Ireland and the Taoiseach's view of the urgent need for a just and lasting solution. I note that he said that they listened with understanding and sympathy to what he had to say, but he does not suggest that they made any comment on it. It has, of course, been the universal practice, certainly in my experience of such visits to other countries, whether on a Prime Minister level or a Foreign Minister level, to inform the other member countries of our position and our concern as they are, at the moment in time, as regards Northern Ireland. This has been done on all occasions that I have been aware of, since the period when I was in Government, in any event, and it has been an important feature of our diplomacy to use these opportunities to inform our partners in the Community and other countries abroad of our view of the situation and ensure that they understand fully the problem of Northern Ireland as we see it. It has not, however, been our practice in the past to highlight particularly this aspect of the diplomatic exchanges which have been a part of quiet diplomacy carried out with a view to producing the most effective results. I would have some fear lest the heightening publicity attaching to them—however beneficial that might appear to be in terms of domestic opinion—might prove counter-productive and perhaps especially at a time when, very belatedly, after five years of almost total inertia, the United Kingdom Government are seeking to make some progress in this area, in the first instance through negotiations taking place in Northern Ireland and, ultimately, through the decision which they propose to take after these negotiations, whatever their outcome. Nothing we do at this stage should be such as to arouse in the United Kingdom any feelings that might be counter-productive to a constructive outcome to the reconsideration of the Northern Ireland problem at present under way. I shall leave the matter at that point, without further comment, but I feel that that much needs to be said.
I am glad to hear of the proposal to consider having an exhibition in Paris in about two years' time, on the lines of the Treasures of Ireland Exhibition which recently toured the United States. Anyone who has had occasion to visit the French capital over the years will be aware of the immense impact made there by exhibitions of this kind from various parts of the world. The effect on French opinion, which is, one could say, very highly culturally-orientated, of having an exhibition of that kind from this country could be very considerable and has been in relation to other similar exhibitions. This seems to be an extremely constructive and useful initiative, which I warmly welcome.
Naturally, we are pleased about anything which is going to help to improve our telephone system, even if somewhat belatedly, and the project involving additional employment is particularly welcomed.
I thank the Taoiseach for his statement, following a precedent in this matter, and am glad that the conversations appear to have been successful. I hope that, in working out a solution to the British problem, the Irish and French Governments will work closely together to ensure both the protection of our interests and the successful outcome that will enable the United Kingdom to get out of the difficulties which they have got into partly through over-stating their claims and raising the ante too high. We must try to help the United Kingdom out of their, to some degree, self-imposed difficulties, but help the United Kingdom in a way which does no damage to our interests and ensures their full protection. I am sure that the Taoiseach's visit to Paris will have been helpful in ensuring that outcome.