I move:
That Seanad Eireann takes note of the White Paper—The Accession of Ireland to the European Communities—and the Supplement thereto.
Accession of Ireland to the European Communities: Motion.
I think it is quite clear that in the welter of arguments and counterarguments that have greeted the White Paper and the decision we are about to make as to whether or not we become members of the European Economic Community everybody agrees on one point—that the decision is a very important decision indeed. It is a decision which will affect not only everybody in this country at the present time and for the next few years but probably our children and our children's children. What is not quite so clear to many people is the fact that we have to choose between two roads both of which are completely new. Many people seem to think that they can opt between going into the Community and staying as we are. Many people are inclined to take the view that because becoming members of the Community has certain problems, because they are confused by some of the issues, because the benefits seem to them to be possibly outweighed by the disadvantages, they are inclined to say that they will vote "No" or possibly that they will not vote at all in the hope that by so doing conditions will remain as they are. This, of course, is completely invalid and untrue and it is one of the things that must be driven home to everybody who is going to vote on 10th May. We are deciding either to go into the Community or to take a completely different road, a road which is outside the Community, a road which will create for us just as many changes and, to my mind, far more difficult changes than becoming members of the Community.
We must all realise that the principal matter which we are deciding at the present time, the principal issue, is what kind of a market will we have for our agricultural produce and for our industrial goods in the years ahead. Where will that market be? Will it be in the European Community, or will we have to seek new markets outside the Community? Of course, the key to this whole problem is the fact that up to now approximately two-thirds of our exports went to the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom becomes a member of the Community and if we do not, that market will no longer be open to us.
Although there are many other ramifications in connection with membership of the Community, the problem basically is where will our market be for agricultural produce and for industrial goods? Can we, or should we, become members of the Community where we know to a very considerable extent the kind of market there will be, where we know in regard to agriculture certainly, that there will be a guaranteed market, where we know what kind of prices we will get, where we know, in regard to industrial goods, what kind of conditions we will face? Are we going into that market or are we, for other reasons — perhaps some of them reasonable and well argued—going to remain outside the Community and seek markets elsewhere, in the Middle East, Australia, Japan, the United States, everywhere in the world but not in the nine nations of Europe which are either members of the Community or are about to become members?
It seems to me that the choice is one in which, on the face of it, it is much better to move into a situation where we know most of the factors, where we know most of the conditions and where we are reasonably sure of what the position will be, what the advantages will be and also what the problems will be, rather than to take a chance by taking a leap in the dark.
In considering whether or not we should become members of the Community we should have regard to two basic problems which we have had in this country for the last 50 years since we obtained our independence and which we have not succeeded in solving. These are the problems of finding a reasonable market for our agricultural produce and of providing full employment for our people.
In spite of the efforts of successive Governments to introduce many new policies, plans, schemes and so on, we still have the problem of being unable to find a remunerative market for our agricultural produce and of being able to solve the question of unemployment. Having considered the situation which will exist in the European Community, everybody in this country, if they come to the conclusion that membership would solve these problems or would go a long way towards solving them, should very seriously consider membership.
What is the position in regard to membership as it affects these two problems? In regard to agricultural produce there can be little doubt in anybody's mind at this stage of the campaign that membership of the Community would be a tremendous advantage to the agricultural community. It is not merely that better prices would be obtained in the Community or that there is a guaranteed market, because this might change.
One must have regard to the fact that it is the policy—a very definite part of the policy of the European Community—to provide fair prices to the agricultural community, to ensure as far as this is possible that the agricultural community will have a standard of living which is comparable to the remainder of the Community; such as industrial workers, and those who work in commercial circles. We know that there is a guaranteed price market for agricultural goods and we know that there are prices which, over the past three or four years, have on average been almost 50 per cent higher than the prices which our farmers have been getting during these years.
In addition, we know that not only are there these prices and this guaranteed market, but there is a policy in the Community under the general heading of the Mansholt Plan. This is a policy to help the farmers in various other ways, to help those farmers who remain on their farms to improve their farms, to add to them and to ensure that they are effective and viable and that they can give a reasonable standard of living to the farmers who stay on them. There is also in this policy provision for those who either have to leave the farm or who want to leave it. Of course, it is useless to overlook the fact that there are many people who have to leave a farm. In a farm of anything up to 100 acres, if a farmer has four or five sons, then quite obviously they cannot all remain on the farm: some will have to leave. There are other people who, for one reason or another, do not want to remain farmers but have other ideas as to what their occupation should be. For those who have to leave and those who want to leave, the European Community policy provides many benefits and many aids. It provides pensions for older farmers who want to retire. It provides retraining for those who do not want to remain on the farms or who cannot remain. It provides resettlement grants and it provides incentives for small industries to provide employment in agricultural areas.
Therefore, from every point of view, the European Community recognises the problems of the agricultural community. It recognises the need for reasonable prices, the need for a firm market, and from a social point of view, it recognises the needs of those who have to leave the agricultural areas and the needs of those who wish to remain on them. Consequently, there can be little doubt in the mind of anybody who considers the future of the agricultural community that there are great and many advantages for the farming community in membership of the Community.
However, there is another aspect of this which is sometimes overlooked. Many people look at the conditions that would exist in the Community and say: "Perhaps these are advantageous and perhaps farmers would get slightly better prices, perhaps they would have a guaranteed market, but on balance the disadvantages or the sacrifices we might have to make are not worth while and consequently we shall stay as we are." This overlooks the fact, particularly where the agricultural community is concerned, that if we go in, conditions will be much better, but if we do not go in conditions will be immeasurably worse. If we do not become members of the Community, not only will the farmers not get the very advantageous prices which I have mentioned, but they will not merely carry on as they are at the present time. They will find themselves with virtually no market in the Community. They will find themselves having to look for markets in other parts of the world and will almost certainly fail to get anything which would be comparable with conditions in the European Community.
It is of some advantage to consider, for instance, the position in regard to milk products. For the past ten or more years we have had Bord Bainne, a marketing board for milk products. It is one of the most efficient and successful marketing boards of its kind anywhere in the world. During these years Bord Bainne has attempted to find markets all over the world— in the Far East, Japan, the Middle East, South America, everywhere. Yet, at the end of ten years of hard trying, at the end of ten years of imaginative marketing, the position still is that only 15 per cent of our milk products are sold outside the United Kingdom. The remaining 85 per cent are sold in the United Kingdom; this in spite of all these efforts.
What will the position be if Bord Bainne are to be told that from 1st January next they will have to try and sell the remaining 85 per cent? Where will they sell these goods? Where will they try that they have not tried before? Is there any reasonable prospect that Bord Bainne, any other board or any other marketing agent can sell that 85 per cent of our milk product exports anywhere else except to the United Kingdom or to the European Economic Community which would then include the United Kingdom?
In regard to beef and meat generally the position undoubtedly is that there would be times in the future when the European Community would want beef and mutton from this country. There would be times when it would suit them to take our beef and other times when it would not suit them. Consequently the position would be that some years the European Community might take quite a lot of our beef, some years they might take very little, and some years it is possible they would not take any. There could be nothing more disastrous for the farming community than a position in which they would not know from one year to another exactly how much of a demand there would be for their meat in the following year and the year after.
This is the position quite apart from the problem of prices. There can be no doubt in regard to prices, although the prices might be reasonably good, that they would never be more than about three-quarters of the price the farmers in the Community would be getting themselves. From every point of view it seems quite clear that not only would conditions for the agricultural community be very much better in the Community, but if we do not go in they will be immeasurably worse even than they are at the present time.
When dealing with the question of agriculture at this stage many of those who oppose membership have been forced to concede that of course for some farmers it would be an advantage, so they are now in the position of saying: "Well, it may be good for the medium-sized farmers or the big farmers, but it certainly will not be good for the small farmers." It is suggested that in some way it will not benefit small farmers; it is suggested that small farmers will be forced off their farms. It is difficult to understand this argument because prices—the price for butter, milk, beef and mutton— will be fixed by the European Community. That price will be the same whether the product comes from a big farm, a medium farm or a small farm. Nobody will stop and ask exactly what size of a farm this beast comes from. Nobody will differentiate when it comes to prices between the kind of farmer who produced the product. I challenge anybody to show how a small farmer will not benefit just as much in regard to each individual product as a big farmer when it comes to selling his produce.
Again, of course, there is no question of pressure being put on small farmers to leave their farms. It is true that the Community have suggested that certain farms are viable, that a certain size of farm, depending on the produce of that farm, depending how intensively it is farmed, would be able to support two men and that possibly another farm would not. This is merely a principle; this is merely setting out what is the ideal kind of farm. There is no question of any farmer, no matter how small, or no matter how inefficient for that matter, being forced to leave his farm. It is entirely a matter for him whether to carry on, to enlarge his farm, to farm his farm more intensively, or to move out to some other occupation. It will be his choice and his choice entirely. This suggestion that people will be forced off small farms of course has no foundation whatever in fact, as most of those who say this know very well indeed.
However, I do not think it is necessary at this stage of the campaign to labour the situation in regard to the position of the farmers of this country. I think the vast majority are well aware at this stage of the advantages which lie for them in the Community. I think it is very significant that all the farmers' organisations at this stage have come down very firmly and very enthusiastically in favour of membership of the Community. All of these farmers' organisations know their job; they know what is to the benefit of the farmers. They have consulted their members. I am not going to hold myself out as an expert, but certainly, apart from the apparent benefits to farmers, apart from the statistics, prices and policies which I can read, it only seems to clinch the issue when all of those who advise farmers, all of the organisations which represent farmers, are quite positive that the benefits for farmers lie within the Community. I have no doubt that the vast majority of farmers will take that advice when the time comes.
The second basic problem which I referred to earlier on, the problem which has been with us over the years and is still with us, is the problem of unemployment. In considering how we can deal with this problem of unemployment, I think we must realise that to provide large scale employment we must depend almost entirely on industry. In a prosperous country, in an expanding country, some extra employment would be provided in services, building and transport, in tourism and various services that are provided for the community. Basically, to take up the number of people in this country who require employment, to provide the extra 40,000 or 50,000 jobs which would be necessary to solve the problem of unemployment, it is only by expanding industry very considerably, it is only by a massive expansion of industry, that one could deal with this problem of unemployment.
The second thing which must be realised in regard to expansion of industry is that in order to expand on that kind of scale industry would need new markets, new export markets. At the present time industry in this country provides more than enough goods to satisfy the needs of the people in this country. If industry is to expand it must do so by export. It must find markets abroad. It must find markets which are favourable markets, where the goods would be acceptable, where there will not be any undue restrictions to tariffs, quotas, customs or anything in regard to tariffs, quotas, customs or anything of that kind. In the European Community there will be, if the four applicant countries become members, a community or market of 250 million people. This, I think, has been described as the biggest market in the world. Our industry will have free access to that market and will have a splendid opportunity of expanding its exports, expanding industry and providing the employment which is required.
Industry in this country, of course, will not have a guaranteed market there, and will not have, unlike their agricultural colleagues, guarantees of that kind. But industry will have a fair opportunity with no restrictions of any kind, without tariffs, or quotas. Industry in any part of this country will have an opportunity to compete with every industry in every other part of the EEC. If our industrialists produce goods which are of good quality, well-designed and competitive in price, there is no reason at all why these goods should not find a ready market and no reason why our industrialists should not expand and provide the employment which is required.
Some people say we will not be able to compete with European industries, that our industries are too small or too young or not efficient enough and that, consequently, if we go into the ECC we will be submerged by the large, long-standing and highly efficient industries of Europe. Of course, there is no reason to accept that argument at the present time. In the past ten or 15 years our industries have made great strides: they have succeeded in exporting their goods to practically every country in the world. The industrialists have improved the quality and design of their goods and their marketing techniques. They are now exporting something like £250 million worth of goods each year. There is no reason to believe that, having reached that stage, they have anything to fear from competition of existing industries in the EEC.
We should get away from the idea that we have something to fear from big industries. We should get away from the idea that, if we compete in Europe, our competitors will be huge industries with millions and millions behind them. The fact of the matter is that most of the industries in each of the EEC countries are very small industries. In most of the European countries something in the region of 90 per cent of industry employs less than 100 people, so that most of the industries in France, Germany, Great Britain, and even in the United States, which are highly industrialised countries, still consist mainly of very small industries employing less than 100 people. Consequently, most of our industries which are small, and some of course which are very much bigger than those I have mentioned, will have the same footing as these industries. They will be able to compete on equal terms from the point of view of numbers. What will decide whether or not we compete successfully is the efficiency of our industries, and not the size of them. Consequently, there is no reason to be unduly pessimistic—or pessimistic at all—about the ability of our industries to sell their goods in the Community and to expand and provide the employment which I have mentioned.
It is true that some firms in this country will not be able to stand up to competition. Some firms will collapse under the strain of competition or go out of business, not merely because of competition but because they are producing goods which are badly designed, or producing goods which are going out of fashion, or producing goods which are superseded by some other better type of goods. We will have firms which will gradually go out of business but it has been estimated that the effect of membership of the EEC would not affect more than approximately 10,000 jobs at the most. This is not a figure taken out of the hat; it has been carefully estimated. It is a figure which takes in every possible consideration. Nearly half of that figure is composed of workers in the motor assembly industry which will have to go gradually but which has been given until 1985 before it has to go. Ten thousand jobs is the most that are likely to be lost as a result of membership of the EEC. There are other industries which in or out of the Community would probably go out of business because of bad management or other reasons and this has nothing to do with the discussion in which we are involved at the present time.
From the point of view of the competition we are likely to find as members of the EEC we cannot maintain certain tariffs and quotas. From that point of view the number of jobs which are likely to be lost would be in the region of 10,000 jobs. Against that, those who have made these estimates about the loss of jobs also made estimates about the likely additional jobs as a result of membership of the EEC. Again this figure has been calculated carefully.
It is estimated that by 1978 there should be at least an additional 50,000 jobs in this country. This figure has not been taken out of the hat. It has been estimated that additional employment in industry will be provided in four specific categories. If the agricultural community prospers and increases its output one of the ways in which employment will be affected will be in processing. Agricultural goods will be exported in a somewhat different manner from that in which they are exported at present. A good deal of extra processing will be necessary. A lot of extra equipment and fertilisers will be necessary. It has been estimated that approximately 10,000 extra jobs will be provided to enable farmers to have their goods processed and to get the extra equipment and the extra fertilisers which will be required for the extra output which they will have as a result of the better prices which they will obtain.
It has been estimated that farmers will receive approximately £100 million extra for their produce within the next three or four years. It is not true, as some city people say, that farmers put all the money they get under the mattress. Farmers nowadays are sophisticated people and if they have an additional £100 million they will spend that money, some of it on additional capital goods, some on additional equipment for their farms and some on consumer goods—clothes, additional food, household equipment, cars and so on. Consequently, this £100 million extra, which the farmers will have, will have a multiplier effect. It will provide extra output in factories and will result in new factories being opened. As a result of this, many tens of thousands of extra jobs will be provided in industry, and employment will benefit.
I have already mentioned that existing factories in the country which are already exporting successfully will be able to export even more successfully in the EEC where there will be no restrictions or tariffs as compared with the present situation where in some cases they have to overcome restrictions of many kinds. With the expansion of existing industries there will be many extra jobs.
Finally, if we become members of the Community, many industrialists from countries outside the Community will be anxious to avail of the market within that Community, which will be the biggest market in the world. Many industries from America, Japan and various other countries outside the Community are already making plans to build industries in one or other of the countries which are already in the Community or which are applicants for membership.
There can be little doubt that under this fourth heading, Ireland will benefit considerably. A few weeks ago a very important consultancy firm from Japan published their report on this matter. They had been asked to survey the scene in Europe and to advise their clients in Japan, who are big industrialists, as to the most suitable countries amongst the applicant countries, in which to set up industries in order to avail of the opportunities within the European Community. This consultant firm published their report setting out the advantages and disadvantages of various countries and allotted marks on the basis of these advantages. They finally said that they considered that this country was the most suitable one in which any firm outside the Community which wanted to avail of this market should set up industries.
I have no doubt that this advice given to its clients in Japan will be acted upon by many industrialists there and that if we become members of the Community many industries will be set up here by Japanese firms in order to avail of opportunities in the EEC. The reasons which led this firm of consultants to advise that Ireland was the most suitable country for this purpose will be valid for other countries too. There can be little doubt about many new industries being set up here by industrialists from outside the Community and many, many thousands of extra jobs being provided as a result.
When I mention the figure of 50,000 jobs, which was not my figure but one which has been compiled by experts, it is quite clear that this figure is a reasonable one and that this figure has many factors to back it up. It is, if anything, a small figure compared to what may eventually transpire between now and the end of this decade. If expansion of industry takes place on this scale, then there can be no doubt but that our problem of unemployment, which has dogged us for the past 50 years and is probably our most serious problem, will be solved. There will be little or no unemployment in the country. If this is true, the arguments seem to be very valid ones and there are overwhelming reasons for voting for membership of the Community.
The regional development policy is another aspect which should be seriously considered. This is not as advanced as some of the other policies of the Community. Nevertheless, it is a very important policy and one which holds out great prospects for this country. This is not something which has been mentioned casually by the Commission or by the Council of Ministers, or something which they have thought up overnight. It is mentioned specifically as one of the basic policies of the Community in the Treaty of Rome. The policy mentioned in the Treaty of Rome is that there should be harmonious development of the economies of the Six by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of less favoured regions. It is a basic policy of the Community to ensure that all the countries within the Community share in the prosperity of the Community, that there should be no undue differences between the countries in the Community, and further that there should be no undue difference between the various regions in each of the countries.
In a country where there is a backward region, or an underdeveloped region, or a region which is lacking in natural resources, it is the policy of the Community to ensure, so far as it is possible to do so, that the people in such region should be helped by policy, by money and by every way possible to bring their standard of living up to the norm of the Community generally. We have in this country many underdeveloped regions which could and will benefit from this policy. The western regions and parts of the midlands would, on any test, qualify for special consideration. The tests are such that, apart from the east and south coasts, most parts of the country, with the exception of possibly some of the larger towns, would qualify for help from the regional development policy.
The help would come by way of funds for agriculture and help from the social fund, such as the training of workers. It would come by way of help from the Investment Bank to provide public works, roads, telephone services, electrical services, water, and so on. It would help by providing a grant of £625 for each new job provided in a new industry or project of any kind. These are the kind of aids which would be given to underdeveloped regions. This would be of tremendous benefit.
The Government in making their application for membership were conscious that many parts of this country could benefit from this regional policy and that we should pay particular attention to this policy. Consequently, in the application, a protocol was added drawing the specific attention of the Community to our interest in this policy. The Community agreed that this should be noted and particular attention given to our needs under the regional development policy. This policy is only in its early stages, even though the idea was written into the Treaty of Rome. It is beginning to accelerate and within the next three or four years it will develop its full potential. Consequently, if we are members, we will be in on the ground floor, not only when the policy is developing and when the benefits are available, but we will also have a hand in spelling out exactly how the policy should develop.
It is not true, as some opponents of membership have stated, that there is no policy of this kind. Anybody who looks at the position in southern Italy can see the changes and improvements made there. Southern Italy was one of the most depressed and underdeveloped parts of the Community. Now there are many new industries with a vast increase in employment. Nobody can have any hesitation in accepting and agreeing that the regional development policy which made its first major impact in southern Italy is a very real one. It has very real advantages. It can have for us even more advantages in the future.
I should like to say a few words about our position in the Community, our power, our influence and the extent to which we will still be masters of our own destiny, because many people have said that once we join we will be entirely at the mercy of the Council of Ministers, the Commission and so on. Many of them have made exaggerated comparisons with the position which existed here after 1800 when we were entirely governed by the parliament in Westminister. There is no comparison whatever with the situation following the Act of Union. We will still have power in 99 per cent of ordinary day-to-day decisions. The Government will still carry on much the same as they do at the present time. Parliament will still have much the same power. Our courts will still have much the same jurisdiction. It is only in very specific instances that we are agreeing to give power to the European institutions. We will agree that there should be free movement of goods, people and capital, and that there should be a common external customs barrier and in regard to the rules and regulations governing the common agricultural plan. For all other powers our institutions, Government, Parliament and so on will carry on very much the same as they do at the present time. Anybody who visits the existing countries, who studies the governments and institutions of France, Germany and Italy, will have no doubt whatever that the national institutions in these countries are still very much in command of their own affairs, with the specific exception of what is handed over to the Community.
When I say that we hand over certain powers I am not using the correct phrase, because what we are agreeing to do is to share certain powers with the other countries in the Community. As a member of the Community and as a member of the institutions in the Community we will have a share in exercising these powers. Consequently, there is no question of handing over our powers to institutions in Brussels and sitting here at home at the mercy of what these institutions in Brussels do.
We will have representation on these institutions, influence and a share in exercising the powers they will have. It is perfectly true to say that we will have an influence and a power on these institutions which is out of all proportion to our size, population, gross national product and so on. These institutions are operated in such a way as to ensure that the small countries have a fair share of power on these bodies, and cannot be steamrolled or overborne by the big countries; representation and voting powers have been so arranged. In all of them we will have a representation which is out of all proportion to our size.
On the Council of Ministers we will have one Minister which is exactly the same representation as the other countries, some of which are very much bigger than this country. This Council of Ministers is the institution which makes all the major policy decisions. We will have a hand in all major policy decisions in the future. We will be able to influence decisions in accordance with our own problems.
Each of the six smaller countries will have one member on the Commission and the four large countries will have two members. This is the institution which proposes the policy to the Council of Ministers and which implements the policies when the Council has approved of them. Again, having one member out of 14, having the same representation as the five smaller countries, and one as compared with two members for the bigger countries, we will have a great deal of influence on that body and nothing can happen on the Commission which would affect our interests adversely without our having the ability to put forward our point of view and to ensure that policy is not proposed in a way which would adversely affect this country.
Out of a proposed parliament of 208 we would have ten representatives. We would have ten parliamentarians as compared with 36 from the bigger countries such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy which have a population of between 50 million or 60 million. These countries have populations 20 times bigger than we have, yet their representation in the parliament will be only three and a half times as big as ours. It can be seen that we will have a good deal of power and influence in this parliament. It is true that at the present time the parliament is not very powerful. Its power in the institutional affairs of the Community is limited. It was the intention of the originators of the European Community that this parliament should have a great deal more power. It is still the intention that in due course it should be given more power.
I am glad to note that in the White Paper the Government has recognised this ideal of the Community and has shown its approval of it.
On page 77 it states:
6. The Treaties provide that the Parliament shall draw up proposals for the election of the member States' delegates by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States. The European Parliament drew up proposals in 1960, in the form of a draft Convention. However, no progress has been made in the Council of Ministers on these proposals.
7. The Government accept the aim embodied in the Treaties of elections to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure. We shall, as a member of the enlarged Communities, be in a position to participate in Community deliberations on this question. Ireland's representatives in the European Parliament will also have the opportunity of participating in its debates on this question.
From that it is clear that the Government share the objectives of the originators of the Community in regard to the European Parliament and will do their best to ensure that the Parliament will get added powers in the future, that it will be a more democratic Parliament and that it will reflect the democratic traditions not only of this country but of the other members of the Community.
I have mentioned the system of voting on the Council of Ministers and the representation in the Parliament and that the whole system within the Community is designed to ensure that the small countries get a fair deal, that they cannot be overborne and that their interests will always be recognised.
It should be mentioned that there is a final protection provided by a convention of the Council of Ministers. If any country claims in relation to a policy which is being considered by the Council of Ministers that its implementation would affect the vital interests of their country, then the Council of Ministers have agreed not to proceed with that particular policy. This is not exactly a veto, it is not written into the rules and procedure of the Council of Ministers, but it is a convention which has been accepted and which we can count on being accepted in the future. The French Government walked out of the Community and refused to participate any further unless this principle was accepted and recognised. They will no doubt insist on it being recognised in the future. We have, therefore, in addition to these various voting systems and so on, this final protection if a vital interest of ours should be affected.
In talking about this convention of the Council of Ministers, I am talking in mathematical terms, as though this were a mathematical game, a game of chess. This is merely what is on paper, what is provided for to ensure that each country gets a fair deal in the Community. From the practical point of view we must realise that it is not merely a matter of votes or of adding up various votes according to a formula and seeing what the result will be. The Community is a political organisation. It is a political body operated by politicians.
Apart from these technical protections for countries, we will have, in relation to every decision and policy which comes before the institutions, certain lobbies. There will be countries with similar interests. These countries will get together. Every policy and decision made will be the result of this communication between countries with common interests. There is no danger that Ireland will always be on the losing side. We will not always be proposing something in which nobody else has any interest. We will be members of the agricultural, fishery and regional development lobby. So will several other members of the Community. Always in these situations we will be looking for and obtaining help from other countries with similar interests. It is in that way that we, a small country, will be able to get policies through which will be helpful to this country. We have some talent in political matters. I do not doubt that as a result of the ability of the representatives which we will send to these institutions and to the parliament that we will ensure that our interests will be looked after and furthered in the European Community.
The most convincing argument which can be made in regard to our future as a small country in the European Community is the fact that it is the smaller countries in the existing Community— Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg, a tiny country—which are the most enthusiastic members of the Community. They have seen how these institutions work; they have seen how they have developed as members of the Community; they have seen that small countries are not overborne or pushed around, that they get a fair deal and that they have prospered in the Community. This should reassure and encourage us if we have any doubts about this question of the position of a small country in the European Community.
The proposal to join the Community is to many people a rather novel one, a formidable one, which they feel is too different. They think we should try to carry on as a completely independent country. Every generation in every country must face up to new problems. The world is changing all the time. It is a dynamic place in which problems change the whole time. It is necessary for any progressive community to find new solutions to meet new problems. Each generation has its own problems and it has to solve these problems in its own way.
We should remember what Charles Stewart Parnell said 100 years ago: "No man can set a limit to the march of a nation." Nobody, ten, 15, 20 or 50 years ago could envisage the kind of a situation in which we are at the present time; the kind of problems we face or the kind of solutions which we must find to solve these problems. We are not only entitled but encouraged by the Constitution to reach new solutions, to reach out for new relationships with other countries if that would benefit this country. Article 5 of the Constitution says:
Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Article 1 says:
The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions.
It is quite clear that there is an open invitation given to each generation to determine its relations with other nations. It is part of the Constitution.
If we decide at this stage of our history that it is necessary to determine different relations with other states, as we propose to do by membership of the Community, then it is something which is clearly provided for in the Constitution. The problems we face are very difficult ones—the problem of finding a market for our agricultural and industrial goods, of solving the question of unemployment. They are great problems. It is only a dynamic approach to these problems which will ensure that they will be solved. I believe that membership of the Community is the solution to these problems, the solution that is available to this generation and the solution that will solve these problems for many generations to come.
There is no doubt that the decision to be taken by the people on 10th May is a vitally important one—a decision which, whether it is for or against entry into the Common Market, will have its effects not only on this generation but on generations to come.
In many ways the decision to be taken next month is one which should concern the younger generation rather than the over 40s. For that reason it is a pity that the Government did not decide to take the referendum on the question of extending the franchise to people 18 years and over before the EEC referendum. This would have given young people who have reached 18 years an opportunity of voting in the EEC referendum. However, the decision has been made by the Government to take the EEC referendum first and the other referendum later. We are within a few weeks of decision day, so far as the future of this country in its relationship with Europe and its relationship with the northern part of our country and with Great Britain is concerned.
One of the least helpful things in this important discussion is the making of exaggerated claims by extremists on either side, whether they be those favouring entry into the EEC or those opposed to it. In a question of such vital importance to the people, all of us, particularly those of us involved in public life, who are required to take this decision should be approaching it in a measured and balanced way. We should recognise the importance of the decision facing us, we should discipline ourselves to understanding as best we can what is involved in the decision, and we should weigh up the arguments in favour of entry and the arguments against entry. Having done so, it is on the basis of our own convictions that we should cast our votes.
We, in the Fine Gael Party, not only today or yesterday but for quite a long time past, have been considering the implications posed for this country by the existence of the Common Market. We have been making our own assessment of the situation, we have done our own research, we have had our representatives visit Europe and make their inquiries and contacts there. On the basis of that assessment, that kind of thorough-going consideration given to it by our party, and weighing the advantages on the one hand and the disadvantages on the other, in a mature, deliberate and responsible way, we have decided that the balance of advantages lies heavily in favour of membership. The scales are weighted very much more in favour of membership than in favour of any of the alternatives which have been mooted.
There are a number of points which seem to be of fundamental importance and I think some of them are being overlooked in the welter of debate that has been taking place for some time. It would be a real tragedy for this country if the decision either for or against entry were to be made on 10th May by default, in other words by those who remain away from the polls and whose votes could influence the decision which they should be taking. That would be the real tragedy whether the majority are in favour of entry or the majority are against entry.
Those of us in public life and others who should be actively interested in this matter must try to get the people to understand what is involved. I hope I am wrong in thinking that there might be a considerable number of voters staying away from the polls. My experience in public life down through the years has been that the Irish electorate are as intelligent an electorate as can be found anywhere in the world. Very often they surprise the politicians. I am hoping that the points which I wish to mention briefly here have not been overlooked by the people who will be taking the decision.
My first point is that, whether we like it or not, the Common Market is now a fact of life. It is there and we cannot get rid of it by pretending that it does not exist. We cannot avoid its effects, whether we join it or not, by wishing it away or pretending that it does not exist. It is absolutely fundamental that we should remember that it is there and we have to face the challenge of the existence of the Common Market. Whether we become members of it or whether we decide to remain outside it will have implications for us. It will have an impact on us in a number of ways even if we do not join.
My second point is of absolutely fundamental importance. It is one that has been mentioned in some detail already by Senator Eoin Ryan. It is that we cannot remain as we are. That is the one option that is not open to us. I know there are a number of people in this country, and I have heard this point of view expressed several times, who say: "We are all right as we are." That is a perfectly valid personal opinion but it is not a valid argument against entry into the EEC because one way or the other we cannot remain as we are. Even the most vigorous and most vociferous opponent of Common Market entry will concede that.
The third point which, in our particular position, is also of basic importance is the fact that we export about 65 per cent of our produce to the United Kingdom and if we include the United Kingdom and the present member countries of the EEC, it accounts for approximately 80 per cent of our export trade. They are figures that we cannot shrug off, and we cannot change them by wishing they were not so. They are there. That is, in economic terms, the practical reality that we have to face when we vote in the referendum on 10th May.
We have also to face another basic reality. It is that the Common Market operates a common external tariff against non-members. There is a customs union in operation for the benefit of the member states of the Community. Therefore, if the United Kingdom became a member of the EEC and we remain outside, eventually—and I should say reasonably quickly—the United Kingdom, even if it did not wish to do it, would have to apply the common external tariff against us.
It is also only facing reality to recognise that we in this country cannot influence in any way the decision of the United Kingdom. It seems to be abundantly clear that the United Kingdom—taking with it the six north-eastern counties of this country—will become a member of the Common Market.
All of those points that I have mentioned are of basic and fundamental importance and I do not think that they are in any way exaggerated. We might not like those facts to exist but they do exist. Anyone who opposes entry to the Common Market on the basis of seeking to evade those realities in any way is not doing a service to the voters of this country. The last thing we should do is to exaggerate either for or against.
I do not intend to talk about the mechanics of the European Community. Senator Ryan has dealt quite properly with the institutions, with the question of voting rights and so on. It was necessary that someone should have put it on the record. I should like to look very briefly at some of the advantages that I see in full membership of the Community. On the other hand I should like to look at some of the disadvantages which seem to be there if we become full members. I should like to invite a comparison of the advantages on the one hand and the disadvantages on the other hand and to consider briefly, having looked at the advantages and the disadvantages, the alternatives that have been suggested. I should like, then, to see if any of the suggested alternatives are such that would overcome the disadvantages and, at the same time, compensate this country adequately for the loss of the advantages. That is my examination, for what it is worth, of this question of Common Market entry. My approach has been on that basis and I have come very firmly to the conclusion that none of the suggested alternatives would be sufficient to outweigh the advantages of full membership, even if they did avoid the disadvantages.
It is true—and I think this appears in some of the Government literature on the EEC—firstly, that the EEC is one of the fastest growing economic areas of the world. In the 12 years between 1958 and 1970 the gross national product of the Community increased by as much as 90 per cent in real terms as against an increase of 61 per cent here and 61 per cent in the United States. That is an advantage associated with membership of the Community. Secondly, it is a fact that the Community—whether we think it has gone far enough is irrelevant—has achieved very great improvements in the living standards of the people in the member states. Having regard to the numbers involved, they have achieved a very low unemployment rate. The last percentage figure I have heard in regard to EEC countries was an unemployment rate of 2½ per cent. That compares with an unemployment rate of 8 per cent in this country.
Thirdly, the Community is one of the most important trading areas in the world. The trade between the member states of the Community increased something like five-fold from the establishment of the Community in 1958 up to 1970. Trade with nonmember states accounts for 20 per cent of the world's imports and exports: 20 per cent of world trade, so to speak, has been captured by the Community. That compares with 18.5 per cent for the United States of America, 8.5 per cent for the United Kingdom and 8 per cent for Japan. Membership of a trading area of these dimensions is obviously an important advantage and attraction.
In addition, as mentioned by Senator Ryan, if we and the other applicant countries become members, we will have access to a vast market of about 250 million people. We would share in the common agricultural policy which would give Irish farmers guaranteed access to that market with guaranteed prices for products of primary importance to the Irish farmer. We would also be able to share in the help which would be available from the institutions such as the European Investments Bank, the Social Fund, and so on.
It should be mentioned also as a very definite advantage from our point of view that if we become full members of the Community the farm export subsidies, which are running now in the order of £35 million or £36 millon a year, will no longer have to be paid out of the pocket of the Irish taxpayer. Whatever farming supports are necessary, provided we are full members, would become a charge on Community funds in the future. Even allowing for the contributions that we would have to make towards the Community funds, there would be by our standards a very substantial saving to the Irish taxpayer. I do not suggest that, in fact, money should be simply given back and not raised by taxation; I think there are ways in which it would have to be applied, having regard to some of the disadvantages which it would be associated with membership. I think it would have to be applied to cushion the less well off section of the community here against the effects of increased prices, for example. Certainly, we have urged that there should be a very firm commitment from the Government to that course.
Senator Ryan mentioned the survey carried out which showed the high standing of Ireland in relation to the possibility of attracting outside industry if we were members of the Common Market. It is also important to bear in mind that if we become full members, and only if we become full members, would we have a voice in the decisions of the Community and would we be in a position to influence Community policy? It is, of course, true that in economic terms the principal advantage of membership would be for the farming community in this country. Although I live just outside Dublin city and I earn my living in Dublin city, I make no apology at all for saying that it is time that the Irish farmer got a better crack in this country. I make no apology for saying that it is time something was done to bridge the gap between the farming community on the one hand and the rest of us, particularly the industrial sector, on the other. Certainly, even though I am an urban dweller, I do not find in myself any sense of hostility or antagonism to the idea of the farmers of Ireland becoming better off if we join the Common Market.
I say that because I want to point out that, to my mind, in certain of the urban areas of this country there is endemic that kind of hostility against the idea of farmers becoming better off. There still lingers in some places the kind of idea, which a Fianna Fáil Government Minister propounded once, that the farmers of this country were living in feather-bedded conditions. You have that sense of hostility there. I think there is a responsibility on those of us who feel capable of examining the question thoroughly to point out, as I think Senator Ryan pointed out, that if the income of the farmers is substantially increased, if it is increased by anything like the estimates which have been projected, if there is greater production, if the guaranteed prices are available on a basis of even a moderate scale increase in production, that could lead to a vast increase in the incomes and in the prosperity of the agricultural community of this country. If that happens everbody in the country will be better off, because we are a small country and the good Lord made us into an agricultural country. It is only if the basic industry of this country is doing well that the rest of the community will do well and be well off also.
Those, to my mind are some of the advantages at least, associated with full membership of the Community. It would be quite unfair, and it would be doing a disservice to the cause of those who urge European unity and joining the European Community, if we did not recognise also that there will be disadvantages. The last thing that should be done is to endeavour to paint membership of the Community as being the panacea for all our ills and maladies. It will not be that, and we must face up to it.
The first disadvantage, and one which those are opposed to entry have certainly pressed very strongly, is the fact that there will be an increase in food prices and there will be an increase in the all-over cost of living. I am quite convinced of the correctness of the arguments, or the counter-arguments, which have been put up by those who favour entry into the Common Market in relation to the cost of living. I do not think there is any gain saying the fact that certain food commodities, which not only the wealthy or the fairly well-to-do but quite a generality of the people in this country purchase, will go up in price. Some of those articles of foodstuffs will go up fairly substantially in price. Even though the price of beef, mutton, milk and milk products —although liquid milk is not likely to be affected to any great extent— will go up in price, there is the compensation on the other hand that other things are going to come down in price. The purchase of foodstuffs accounts for only a fraction of the normal family's income. I think something in the region of 6 per cent is spent on these foodstuffs. Generally the impact will not be so severe at all. However severe it may be, I feel that there will be a duty on whatever Government is in power in this country, if we become members of the EEC, to see to it that the money saved in farm export subsidies is applied, in the first instance, towards relieving the lot of the less well off section of our community who will be affected by what-every increase takes place in the cost of living.
The estimates I have seen have varied from ½p to 1p per £1 over the transitional period of five years. In any event the fact that the cost of foodstuffs will increase is, for some sections of our community, a distinct advantage. Obviously, on the other hand, it is an advantage to the producers because it is only the commodities in respect of which better prices will be received by our farmers that will increase substantially in price as a result of membership.
There is a second disadvantage. We must, as members, gradually forego the right to take protective measures, such as the imposition of tariffs and quotas and so on, to protect our own home products against EEC competition. That is apparently an immediate disadvantage. I say "apparently" advisedly, because I do not think there is any argument, even by those who are strongly opposed to full EEC membership, about the fact that whatever alternative might be found to full membership would have exactly the same result. Eventually, under any alternative arrangement there must be free trade in industrial goods. Gradually the right to have particular measures, tariffs or quota restrictions to protect home produce would have to go anyhow.
In some of the literature I have seen opposing membership the strength of the argument on this basis, as I read it, is merely that it might take longer under alternative arrangements for our tariff protection and so on to be removed. No doubt eventually it would go, whether we are in or out of the EEC; but, for what it is worth, that is there and it is a disadvantage. I am doubtful to the extent that this could be attributed fully to full membership as against an alternative arrangement, but flowing from the necessity to remove protective measures there would likely be a certain amount of disruption in industries that cannot stand up on their own without the kind of protection they are being afforded and when that disruption takes place there will be unemployment.
Senator Ryan has dealt with statistics on the question of unemployment. The figures I have seen lead me to follow closely on the remarks he made. The survey which was carried out some time ago showed that, if adequate adaptation measures were taken, the unemployment figure occasioned by membership of the EEC should be something in the region of 10,000 or 11,000 and included in that is the employment given in the motor assembly industry, which has secured protection up to 1985.
There must be some loss of employment. It may seem a bit callous to talk of an unemployment figure of only 8,000 or 10,000 because each of those units which make up the 8,000 or 10,000 as the case may be, are Irish human beings who are likely to lose their means of livelihood. That is one side of the story. The other side of the story is this: what would happen if we did not become members and if we were not able to make an alternative arrangement of a kind which would be suitable to our needs and adequate for the requirements in this country? In that event by not joining we would risk the jobs of 35,000 people employed in the industrial sector of our export industry. We would also jeopardise the livelihood of some 200,000 Irish people who derive their livelihood from agriculture. It is a question of weighing up the scales there as between what is likely to be lost by way of employment in industry by joining the EEC and what is being put at risk both in industry and agriculture if we decide not to join and if we find that we cannot make adequate alternative arrangements.
We could also list as a disadvantage to membership the fact that if we become members of the EEC we must abide by the rules of the Community, even if, in particular instances they do not suit us. As full members we would be bound by the terms of Treaty agreements that might be concluded between the Community and non-member countries, even though if in specific instances it did not suit us. You have the question of free movement of capital, services and persons. This is regarded by many people as a distinct disadvantage although the reverse is true also and in many cases it might prove to be to our advantage. Those flaws are there from our point of view if we become members of the Community. When the disadvantages are balanced against the advantages, the scale comes down heavily on the side of the advantages and on the side of membership.
Various alternatives have been proposed and these are generally regarded as being in two categories. There is the limited type trade agreement, such as some non-European countries have with the Community, and there is what has been described as the European type trade agreement. As I understand it, the limited type trade agreement would not be considered for us even if we desired it. It is applicable to countries which depend largely on one or two particular lines of export for their economy.
We are forced into the situation that if we do not become full members of the Community we cannot afford to allow a situation to arise where our traditional market is completely cut off from us except by surmounting the high tariff barrier. We cannot afford to jeopardise the position of 35,000 people engaged in industrial exporting. We cannot afford to jeopardise the livelihood of the entire farming community. So, we are forced into the position of trying to negotiate something other than full membership. We are forced into that position, having in effect told the Community: "We do not want to associate with you; we are not prepared to play our part as a full member of the Community."
It would not be a question of "Damn your concessions, England"; it would be a question of "Damn your concessions, Europe". We would be saying, in effect, to the members of the EEC: "Whatever by way of concessions were worked out in negotiations between our representatives and yours, we do not give a hoot for them, we are not going to take them". In that atmosphere we then put on another hat and say "Now, having regard to all that, what are you prepared to give us by way of a trade agreement?". Is that not a fine negotiating position to be in? Assuming it works, assuming we are able to get a trade agreement on those conditions, what kind of agreement are we likely to get? We know, broadly speaking, the pattern which has developed in relation to the four countries who have been negotiating for what I call the European-type trade agreement—Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Finland. We know it would involve free trade in industrial goods.
Having regard to the products which are of particular importance here and having regard to the suitability of our climate and so on for the production of beef, lamb and such products, and having regard to the demand for these products inside the Community if Britain becomes a member, we would probably be able to get some concessions for our agricultural products. We get those concessions on the basis, to my mind, merely of a right of entry into the Common Market. We would get better prices if we were full members. We would only get some type of negotiated price.
When people speak of the position of Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden and suggest that we should act as they act, it is an unrealistic comparison. Agriculture plays a small part in the total exports from these countries, whereas we export about 50 per cent of our agricultural produce. The figures I have in respect of 1969 for agriculture as a percentage of total exports for Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland are as follows: Austria, 4.1 per cent, as against 50 per cent for us; Finland, 3.2 per cent; Sweden, 2.4 per cent; Switzerland, 2.9 per cent. It is quite unrealistic for anyone to advise the Irish people that we would be all right if we were to strike the same bargain as Austria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland.
The balance of advantages is in favour of membership. Even on the basis of a consideration of available alternatives, considering it with a view to trying to minimise or avoid to the fullest extent possible, the disadvantages of membership, any alternatives available to us would not compensate us for the losses which might be entailed by refusing to become members of the Community.
From time to time, various objections are raised in a perfectly bona fide way by people who are genuinely seeking information and trying to measure up what the situation will be for themselves and for the country generally. I do not know if the political parties have yet succeeded in doing an adequate job in ridding the people of fears which seem to be unnecessary. I am not suggesting that we should adopt dishonest tactics and try to soothe away genuine fears which have a basis. People are concerned, for example, with the possibility of military commitment. All of us should make it quite clear that that simply does not exist at the moment. There is no question of any defence commitment involved in joining the EEC.
It is also very important to realise that on the basis of the factual position of decision-making in the Community, on which Senator Eoin Ryan spoke, the situation of no defence commitment or involvement existing cannot be changed without our consent, provided we become members of the Community. Obviously, a country which succeeded in maintaining its neutrality during the last and largest world war would be eminently justified in claiming that anything which was likely to call in question a policy of neutrality, without the consent of the Irish people, would be a question affecting the vital interests of the country. It is necessary to get that fear out of the minds of the people.
I have seen posters on walls in Dublin to the following effect—I have forgotten the exact wording—"Do not let your children fight side by side with the British paras in NATO". That kind of propaganda is damnably effective against Common Market entry. I am convinced that there is no basis for fear or concern as regards defence commitment. I only hope we will be able to convince the people that this is so. The argument has also been put forward that because Great Britain exports many millions of pounds more to us in value than we export to her, we would be in a strong bargaining position if we do not join, and that the Irish market is far more valuable to Great Britain than the British market is to us. I have heard that view put forward as an argument. While I am long enough in the tooth in politics not to have fallen into it, it took me some time to realise that it was a completely fallacious argument. What is important is not the value of the goods, but the percentage of the goods England exports to us and we export to Great Britain. England exports only 5 per cent of her exports to us, whereas we export 65 per cent of our exports to her. That is the figure that is of importance.
Fears have also been expressed from time to time—and I am sure all of us are aware of them—in regard to the political implications of membership. Those who feel as I do that we should go into Europe do not feel that on the one hand we should seek to avoid or evade the fact that there are political implications. On the other hand, those who are opposed to entry into the Common Market should not exaggerate what is involved here. The true position is that membership does carry political implications. That is implicit in the first aim of the Treaty of Rome which was to establish the foundations for an ever closer union amongst the people of Europe.
First, it should be stressed that that does not involve any question of military commitment. Secondly, there is no agreement between the present member states of the EEC as to what should be the political obligations of members. It is not specified in any of the three Treaties with which we are concerned. Only the aim which I have quoted has been set out. The true position seems to me to be that if we become full members of the Community we would be committed to looking for common ground with the other member states on the question of political development. I do not think it goes any further than that. If there was any new Treaty involving a common foreign policy, for example, that would require the unanimous agreement of the member states and would require our own agreement if we were a member.
It is not necessary to deal at this stage with the objections which are raised to membership on the basis of possible loss of sovereignty. I have heard it described as a complete abandonment of our sovereignty. That kind of exaggeration does not help things one way or the other. It is clear that membership would entail some limitation in sovereignty, but a limitation no more severe and in many ways less severe than would be entailed for Italy, France, Germany, Great Britain and any country which is larger, wealthier, or more powerful than we are. The sacrifice which they make is greater than ours, because they have more to climb down from. They have more to lose in agreeing that there should be a sharing in decision-making. The extent of the loss of sovereignty involved for all member states is simply the degree to which all the states agree to share in decision-making.
There are real fears among a number of well-meaning—and I do not say that in any "wishy-washy", derogatory sense—people in this country that membership will bode ill for our national identity and that it will damage adversely our national culture and make it difficult for us to preserve the kind of values that most people would like to see preserved. those fears are there. There may be dangers on these fronts.
Personally, I do not feel we should flinch from the challenge which may face us. We are a small country and for 700 years we were occupied by the troops of another country. During that 700 years we did not lose our national identity. In many ways it preserved it and brought out the best in the backbone and character of the people of this country. There was a challenge there which they faced up to for 700 years. The entering into treaty arrangements as a sovereign state is not likely to jeopardize our national identity.
If there are threats to our culture it will still remain within our competence to deal with them through our own legislation, provided we do not introduce legislation which will discriminate, on grounds of nationality, against other members of the Community. If our values must be upheld and our culture preserved, it must be done by our own people. Personally, this kind of argument would not make me fearful of membership.
There will be many other arguments, some of which have already been put forward. The answers to them have been effectively given. I mentioned at the beginning the basis on which the Fine Gael Party have taken their decision. It is a disservice for extremists on either side to indulge in exaggeration. If we can persuade the Irish people to go to the polls on 10th May, with the debate which has taken place and the presentation of the arguments, the people will feel, as my party feel, that the balance of advantage is clearly in favour of membership. I should like to finish by expressing the hope that the Senators opposite will all play their part in getting the people to the polls.
The House will be aware that the Referendum on the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1971, which is designed to enable us to undertake the obligations of membership of the European Economic Community, will take place on 10th May. The purpose of this debate is primarily to give the House the opportunity of discussing, in advance of the referendum, the terms negotiated for this country's accession to the Communities and the Government's assessments of the implications of these terms, contained as they are in the White Paper and the supplement thereto. For that reason I will broadly confine my remarks to the White Paper and the assessments contained therein.
The terms negotiated for this country's entry to the Communities and the Government's assessments of their implications for the future of our economic and social objectives are set out in some reasonable detail in the White Paper. I do not propose to go over this ground again in great detail at this point. I should like to emphasise that the Government are satisfied that not alone are these the best terms available, but also that they will enable us to achieve our long term national objectives of full employment, an end to involuntary emigration and a standard of living comparable to that in the economically advanced countries of Western Europe. These terms, therefore, while enabling us to achieve these aims will also provide us with substantial benefits in the short term, many of which will be obtainable from the date of accession. I hope the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I refer briefly to what we sought in the negotiations and the terms which have been obtained.
First, we decided to negotiate only after the fullest considerations and in the belief that, given certain terms, our interests, objectives and aspirations could best be served by membership. We negotiated with a clear idea of what we needed to meet our special problems. It was inherent in our position, as applicants for membership of the Communities, that we accepted the Treaties of Rome and Paris, the fundamental aims of the Communities and what they have, in fact, achieved until now. What we sought were terms which would enable us to adjust to the obligations of these Treaties. Negotiations were therefore mainly concerned with the transitional arrangements necessary to enable us to adapt to those obligations. Ideally, we would have liked to get better arrangements in certain areas. Because, for instance, of the nature of our economy it would have suited us better if a longer period had been obtainable for the removal of industrial protection and if we could have benefited sooner from the common agricultural policy. This would be, from our point of view, the ideal situation.
We were, however, negotiating in the company of other applicant countries. Britain, for instance, being a highly industrialised country would have liked arrangements probably exactly the contrary to what we would have liked. Denmark, on the other hand, would have preferred a short transitional period in both sectors, or possibly even none at all. In view of this conflict of interests, the basic principle was laid down at the outset of the negotiations that the duration of the transitional period in the trade sector would be the same for all the applicant countries and that an overall balance of reciprocal advantages would best be achieved by an adequate parallelism between progress in the free movement of industrial goods and participation in the common agricultural policy. The terms of accession are set out in detail in the White Paper and Senators will be quite familiar with them. I should like to consider in a general way how we see these terms fitting in with our national interests and enabling us to achieve economic progress and a higher standard of living.
I should like to deal first with the effects of accession on our industries and on our policy of industrial development. We have negotiated for industry a transitional period ending on 1st July, 1977. This transitional period should be looked at in the context of Government efforts to orient Irish industry towards free trade and to broaden our industrial base, since we first made our application for membership in 1961. These efforts have included financial assistance and the provision of expert advice to agencies such as Córas Tráchtála and the Industrial Development Authority. In the period in question, since 1961, 600 new firms have been set up here with the aid of State grants, mainly geared to the export market. The result is that our manufacturing industry has become less dependent on the home market. Our manufacturing industry now, in fact, exports 30 per cent of its total output and industrial exports now account for over 50 per cent of our total exports. It is, therefore, not a question of Irish industry being completely unprepared for free trade, as the opponents of free trade allege.
The Government are satisfied that the transitional period negotiated is long enough to complete the considerable advances made in preparation for a free trade market. Indeed, the Government are confident that not alone can we withstand the increased competition at home, which membership will inevitably bring, but also—and this is more important—that our industrial sector will be able to exploit the export opportunities which membership will make available to us. Many of our industries have been trying for a considerable number of years to breach the EEC tariff barriers. Membership of the Communities, involving as it does the removal of these barriers, should enable many industries not alone to survive but, because of the opening of new markets, to expand considerably.
I would like to draw attention to certain aspects of the terms which we obtained, and which are of particular importance and which show the spirit in which the Communities negotiated with us on points of difficulty. The most important of those are, first, the safeguard measures agreed upon, secondly, the special regime for the motor assembly industry and, thirdly —and probably the most significant of all—the special protocol concerning Ireland.
On the matter of the safeguard measures we have negotiated a provision on the lines of Article 226 of the Rome Treaty. The effect of this—provided for in Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession—is that if during the transitional period, difficulties should arise in a particular area of the economy, it will be open to us, in consultation with the Communities, to take protective measures to rectify such a situation. This is of central importance to us.
In respect of the motor assembly industry we realise that the normal transitional period would not be sufficient to enable that industry to adapt to free trade conditions and, accordingly, we sought and obtained special arrangements for it. We are satisfied that these special arrangements will enable the industry to take the necessary measures of rationalisation and adaptation in order to preserve employment in the conditions which will apply in the enlarged Community.
The House is also aware that, given the present stage of our economic and industrial development, it is of vital importance to us to be in a position to continue to provide a scheme of incentives to attract new industries. New industry and particularly new export industry has been and will continue to be absolutely vital to the development of our economic and social structures. It was, therefore, one of the Government's main objectives in the negotiations to obtain from the Community an assurance that we would be able to continue our system of aids and incentives to industrial development. It was also of great importance to us to obtain the Community's agreement that in view of the extent of our development problems we would receive special consideration in regard to access to the resources of the Community, which are designed to assist development.
In the special protocol which was negotiated, the Community recognised our special problems, and our concern in this field. The protocol, which represent perhaps the main achievement in the negotiations, is a firm commitment that all the means and procedures of the Community and, in particular, its financial resources will be available to help the Government in attaining the objectives, to which I have referred, of ending unemployment and of raising the standard of living in Ireland to the levels enjoyed by the other member states.
Under the protocol, therefore, we will be free to continue granting aids for the purpose of industrial development. We will be able further to honour the commitments we have entered into under our system of aids and to continue to grant relief from tax on export profits to new firms setting up here. It has been agreed that our system of tax reliefs will be examined in due course after accession as part of the Community's normal examination of State aids. It is accepted that, should any changes be required, any revised incentive scheme will be equally effective in attracting new industry to Ireland.
These special arrangements, together with the other terms of accession agreed upon, will ensure that all sectors of the economy will be able to adjust gradually to the new conditions and obligations of membership. They will also ensure not only that employment can be protected and maintained, but that in the favourable economic situation of membership, we shall be able to create more jobs and reduce emigration substantially.
The White Paper sets out clearly the advantages which our agricultural industry will gain from membership. Membership will provide for our farmers an opportunity which they have always lacked, the opportunity to increase their production while enjoying higher and guaranteed prices and these prices will, of course, be available to small farmers as well as large farmers. As Senator Eoin Ryan has said, it is a major principle of Community policy to ensure that farm incomes will keep pace with non-farm incomes. In this connection I should like to refer particularly to the Community's plans for structural improvement in agriculture, from which Irish farmers stand to benefit greatly. Senators will be aware of the fact that these plans were decided upon by the Council of Ministers last month and that they differ substantially from the earlier Mansholt proposals.
The Community's plan for the development and modernisation of farms includes, for instance, priority for the farmer in the allocation of land which may become available, substantial reductions in interest on loans for development, capital grants, cash grants to encourage the keeping of farm accounts and financial incentives in favour of co-operatives. There is no question—and I am glad this has been stated in the House today—of farmers being forced out of farming, and the higher prices which all farmers will obtain will certainly help to keep farmers on the land. However, there may be farmers who may wish to give up farming and the Community believe that such farmers should be able to retire from farming in conditions of security. The farm structures policy, therefore, provides an arrangement under which farmers in the 55 to 65 age group who surrender land for use in structural reform will receive annual payments, or lump sums, in addition—and this is very significant—to the price of the land or its rental value.
Those who oppose membership say that we should seek some form of association or trade agreement. This is based on the misconception that we could get suitable terms under some such form or agreement. The Community's position is that for countries which are sufficiently developed economically and which possess institutions comparable with those of the founder states, membership is the arrangement which accords best with the objectives of the Treaties. In accepting our application for membership and negotiating with us for accession, the Community has clearly accepted Ireland as falling within this description.
The opponents of membership have tried to deny this in the face of the facts. They have suggested, for instance, that we seek arrangements similar to those, for example, obtained by Turkey. This suggestion will not stand up to examination. The stages of development in Ireland and Turkey are not comparable. Turkey is an underdeveloped country, internationally recognised as such. It has 72 per cent of its work force in agriculture, compared with 27 per cent in Ireland. The underdeveloped status of Turkey was one reason why Turkey could negotiate an association agreement with the Communities.
But there were other possibly even more cogent reasons. For instance, in the agricultural sector the Community could offer favourable concessions because Turkey's exports consisted of such products as tobacco, hazel nuts, dried fruit and olive oil, which either are not produced in the Community or are not available there in adequate quantities. In short, Turkey's agriculture does not compete with the Community's. It is foolish to think that the Community would be or could afford to be as generous with a country producing the temperate foodstuffs which are in direct competition with Community produce.
In the industrial sector also it is necessary to point out that not all Turkey's industrial products enjoy duty-free entry into the Community. This concession does not, for instance, apply to carpets and textiles, which amount to one-third of Turkey's exports. The products excluded are ones which again compete with Community goods. This illustrates the problems we would face because most of our industrial products would fall into this category.
There was a suggestion advocated by some that we should seek an arrangement with the Community on the lines of those being negotiated by the EFTA countries which are not joining the Community. The current negotiations for those countries demonstrate clearly that the advantages which will arise from membership are not available outside of membership. It has been made quite clear that those countries which are negotiating for free trade in industrial goods will not enjoy any of the advantages of the common agricultural policy. This may be acceptable to countries like Sweden and Switzerland, as Senator O'Higgins has said, in which the agricultural sector is of little importance. It would be extremely foolish for us, with our heavy dependence on agriculture, to accept free trade in the industrial sector and to deny ourselves the advantages of participation in the common agricultural policy.
It must be emphasised, as Senator O'Higgins has indicated, that in any arrangement with the Community short of membership we would have no part in the decision-making processes of the Community. Decisions of the Community will affect our vital interests, whether or not we are members. In short, the Government are fully satisfied with the terms of accession negotiated as set out in detail in the White Paper. They are also fully satisfied that membership is the only arrangement which will provide the opportunities we require in the new situation which will exist when the Community is enlarged in January next to develop our economy fully and to achieve our social aims.
There is an implication in the arguments of those who oppose our entry, or advocate alternatives to membership, that if we could at all protect our economic well-being it would be preferable not to join the Community. The fact is that the Government applied for membership after the fullest consideration of our circumstances and the fullest examination of the objectives and achievements of the European Economic Community.
It was inherent in our application for membership not only that we wished to join the Community because of the economic and trading opportunities it offers, but also—and this is sometimes overlooked—because the Community is something in itself worth joining. The Government's view is that as a European country our appropriate place is in full participation in the Community. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we should not only deal with the economic and trading advantages which can be obtained by membership but that we should have a clear conception also of those European Communities which offer these benefits. We should not ignore the philosophy that lies behind the Community and the circumstances which led to its establishment. The Communities grew out of a Europe which had been ravaged by war for six years. They grew out of the determination of the member states that such devastation could never occur again. Peace and co-operation in development were the basic ideals underlying the founding of the Community.
Efforts to unite Europe often had been made in the past, but the difference here was that the founding fathers of the Communities realised that in order to achieve unity what was required was a series of practical concerted measures. The first aim then was to create, as Robert Schumann put it, "a solidarity in fact". It is in this combination of ideals and practical measures that the Community is unique, and in which lies its main strength and impetus. It is not simply a matter of fine theory and aspirations.
The Community has made considerable progress, as has been stated so clearly here today, towards its goals in the period since its establishment. In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community set about pooling the coal and steel resources of the member states in a single market with a view to making war impossible between France and Germany in the future. The desire to develop in common the uses of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes led to the founding, in 1957, of EURATOM.
The main impetus for the building of Europe came, of course, with the establishment in the same year of the European Economic Community. The EEC—the Common Market—was seen as the basis for an even closer union among the European peoples. This Community, concerning itself with the broad range of economic and social matters, gave each of the founder members a stake and a vital concern in one another's welfare. The development of the Community has therefore shown that national and Community interests can be reconciled to the great benefit of all members. This has led to an era of unparalleled co-operation between the economies of the member states. It is an era in which a major aim of the founding fathers can be seen to have been achieved—a peaceful Europe co-operating for the further prosperity of all its peoples.
It is important that we should have a clear idea of this Community which I have endeavoured to describe. The decision to join the Community involves our taking part in the future development of Europe as much as it does our vital trading and economic interests. We subscribe to the ideals and objectives of the Community and we now have the opportunity of playing our full part in the achievement of those ideals. The Government have sufficient confidence in the Irish nation to know that we have something to contribute in the shaping of the Europe we wish to join. Not to have given the people this historic opportunity of playing their role in a new Europe would have been an abrogation of its responsibilities by the Government. I am confident that the Irish people will see the matter in this light and accept the challenge and the opportunities inherent in our application for membership. The decision, as has been said, now rests with them in the referendum and I confidently commend the motion to the House.
Business suspended at 6.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
If some kind fairy were to give me my greatest wish in life it would be peace on earth—peace among people. This, in my view, is the basic concept of the EEC—it is the purpose for which it was formed. It is the most important aspect of it. Other things that may follow are secondary. Unless there is peace in a community, peace on the Continent, peace in the world, money, profits and gains are of very little importance.
The whole foundation of the Community is this wish for peace. We in Europe have not been a particularly good example to the rest of the world. In the first half of this century we had two bloody wars. Each was supposed to be a war to end war. The waves of those wars caught in their vortex innocent small countries such as Belgium and others. The shock waves of those wars, even when they finished, are still spreading around the world, far outside the confines of Europe.
There have been attempts made from time to time to end war. The League of Nations proved a flop, so in 1951 the leaders of certain countries in Europe came together and decided that they would make one further attempt to have peace in Europe. They felt that the sinews of war were iron and coal and that without those very few nations would or could be powerful in war, and so countries who heretofore had been locked in war now decided that they would hand over control of their coal and iron to a central community of themselves.
You had France, the Netherlands, Belgium on the one side, and Germany and Italy on the other side, who had been slaughtering one another, and the little country of Luxembourg, and they came together. When they started to talk about peace and when they took over control of steel and iron and placed those outside the control of the individual countries and within the control of the Community of Six, they found that it led to an understanding and goodwill that heretofore had not existed.
From that it expanded to helping each other in trade, one country sacrificing a little so that another country could gain a little in that direction, the other country sacrificing a little in some other direction so that the first country could gain a little, and ultimately this free trade developed from steel, iron and coal to agricultural produce and to all manufactured industrial products within a period of six years. As a result they found that their community of spirit and ideals for helping one another had, in themselves, helped to advance these various countries economically, and so the treaty of Rome was signed on 25th March, 1957.
If for no other reason than because of the fundamental principle on which this Community is based, I feel that it is the duty of our country to play its part in bringing about peace on earth, in helping in the brotherhood of man and in bringing to flower the innate kindliness in all human nature irrespective of colour, education, social standing or wealth. Fundamentally man is naturally good, but savage war brings out the worst in him and he treats his fellow man with the bitterness and savagery with which no wild animal known would treat another animal.
Surely this is an ideal which should appeal to us and which we should support. So much the better if benefits accrue from it. If it means a little sacrifice, are we capable of making it? It would appear from a pragmatic investigation that there will be no sacrifice and that there will be benefits. It is said that honesty is the best policy and it is also said by cynics that if that adage had never existed some persons would have devised it because it does pay.
If the ideal of peace towards which we should all strain brings with it prosperity, so much the better. When we consider those benefits for our people, the section of our community whom we all agree will benefit to the greatest extent is our farming community. Of every 100 people employed in Ireland 27 are farmers. Heretofore until the euphoria now being engendered in anticipation of the Common Market, those people had a pretty rough life. They have worked hard for little return. Does anybody grudge them a return for their efforts commensurate with what the remaining 73 out of 100 get? Surely it is not too much and there should not be a grudging spirit towards them.
We are, or tend to be, an agricultural community. There are few people in this country who are far removed from the soil. Our culture, our outlook, our sports, our traditions, are to a great extent based on that background. By nature we belong to the soil and to the countryside and if we can improve the way of life in the countryside we are improving the whole country.
It has been stated that entry to the Common Market will have handicaps for industry. There have been redundancies in the recent past not only here but in England. It might be worth while to see what has been the cause of those redundancies. In England down to some three or four years ago there was no real effort made to develop their industry. They just slobbered along. They had no idea of competition. They felt that their home market would supply the necessary demand for produce and that all you had to do was to keep inflation growing and burn the problems. It seemed likely during the last few years that England would get into the Common Market. Her industrialists and her industrial managers awakened. They decided that things would have to improve and as they improved they found they had four men doing what three should be doing, and the inevitable redundancies followed. They were preparing for the competition they would have to meet in Europe. We have the same thing here to a certain extent. Anybody who has firsthand knowledge of industry here will know and understand that. They were redundancies that would inevitably have to come in any country which wished to survive. It is thought this may become more acute in Europe. Personally I do not agree with this view.
It was mentioned here today that some 4,000 people engaged in the motor assembly industry and its ancillaries are apt to become redundant. I happen to be closely associated with a company which supplies to the motor trade and one of its ancillaries. At the moment that company has so geared itself for the future that we are installing the machinery and are accepting export orders as and from next January in the anticipation of entry to the Common Market. If, however, we do not enter the Common Market we will find ourselves in real difficulty. We made advance projects as to what would happen and we came to the conclusion that if Ireland does not enter the Common Market we will be progressively wound up by about the year 1975 or 1976.
There are various other industries of the same kind. I cannot see how the people directly involved in the motor assembly business will become redundant. They have until the year 1985. There is a vast amount of capital sunk in those industries. If you want to run an industry you must have buildings. You have to have technical skill. They are the two most important things. You must have special machines. The buildings are still there. They will not disappear because we go into the Common Market. You have men with certain technical skills and people who have invested vast amounts of money and they will not lose this money. You cannot say that in 1985 they will wind up and lose their money. They certainly will not unless they are fools. Between now and 1985 they will progressively absorb those men into allied occupations if only for the selfish reason of saving their own capital. The only industries for which I have any fear are those which have done nothing whatsoever. Industry has got every opportunity. It has to write off in 12 months the entire capital expended on machinery. It has been adequately educated and I have no fear for it.
On the contrary, I foresee for the industrial future of this country vast opportunities that heretofore did not exist outside. Where will you get the technical skills? Are foreign capitalists to give technical know-how to supply a little market of three million people? They are not so foolish. They want a return for their money. I see a great future for Irish industry in the Common Market.
I therefore wholeheartedly support and recommend in every possible way the entry of this country to the Common Market because of the benefits to our agriculture, because of the chances it gives to our industry and above all because of the improvements we would expect from it for that section of our community which are least able to help themselves. They are the people who are in receipt of social services.
At present we subsidise the food used by people in other countries. Our butter is being sold in Mexico for as little as 5p per lb. This would not pay for the milking of the cows, not to talk of paying for the milk. It would not pay to process the milk from milk to butter. It is being sold in England considerably below the cost of production. England is a much wealthier country than us.
Is there any reason why the poor man should be expected to feed the rich man? That is what it boils down to. In order to help the poor man to feed the rich man the Irish taxpayer has to contribute £35 million annually. If that money were applied, as our Government have undertaken, towards our social services, improving the lot of our old age pensioners, giving them pensions younger because no man is capable of doing hard work at 67 or 68 years of age, helping our widows and orphans and giving better family allowances, it could make an immense difference.
There is no use in offering futile arguments that we should not go in but that we should negotiate some alternative arrangement. The leader of one of the Opposition parties stated recently that we should endeavour to negotiate as an undeveloped country. The arrangements for an undeveloped country in the Common Market are, firstly, they may export their raw materials but they are exported as raw materials to be manufactured on the Continent of Europe. In return they are expected to accept some of the surplus agricultural produce of the countries in the Community.
How would that help us? Which raw materials have we to export? We have mines. Surely it would be more appropriate that we would endeavour to manufacture, in so far as we can, the produce of those mines in this country. Or do those people, and they pose as the leaders of the working man, suggest that we export this in its raw state? Do they suggest that we import the agricultural produce from the Continent to depress still further the economic condition of our farmers? That is the only basis on which you can bargain as an undeveloped country.
Let us assume instead that we endeavour to negotiate some other form of trade agreement. Let the man who suggests that be quite straight and honest about it. Let him say: "Look, there are 27 out of every 100 people in this country at the moment in agriculture who are underpaid for their services, who work a seven-day week, who have no set hours." What he is really saying is: "Do not concern yourself with them, they do not matter. Instead, try to negotiate a bargain for your manufactured goods."
How can we make such a bargain? Nobody will make an agreement with you that is not to their own advantage. If you try to make an agreement with anybody, whether in private life or in any other direction, he will make the hardest bargain he can with you to his advantage, not to yours. If you go in as a member of the Community you are part of it. Nobody will try to take advantage of you.
In any trade agreements which this country has made they have not been able to bargain. We have a Free Trade Area Agreement with England. When the pinch came in England she broke it quite cynically. She was not in the least bit worried about it. The small man making a bargain is always at a disadvantage. We import approximately 5 per cent of the manufactured goods of Britain. We export to Britain 72 per cent of our total exports, including our manufactures. If we say to Britain, to any other country or to Europe, "Look, we want to make a bargain with you," they are really not concerned. If Ireland decided tomorrow not to trade with Britain it would not cost her a thought. She can quite easily get rid of her 5 per cent elsewhere. But we could not get rid of our 72 per cent.
I have also heard it said that we could export our cattle, and other agricultural produce to Europe. Let us have a look at that. In 1965 we exported to Europe in live cattle more than £7 million worth, but by 1969, as the Community developed, that was down to £200,000, that is, one-seventieth. In 1965 we exported £5.3 million worth of beef and veal. In 1969 it was down to £600,000, that is, one-tenth. This is the sort of thing we have got to look forward to. We have got to consider how are the following industries to survive if we do not go in.
In the Community there is a 17 per cent tariff on clothing and textiles. A large number of factories up and down the country would be hit by that. There is 17 per cent on pharmaceuticals. I am personally interested in this because there is a factory in Roscrea which gives a very considerable amount of employment. How can it hope to succeed? There is 12 per cent on the manufacture of plastic goods and 20 per cent on carpets. We hear a lot about the motor industry but has anybody ever thought of Youghal, Navan or Donegal carpets and the employment these factories give? How do those industries hope to survive these tariff barriers?
From any point of view if we have at heart the first principle which I enunciated, namely peace and goodwill and the future welfare of our country, it is not only advisable but absolutely essential to future generations that we join the European Community.
The last but by no means the least reason why I feel we should join is this. What today is the real reason that so many people in Northern Ireland would not wish to be associated with us. I do not say "join us" because it is we who should join them. They would not wish to have a political marriage with us because our social services and our standard of living do not come near theirs. Are we to accelerate all that? Are we to put ourselves in the position that their social services and standard of living go higher still while our social services and standard of living go lower?
I cannot understand the logic of people who claim to wish for a united Ireland and who still say: "Vote against joining the Community." It looks as if they wish to perpetuate for all time the unfortunate division in our country. They are advocating the setting up of an economic barrier which we would and could overcome on joining the Common Market, a European barrier which we would never overcome, and a social barrier. To me, in any event, it seems most important for future generations of Irish people and we owe it to them, that each and every one of us should do our utmost to ensure that we join the Common Market and to encourage people in every way possible to support our entry to the Common Market on Voting day at the referendum.
Senator Nash put his finger on a very important historic point which we should not overlook, that is, that the motivating reason for the formation of the European Economic Community was the desire by the countries of Western Europe for peace. They wished to break away from their tradition of regular wars, cyclical violence as it is called in this country. They wished, by joining together in a single Community, which based itself on trading agreements worked out over a long period, growing into eventual political unity, to once and for all get away from the terrible European tradition of regular warfare in West and Central Europe.
This is something of a lesson for us. We are attempting to break away from our tradition of warfare, government by the gun, and the constant feeling that the only way minority viewpoints can be expressed is by violence. I see in the European Economic Community a way of accomplishing this break with tradition.
I very much regret that we left the Commonwealth. I would advocate that we return, purely because I see the Commonwealth as an umbrella under which we could solve our problems. Perhaps the European Economic Community will prove such an umbrella. We are unable by ourselves to get over our strange phobia about the United Kingdom. The relationship between this country and the United Kingdom is so complex that we need outside assistance. We need it to have our minds taken off the Irish-British problem. We need to be psychologically moved to concentrate on other topics, to share common problems with other European peoples and then our internal and local problems will assume their proper perspective.
Senator Nash is perfectly right in saying that this is a great opportunity for us to make what will be a significant great step forward in the eventual solution of our political problems and in setting up a stable relationship with the United Kingdom. To stay out would be absolutely fatal. It would cement all these divisions and make our problems far more difficult. It would turn us into an introspective nation which would be precisely the wrong thing to do at this crucial time in our history.
When we consider the possibility of joining the EEC it is important that we should not slur over the arguments against Ireland's joining the Community. There certainly are arguments. I am glad that Senator O'Higgins has gone into them in some detail. As he says, having weighed up the arguments for and against, we must decide, on balance, which is the right course. I have no doubt that the scales come down heavily in favour of joining the Community. I wish to avoid giving any technical details but it gives us a marvellous opportunity to break from the worst aspects of our past and to get a fresh start in which we can build on the good parts of our heritage and to share it with the culture which has been developed in Western Europe. Both of us have a great deal to gain. It is most important that we seize this opportunity.
I hope also, as has been the case with the countries already in the Common Market, that the Community will assist us to make the changes in our society, which are clearly necessary, more rapidly than we would be able to do on our own. Not only will this assistance be financial but it will also be through the instruments of Community government. It will assist us to reform our political institutions.
This is one of the reforms which is long overdue. It will assist us with regional development, the development of many parts of this country which have been sadly neglected. Perhaps we are not capable of doing this on our own. Certainly the EEC policies of regional development are of great importance to us. It will assist us to achieve a more even distribution of wealth and, as has been pointed out at great length, it will assist those people who need social security—those who are the less better off members of our community who must be supported by social services. These are some of the aspects of Community policy which are strongly outlined in the document which we are discussing. They will certainly help this country to redress the imbalance which occurs in our treatment of people in lower income groups.
I am particularly interested in one other aspect of Community development, that is, the role that the EEC will play in assisting the development of the Third World. The Community policy is being formulated at present. Although we have never been a wealthy country in terms of gross national product, we have always played a large part in the development of the Third World through our missionaries, teachers, doctors and nurses, who from earliest times have gone out from Ireland with the idea of doing something for people who needed help and who were unable to help themselves.
Our ideas have become more sophisticated but still our missionaries go forward. Recently we saw the attempts to set up an Irish voluntary overseas service, which is tremendously important. I hope when this country becomes a member of the Community we will make a real effort to influence Community policy on its relationship with the underdeveloped world. There is a great danger that the EEC could become introspective. One of the roles this country can play in EEC development to counteract that is by strongly advocating large programmes of EEC aid in all its forms to the underdeveloped world. This would greatly strengthen the EEC and it would greatly strengthen the western world if the EEC were seen to be giving aid to underdeveloped nations without the political strings that always seem to be attached nowadays. That is one of the ways in which we can play a vital role because of our traditions, because of our contacts through our many missionaries, teachers and doctors who have gone to help underdeveloped countries.
We must look upon our entry to the EEC as a challenge, a challenge which will bring out the best in us, a challenge which will mean that we will have to make a real effort to participate in the full Community life. I welcome this challenge and I trust that by voting "Yes" in the referendum the Irish people will respond to the challenge and the opportunity which now faces them.
Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an méid atá ráite ag an Runaí Parliaminte agus ag chuid de na Seanadóirí. Credim gurb é tré bheith in ár mbaill den Chomhmhargadh a bhfaighimid an seans chun an náisiúin seo a laidriú.
This is an important debate and the question we are discussing, which will be decided in two weeks' time, is a question so fundamental to the future of this nation that I can hardly think of anything more important. I regret to note that throughout the debate neither the representatives of the trade unions nor the representatives of the Labour Party were present. Some of the representatives of these organisations are opposing the proposal that we should become a member of the EEC. If they had been present to listen to the address of the Parliamentary Secretary before the tea break they might have found in it something that would encourage them to believe that this is the right path for us to take.
I fully believe and am convinced that the principles enshrined in the EEC are in accord with the sort of thinking and the sort of philosophy that the great majority of us would support. Anybody who has observed the development of the Community since 1958 and the thinking that has gone into the formulation of this group ought to be convinced that their objectives are in line with the best type of philosophy that one would wish to see coming from the nations of Europe.
Other Senators have dealt with the history of Europe and the origins of conflict in Europe. Even if we did not have the opportunity to decide to participate in the Community we should feel thankful for the developments that have taken place in Europe and which have created a situation, since the last war, where the ordinary people of those nations no longer fear the occupation of their nation by a foreign force and they no longer fear the terrors of the concentration camps. In countries which fought against one another in the last war parents no longer fear a possible call-up of their sons for the front. Even if we did not have an opportunity to participate in the European Economic Community, we should welcome that development and the possibilities it presents for improved conditions throughout the World.
I am so convinced about the general principles of membership of the Community that, even if we did not have our economic and national difficulties, if we were in the position of countries such as Switzerland or Sweden, I would still consider that we should become a member. The Parliamentary Secretary has touched on this aspect of the matter. In an earlier debate I said, in relation to the general idea of a European Community, that one should take the right philosophical approach. I believe that we, as a nation, in the future may be able to play some part in helping to guide the nations of Europe provided we become a member of the Community. This may have its own immeasurable influence in so far as the Third World is concerned and in so far as the safety and security of the peoples of the world are concerned.
I would like to comment, very briefly, on some of the points that have been raised. The question of sovereignty has been mentioned here and mentioned outside the House. I presume people are talking about political sovereignty. We have political sovereignty in this part of Ireland. Our political sovereignty was dearly fought for and suffered for. Those efforts were made in order that we could make use of our political freedom rather than that we should put it aside as a sort of heirloom. I regard our right to decide to become a member of the European Community in itself as an exercise of sovereignty.
Reference has been made outside this House to the effect of this situation on our internal political situation in relation to the North of Ireland. First of all, the fact that this country is divided and that we are not in a position to resolve that problem is no reason whatsoever why this nation should not take the right course. Secondly, in relation to the North of Ireland problem I find it very difficult to understand why elements in our community, who say that they believe in freedom and in unity in Ireland, should try to prevent this nation from breaking away from virtual economic dependence on Britain. There is a conflict here that does not explain itself to me and nobody has been able to explain it to me.
As I understand it from my background, one of the fundamental thoughts behind the struggle for self-determination had its origin in the belief that the people of this country ought to have an identity of their own and that, through self-government, they should be able to throw off the economic deprivation of the nineteenth century, which resulted from the Act of Union with Britain. To say now that we should not become a member of this Community, with the tremendous material advantages which have been outlined to us—is to me incomprehensible, particularly when it is stated by people who have an alleged interest in the future of the nation.
Speeches about the question of culture have been made by representatives of different cultural organisations. I do not know if they understand what is meant by "culture", or if these people realise that their trouble is that they are living in an isolated world of their own. To me culture is something that goes with strength and vitality in a sense of identity. It is not a hothouse plant but is something that lives among living people, who have a sense of confidence, who believe in themselves and who believe that they have a future. I have no fears whatsoever about the possible ill-effects of membership of this nation in the European Community. I know of many Irish people who have gone abroad, particularly to Europe, where they have come into contact with other nations who retain their own identity and their own language. These Irish people have felt very strongly the lack of fluency in their own language. On many occasions I have met Irish abroad who insisted on speaking Irish to me, in case there was somebody around who might not realise they were Irish. Some people are being misled by emotional outbursts from elements in our community who, themselves, are quite uncertain what their values are.
I should also like to refer to the economic aspects of our entry into the EEC which have been covered fairly adequately. There is no doubt that what has been negotiated is beyond what I would have expected. The advantages are so attractive that why anybody should question them puzzles me. This Community is prepared to pay all of the agricultural subsidies which the Irish taxpayer has to pay at the present time. In addition, the Community is prepared to pay, and will pay, half the cost of all retraining of workers who may become redundant in many industries in our country.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, the Community has also agreed that we may continue to attract new industries and to offer them the sort of incentives that industries have been offered since 1959-60. The result is, as we know, that approximately 600 of these industries have been established, and the majority of them are exporting their total products. From inquiries to official sources, I understand that the number of Irish industrial workers is now touching 60,000, those who are engaged in exporting industries. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of some trade union leaders whose policy would endanger the security of workers' employment, by deliberately seeking the creation of a tariff on trade with the British market. This tariff could range from 7 to 17 per cent, most of it on the commodities with which we are dealing in the higher bracket. I have been asking myself for some weeks past: what exactly is the responsibility of a trade union leader? To me, his responsibility is maintaining continuity of employment for his members who are employing him. Nonetheless, we have statements from trade union leaders encouraging workers to vote against membership of the European Community and saying that factories are to be closed.
If an industrialist were to tell me "If you do such-and-such a thing, factories are going to be closed" I would pay some attention to him, because, after all, it is the industrialist who takes on the responsibility for establishing the factory and it is he, with his expertise and with management expertise, who provides the employment for the industrial workers in the Republic. It is not the trade union leader who provides the jobs; it is the industrialist. As I understand it, industrialists here are practically 100 per cent in favour of membership of the European Community because they see, not, as has been said to me on a number of occasions, the opportunity of making profit for themselves, but they see the opportunity of expanding industry and providing more employment. I do not understand the attitude of some trade union leaders. I think I can understand the attitude of what I would describe as self-appointed anti-Common Market elements who have been putting up posters outside factories in Dublin, anti-EEC posters with a big strip "closed" across them. I think I can understand that mentality, because that mentality simply wants to destroy everything it sees around it. It is not interested in any sort of order or in any sort of future.
I do not want to dwell too long on what we are being offered, but what we are being offered is a continuity of our industrial development and the reasonable expectation that at least 10,000 additional industrial jobs will be created per annum over the first five years. I have some information on some proposed industries which are waiting for us to decide this question. This is information which has been made available to me and I think it is fairly accurate. Side by side with that is a significant change in the whole situation so far as the Irish farmer is concerned.
Most people who have examined the tourist situation are aware of the fact that tourism is employing nearly 160,000 persons per annum. They are not employed directly in the tourist industry but in all the industries and services arising therefrom. It would seem to me that, if the opportunities being offered to industry and agriculture here are to develop in the same way as tourism has developed, the increased number of jobs in industry, and in producing goods and providing services arising out of industry and agriculture, could not be less than double the figure I have mentioned in relation to industry alone, which is 10,000 per annum starting next year.
Anybody who would turn down that sort of prospect really needs to have his head examined. On the other side of the picture, what has one got to look at? It is clear that Irish agricultural produce would have to face a tariff gradually increasing from the first year to the fifth year of 20 per cent, plus £2 per cwt. on beef. Surely those who have any understanding at all will realise that this would throw our agricultural industry back into the 19th century, back to the consequences of the Act of Union with Britain.
As I see it, the situation with which we are dealing and with which the public will be dealing in a few weeks time is that we are offered full membership, which will put this nation on equal terms with Britain for the first time in centuries. No longer will we have to negotiate from a position of weakness. Ireland will have a voice and a vote in all European decisions that may affect us and that will affect Europe. These things are too significant to be ignored. Each one of us who believes he understands the situation must try and get across his feeling and conviction to the electorate.
There is one question with which I should like to deal very briefly. It relates to the sort of data in relation to food prices that is being delivered to households and handed out outside churches. I have here a list of 19 commodities and the list prices issued show the present price of each commodity in Ireland. They show an alleged price list issued by the anti-Common Market elements and the difference between the two groups of prices is an increase of 83.8 per cent. In fact, having had some research done on the matter, the real difference between the correct prices, if we were a member of the EEC at the present time, for those 19 commodities and the present day price for these here as of Monday last is exactly 8.5 per cent. It is very interesting to note that on Monday last beef was sold in the Dublin market at slightly higher prices than those on the Paris market. Yet the anti-Common Market authorities here suggest that the price of beef would increase from a stated price of 60 pence per lb.—which, in fact, is not the correct price, it is around 75 pence—to 100 pence per lb. In fact, again, this is misleading information which is being issued particularly to the Irish housewife in order to frighten and confuse her.
I believe that the right conditions exist for us in the EEC and of course, in the existing Common Market. To reject this opportunity would be an act of folly. Those who vote for membership of the EEC will be taking the right course. It will give this nation, for the first time, a real opportunity to get on its feet, rather than have a continuance or development of the situation we had in the latter half of the last century and in the first half of this century, where so many thousands of young people had to seek employment abroad. That is the result that we would have if we reject this. If we go into the EEC the opposite will develop. We will be able, by degrees, to work towards full employment and to build up our social services to a level equal to those in the North of Ireland. We will be able to create a situation here in the Republic which will be sufficiently attractive to our fellow countrymen in the North, so that they might consider at some stage that it would be worthwhile for them to co-operate with us in the interests of the entire country.
With confidence and a belief in the future of this nation the way ahead is clear for this country if we decide on the 10th May to become a member of the EEC.
It is a little difficult to believe that this day two weeks the Irish people will be called upon to cast their votes for or against the necessary constitutional changes to pave the way for the entrance of this country into the EEC. It is useful that the Seanad will have this final opportunity of debating at some length the various issues involved. With Senator Brugha I share the regret that those who have been vocal in opposition to our country joining the EEC, are not here tonight to press their case. The debate would have gained considerably if we had a vigorous opposition here to put a fair case against joining the EEC.
There are people in this country who believe that we are unfortunate in that this issue has to be decided by referendum, and that we are unfortunate that we do not have the same system as the British where it can be decided by Parliament. I do not share that view. It is a good and desirable thing that a major decision of this kind, that will have lasting effects on the whole structure of our society and all its institutions, should be decided by the people themselves. We, as politicians, whether members of the Dáil or Seanad or members of county or city councils, have a very serious obligation to spell out fairly and honestly to our constituents and generally to the Irish people, the issues involved. The time for doing that is running out. It behoves all of us who are Members of this House to take what may be the last opportunity of explaining the issues to the Irish people.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his contribution to this debate dealt at some length with the background to the establishment of the EEC. I do not wish to go over it again. This referendum will be decided, not by the noisy parties and element on either side, but by the large bulk of the Irish people who basically are sound, intelligent and levelheaded, and have their feet firmly on the ground. It is important that Members of this House should adopt a sensible and honest approach to the issues involved. Any sensible voter who looks at this vast question will wish to examine it from several points of view. He will be concerned with the philosophy and the intentions which led to the establishment of the EEC 20 years ago. As has been stated already, it was founded with a desire for peace amongst the warring nations of Europe. Credit for the establishment of this dream, now realised as far as Western Europe is concerned, must go to the Christian statesmen who led their countries after the last world war —Adenauer of Germany, Schumann of France and De Gaspari of Italy. These men will be looked upon in years to come as giants in their time. Even though they were active politicians like anyone in this House, they managed to rise about the ordinary hurly-burly of politics and lead their nations, which had been locked in wars for generations, into the framework of a lasting peace. They realised that the first essential was to take away from the ownership of individual nations the sinews of war—coal and steel. They could see that joining the coal and steel producing units of their various countries together under one authority would make it impossible for any one west European nation to lead its nation and the nations of Europe into another armament race which would end in war. That was the first step towards the EEC, based on the success of pooling the raw materials of war.
This was followed in 1958 by the establishment in the Treaty of Rome. It is no harm to spell out again, even if it means repetition, what the aims of the men who signed the Treaty of Rome were. Whatever criticism there may be on what appears less important than bread and butter issues, in the final analysis one must go back to the philosophy of the men who established this Community. Amongst the aims of the founders of the EEC were harmonious development of economic activities, continuous and balanced expansion, increased stability, accelerated raising of the standards of living and close relations between member states through the formation of a Common Market and proximation of economic activities. No one, even the most partisan and anti-Common Market person, could argue against those desires or dreams.
The European Atomic Energy Commission was established in 1958, with the objective of raising living standards and developing commercial exchanges with other countries by the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries. A further step in 1967 was the setting up of a single Commission, and this institution of the EEC was shared in common by all three Communities, and the Parliament and Court of Justice. This country in 1961, together with the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway one year later, applied for membership. It is past history how negotiations broke down and our application with the others was suspended for six years. In 1967, again with the overwhelming support of the Members of the Dáil and Seanad, we decided to re-activate our application, together with the other countries who had failed six years earlier.
This led to the negotiations opening in 1970 and concluding in January of this year, 1972. This is past history now, but these things are important and it is no harm to review them as we come close to making a decision. The thinking and sensible voter, who makes up the vast majority of our people, whatever party he supports, will want to know how this wonderful experiment which promised so much nearly 20 years ago has progressed in the interim. The ordinary man in the street will look critically at what has happened in the interim. It is no harm to spell out again, even if it means repetition, what has happened in the European Economic Community. It has proved itself one of the fastest growing major economic areas of the world.
From 1958 to 1970, that is 12 years, its gross national product has increased in real terms, not inflationary terms, by 90 per cent, compared with 42 per cent in the United Kingdom and 61 per cent in the USA. Trade between the member states has increased five-fold and trade with nonmember countries now represents 20 per cent of the world's imports and exports, compared with 18½ per cent for the USA, 8½ per cent for the United Kingdom and 8 per cent for Japan. In other words, the EEC has performed extraordinarily well over the 12 years of its existence.
We must look at this somewhat differently from the nations of the Continent on the landmass of Europe because we are an island people more dependent than any other nation, with the possible exception of Japan, on our external trade for prosperity and progress. Access to foreign markets is, therefore, essential to Ireland both for agricultural and industrial exports. In the case of agriculture, some 30 per cent of our population are still engaged in the products of the land. We produce vast quantities of agricultural produce and products surplus to our requirements, particularly meat and dairy products, which we must export.
For generations our main market has been the United Kingdom, when in recent years the British food subsidy scheme has resulted in our taxpayers providing millions of pounds annually to fill the gap between what Britain pays us and what the Irish farmer gets from his produce. We know only too well that our efforts to find alternative markets to the United Kingdom have usually failed. Footholds gained in Western Europe have been declining due to the common tariff policy of the Common Market. It is obvious, therefore, that the greatest need for agriculture at the present time is a stable market with remunerative prices for all the meat, milk and other products our farmers can produce. The Common Market offers this if we become full members, and only then. The resulting gain to the farmers and to the entire community would be rapid and enormous and would be reflected in substantial increases in employment arising directly from the expansion in food processing industries and indirectly by the added spending on consumer goods, tourism, entertainment and so on. If we do not become members, we must take what we can get from the EEC countries, including England, as there is no doubt about her entry. It is obvious, therefore, that we will get only what the Common Market wants on their terms and at their prices.
In the case of industry, due to the establishment mainly of new exporting industries in recent years, 50 per cent of our exports now consist of industrial goods. Thirty two per cent of our industrial output is exported compared with 24 per cent by the United Kingdom, a huge industrial country and 22 per cent by Western Germany, an even larger industrial country, and 8 per cent by the United States of America, the biggest industrial country in the world. This gives a fair indication and supports the point I made earlier that we, amongst the countries of the world, depend possibly more than any of them on external trade to provide the means for prosperity and progress. It cannot be quoted too often that we have 200,000 people employed in industry of which one in four, 50,000 people, are employed in industries producing goods for export. This again adds to the emphasis on the necessity for a continuing stable and expanding export market.
If Britain joins and Ireland does not, 80 per cent of our exports will be affected, as will 40 per cent of the jobs of the men employed in these industries. I do not wish to quote individual industries but Arthur Guinness has been quoted and many other industries. In my own area in the south-west we have many industries, both traditional and new, almost solely dependent on exports. In addition, the loss of the export trade would have a catastrophic effect on the home market. Industries geared for export would automatically contract with the reduced turnover and mounting costs, and the only possible result would be closures on a giant scale. These are not fairy-tales but facts, as any industrialist or businessman would agree.
It is essential for the mid-western area and the entire south-west that Ireland gets the opportunity to export both agricultural and industrial goods to the Common Market. As a major dairying and meat processing area, and having one of the most important centres of industrial production for export in the Shannon Industrial Estate, we must have continuing and assured markets for these goods. The area bounding the Shannon estuary, the greatest waterway in these islands and the logical outlet for the products of the farms and factories for the south and west, must be assured of a future in Europe. The traditional factories in Limerick and the south west which are engaged in bacon curing, canning, and the manufacture of dairy products and clothing, together with the newer factories in Limerick, Ennis and Shannon, must have an export market if they are not to die.
On the other hand, if this export market of 250 million people can be assured for Ireland, it will have a dramatic effect on the south and west and will provide the dynamism for a huge expansion in industry and in employment. As far as the south and west are concerned, the only arrangements which can ensure for their farmers and factories a guaranteed market for both industrial and agricultural products is full membership of the EEC. The Parliamentary Secretary spelled that out in his speech tonight. It cannot be repeated too often that the only way we can assure an export market and establish markets for both agriculture and industry is through full membership of the EEC and there is no alternative to this.
We can have a trading agreement. We can have free trade in industrial goods. We know that. Other countries have negotiated this sort of arrangement, but there is no arrangement under which we can provide our farmers as well as our factories with an assured market unless we join the European Economic Community. That should be hammered from every platform, every newspaper and every publication between now and 10th May.
One feature on which very little has been said in the Dáil and generally and which I do not think has been touched on here, although I was not here for all of the debate, is the question of regional policy, which is one of the most attractive features of the European Economic Community. I was glad to see, as I am sure other Senators were, within the past few days that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, has been pressing for the establishment of the necessary institutions to assess the requirements of the underdeveloped regions of the enlarged Community, including particularly that part of our country which lies south and west of the Shannon and west of the Bann.
When we are talking and thinking of the underdeveloped or undeveloped areas of our country we must regard the whole of Ireland as an economic unit and be prepared to join with our fellow-men in the north and northwest in providing a common policy for the development of these areas. The fact that there is a border running across the country should not inhibit us in any way from taking the initiative in joining them in providing a joint development plan for the area that lies west of the Bann and west of the Shannon.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, will have our fullest support in his efforts but meanwhile we question the Government's own policy nearer home in the field of regional development. We have on paper at least eight or nine regional development areas or organisations. The first of these to be set up in mid-west—Limerick, Clare, North Tipperary—has proved an unqualified success as a co-ordinating and advisory body for its constituent counties and in the promotion of the Shannon estuary under a single representative authority. But what of the other regional development organisations? If what one hears is true, some are inactive and some in actual conflict. The Government Departments concerned, although represented on the boards of the regional development organisations, cannot provide an effective link with Government thinking as they are not in a position to provide the RDOs with national proposals on regional development, if such plans exist or to seek their co-ordination. This can only be done by the Government sharing their plans and proposals with the regional development organisations.
What I am pleading for is consultation between the Government Departments concerned and the regional development organisations who through their wide and representative representation know their areas intimately and their requirements. It would be a tragedy at this stage, with so much to offer in regional development, if they were to have a plan imposed from the top without any prior consultation with the people who live, work and spend their daily lives in these areas. In my view, and I am sure others will agree, regional development offers one of the great advantages of the EEC notwithstanding the fact that policies on a Community-wide scale are only yet in an evolving stage. We should be ready with our regional development plans to fit in with the Community framework so that we can avail quickly of the moneys available to establish capital and labour intensive heavy industries and the necessary infrastructures in the less developed and geographically less favoured parts of our country.
Although the position has altered in recent weeks in favour of a satisfactory outcome to the referendum, there is still a grave danger that this referendum may fail to get the support it deserves because of certain ascertainable factors. The Parliamentary Secretary would agree that a scraping through of the referendum by a small majority in favour, or a very low poll, such as Monsieur Pompidou experienced recently, would be a grave disappointment and discouragement.
It behoves the Government in the next couple of weeks to take serious cognisance of what I believe to be certain inhibiting factors. There is still a general apathy among the people and an ignorance of the issues involved. Very few people are going to read the numerous well-prepared, well-documented and colourful brochures, leaflets and addresses that keep pouring out from Government offices and other organisations. I believe, and others who have seen the particular performance agree with me, that the television programme dealing with the Common Market and organised like a court, which was put out by RTE some weeks ago, had a far greater impact than all the circulars, brochures and leading articles in our daily newspapers. If another such programme could be put on it would have a far greater effect because people tend to take their impressions from what they see rather than what they read. They want to have the issue spelt out quite clearly. Nothing is as effective as a person on television spelling out the issues involved and if necessary defending his case against opposition from the other side. I would suggest that a similar programme be put on between now and 10th May.
There is the further danger of some Government speakers overplaying the case in their anxiety to secure a favourable outcome. Some of the statements made would give the impression that the Common Market was a bonanza and a paradise on earth. Those gentlemen do a grave disservice to the case they seek to expound. There is a tendency among certain Government speakers to belittle opponents of EEC by suggestions that they lack patriotism because of their opposition to EEC. I do not feel anybody, least of all a Government Minister, is entitled to accuse anybody of not being patriotic because he opposes something which the Government party and the main Opposition party are in favour of.
It is necessary to deal adequately with bread and butter issues such as unemployment and higher food prices. I should like to tell the Government, if they are not aware of it already, that a very active campaign is being waged where the votes are, among the workers and in the housing schemes of the various cities, by anti-EEC elements who are not going into the loftier subjects of the philosophy behind the thinking of the founders of the EEC or great issues about world markets or markets of 250 million people. They are producing leaflets which state quite simply that if we go into the Common Market the price of butter will go up by 50 per cent, the rent of a house will go up and your husband's job will be in jeopardy.
They are the sort of basic issues which get home to the ordinary working man and even more so to his wife. This is the sort of propaganda we must counteract. One positive way in which we can do this, and one does not have to exaggerate or tell fairy stories, is by being honest and by telling the people that if we do not go into the Common Market, if we do not ensure future growth for our economy, the husbands in many thousands of homes will have no future in their present jobs.
Finally, there is the campaign already referred to, that is, the misleading statements and misrepresentations which are being produced in leaflet form by opponents of the EEC. Those of us who are strongly in favour of going into Europe should be flattered that the opponents are prepared to mislead and misrepresent the case, but unfortunately, quite a number of people, even intelligent people, are prepared to swallow some of the fairy tales I have seen on the leaflets which are being handed out, outside church gates and at various meetings of one kind or another. All of these representations should be answered so that no stone be left unturned to make this referendum an overwhelming success. It is essential that in the two weeks of the campaign which remain the facts of the case will be put simply, clearly and honestly to the Irish people. If this is done I have no doubt that the outcome will be a massive "Yes" on 10th May.
As time goes on it becomes increasingly difficult to find something new to say. We have had a most interesting debate during the day and I will do my best during my short contribution not to repeat what has already been said. As I have spoken with so many others at various meetings and symposia on this particular topic, it will be almost impossible not to repeat myself.
I want to reiterate Senator Russell's point about honest propaganda, either pro-EEC or anti-EEC. It is with great regret that we on this side of the House, and most of our friends on the opposite side, note that so far in the debate not one voice has been raised against EEC membership. That is a great pity because it is only when one is confronted with a little opposition that one can be at one's best. It is very difficult to play a hurling or a football game if all are playing in the one direction.
I want to refer to a few points which have not been mentioned so far. As honesty in propaganda has been mentioned already I will refer to the extraordinary words, adjectives and phrases being used at present in order to further the case against membership of the EEC. When reading a particular newspaper—not one of the dailies—some Sundays ago, I came across a very interesting phrase. It took Deputy Hillery to task for "bartering away a considerable slice of our sovereignty for a mess of economic potage". This leads us to the question of sovereignty.
This point is being bandied around ad nauseam and we have been hearing not only “bartering away a considerable slice of our sovereignty for a mess of economic potage” but that entry into the EEC is a complete sellout; that we have declaimed the men who fought and died for Ireland and so on. We must ask ourselves, and be quite candid in our answers, what does sovereignty mean? Does it mean anything? It means the full liberty to decide for ourselves what we will do in any particular set of circumstances in the best interests of our people and our country and in the best interests of generations to come.
I instanced some time ago the case of two men who had a little plot of one acre each. "A" grew nothing in his plot but potatoes; "B" grew nothing in his plot but apples. They were entirely independent of each other and each had his own sovereign rights. They continued in this manner but life was very monotonous. "A" had only potatoes to eat and "B" apples all the year round. Finally good sense prevailed and they decided to surrender a little of their sovereignty, "A" exchanging some of his produce with "B" and vice versa. From that time on they began to live a more satisfied life. I told this little story some time ago to a certain audience and they got the message. This is what we are doing, in another way, when we are entering the European Economic Community.
It is quite true that we will, theoretically, surrender some of our sovereignty but it is in order to expand our talents, to lead a fuller life and possibly to contribute to a fuller life among the Communities which we are about to join. Those who find fault with us on account of the sovereignty issue should ask themselves why there is no objection from France, West Germany, Italy, Holland and the other countries of the EEC which have had a wonderful history of independence down through the ages. These countries are surrendering their sovereignty too.
In that connection I propose reading a small extract from this publication, Northern Ireland and the Common Market published by the New Ulster Movement. This approaches the question entirely from the British point of view. In paragraph 16 it says:
Loss of sovereignty and political power. There is no doubt that British accession to the EEC will mean pooling some part of our sovereignty but we will not be subordinated to the decision of others, to a certain degree our identity will be merged with that of other member states. The EEC Council of Ministers will have British Ministers on it and the British Parliament will have an effective voice through these representations on the Council of Ministers. There are texts in the Treaty which control the power of individual members. Britain will continue to be an independent State but in certain fields will have an equal voice in Community affairs with the other member States who are equally anxious to retain their national traditions and liberties.
That is the British point of view. Apparently, Britain sees nothing wrong with entering the Common Market as far as sovereignty is concerned. Yet we have this chorus of abuse against the Government for this surrendering of sovereignty. In the Cork Evening Echo of 25th March I find a report of a meeting at which, apparently, all the speakers were anti-EEC. One of the speakers is reported as follows:
If the Government carried the referendum it would mean that the Constitution could be amended any way the Government wished. In effect, Fianna Fáil and Taca would be given carte blanche to do what it liked with the people. It is astounding that Fine Gael, a party which has prided itself on its contribution to democracy in Ireland, is a party to this conspiracy to filch away the rights of the Irish people.
That is the kind of propaganda that can be so damaging to impressionable voters, the type of voter who does not read the documents issued by the Government or the European Movement and who can be entirely misled by statements such as those. They can also be misled by the shorter slogans such as: "No sell out. No EEC."
There are many other pamphlets and slogans being circulated. I shall mention one I saw today as I came along O'Connell Street. It was a picture hanging on an ESB pole of paratroopers in combat position, fully armed—we all know the kind of feeling we get when we hear of British paratroopers—and the slogan said: "Don't fight side by side with British paras in NATO—No EEC." There you have by suggestion the idea that if we vote for the EEC we are supporting the paras, we are supporting British forces in NATO, when as a matter of fact we are not members of NATO at all. You have a quicker argument if you state one slogan and attach it to the EEC and the non-discerning voter will be entirely led astray. That is false propaganda as far as the anti-EEC campaign is concerned and it is most disturbing.
Senator Russell made the point that there could be a danger of overplaying it from the other side. There is one possible danger. In being overenthusiastic a number of pro-EEC speakers have said: "The country will get into the Common Market and beimid, mar a deirfá, ar mhuin na muice, we will be on the pig's back and we will never see a poor day again." That is entirely wrong.
Becoming a member of the enlarged European Community does not necessarily mean that we will have a life of ease. All it means is that we will have the opportunities open to us. The rest is up to ourselves. That is the message that should be got across. It is the message that should be apparent to anybody who has any experience of dealing with Continentals. The opportunities are there and if we go in, prepared to avail of these opportunities and do our work as it should be done, then we can prosper. If we are not prepared to work and play our part in the enlarged EEC, then we might as well stay out.
Another argument often brought forward by the anti-EEC speakers is the question of our six north-eastern counties. We have often heard it said that entry into the EEC would perpetuate Partition. I think it was the late Adolf Hitler or some of his associates who said: "If you ever tell a lie tell a big one. You have a good chance of it being believed." Could anything be more absurd than the statement that if we enter the European Economic Community we will be perpetuating Partition, when the opposite is true? If we do not enter the EEC we are not alone laying a barrier between ourselves and our separated brethren in the Six Counties but we are associating them with the rest of the European Economic Community and we are staying on the outside ourselves. We would have a complete land barrier against us.
Apropos that, during the Easter Recess I had a long discussion with a Conservative Member of Parliament at Westminster. Strangely enough, this gentleman was an anti-EEC advocate. He was one of a small group who are anxious to have a referendum in England. We had discussions on many things and when the time came for us to part I put this point to him: "Let us be quite honest about this. Would you not agree that many of the things we have discussed tonight and which would appear to be of great import to both of us, to the Government of your country and to Government of my State and to the unfortunate people in the Six Counties, become entirely irrelevant when Britain and my country both become members of the European Economic Community? He said quite candidly: "Yes, that is quite true. Most of these things are bound, in the fullness of time and maybe in a shorter time than we think, to become irrelevant." This should be quite obvious to anybody who gives the matter a little thought. One of the greatest things we can do to ensure the reunification of our people, not so much of our country, is to vote a resounding "Yes" on 10th May.
I should like to deal with the small farmer and the EEC. Most of the farmers in my area could hardly be called small farmers in the strict sense of the term. Every farmer in my area, an intensive dairying area, is 100 per cent in favour of our entry into the EEC. They are discerning people who have examined all aspects of the question and they have no doubt about it but there is too much propaganda about the small farmer and the plight he will find himself in after entry into Europe.
Poor Dr. Mansholt comes in for a rather rough time. Many things have been alleged against that good man. It has been said that he is out to ensure the destruction of the small farmer and to put him out of business. A small farmer inside or outside the EEC has innumerable problems— far more problems than the well-to-do farmer. The small man in any business has problems that the big man has not. Anybody who has studied the situation in depth has no doubt that the small farmer has a far better chance of survival within the EEC than he has outside it. If he has any doubts about it, I will not delay the House in going into all the points here. The EEC information service of the Department of Foreign Affairs have issued a leaflet concerning the small farmer in the EEC. I hope that before referendum day a copy of that leaflet will be in the hands of every small farmer.
I should now like to refer to tourism. What will happen to us if we vote against entry into the EEC? How will we sell our tourist industry in the Community that will be locked away from us? I can imagine that we would be left high and dry. We are an island on the extreme western seaboard. A few people might come along to see how we live on this island cut away from the rest of Europe. On the other hand, if we become members of the EEC we will be able to make closer contact with our friends on the Continent and will have a better chance of selling our tourist industry to them and of encouraging them to come to Ireland. Already quite a number of Continentals come and there are indications that the numbers are already increasing this year. It is my opinion that they are doing so in anticipation of closer links with us.
I have dealt at some length with the campaign against entry into the EEC and I have tried to classify the people who are engaged in that campaign. I put them into four categories. Firstly, there are those with legitimate arguments against the EEC. Secondly, those who (a) do not want to work, and (b) those who do not wish to accept the challenge before them and who do not wish to accept change. Thirdly, those who believe their neighbours will be better off than themselves. Unfortunately, it is true that jealousy is one of our national sins. Fourthly, those who want to put this nation into a state of such economic difficulties that chaos would eventually ensue, and that the downfall of our democratic institutions would be brought about. Let us take the first one. The only valid argument I can see is that there is a danger to our standard of values, spiritual and moral, and to our linguistic and cultural heritage.
Baineann sé sin ach go hairithe le ceist na Gaeilge agus ceist leathnú na Gaeilge. Is mó cor a chuir an teanga Ghaeilge di ó thús aimsire. An céim síos a tháinig ar an Ghaeilge le cúpla céad bliain anuas tá sé i réim fós beagnach, ach buíochas go bhfuil, ceapaim féin go háirithe, an taoide ag athrú.
Ach pé rud mar gheall ar sin, sílim féin a brathann sé an Ghaeilge d'athbheochan agus da leathnú nó an Ghaeilge d'fháil bháis. Ní hiad muintir na Mór Roinne, muintir Chomhphobal Eacnamaíochta na hEorpa, ní hiad san a dhéanfaidh an Ghaeilge a shábháil. Orainn a bhrathann sé sin. Agus b'fhéidir, nuair a bheidh deireadh ráite, gur fearr i bhfad an seans a bheidh againn an Ghaeilge a shábháil agus a leathnú, sinn a bheith páirteach sa Chomhmhargadh, mar leis na céadta bliain anuas táimid ag coimhlint leis an mBéarla. Tá náisiún anláidir in aice linn, an Bhreatain, agus siar uainn thar farraige tá na Stáit Aontaithe agus Béarla sa dá thír. Táimid báite ag an mBéarla agus is mó duine in Éirinn go bhfuil sé de thuairim aige go gcaithfidh duine nuair a thagann sé ar an saol Béarla a labhairt, má labhrann sé in aon chor. Ní heol do chuid mhaith aon teanga ar domhan ach an Béarla agus sa tseans ina dhiadh sin go bhféadfadh siad an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim.
When we go into Europe many people will become aware of the fact that there are other languages and other cultures besides the English language and culture and the Anglo-American culture. I do not think there is such a thing as British culture. Having become aware of that, it may help people to see that the hallmark of any particular nation is its language. We hear of Irish people going to the Continent who know very little of their own language. Because they hear French, Germans, Italians and Dutch speaking their own language, in order to assert themselves as Irish those people spoke the little Irish they knew. "Breathes there a man with soul so dead, who never to himself has said: `This is my own, my native land"'. The same feeling of patriotism surges within them and in trying to let the world see that they are Irish, they speak their own language. I have great hopes that that would be brought to peoples' minds more and more by contact with the Europeans. At the same time I am hoping that it will help to give impetus to the movement to restore, revive and spread the use of our own language in our own state. It is very hard to pretend that we are Irish, if we insist on speaking a language that essentially is not our own. These are people who consider they have a valid argument against entry into the European Economic Community.
There are others, then, in the wider sense, who fear that our moral standards may go. They have a horror of what goes on, as they say, in Paris and these places abroad. They do not have to go to Paris at all to find out what goes on in these places. They can find it much nearer home. They certainly need not go beyond London.
Last Sunday I spoke at a church gate meeting. When the meeting was over the local curate came along and we spoke entirely in the Irish language. He brought forward all these arguments against entering the EEC. He told me he had no doubt what way he was going to vote, he would vote against it because he felt very strongly about this. He said we would lose our particular way of life. We argued about this and possibly when he thinks it over he may be convinced, because there is a very high standard among thinking people. On the Continent you get people of low moral standing in every country. In fact I am sure you would get them here and there in Ireland. At any rate, I do not think he has anything to fear. I can only hope that what we said to him will eventually convert him before 10th May.
What have we got to offer Europe? That is a question which I have been asked recently. Everybody is speaking about what we will get—farmers will get so much, industrialists will get so much and so on. I think we have quite a lot to offer Europe because Ireland was possibly at its greatest when our missionaries during the Golden Age went out from the monasteries in Ireland, and they went from Derry and Bangor as well as from Cork and Lismore to convert the people of Europe. That memory is very fresh and has been kept alive in the various countries where these missionaries worked. We are not a conquering nation like Britain. We have no great empire of land or wealth but we have a selective spiritual empire. We have the same thinkers today.
A social worker in Australia, not of my own religious persuasion, told me some time ago that whenever he wants to enlist the support of any Catholic clergyman in his work in Australia all he has to do is to go to any presbytery and knock at the door and ask for Father Murphy and Father Murphy will invariably appear. We have a great tradition and I think we have a lot to give Europe as well as a lot to gain from it.
I want to move on now to other types of people who campaign against the EEC. I have dealt with those who have reasonably legitimate arguments against it. Then we have those who do not want to work. One of the curses of this country is the fact that we are so content to half do a thing. I am tired of preaching morning, noon and night. One thing I try to instil into children at school and everybody who has any influence with them is that when they do a thing they should do it right the first time. There is a tradition here, or a philosophy, where somebody is doing a job and when it is half done he will go away and say it is all right, it will do. This kind of half doing the thing is doing it in a slovenly fashion and we have to snap out of that. One of the biggest eye openers is contact with the Europeans because, curiously, when we go abroad or emigrate, we can get a great name for ourselves. Irish workers in Britain, the United States or anywhere else they go distinguish themselves for the excellence of their work and for their dedication to work. Here in our own country we are apt to be slovenly and careless. That, of course, is not general. We have, as we know, some of the finest workers in the world in this country. The percentage of those shiftless kind of people who half do a thing is too high and we look forward to the day when everybody will pull his weight, because it is only by getting production to its maximum that we can afford to compete in the new conditions.
That brings us to the difficulty of getting some people, either workers or management, to accept change. How the world is changing. Materials change, clothing change, materials for construction industry change and so on. I have been told by those who know that in the foreseeable future such things as iron and steel could possibly be dispensed with. I have been told that some new materials are on the way which could more than adequately replace steel, iron and be just a fraction of their weight. We live in an ever-changing world. Management have to look ahead and see how they can alter their conditions to ensure employment for everybody they have employed at the moment. Workers will have to accept those changes too because more and more is being done by automation and that will mean a reduction in personnel and a big problem arises of how to place the men who will become redundant.
Section three are those who believe that their neighbours will be better off than themselves. Jealousy is the national sin and I have heard during my campaign for the EEC whispers that certain workers are voting against the EEC and are declaring their intention to do so because the farmers will be better off. This is entirely false. It is an unchristian attitude, because, after all, the best security anybody can have, apart from being reasonably well off himself, is to have his neighbour well off. Is mar a chéile a mhaireann an tsaol. If your neighbour is well off it means that there is more money in circulation. If the money is being made by somebody it will be spent and everybody will benefit by it. That is a national sin we could well get rid of. First of all, we should try to get absolution for it and having done so we should put it aside and never sin again.
Lastly I come to those people who— I am afraid we have a certain number of those people anti-EEC, not because they do not want to work, they probably would not know what work is in any case—are anxious to tear down what has been built up by successive Governments and successive statesmen through the years. That would appear to be the position from various pamphlets that are being circulated. I came across one recently called Five Good Alternatives to the Common Market which said “Stay out, take back, reach out, build up, take over our own country, take over Ireland and make it a place where men and women can live in prosperity and dignity, an Ireland the oppressed peoples of the Common Market would be glad to join”. It does not say so, but one gets the impression that if we stay out these people will have a paradise in which to work. It is only a question of time for the country to become impoverished if we stay out. Then these people will have a paradise in which to work and in which there is a great danger that they could tear down the democratic institutions of the State.
I have tried to deal with some points which have not been raised already. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and can only join with the Senators who have spoken here in hoping that everyone who has a vote will give a resounding "Yes" on 10th May.
This debate provides a worthwhile opportunity to survey the EEC and the big question which will be before the voters on the 10th May. I agree with Senator Cranitch that it is unfortunate that members of the Labour Party, if they have views to put before the House, have not come and done so. The views as expressed honestly and sincerely by Senators who have spoken could not be more compelling or convincing. I wish that today's session could have been televised as it would have answered viewers' questions and cleared their doubts.
"Not by bread alone does man live" so we start at the beginning which was the middle of the last world war when, for the second time within 25 years, Europe was plunged into blood. We had the horror and devastation of the war at that period with indiscriminate bombing and highly sophisticated and organised slaughter. People in Europe who were suffering so much were wondering if there was any future for them. Peace had only lasted for 21 years, from 1918 to 1938, and here was horror itself, so naturally people were thinking and praying and trying to plan how to avoid another holocaust in the future.
For such a situation there is no place better for contemplation than the prison cell. Adenauer, who had been a distinguished mayor of Hamburg and had not gone along with the Nazis, was in a prison cell in Germany for most of the war period. In Italy, there was de Gaspari, another outstanding man of that time, who narrowly avoided arrest by Mussolini, because he vocally opposed him and would not subscribe to his policies. He managed to obtain refuge in the Vatican. Those men and their associates were deeply religious, as would be expected in the atmosphere of death and destruction which prevailed at that time. From those foundations grew the Christian democratic philosophy which immediately in the wake of the totalitarianism of Europe brought those men quickly into recognition and power in their countries.
They were joined by Schumann of France who, amongst a number of brilliant French statesmen of that period, was outstanding as a thinker and a doer. They were planning how to keep the nationalism of France and Germany from plunging Europe into another world war, because obviously a beaten Germany would be one that would struggle to rise again just like the beaten Germany of the first world war. Somehow or other they had to plan for a type of united states of Europe. They had to bring the people together, to cut across national boundaries, or at least to get control of the sinews of war. They were looking in some way or other to the model of the United States which had brought different groups together into the United States of America. They realised that Europe had its own problem which should be solved in a European way. Their wisdom was shown by the practical approach they took to this which was, first of all, to build an economic base and gradually by gaining the confidence of the people, to help to build up the devastation of the war and thereby to make an even closer union of European peoples possible.
Their first effort, again quite logical, was to gain control of the main sinews of war, the coal and steel community. These resources were pooled in 1954 so that they would be under a supernational authority and so that in a very short time it would be impossible for either France, Germany or Italy singly to mount a war against the others.
There was an effort to get a European Defence Community together in the mid-fifties. That was as a result of the Russian trek from the east, by the tanks rumbling through Poland and Hungary. This did not suceed. The wider grouping of NATO prevailed and did the job. It continues to do the job of shielding Europe from any threat from the east. It can be said quite fairly that that threat has in large measure disappeared at this stage.
I think that western Europe need not fear an attack from the east. Of course, there is the unhappy position in eastern Europe but that is a different story.
Following the pooling of coal and and steel resources the pooling of atomic energy was introduced in 1957 and then they were ready for the Treaty of Rome and the launching of the EEC in 1958, which sought to remove barriers to trade between the Six nations constituting the EEC. It was evident from the start that the former war rivals, France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the other, saw that the hope of balancing Europe lay with having a very influential role allotted to the small countries such as Belgium and Holland. They have been allocated power in the institutions of the EEC that is out of all proportion to their respective populations or strength. That is the way it should be. Since the last war freedom loving people everywhere have been devoting their time to trying to make the world safe for future generations by trying to remove the threat of war. The efforts of the United Nations have contributed a great deal in this and we have played, I might say, a not insignificant part in the work of that body. All are hoping and praying for the success of all those. We here, and people of goodwill everywhere, are hoping for the full realisation of the dream of de Gaspari, Schumann and Adenauer of the eventual evolution of a political community in Europe. This is the background against which we have to look at the offer before us.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27th April, 1972.