Deputy McQuillan is in possession and there are 20 minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business. - Referendum on EEC Membership Conditions: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
In view of the far-reaching changes implicit in Ireland's proposed membership of EEC, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the conditions of membership, before being accepted, should be submitted for decision by the people by way of referendum.—(Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan.)
When this debate was adjourned on last Wednesday night, I was dealing with the E1 Dorado promised to the farming community as a result of full membership of EEC being made available to this country. The reason I was dealing with that particular matter was that the small farmer in Ireland has not a clue as to what is in store for him, if the Government's application for full membership is accepted at some stage. The proof of the situation as far as farmers of this country are concerned was contained in the long speech made by the Taoiseach yesterday in which he stated that the six countries which comprise the Common Market are self-sufficient in all kinds of agricultural production, with the exception of beef.
His words bear out what I have said that although the door might open to the Irish farmer for dairy and milk products, for bacon and bacon products, the rooms inside are filled. It is little consolation for the Irish farmer to be told that he is free to get in and that he will get the same rates as anyone else in Europe when we know that the demand in Europe is fully filled and that the big difficulty facing EEC is over-production of agricultural produce. They have no way out of it.
If they want to restrict production, the best the Irish farmer can get is a quota system into Europe. If they are insistent on reducing production in Europe, it means that a number of farmers will have to go out of business in Europe. At the moment provision is being made to remove over eight million people from agriculture. A committee of the Council of Europe is making the necessary arrangements whereby eight million people will be put out of agriculture. I think that fact should be made known to the small farmer in Ireland so as to allow him to make a decision as to whether or not he would be in favour of full membership.
It is significant that the Taoiseach stated that beef is the only line in which there is a possibility of an attractive proposition for the Irish farmer in Europe and it is even more significant that the element in the Irish farming community who support the Government are the rancher element. The spokesmen for the rancher element at every dinner are full of enthusiasm for entry to the Common Market. We know they do not represent the small farmer and it is a disgraceful position that these alleged spokesmen for the farming community are being accepted as the spokesmen of the small farmers. We know that if the small farmers are turned to the production of beef, there is no possibility of their survival in this country.
I believe that a referendum is absolutely essential on this issue of the Common Market, particularly in the light of the Taoiseach's statement that our application for full membership stands. This is the biggest issue facing the Irish farmer since the foundation of the State. They have been kept ignorant of the real significance of what full membership of the Common Market means. The Press, radio, television, political commentators and so-called economic experts have all taken the one line that the Common Market is ideal and essential for this nation. Having taken that line, it is quite apparent that the ordinary man in the street, the businessman, the small farmer, the factory worker and the small shopkeeper are getting only one side of this picture. They cannot have the time or the means at their disposal to examine into what could be the alternative picture to what has been painted by these enthusiastic spokesmen.
I do not believe that this vital issue is one that should be decided by this House. I do not believe that the issue of handing over the sovereignty of the State to an outside body, over whose actions and decisions this Government will be unable to exercise the slightest influence, is a matter that should be dealt with by "Tá" and "Níl" in this House. I do not think it is right that this House should decide this matter without a referendum on giving up our independence and our proud position in the United Nations as a small nation speaking independently.
I do not think this House should be in a position to decide, without consulting the people, that the Irish farmer's right to the ownership of his land should be taken from him in so far as the foreigner would have the same rights to live here and buy Irish land and work it. I do not think it is right for this House to make a decision that would undoubtedly sound the deathknell of the small farmer. I do not think this House is entitled on its own to make a decision that would possibly lead to 100,000 workers in Ireland losing their jobs. On the one side, we have people like the economist who writes on behalf of the Government and speaks, too, often on Radio Eireann telling us that there will be a certain amount of unemployment, but we also have people who, in my opinion, are equally expert and equally well equipped to speak on this matter.
I want to quote what Mr. Crotty, University of Wales Department of Agricultural Economics, had to say on 21st September in that regard. He said:
A decline in employment in the primary industries, agricultural and manufacturing, will give rise to further unemployment in the secondary industries such as building, transport etc.
He went on to say:
An estimate of 100,000 redundant workers following the removal of protection does not seem at all too high.
I do not propose to go into details on this, but I want to make clear the reason why we believe a referendum is necessary. The livelihood of perhaps 70,000 to 100,000 people — and I believe 100,000 is the more correct figure — will be jeopardised. Those people are entitled to be consulted on a matter that affects their livelihoods. This House is not entitled, without consulting the public, to take on the full commitments that we have promised to take on in political and defence matters. The promise has been made without any reservations by the Taoiseach in his application for membership of the Common Market.
I do not think that this House is entitled to reverse a decision taken 30 years ago that this country would pursue a policy of neutrality and stay out of warlike combinations. I do not think that reversal should be carried out before the people have been consulted through a referendum. We have a decision stated by the Taoiseach that we will accept the full political and defence commitments, and yet in this country we have undoubtedly a very strong opposition to the idea of doing away with neutrality. Are they to be allowed in any shape or form to make their views felt to have a proper decision made on what they think about that decision?
We have the Trade Union Congress last July making it quite clear in a resolution unanimously adopted, that the country's stand in the United Nations must be continued and that we must have no part in political or defence blocs in Europe or elsewhere. Without bringing him into the political field at all, we have even the President who in November last said in Galway that neutrality is the policy of the Irish people and that it is a precious policy. They are not my words; they are a quotation from what Mr. de Valera said in Galway last November.
We have Deputy Aiken on record at least three times in the past two years condemning blocs or defence commitments and pointing out that Ireland's place in the United Nations was an independent one, that she was not a member of any warlike group or any defence bloc, and that he felt that it would be disastrous for Ireland to be a part of any such bloc.
That viewpoint is there. How is it going to be felt? Are the people who feel so strongly on this not to be allowed to exercise their rights to give their assent or otherwise on a matter of this importance? I believe that the workers of Ireland will be against the idea of full membership when they realise its implications to them and their families, and I want to make it clear that they do not now realise those implications. I also believe that the people I have referred to, the small farmer and the worker in rural Ireland, will be opposed to the idea of full membership when the true implications of that membership are made known to them.
I want to say that a deliberate campaign has been initiated and pursued by the Government to hoodwink the public as to the true implications of membership of the Common Market. We had the Minister for Lands flying kites in Kerry and Mayo on neutrality, and we had the Taoiseach coming into the Dáil the following week shooting down the balloons that were flown or blown up by the Minister. Weeks afterwards, we had the Taoiseach himself going abroad and stating quite clearly that we were prepared to accept the full implications of membership.
Briefly, I would like to put this on record, and this is not what I or somebody of my point of view said. These are three of the quotations from a daily paper which is in no way friendly disposed towards the views of Deputy Dr. Noel Browne and myself. This is what it has to say on the Taoiseach's conduct in its leading articles.
On January 19th, 1962, under the heading "Into Europe", it said:
The entire opening section of his speech was given over to declaring how European this country is. An Taoiseach said without qualification: "I desire to emphasise that the political aims of the Community are aims to which the Irish Government and people are ready to subscribe and in the realisation of which they wish to play an active part."
The leader goes on to say:
As far as the people are concerned, this is hardly the truth. How many people in the country have any inkling of what the political aims of EEC are? How much has the Government done to enlighten us in any detail?
It went on to say this:
It is essential that the full implications of the Taoiseach's line are put before the people. The foreign and defence policies which the people have supported deserve better treatment than to be dumped without ceremony.
That was last January. Then in October, 1962 they quoted——
Would the Deputy tell us what he is quoting from ?
The Irish Independent.
Acting Chairman
And the date ?
The 31st October, 1962. Referring to the Taoiseach's conduct in the Dáil, it said :—
On defence he tells us nothing has been demanded; he says in Germany we are ready for anything. We must not waste time speculating on what will happen if Britain does not enter, he cautions here; to a foreign audience he suggests we will seek a way to pursue our application in any event.
Then it went on to say :—
Irishmen, North or South, will not long tolerate being treated as children, being told to keep their place and not to shout, and not to ask questions. Democracy does not automatically accept that Prime Ministers know best.
Finally, the Irish Independent on November 3rd, 1962, in a leading article headed “Clear the air” says:
Let there be no mistake about it. The official policy of our Government is that Ireland is willing and ready to take part in the military defence of the West. It is also Government policy that Ireland is prepared to enter a formal military alliance, a course that no Government has followed since 1937.
And then it says :—
For some reason the Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, shrinks from telling us what he tells our friends in Europe.
Further on, it says :—
Taking part in a Western military alliance will mean that Irish troops will be directly involved in plans to deter any Soviet aggression. It will mean that Ireland turns from being well disposed towards the West's cause to being actively engaged in protecting it.
It also says:—
Likewise, it should involve the end of any military service under the United Nations, since, as Mr. Aiken pointed out last year, only nations free from alliances are likely to be acceptable at present.
It finishes by saying that if the Government are not prepared to lead, then they should refrain from attempts to confuse. Those are quotations from the newspaper supported by the Party which also supports our entry into the Common Market. They have put the view that the full implications are not known to the public. I, and the group to which I belong, maintain that the public have not got a clue about the full implications. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the only way to make the full facts known to the public is through a referendum. I second the motion and I hope the House will accept it.
I should just like to make a couple of points. Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan have dealt with many matters but, to my mind, they never really came to the motion itself, or to the case for it. Both Deputies dealt with the relative merits of full membership and association, with our general economic development, and many related matters of this sort, but they did not at any time come to the specific case for the motion or attempt to establish any such case. The reason why they did not do so, and why they spoke at length about so many other matters is that in fact there is no real case for the motion as such.
This is a representative parliamentary democracy where government is vested by the people in their elected representatives in this Oireachtas and in the Government elected by this Oireachtas. We have not got in this country any system of direct government, either executive or legislative, by the people by means of a referendum and our whole parliamentary structure is designed to avoid the necessity for such a cumbersome and expensive procedure. The constitutional position in this regard is quite clear. The Government are specifically authorised under the Constitution to make treaties.
All such treaties must be laid before this House, unless they are of a technical nature. There is an obligation on the Government to lay these treaties before this House so that the House may have an opportunity of discussing them. If the treaty involved does not bring any corresponding change in our domestic law, then that is the end of the matter. However, if the situation is that the treaty involves some change in our domestic law, then that change can be made only to the extent authorised by this Oireachtas. The Oireachtas is the legislative body, the law-making institution and it must come into the picture if a treaty involves changing our domestic law and it must legislate to give effect to those changes. Otherwise this Dáil has only the function of discussing a particular treaty.
The Constitution does not contemplate or envisage in a case of this sort, our adhering to a treaty like the Treaty of Rome, or any of the associated treaties, that the matter should be brought before the people by means of a referendum. In fact, the exact opposite is the position. The Constitution clearly contemplates that the making of such a treaty is a matter entirely for the Government and the Oireachtas, in accordance with the procedure laid down.
Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan however might say: "Very well; if it is clear that there is no constitutional obligation on the Government to refer this matter to the people by means of a referendum, there is at least a political obligation." They might conceivably advance the argument that the Government have no political mandate to proceed to have this country adhere to the Treaty of Rome. The answer to that argument is also quite clear.
During the last general election campaign, the Taoiseach and most of the Ministers of the Government made it absolutely clear that it was the Government's intention, if re-elected to office, to pursue our application for full membership of the European Economic Community as vigorously and as actively as possible. Our application for full membership was lodged in Brussels two months before the last general election and everybody in the country was aware of the fact that as far as the Fianna Fáil Party were concerned they were committed to apply for full membership of the European Economic Community. In practically every speech which the Taoiseach made during the course of that campaign, he adverted to that fact.
But he did not say what the implications were. He told them it was an E1 Dorado.
The Treaty of Rome was published for everybody to see and read and in many speeches during the course of the general election campaign, he adverted not alone to the fact of our application but also to the difficulties that our adherence to the European Economic Community would bring in its train.
Is the Minister aware that there was not a copy of the Rome Treaty available in this House for two years after its coming into operation? How does he expect the ordinary man in the street to know about the Treaty of Rome and the 400 pages it contains, with 380 emergency escapes——
Deputy McQuillan made a very long speech without a single interruption from me.
I am sorry.
At the moment I am merely making it as clear as I can that during the course of the last general election, when this Party who now from the Government were seeking election, they went out on the hustings before the people and indicated clearly time and again that it was their policy to bring this country into the European Economic Community as a full member if possible. Not only that, but time and again during the course of that campaign, Government speakers adverted to the difficulties which would arise for this country in the event of our adhering to the Rome Treaty and the preparations which we must make to meet them.
I quote from a speech made by the Taoiseach on 3rd October, 1961, in Cork, and the quotation is from the Irish Press of the following day:
We have time to prepare the country for its entry to the Common Market, but I cannot tell you how long because that is one of the matters still to be negotiated. This work has been started and it must go on. That is what makes it important in relation to this election. The changes taking place in Europe are not something we can stop or avoid or even slow down. All the countries of Western Europe have taken a decision to combine in an economic community in which there will be no barrier of any kind to trade.
Could anything be clearer or more specific than that? On 2nd October, 1961, as reported in the Irish Independent on 3rd October, 1961, the Taoiseach referred to the Common Market again, at a Fianna Fáil rally at the GPO. I quote:
In a reference to the changes which would result in Europe because of the development of the Common Market he said that it would have advantages for this country but is would also have difficulties. It was that situation which made the present election exceptional.
I want to establish that there can be no argument about the Government's mandate to bring this country into the EEC without a referendum, whatever arguments may be put forward about the relative merits of full or associate membership or about how membership of the Community will affect our general economic development and so on. Our Constitution does not contemplate a referendum in matters of this sort and in so far as this Government require a political mandate, they received it clearly and definitely at the last general election.
Perhaps I should make it clear at this stage—it is not really relevant but it may be of interest—that it is fairly likely if we were to adhere to the Treaty of Rome and the subsidiary treaties, then some amendment of our Constitution of a technical nature might be required to enable us to meet specific obligations. That, of course, could only be achieved, first of all, by a Bill introduced here, and subsequently by a referendum. However, that is not what is at issue here in this motion. The Deputies challenge the decision to join at all and the right of the Government to proceed with our application for full membership without referring the question to the people by a referendum. My argument is that there is no basis, either constitutionally or politically, for such a contention and I ask the House to reject the motion.
We still believe there is an excellent case for putting this issue to the people for their consideration. We are assuming that the Taoiseach intends to go ahead and look for full membership and we feel equally sure that this probably will not arise—we do not think we will be accepted for full membership. We must, however, pursue the motion because the Taoiseach has refused to face the realities of the present situation and declares that he intends to go ahead with the idea of full membership. We think this issue should be put to the public for their consideration, to make their decision.
I do not know why a society such as ours, a relatively young society in self-government, over the years should always consider itself bound by a particular precedent in any particular set of circumstances. God knows, most of us accept now that times have changed in recent years and we are now faced with this very far-reaching decision. I do not see any reason at all why the Government should not take the view that in these special circumstances, special consideration should be given to it. Fortunately, under our Constitution, there is the machinery of referendum. I do not think the Minister or the Taoiseach should allow himself to be bound by precedents, since a referendum would be an efficient way of finding out how the people feel about this issue. The referendum should be accepted as special machinery to decide a special occasion.
I do not believe the Minister can seriously suggest that in an issue like this, about which all of us on both sides of the House, including the Taoiseach and I suspect, the Minister for Justice, are in a considerable state of ignorance as to the true implications of this proposition, it is possible to test public opinion through a general election. Even the Taoiseach, who is the best informed of us all, has only limited knowledge of the true implications of this situation. Surely, in those very special circumstances, it would be wise for the Government to take the view that we should have a national debate on this specific issue as soon as we know where we are, and as soon as we best can find out what the true implications will be for us.
The Minister cannot seriously suggest that it was possible to find out the feelings of the people through the machinery of a general election. I do not really believe he believes that. If he has a choice of trying to find out what people think about, say, public ownership or free health services or better education services, on the one hand, by putting these as specific issues to the public in subsequent referenda, or taking three, four or five of them altogether and going to the public saying: "That is a collection of items I want your views on", does he think he would get a truer reflection of public opinion by going with the mixed bag to them or going to them with a specific issue? Surely the Minister would agree the decision he would get after a national debate would be a much sounder decision than one taken on six or seven issues which are normally involved in the process of a general election.
Then we should have a referendum on every issue.
To achieve perfection, the Minister is probably correct. It seems to us that in order to try to get the truest index on public opinion on this desperately important issues—we can make mistakes about agriculture, health and social services but there is always an opportunity of improving them or putting out the Government responsible for them—we must put it to the people by way of referendum. It has side implications of such far-reaching importance that it is not one that should be taken anyway hastily.
One of the cases which the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Opposition have often made is for the sacrosanctity of the whole idea of democracy. I agree with him in that, although I think its chances of survival as we know it are negligible. However, generally speaking, one does hear much talk on all sides of the House about the democratic idea, public opinion, the public decision. One of the main objects of going into the EEC was supposed to be to try to preserve the democratic idea in Europe. Charity begins at home; so does democracy. We could start at home in implementing this democratic idea. We should trust the people.
With all due respect to the Minister for Justice and the other members of the Government, there is very little doubt that this decision was taken by the Taoiseach. If we extend it to the other Ministers and say they had some say in it and agreed with it, we may say essentially they are imposing this decision on the public in so far as they have taken the decision without referring to the public in any specific way about the issue. As someone once said: "When I want to know how the Irish people are thinking, I look into my own heart." The Taoiseach has tended to follow that philosophy and used it in this instance.
Surely that is the essence of democratic centralism in which the Communists believe and to which we are so strongly opposed. We believe the public to be their own masters, that we do not know better than they, that they have a right to decide on vital issues that concern them, and that we are not a sort of aristocratic ruling class who must decide these issues because we have some God-given right which they have not got and which allows us to come to the right decision without making a mistake.
The fallacy of that proposition of the infallibility of the Taoiseach or his Ministers was never more emphasised than during the past 18 months in which the Taoiseach has made numerous categorical statements which have since proved to be completely erroneous. I know any human being can be wrong. I cannot blame him for being wrong but I am blaming him for thinking he cannot be wrong. It is apparently the general over-all feeling he is beginning to have about himself, even having made many mistakes and misjudgments of the position. The really sad part is that he is not prepared to accept the fact or, having accepted it, to act on it, that is, to be more cautious in the future and in order to be certain that he is not wrong in this instance, to put the matter to the country in the form of a national debate and then abide by the decision of the people.
If the Taoiseach is so certain the people are on his side in his decision, then he has nothing to fear. The public will give him the referendum and he will then be able to go ahead with ratifying the Treaty. This is such an exceptional circumstance that the desirability of using the referendum in order to find out public opinion is one which should be seriously considered by the Government.
There is another consideration. As the Minister said, we presumably will have to have a referendum in order to alter the Constitution and to establish the right of the Brussels courts to override decisions in our Supreme Court, whatever the formula is. That being so, we intend to have what the Minister describes as the costly and cumbersome paraphernalia of a referendum. What is the objection to extending the referendum and getting public opinion at that time on this very important issue?
Would you not need two?
All right, if that is so. I do not know but it probably would be wiser. It might be rather complicated but very recently, at the time of the Presidential election, there was one in relation to our electoral law which was rather complicated and the people handled it extraordinarily intelligently, although I would not expect the Minister to agree with me on that. It is possible for the Government to hold a referendum on these two points.
Have the Government given any consideration to what would happen if, on holding a referendum about our subscribing to the Treaty of Rome and about altering the Constitution to give these powers to the Brussels courts, it went against the Government? What would they do then? Surely they would have to go back on the Treaty of Rome. Facing a referendum on the Treaty of Rome, surely those of us who opposed the idea of going into the Common Market as full members and abandoning our neutrality as a corollary, would be tempted to use the referendum as a vote of confidence in the decision to go into the EEC as full members, would try to get it reversed and would try to get a decision against accepting this amendment of the Constitution for the convenience of the courts. I think we would be justified in taking that stand as the only one left to us by the Government.
The Minister may think that savours of the Skibbereen Eagle on our part, that the two of us might go out on a national campaign in this regard. We are quite capable of doing that, but at the same time, as far as we know, we would be sure of having fairly considerable support from the trade union movement, that is if they adhere to the meaning of the motion passed by them in the middle of last year, that they do not want any departure from the military position we now occupy, which simply involves our commitments in UNO.
Will the Government not find themselves fighting this referendum on a relatively unimportant issue because the question of the courts, from the point of view of the public, is a relatively unimportant issue? Will they not find themselves fighting this issue as a vote of confidence on the decision to sign the Treaty of Rome? In that way, the issue will be confused, and deliberately confused, and in that way they might find themselves—I do not know what they will have to do—trying to get out of the Treaty of Rome. The Taoiseach says you cannot get out of it but he may find himself with no alternative but to repudiate the Treaty.
Surely in order to try to prevent that position arising, it would be much wiser for the Government to decide to take the two issues to enable the people to say: "We believe you are wrong; we believe you are misinformed." That would be the first question and the second would then be the authority to amend the Constitution. The Minister said it would mean two issues on the referendum card, but that certainly would not be as complicated as the nostrum with which he supplies us, the last general election in which we were talking about all sorts of things: unemployment, emigration, agricultural policy, health policy, social welfare policy, education, the failure of one group and the success of another group, and a thousand and one things. Buried deep in that was the whole idea of the Common Market.
I do not think the Taoiseach would seriously suggest that he got a clear national debate on the question of the Common Market during the last election. I can support that view without any real difficulty at all. If one goes through the various comments by the different Ministers and ex-Ministers, it is quite remarkable to see the amount of misinformation they seem to have got hold of about the Common Market. I do not pretend to be better informed than anyone else about the EEC. I merely say that I am as ill-informed as many other Deputies.
The Leader of the Opposition made the point that we had to take full membership because if we became associate members, ultimately we must become full members. He was quite wrong in that. The Leader of a large Party should not be wrong on such an important issue but he was wrong on it. The Taoiseach made a number of confusing statements. He may not have had all the facts at his disposal but he certainly created great confusion in the minds of many of us. At column 890, Volume 195, of the Official Report, I asked the Taoiseach would membership not lead to our having to make military commitments? The Taoiseach replied:
We have applied to accede to the Treaty of Rome. That is the only application that we have made and it is the only matter on which negotiations are proceeding.
On another occasion, Deputy Norton asked whether there was any obligation on us to enter into a military agreement as a condition of our entering the Common Market and the Taoiseach said that there were no commitments of that kind in the Treaty of Rome.
On the military side, clearly there is great confusion and uncertainty about it and, of course, there is still the political side. At column 457, Volume 195, of the Official Report, the Taoiseach said:
The political implications of membership of the Community are in an entirely different category, as they are nowhere precisely defined and are, indeed, still the subject of negotiations among the Six.
Deputy McQuillan asked what the political and defence commitments might be and the Taoiseach replied:—
This country is negotiating for membership of the European Economic Community, and that is all.
Deputy McQuillan asked what were the defence and political implications and the Taoiseach replied:—
We are negotiating for accession to the Rome Treaty.
The main thing I want to try to show is that this is a particularly confusing issue. It is an issue about which there is a lot of genuine confusion in the minds of people who have discussed it, including the Taoiseach. In his statement to the New York Times, repeated at Brussels, the Taoiseach said:—
We are prepared to go into an integrated union without any reservations at all as to how far this will take us in the field of foreign policy or defence commitments.
I asked him was he prepared to have nuclear bases in this country and he said: "Certainly not."
The Minister must agree that it is difficult to reconcile all these conflicting points of view or decisions put forward by the Taoiseach. How can you accept without any reservations at all in this day and age defence commitments, without implicitly committing yourself to the positioning of military establishments, air forces, nuclear bases, Polaris bases, or what is the most modern thing? Does the Minister seriously suggest that the EEC with all its implications was discussed, debated, considered and voted upon by the public at the last general election? Surely no one can seriously put that view forward.
Deputy McQuillan gave the statement made by the President. He clearly is very confused about the position and indeed his statement about the necessity of retaining our neutrality raises a point which might be of interest to lawyers. Does he not have to sign the laws which are passed here in order to make them binding? What would be the position if he conscientiously believed that we should not, as he said, abandon our neutrality but should retain our present neutral position and not allow the country to be used as a military base and he felt morally bound to refuse to sign the Bill?
He cannot. There are only a limited number of alternatives.
I think we can call for a referendum. Can he not insist on a referendum?
He can refer a Bill to the Supreme Court or he can ask for a referendum on a petition, but it must be on a petition by at least one-third of the members of this House and a majority of the Seanad.
However, as I say, this is a position in which there is a great deal of confusion, a great deal of misinformation, a position in which most of us try to find out all we can. When I mention these names, I am not in any way criticising those who own them. I have had my share of misunderstanding of the Treaty of Rome. But this is all the more reason, it seems to me, why the matter should be put forward finally as clearly as it can be put by the Government, on the one side, and by someone on behalf of the Opposition on the other side. The decision is a very serious one.
The Taoiseach has said that he has seen no indication of any public anxiety as to the possible effect on our foreign policy of full membership of EEC. At the same time, he does not appear to be prepared to ask the public what their views are. I wonder do the public know all the implications of the Taoiseach's statement about accepting "without any reservation as to how far it would take us in the field of foreign policy and defence commitments". That could easily mean accepting nuclear warheads here. As a result of the course of events in Canada, we can see now a reasonable possibility becoming a more than likely probability with the present trend on the part of General de Gaulle pushing the Americans out of Europe. The Americans may now be looking for alternative positions. The decision could well be a very serious one. It is a decision upon which the public so far have not been asked to comment.
All this conflicts with the Government's policy over the years at the United Nations. That policy was ratified by the people at the general election. They accepted it. They accepted our policy of neutrality. I think the Minister will concede that. The general impression amongst the people was that we were uncommitted militarily, whatever about ideologies. If a decision on that was taken by the people, I think one can fairly say they favoured neutrality, the policy of non-commitment as adumbrated by the Minister for External Affairs at the United Nations. Had the Government gone to the people and said that they had abandoned neutrality or their position of non-commitment and would enter militantly into the Cold War, does the Minister think his Party would still have got their votes? The general line of policy of the Minister for External Affairs was to try to stop the spread of the Cold War. His various motions in the United Nations won world support for their objectivity and their general attempt to reduce the temper giving rise to world tension. If that were the issue put to the people at the last general election, then it can be fairly said, I think, that the Government got support for that view.
The Minister for External Affairs also put down a number of motions designed to restrict the spread of nuclear warheads. I think the people ratified his behaviour in that regard in the last general election. This new decision by the Government is a complete reversal of their earlier decision. The Government are the supreme authority. They make the decisions, but they should not try to pretend that they have the people with them in these decisions. To my knowledge, this particular issue was never put to the people during the whole of the last general election campaign, and it is wrong for the Minister to say now that this decision was ratified.
Had it been put to the people, it would have been essential to point out to the people all the implications of it. But the implications were only really seen a few months ago when the Russians put their nuclear warheads into Cuba and, from the American point of view, altered radically the balance of power in this awful nuclear argument that is going on President Kennedy took the steps he thought justified at the time—the blockade and so on. The blockade brought with it consequent hardship on the Cuban people, on the women, and children. They are always the victims of the policy leaders in every war. What is to stop a similar position developing here if we suddenly proclaim we are taking in NATO or American warheads? Surely Mr. Khruschev will have the right to say that there is a precedent for taking very severe action and telling us, as President Kennedy told the Cubans: "We will blow the world to pieces unless you get these things out". What is to stop Mr. Khrushchev taking precisely the same steps, with us on the receiving end? We would find ourselves faced with a war, with President Kennedy's 200 million and Mr. Khrushchev's 500 million going to die in the course of a very short atomic war as a result of a decision we took here, a decision the Taoiseach took without any authority.
We are talking now in times so complex that it is really even difficult to imagine the possibility, but the possibility is there. It is a real possibility. That is the measure of the decision we are taking; that is the scope of the decision. I would strongly object but naturally I would prefer that the public should know what is involved in this departure from our traditional policy. From the point of view of the people generally, every war is fought with the weapons of the last war. The cavalry drown in the mud of Paschendaele. When the 1939-45 war occurred, the people had no idea of the meaning of civilian warfare. They had no idea of what bombing could do, no idea of the results of bombing. We are quite incapable of understanding fully the implications of nuclear war.
We have the example of a tiny island like ourselves involved in this appalling madmen's game of chess, very nearly becoming the victims of it themselves and bringing with them a great many others in the process. For that reason in particular, we believe the Taoiseach cannot claim that he has the authority of the country behind him on this issue. If he will not have a referendum, then let him have this general election, this very inefficient way of deciding a single issue, but at all costs the Taoiseach should refer the matter to the country.
I am quite astonished at the extraordinary equanimity of all Deputies in facing this problem. Facing the military problems puts the fear of God into me. I am quite terrified of the possibility of any of these dreadful weapons coming near us. We do not know what the military commitments are. The Taoiseach has made that clear and he has made it equally clear that he does not know what the political commitments are. How can Ministers seriously suggest that this matter was decided during the course of the last general election and authority given for it? The Taoiseach was right to the extent that he did mention the Common Market and that there would be free trade. He got a decision on that but not on these other matters.
If de Gaulle goes ahead with his master plan for Europe, this concept of a force from the Atlantic to the Urals, with this possibility of becoming a third force between America and Russia, possibly as a mediator but essentially with an anti-American bias under which America would be hoofed out of Europe and sent back to America, is a completely different concept from the one the Taoiseach postulated here as likely. His concept was that there would be a rigid line between East and West and that we would play our part in glaring over the East Berlin wall at the Russians. Apparently that is not the present concept at all. There is complete unpredictability as to the future which may arise with the deaths of de Gaulle and Adenauer and the coming to the fore of completely new people. I do not know how the Taoiseach can look to these possibilities without being very worried, and I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can do so either without telling the public of these possibilities.
They cannot tell the public how many people will be disemployed as a result of full membership of EEC. They cannot tell us anything about our agriculture except what the Taoiseach told us yesterday when he said that Europe is self-sufficient in everything but beef. What is the farmer to do? The Taoiseach cannot tell us about the new taxation system there may be or about the change in the cost of living. The general opinion is that 40 per cent. of our industries will go to the wall. These are very serious considerations and ones that should be put to the public in the form of a referendum.
I do not know if the public are really very concerned about the unity of Europe in which the Taoiseach says we are interested, the matter the former Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, said we would campaign for, this unification of Germany. I do not believe the public would be anxious to take part in any campaign in Central Europe. I think the public and the Government of the day were very intelligent in not going into the last war. They would have been mad to go into it and it was only a baby war compared with the thing we are now facing. We were right in 1949 to refuse to go into NATO. The present Government were right to resist the appalling and unchristian temptation to go into an attempt to wipe out the Russians in the name of Christianity. I think that was a really blasphemous conception. I think the Government were right to resist this temptation and to play no part, beyond the part of the non-committed or the neutral.
Look at the magnificent role we have already played in the Middle East. I think we have made some contribution to UNO. There were serious defects in our handling of the Congo situation but we helped in some way to create an independent society there. There was a great need for a neutral in Europe. Suppose that some plan is put into operation for the demilitarisation of Europe. They will need non-committed troops to police that area. We are no longer non-committed. We are now committed solidly to one side and to that extent we have deprived ourselves of our former usefulness.
Perhaps the people are with the Taoiseach and with the Leader of the Opposition in that but my submission is that the case has not been put to them and that it would be quite impossible to put it to them within the framework of a general election in which so many other considerations are involved. The machinery of the referendum has been used in the past for infinitely less important issues. I do not think the Minister seriously suggests that the cost of a particular device should be allowed to stand in the way of the efficient operation of the democratic machinery. We think that it is worth the trouble to obtain public opinion, even if the machinery is cumbersome, which we do not think it is.
Even if it is a costly way of getting the opinion of the public, I still value very highly the opinion of the public on this matter because every man, woman and child is involved in it. They are all involved and they have a right to have this decision put to them, to be treated as an adult democracy, as they are in spite of the many mistakes they make from time to time in the types of Governments they return. Certainly in the decisions which they have had to consider in the form of referenda, particularly the one in which there were two rather complex issues, those of P.R. and the Presidential election, they behaved with remarkable astuteness and intelligence.
I believe that if the Government are seriously concerned with this whole idea of using the democratic machine at their disposal, they should accept our motion, and put to them the matter of full membership of EEC, should it ever become a real decision, with the questions, first of all: "Do you believe we should go into the Common Market?" (2) "do you believe we should go in as associated members?" (3) "do you believe we should go in as full members?" and a fourth question making it quite clear that going in as full members means the abandonment of our neutrality with all the consequences of the positioning of military bases, airforce establishments, military research establishments of one kind or another, and the positioning of nuclear missiles or Polaris bases in the country. Ask them those four questions and then everybody will be quite happy to abide by their decision.
Question put and declared lost.
Votáil.
Will Deputies asking for a division please rise in their places?
Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan rose.
Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan will be recorded as dissenting.