andMr. McQuillan asked the Taoiseach whether, in view of the accession to associate membership of the EEC by Greece and the fact that the Government have had thereby an opportunity of studying the immediate implications of associate membership on an economically backward country comparable to Ireland, the Government intend to study these implications in relation to Irish conditions, where possible, so as to enable the desirability of looking for associate rather than full membership of the EEC to be considered.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - EEC: Associate Membership.
1.
I reject the implication in the Question that Ireland is an economically backward country, unable to assume the obligations of membership of the European Economic Community.
The principal features of the terms governing the association of Greece with the Community were known when the Government decided to apply for membership of the Community. As regards the considerations which caused the Government to decide for membership rather than association, I would refer the Deputies to the reply I gave to a similar Question on the 28th March last.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply in which he states that he rejects the suggestion that Ireland is an economically backward country, is he aware that in the White Paper published in 1961, it is stated that Ireland, Greece, Turkey and Iceland were looking for special consideration, in view of the fact that those countries were in the course, only, of economic development, and in the light of the Government's view at that stage that Ireland and Turkey were on the same basis so far as the Free Trade Area was concerned, would the Taoiseach now state how Ireland has developed so fast in such a short space of time as to enable the Taoiseach to apply for full membership instead of associate membership for which Greece has successfully applied?
Good government would be one answer.
Assuming that it is some time after the EFTA discussions, I would ask the Taoiseach whether he has read the CIO reports investigating the present position of Ireland's industries, whether he has seen their conclusions, and whether he accepts from those conclusions that Ireland is completely unprepared to take on full membership at present without inflicting very grave hardship and bringing about a very considerable amount of unemployment instead of looking for associate membership under which we would have a longer period for the reduction of tariffs.
I arrived at a completely opposite conclusion from reading the reports.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's facile reply that good government was possibly the reason for the change, surely the Taoiseach does not suggest that between 1961 and 1962 revolutionary changes in Ireland's economic position took place which would warrant an alteration in the Government's view on this matter?
The Deputy is postdating the statement which he has quoted by about five years.
Does the Taoiseach deny the statements published in the White Paper of 1961 that "Ireland participated throughout in the Free Trade Area negotiations and took a particular part in efforts to find solutions to the problem of member countries in course of economic development—Ireland, Greece, Turkey and Iceland", and that the solutions envisaged extended transitional periods, special arrangements for agriculture, and long-term dismantlement periods in respect of industrial tariffs? Does the Taoiseach now go away from the stand he took in 1961?
As the Deputy is well aware, the European Economic Community is an entirely different proposition from the old Free Trade Area plan and much more attractive to us.
Does the Taoiseach appreciate the serious and cowardly implication that once he had got rid of the stumbling block of his predecessor, he was able to get the country moving into this condition of alleged prosperity?
The Deputy took a long time thinking that up.