When I reported progress last night, I was commencing to talk on the very topical subject of the day, our application for entry to the Common Market. There is a great deal of diversified debate in this country on that subject. There are some who believe that if we get into the Common Market, it is the end of all our economic problems, that we can have a higher standard of living, work shorter hours and get higher pay; in other words, everything is going to be perfect for the future of this country.
There are others who believe that if we go into the Common Market, we shall be unable to compete with other countries and that our economy will run into considerable difficulties almost immediately. There is a third school of thought that believes that we do whatever Britain does, that we should not move in any direction without the fullest consultations with the British Government; in fact, that our application is not a separate entry but a united application with that of the United Kingdom.
I should like to take a somewhat different line. I do not feel committed in any way to any of those schools of thought. This country is a self-governing unit and as such, is entitled to follow its own line and take its own decisions. The suggestion that we are entirely dependent on the application of the British Government does not appeal to me. First of all, in spite of the many optimistic writings in the Press and by different statesmen in different countries about the certainty of Britain being a member of the Common Market this time, I do not follow that line of thought.
It is necessary in this connection to refer briefly to Britain's application to the Common Market, as ours is, to a certain extent, tied up with it. She has many difficulties to overcome. It is not alone General de Gaulle, as some people believe, who may prevent the United Kingdom entering the Common Market. Outside the Party of the Right, General de Gaulle's Party, there is a considerable volume of opinion in other political parties in France to the effect that Britain is not yet ready for the Common Market and that she has not fully accepted the European idea. One often hears the opinion expressed by parliamentarians, by French statesmen and European statesmen as a whole, that Britain still believes that the Atlantic is narrower than the Channel, that her eyes are directed more towards a unified policy with the United States of America rather than with Europe. I also know that there is considerable doubt among other countries within the Common Market as to whether it is feasible or advisable to admit Britain at the moment.
It is necessary to say these things because so many people write and seem to think it is only a matter of completing this tour that is being made, under full cover of television and publicity, by the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary throughout the countries of Europe, and then Britain enters the Common Market and we automatically enter afterwards and the EFTA group enters as well. I want to point out to the House that the EEC has been through considerable difficulties in formulating and agreeing on its final policies.
There is no need to go back over past events and to the negotiations that led up to the signing of the Treaty of Rome but certainly the negotiations within the Community itself which led up to agreement on its agricultural policy were extended and often acrimonious. When this agreement was finally reached, it was only done after very lengthy discussions and all-night sittings. If they had such difficulty in finalising an agreement among themselves, is it not self-evident that the entry of any new partner is going to cause new and protracted discussion? It is inconceivable to my mind that if the United Kingdom does get into the Common Market, which I personally very much doubt, we and the EFTA countries can get in as well.
Is it not self-evident, after all the trials, tribulations and troubles that EEC has already experienced, that the entry of seven or eight new countries is going to cause very protracted discussion? We are on the eve of the Kennedy Round of negotiations. It is that fact which made it imperative for the countries of the Common Market to face up to the necessity of having a common agricultural policy. If a country like the United Kingdom, with its agriculture in its present state and its large State subsidies to agriculture, is admitted to the Common Market, that fact is bound to cause trouble, difficulty and disruption of the present Common Market agricultural policy and they will not be able to face the Kennedy Round which will have to be finalised by next July. Therefore it is very doubtful if Britain will be admitted.
Added to this is the fact that Britain is the custodian and guardian of sterling. When Britain was a great empire with territories overseas, she was well able to maintain and guard sterling. The balance of payments was right and they were able to meet any requirements made on them. They are not in that position today. Although the Labour Government have taken strong steps to redress the balance of payments, the pressure is always on them. It is conceivable that if they are forced to concede a review of wages and prices, the balance of payments situation will again go against them and it is also conceivable that they might not be able to meet heavy demands made on sterling. These things will all be taken into account when they are negotiating their entry into the Common Market.
One of the clauses of the Treaty of Rome is that if a country runs into balance of payments difficulties, they should be granted a waiver and this makes it likely that if the balance of payments situation in Britain were to go wrong, their application would not be accepted. There is also the question of the agricultural situation there and Britain is asking for a considerably extended period to alter her agricultural position. The sooner they alter that position the better for us because it is detrimental to our agricultural economy here. For these reasons and from information I have from certain European sources, it seems to me that it is unlikely that Britain's application will be accepted. The British must already know that as a result of the conversations they have had in France and in other countries where it was hinted that they should seek association.
Where do we come in then? We would appear to have based our economy on the be-all and end-all of our economic association with the United Kingdom, contrary to the advice of OECD. Therefore, we must face the fact that either we must go in at the tail-end of the United Kingdom or else go it alone, or perhaps in association with other countries. It is a known fact that Denmark and Austria have been negotiating for entry. Spain is not a member of the Council of Europe or of NATO but she has been negotiating for association for some time. I indict the Government here that they have done nothing. Recently, possibly under pressure from Opposition speakers, they have sent Ministers to the EEC Council to have a review of the situation but it seems to me that even if our application were to come before the Common Market, there would be long and tortuous negotiations before it was decided whether it would be accepted.
We have done nothing. We have made an application and then we let it lie in abeyance awaiting the British decision. That application was made some six or seven years ago and it has been lying in abeyance ever since. Now, when the time comes when we decide we are going to try to get in, we will have to start the negotiations from the very beginning and the Minister will possibly agree, or be advised by his officials, that there must be at least three years' negotiations before our application will be accepted and finalised.
Some years ago I had the privilege of acting on a consultation committee of the Council of Europe where five or six of us sat opposite the foreign Ministers of the Council and discussed the question of European unity. I posed the question that in the event of Ireland being admitted as a member of the Common Market and in the event of the United Kingdom not being found acceptable for entry, what would our position be vis-á-vis Europe, in view of our existing and long-standing trading arrangements with the United Kingdom. I asked whether we would be allowed any benefits from that long association. The question was replied to by the French Foreign Minister, M. Couve de Murville, who said it was a good question and said there was no doubt that the European Community would take into account Ireland's special relations and position in regard to Great Britain. That seemed to me to be an indication that it was open to Ireland to go it alone.
There are some people who seem to throw up their hands in horror at the thought of Ireland going it alone. We have become so pro-British, so far as those on the opposite side of the House are concerned, that it is almost felt to be dishonourable to suggest we go it alone. Is it going to be so terrible after all? Are we not already reducing our tariffs here? Are we not being told every other day by the Taoiseach and his Ministers that we should get our house in order for our entry into the Common Market? Is it not an evident fact that at the moment there is only one stablised agricultural market in the world other than those carrying out this heavy subsidisation, which obviously has to go under the extended co-ordination of trade in the world as a whole? If we get into the Common Market at least we will have a fixed agricultural policy, a fixed price control, so that our farmers will not have to suffer these terrible fluctuations they have had to go through in the past few years.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the price of livestock and milk products in the Common Market is considerably above what we get in the top market here today. If we enter the Common Market is it not a fact that, although we may face considerable problems and dangers, many of our industries will survive and surmount these and increase their production and employment? Is it not a fact that we will open the door directly to considerable investment from other countries, instead of begging countries to come here, building factories for them and finding in many cases that, when they fulfil a contract, they lock their doors and clear out with no return of the money given them? I appreciate that an industry such as Potez is going to "have it" overnight. Every Deputy will agree that the sooner they "have it" the better. They should have "had it" long ago. If we open a channel to the Common Market, is it not sound and common sense that the capital investment will be considerable? If we had to enter the Common Market to preserve our economy and to preserve our farming industry, which is the very fundamental of our economy, we would have an avenue of approach for investment not only from the United States but from Britain and other countries.
It is repeatedly said in this House that we have labour available here. We are the only country in Western Europe today apart from the United Kingdom, which because of her particular difficulties has a large unemployment quota, that has available labour to offer. Therefore, our standard of living, although it is high and increasing, is still not as high as that of the Common Market countries. We should be able to produce here, provided we have the capital and technical skill, goods to compete with anybody else. It has been stated that if we enter the Common Market the motor assembly plants here will go overnight. That is pure, unadulterated moonshine. All manufacturers of motor cars in the world, no matter where they are, are limited for space. The cost of a square foot of space in the industrialised countries is enormous in relation to Ireland. Nearly all these factories lay off the assembly of their cars outside in other countries. Therefore, we would still have a function in the assembly of cars, provided we assemble them well and efficiently. I regret to say that cars assembled here are not always perfectly assembled. I know of many cars which had to go back to the works three or four times to be put right. Provided we compete, I do not see why we should not be able to stand up to any of the risks, dangers or doubts involved in entry into the Common Market.
As I see the position, Britain's entry is doubtful. It is doubtful, even after prolonged negotiations, whether she will get in or not. So far as the thaw supposed to be coming from France is concerned, one must always remember there is a general election due in France at any moment. Forty per cent of the French are in the favour of the entry of Britain to the Common Market, but there are still 60 per cent of them against it. I am not too satisfied that the Germans feel Britain is really ready for entry to the Common Market. Our Government are the only people who really have, or should have, the inside facts. Are they going to stand still and do nothing, or are they going to make application in the fairly near future for this country on its own for entry into the largest market in the world today?
Before concluding, I should like to say a word on the question of Mr. Wilson's reply to Deputy Seán Dunne's question in the Council of Europe. There seems to be a growing feeling in this House among some Deputies that Britain's thinking on Partition has changed. Although I am no longer a member of the Council of Europe, I receive all the documents. I have read the full report of Mr. Wilson's speech and his reply was exactly the same as any reply ever made before by a British Minister to a question on that subject. It is this : like Pontius Pilate, they wash their hands of the situation. It is something not their responsibility. It is supposed to be the responsibility of the Irish people.
There is also a theory that the Labour Government in Britain are more friendly towards the abolition of Partition than a Conservative Government. That theory is largely based on the fact that the Six Counties at the moment return to the Imperial Parliament 11 very useful votes for the Conservative Party. At the moment that does not matter to the Labour Government because they have a considerable majority. But when they had the majority of three or four, or seven as it actually was, it would be very useful to them if they could dispose of those 11 votes. But there is also a theory among Unionist circles in Belfast, or shall we say a knowledge, that eventually the Unionist seats, which are largely given to them by workingclass votes in and around the city of Belfast, will change with the course of time and ultimately those seats now held by the Unionists, or the greater number of them, will be held by Labour. When I was in Stormont not so long ago, I discussed that with a group of out-and-out Unionists. Their considered opinion was that that change was coming. Therefore, although Mr. Wilson may tell Deputy Seán Dunne he would like to see Partition abolished and although Members of this House may feel that the reason for that is that they lose seats, make no mistake : British parliamentarians do not change in relation to this country. As far as they are concerned, it is what the French call a fait accompli. As long as they get a chance, they will maintain it as it is.
Whether our entry into the Common Market will make any difference or not, it is very hard to say. If the economic difficulties still prevail in the United Kingdom, as they are likely to do in any country losing an empire and a lot of its trade such as they are, if we can find a Government with courage enough to go it alone and if our economic position is improved by this vital entry to the richest market in the world, those north of the Border may take another road and look towards a united Ireland.
