In intervening in this debate, which is of peculiar importance at the present time, it is with some sense of reluctance that I want, first of all, to refer to something which I wish to put in a personal form. Deputy Dillon yesterday referred in a somewhat peculiar manner for him to the courtesy call paid by the Taoiseach on the German Minister recently on the occasion of the death of Herr Hitler. I was very reluctant to intervene at that particular time, for many obvious reasons. There has been for the past 12 months a peculiar effort on the part of many individuals of certain States to cover up their past by climbing aboard what is, in vulgar terms, called the band-waggon. I have no desire to associate with these individuals, some of whom are even present in this House, as we heard yesterday; but, for my own self-respect, I feel that, on the occasion of this Vote, I must make my position clear.
I do so because on a number of occasions recently it has been emphasised from the Government Benches that Ministers act on behalf of this House, having been elected by the House. Therefore, the Minister for External Affairs, in his capacity as such, calling to make that courtesy visit to the German Minister might, in certain circumstances, be regarded as speaking for all the members of the House. I do not want to dwell upon the position during the last six years. My attitude goes back much further, and much further than Deputy Dillon's goes. Because of one aspect, and one aspect alone, I want to record myself here as dissociating myself from that courtesy call. I do so as a trade unionist, as a member of the Labour Party and as one who for many years had deep fraternal relations with men, women and children who were butchered by that individual.
I do not want to say any more than that, except that I can understand, because of the mentality of the Taoiseach, because of his very correct and, if you like, exact approach to certain problems, why he took that decision and carried out that particular act. At the same time, without commenting on the events of the past few years, I feel that, from the point of view of many of those who associated themselves with the Taoiseach and the movement he led in years gone by, men and women of the Irish working-class movement, Irish trade unionists, to whom he has in the past paid tribute for their services to the country, it might have been better if that call had not been made.
So far as the debate is concerned, it seems to me that, with a number of exceptions, it is worthy neither of the House nor of our country at present. To engage ourselves in pursuing some of the lines of argument developed by members of the House is not, I think, to recognise the position our country is in, nor the requirements and responsibilities which devolve upon us as a nation, whether we are large or small. From that point of view, my feeling on the opening speech of the Taoiseach is largely one of disappointment. There have been occasions in the past when the Taoiseach, speaking at international assemblies, gave utterance to sentiments which would be very valuable if re-echoed to-day, and re-echoed not only in the sense of merely giving expression to opinions, but with a determination that, so far as we could, we would play our part in seeing that these opinions and sentiments were given effect to, within our limitations and our capabilities, in the world to-day.
I do not think the statement of the Taoiseach with regard to the republic should cause so much amazement as it seems to have caused to the Opposition. We have been engaged for a long period of years in trying to attain a certain status as a nation. We have done it in different ways and different forms. We have done it quickly at times and we have proceeded slowly at other times. During the period of office of the Government of the Taoiseach, various difficulties and impingements that came upon us have, one by one, either fallen or been cast off, and it is quite true, as he said, that, for all essential purposes, we have been a republic. It would have been much better if the Taoiseach could have departed on this occasion from his weakness for developing his argument in minute and fine forms, and had contented himself with a plain and definite statement which would have been appreciated by the ordinary common people.
I do not believe that our constitutional position as a nation is dependent on any external force, and I do agree with the Taoiseach that it does not depend on his statement, or even on the statement of this House, in the last analysis, but I suggest that the basic thing to be considered, in reflecting upon whether we are a republic or not, is not merely the constitutional position, not even the feeling of those who may sit in this House, or of the Taoiseach himself, but the consciousness in the minds of our own people. I submit, and I think that members of the Fianna Fáil Party if they honestly and seriously examine the question, will agree that our difficulty in this country is that our own people are not yet convinced that they are a republican people. They are still suffering from what Deputy Norton called an inferiority complex, and until we take upon ourselves the task, and the burden which will follow from undertaking that task, of accepting that we are republicans, not only constitutionally, not only in relation to other countries, but in all that is implied by the term and until it has become an everyday part of our life, with all its concomitants, we are going to feel ourselves in an inferior position, despite what Deputy Butler said, to which I take no exception.
We have sooner or later got to face up to that position. We have to say that not merely do we regard ourselves as Éire or Ireland, a country having a republican form of government set down in our Constitution, but that this is the Government of the Irish Republic as such. It may involve certain difficulties, difficulties which I think are present to the mind of the Taoiseach and have been present to his mind since 1937. There is the difficulty of trying to step forward and attain a certain goal and, at the same time, not make the cost of the journey too heavy on our people. We have certain trade relations, financial relations, industrial relations and even social relations with England and the British Government. Undoubtedly declarations on our part which may carry us a step further, or even finally to our particular goal, may affect those relations, but sooner or later we have to consider that matter and decide whether or not we are determined finally to stand erect in national manhood or whether we are going to continue in as confused and unclear state as we are in to-day.
I believe it is not a matter which must be considered merely by the Taoiseach. I do not think it is a fair or equitable proposition for members of the House to regard the Government of the day as being merely a Party Government, and at the same time put questions to that Government which they, as Irish people and as responsible political leaders of that people, are just as much entitled to answer as any member of the Government Party. Therefore, so far as I am concerned—and I think it was also the keynote of the speech of the Leader of our Party—to clarify the issue would be the simplest and, in the long run, probably the least expensive way of dealing with the matter.
Until we arrive at national and political manhood in all its forms, we will continue to have the kind of debate we have had here for the last day or two, and, within our country, political groupings and factions about the definition of republic and republicanism, and we will not get acceptance of having arrived at a definite and clear basis of nationhood on which we can each go forward along our own particular road so far as the development of our country is concerned.
When speaking of the republic it is peculiar that in this House yesterday we had a speech by Deputy Flanagan to which no other speaker has yet taken exception. I would have preferred that some other speaker in the House had taken exception to that speech—had taken exception to the fact that somebody can stand up in this House and, associating himself with the terms "Irish Republic" and "Irish Republicanism", make a speech such as Deputy Flanagan made yesterday, in which all the bitterness and intolerance, all the rotten, medieval mind of a system which has now been crushed out of the civilised world, were amplified in association with the term "Irish Republic." As an Irish republican I want none of that. I had great respect for Deputy Flanagan. I hope that in the future he will pay less attention to circular letters, and try to get back to the basis of republicanism in this country —tolerance for the viewpoints of all men, no matter what their race or creed; acceptance of the position that all men and women of our race have a common claim on our nationhood, that they have equal rights, and that we are as determined to protect the views and rights of the smallest minority as we are to protect those of the majority. That, I think, would be a greater contribution to Irish Republicanism than the speech which Deputy Flanagan made in this House yesterday.
When we came to deal with the question of a republic, we had the contributions made by Deputy Dillon in particular, and also references by members of the Fine Gael Party as to the position which would be created by the declaration of the Taoiseach yesterday of the republican character of our Government, and the effect upon Partition and our relationship with the British Commonwealth of Nations. There are some who fear that all of this is tied together, and that the price of the unity of our country is the acceptance of a certain other position in regard to our republican aspirations, and our attitude to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I do not feel that that is so. First of all, let us be clear as to what we are speaking of when we refer to the British Commonwealth of Nations. I think, in the first place, that we have not got to accept the conception which apparently has been put forward in this House that the British Commonwealth of Nations is composed solely of self-governing nations made up of sections of the English speaking areas throughout the world, and, if you like, including ourselves. That is a conception which has been voiced and put forward during recent years by those who are not concerned with some of the darker sides of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is not only a collection and grouping together of self-governing dominions, many of whom can equally claim with ourselves, if they want to go in that direction, to have republican governments in their sense of the word. There are also such other areas as India, Africa and the West Indies, where there is no self-government, and very little respect for human dignity or human rights.
One of the things in which I would be peculiarly interested is to know whether, if we do associate as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, that implies that we also accept that that Commonwealth is applicable to all the parts of what we used to call the British Empire. I think that would be something very regrettable. In the past, in our days of need, we have received encouragement and words of cheer from many of the races who to-day are still deeply within the Empire, and who have not progressed as far along the road of self-government as we have. Whatever may be the constitutional position, I think we, as a small nation who have known the bitterness of having that relationship forced upon us in the past, should not be a party to covering up the suffering and degradation of other people throughout the world to-day. I believe there is a basis for and a possibility of association with the British Commonwealth, but it can only be on the basis that we, as an independent and sovereign people, are not merely going in as sons and daughters of a mother country because we have certain political associations throughout the world, but that we are associating with that Commonwealth in the same way as we might associate with any other group of nations in any part of the world, and that we accept no responsibility and make no apology for what may be happening inside portion of that associated unit.
In doing that, I believe that we have got to make a final effort to stand erect on a national basis, as men and women. Until we are able to do that I feel that any association we may have or may desire to have in the future with the British Commonwealth is going to create points of difference within our own people which have their roots in the past and in the experience we have gone through. We cannot find a basis of association until we can cut adrift and say we are standing independently on our own feet, and, of our own choice, associating either with the Commonwealth or with any European group of nations or any American group of nations, and that we are doing that not because we have any particular interest in their political philosophy but because we have common associations as part of the world comity of nations, because we have certain trade relations which we wish to develop, and because it will be conducive to the general welfare and peace of the world. Because we have not reached that position, any mention of association with the British Commonwealth of Nations immediately raises in our minds many of the spectres and fears of the past. The fact that it is possible still to raise within our minds those fears is proof that we have not yet attained that national manhood which we should have attained, and could attain by a free act of our own will.
Deputy Dillon in particular made a very impassioned plea that we should not only be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations because of its possible consequences in regard to the unity of our country. He developed another argument: that we, as he termed it, a mother race, having units of our race spread throughout different parts of that commonwealth, could act as a cement—that was the word he used—to bind together the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America. He went on to develop that, and I believe that, of all the things said in this House during the past day or two, the line developed by Deputy Dillon was the most dangerous, because Deputy Dillon, within a period of three or four months of the end of the second world war, is already envisaging the possibility of a third catastrope in the world. He does not even seem to be appalled at the prospect. He does not even see any alternative, or any means of avoiding it. We are to take upon ourselves not the role of peace-makers, not the role of bringing together all the peoples of the world, regardless of race, creed or politics, for the material security of the peoples of the world, but we are to act as a cement to bring together another war machine for the third conflict, which may well cost civilisation its very existence. I hope that, if we are to have associations with groups of nations outside our country, they will be associations which will be conducive to the peace of the world, and not to the creation of groups and future warring parties in the world. It is true, because of the fact that our race is scattered throughout the world, that we are in the happy position of acting as carriers of thought and of influence to many parts of the world. We could be of greater assistance to any system of world organisation designed to try, as far as possible within the realities of the world situation, to preserve peace and the safety and security of the common people, than any other nation of equal size. We can only do that on the basis of entering into that organisation with friendliness, neighbourly feeling and good relations towards all peoples and all races in trying to find that common humanity which is the birthright of all the common people, and in taking upon ourselves, so far as our limited capabilities permit, such a share of the world as may fall to us. That is why I profoundly disagree with the particular line of argument that was advanced by Deputy Dillon yesterday.
The other suggestion that was put before us was that the price of making a declaration of our republicanism, of the republican character of our Government, is to be the unity of our country. I think that is a false line of argument. I am convinced that even the most rabid Orangeman, or even the gentleman whose name was mentioned in the debate to-day, Sir William Davidson, would have very little respect for us if we were to renounce the convictions that we have held for so many years—the belief in our nationhood, in an Irish Republic and in all that that connotes.