European Economic Community (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on 25th July, 1967:

That Dáil Éireann approves of the decision to reactivate Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

To delete the words after "That Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"defers a decision on the reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community until the Government discloses the full implications which membership will have on national sovereignty, trade, employment, industry and agriculture, and until the Government puts before the Dáil the terms of agreement which it will negotiate for full membership of the European Economic Community under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome."

—(Deputy Corish)

Sir Anthony Esmonde

When I moved the adjournment of the debate last night, I was drawing attention to the fact that our application appeared to be linked entirely to that of the United Kingdom. I was pointing out that the opposition to the entry of the United Kingdom was not entirely confined to General de Gaulle, that there was a long road to travel before the United Kingdom could come to transitional or full membership. I was further pointing out that the reasons adduced by General de Gaulle were, first, the financial position of the United Kingdom and their position as the custodian and guardian of sterling and, secondly, that the French and some of the other members of EEC felt that the entry of the United Kingdom, possibly associated with the entry of Denmark and ourselves, would bring about severe disturbance within the EEC itself which recently faced so many trials and difficulties in coming to an agreement.

Quite recently General de Gaulle made a speech in which he indicated that the policy which he would favour would be a transitional stage for the United Kingdom. The reply came back from them that from their point of view, it was all or nothing. For that reason, I believe the policy of the Government is entirely wrong. I believe the application they are making on behalf of this country is not going to be accepted as a really forcible application unless it is entirely divorced from the application of any other country.

After the war, when Britain was very low economically and when she had, at the same time, the admiration of Europe and the free world, she had the opportunity of leading Europe. France was then in a very different position. She had failed to live up to her reputation as a fighting nation. Britain's opportunity to lead Europe was open to her and she did not do so. The result was that the countries of Europe, waiting for a lead from Britain which was not forthcoming, united themselves into EEC. Now, if anyone thinks it is just a question of knocking on the door and being admitted to this powerful economic and political body, he is making a great mistake.

In 1966 we made the Free Trade Agreement with Britain. It was forecast that as a result, our economic situation would improve and the Government based the be-all and end-all of their hopes on that Agreement. It was stated that as well as being an economic agreement, it was also a political move in that it would create a better feeling between the two countries. I do not think anybody in the House can now consider that there has been any improvement in the economic position of this country as a result of that Agreement. I think the Taoiseach highlighted that fact yesterday when he said that we are going through a period of economic stagnation.

These were not precisely his words but what he said, in effect, was that if we do not get into the European Economic Community, we will face economic stagnation. There is no need for him to tell that to an Irish Parliament. Everybody knows that we are facing economic stagnation, that we are facing what is perhaps the most disastrous situation since the Economic War. Our livestock trade, on which fundamentally our economy depends, because it is on that we depend to get the money necessary to purchase the raw materials for our industry, is at a very low ebb. Every Deputy knows that when there is decline in our agricultural economy, the economy on which our financial structure is based, we are in a very serious, dangerous and difficult situation.

The Taoiseach said yesterday that if we were to get into the EEC, we could estimate sales in the livestock markets for beef, and so on, amounting to a further £30 million a year. He also stressed the fact that our dairy sales could be raised by £10 million a year. He went further and said that we were largely in a position to face the challenge we would have to meet from industry. In fact, I think he made, in the long statement he read to us yesterday, an unchallengeable case for going right ahead and seeking entry to the Common Market. But in a situation in which, leaving aside all the platitudes expressed at international conferences, particularly on the Continent of Europe, it seems self-evident that the United Kingdom application will be refused, where do we go? Are we going to stagnate? Are we to remain in the economic condition in which we are today?

The Labour Party amendment says that we should give longer consideration to the matter. My view is that we have given consideration to it for far too long. Since 1961, there has been no great advance in our economy. It was then suggested that when we linked with Britain in a Free Trade Agreement our economy would mount and that prices for our livestock would increase. Today we have the British Government challenging sales going into that country. In fact, I can say openly here that as far as I can see, they are trying to break the Agreement already.

The Taoiseach is quite satisfied with the recent speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Brown, when he addressed the WEU. What did he say, or what meaning can be taken out of what he said, except that Britain will try to get into the Common Market? She has made an application to that effect for full membership: it is all or nothing for her. And far from the close negotiations that have been going on—by whom I do not know—being operative, Britain will go in on her own. If she gets in, there should be a transitional period of 12 months or more for this country, and Denmark and other allies with which Britain has agreements already.

Is it not time to remember that in negotiating on behalf of a country, one should do so in the direct interests of the country concerned? That is what I accuse the Government of not doing. They have not directly negotiated for us. They have negotiated as a bloc and have allowed the major part of the discussions to be carried out on their behalf by the British Government. It is true that the Taoiseach, as well as the Minister for Finance, who is the Minister who normally negotiates our foreign trade agreements, and the Minister for External Affairs are travelling around Europe, shall I say, in the wake of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown, perhaps with the slight variation that they do not follow the same order of capitals as the British.

I ask the House whether we will be able to continue as we are at the present moment? Will we be able to continue with our economy as at present? Are we servicing our industries and will we be able to keep our farmers, the backbone of our country, from going into penury, on the agreements we have at present? I thought that when the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement was made, it was made primarily for the purpose of protecting us when we acceded to GATT. I did not think that it was to be the be-all and end-all of our economic structure.

The curious thing is the lack of thinking this Government have shown. A distinguished economist in an article on the history of our economic development said that things were very unusual in Ireland, that the Government got the civil servants to write a policy for them. That, in effect, is the policy of this Government at the moment. We have had the First and Second Programmes for Economic Expansion, both of which have been a total failure.

We on this side of the House—and I refer to this Party, as I confess I do not know what the Labour Party want in this European Economic Community debate—want an assurance that we will not experience economic stagnation. We want an assurance that a direct approach is being made so that our trade can be expanded. It is quite obvious that even if we had made a direct attempt to get into the Common Market on our own, or to negotiate independently of other countries, there would be a considerable hiatus before our application was received. But if we had negotiated at political level, as I stressed last night— and if you want to deal with Europe, you must do it at political level—by our then Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs, we would have been doing a far better service to the Irish economy than by carrying on the negotiations that have been going on with any other country in the meantime.

We all agree that ultimately for the peace of the world, for, shall I say, the salvation of mankind, we must have a united Europe. That seems to be one of the outstanding factors essential in the world today. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who founded the European Economic Community as a basis for discussion on a future unified Europe. It has always been stressed that the European Economic Community is an outward-looking organisation. Today, one of the major factors in the world is hunger. That is the great danger that faces mankind today, and there is the risk of a much larger world population looking for food. It is already threatening the world. For that reason, unification of effort is desirable and necessary. The areas producing the food are Europe and North America, and a unified effort in Europe is the only thing that can help to meet the conditions of world hunger which threaten us.

I have listened to a lot of woolly talking, when I have been at international conferences, about producing agricultural goods, about more efficiency and about fewer people being employed. When the call for food comes, as assuredly it will, if the food is not provided, there will be a world upheaval the like of which has never been seen before. How can we meet that situation if we have an unhealthy agricultural structure in Europe, if the primary food-producing countries are reduced to the stage at which they have reached rock bottom? Therefore, the Government should take another look at the situation and when they go to negotiate, they should stop talking about the assumption that we shall go into Europe along with Britain. My view, for what it is worth—and I do not hold it alone—is that Britain will not get in in the immediate future. My view also is that we cannot sustain our present economy as it is without mass unemployment growing, mass emigration and general disruption of our economy with a lower standard of living for all concerned.

We are a sovereign nation. We struggled long enough to achieve that status and as such, we have the right and the duty to negotiate. I ask those who represent us, those who are in power today, when they go to make their representations, when they go to discuss our application, not to do so as a stooge of any other government—to negotiate for the Irish nation. This country is entering Europe on its own. There has been great talk about a situation developing in which Britain would impose tariffs on us. I shall cover that point briefly.

What we need is to export more finished beef, processed beef. We cannot get that into the British market. We cannot get it into the European market at the moment because we are faced by tariffs and it is, therefore, not economic for us to do it. But does anybody in his sane senses tell us that if we get into Europe and still have stores to export—I am not too keen on the export of stores because I think our economy would be better balanced if we dealt in finished products—Britain will put a tariff on them? Why should Britain do that? Why should they make a higher price for themselves to get our stores in and why should they put a tariff on produce they can get from Ireland and from no other country in the world?

People may say that if we get into the EEC, our industrial goods will be tariffed on the British market. The British market for industrial goods consists of 58 million people and the market for industrial goods in Europe consists of 185 million people, with associates overseas running up to 250 million people. If we have got to face a situation in which we must change our market, we must remember that.

One thing Ireland suffers from, and has suffered from since the day we got our independence, is a shortage of capital. If we have an avenue, an open entrance to the EEC, my guess is, and it is as good as that of anyone else, that we shall have heavy investment of capital in this country, the setting up of industries where we have sites available at one-tenth the price at which they are obtainable in continental Europe or Britain. We shall have these industries set up with all the labour available and the export potential. These industries can export directly into the largest market in the world.

Therefore, the Government must do a little fresh thinking. People have been saying this would mean disaster for the Irish economy. What is the alternative? It is 58,000 unemployed, emigration lifting its head again, and among the very people we need to retain, those leaving school today who constitute the future of the Irish race. The Government should then go ahead, take their courage in their hands and negotiate well so that we may take our part in a Europe, to which traditionally, culturally, historically we belong, whether in association with the United Kingdom or not. I have nothing but admiration for Britain as a nation. When everything had gone in the war, they stood firm and fast. I admire them as a nation but I realise—perhaps I have been taught it as a member of an Irish political family—that British parliamentarians negotiate for themselves alone. The lesson here for Ireland is that Irish parliamentarians should do the same.

Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Aiken)

Deputy Esmonde is in a rather despondent mood this morning.

I do not agree with him that the prospect for negotiating entry to the Common Market is quite as dark as he makes it out to be. After all, if the EEC are to keep alive and healthy and progressive, they have to live up to their charter, the Treaty, which established the Community.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Aiken

As I was saying, I think Deputy Esmonde is a little too gloomy about the prospects for the expansion of the EEC. If the Community are to live up to their declarations in the Treaty of Rome, they must be determined "to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples". They must also carry out their intention "to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and overseas countries, and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations". Finally the Preamble to the Treaty states:

Resolved to strengthen the safeguards of peace and liberty by establishing this combination of resources, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts.

We notified the Community some years ago that we are prepared to join in their efforts and, although there have been no formal negotiations opened up on our application, we have been in very close contact with the representatives and statesmen of the Six. That contact has been very close indeed for a small country off the coast of Europe. There have been several formal visits to Brussels to see the Directorate of the Community. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of ministerial visits and conversations between Irish Ministers and Ministers of the Six. Over the years I must have had at least between 100 and 200 conversations on our application with various Ministers of the six members of the European Community.

At all times they welcomed our application. They understood that it would be almost impossible for us economically to join the European Community unless our principal trading partner joined at the same time. We must realise this. Deputy Esmonde sometimes in a fit of enthusiasm advocates that we should go and join if we were admitted by the Six, but if we were accepted, a barrier would be erected between ourselves and the country to which we sell threequarters of our exports. That is not good business. It would be quite foolish on our part. There have been quiet negotiations over the years and we feel that we have persuaded the Ministers of the Six that it would be good for Europe as well as for Ireland, if Britain and other extra countries joined, that Ireland should also be admitted.

Yesterday Deputy Corish wanted the Government to stop railroading Ireland into the Community. On the other hand, Deputy Cosgrave said that the only major objective in our foreign affairs was to ensure membership of the EEC. We have not railroaded, nor have we attempted to railroad this Dáil or the people of Ireland into the Six. There has been a terrific amount of discussion on this question. Everyone knows that if we are to join the Six, we must surrender to the community as much sovereignty as any other member of the Six has already surrendered.

It is foolish to suggest, as some members of the Labour Party allege from time to time, that we are surrendering all sovereignty when we join the Six. We are not. We do not propose to surrender all sovereignty, but we do propose to surrender as much sovereignty to the Community as other members surrender to it. We cannot expect to get into the Community and be a less faithful or less loyal member than the Six who are already members. We do not ask to join on those terms. We are prepared to do our duty as faithfully and well as any other member of the European Community.

I do not agree with Deputy Cosgrave that membership of the European Community is the only major objective in our foreign affairs. It is one of our objectives and a very important one. It is important because we feel that by being accepted as a member of the European Community, this will contribute to the prosperity and happiness of the Irish people and, at the same time, we will contribute our small mite to the prosperity and happiness of the rest of the people of Europe. It is, therefore, a major objective, and an objective of major importance but like other objectives of foreign policy, it must be related to the welfare of the Irish people.

Another very important objective from the point of view of foreign policy in this very dangerous world is to try to keep world peace. Deputy Corish yesterday went on and on about NATO and whether or not we were going to join NATO. We have never been asked to join NATO. It has been said both publicly and privately by a number of members of the European Economic Community that the joining of NATO is not a sine qua non of our acceptance as a member of the Community. I cannot understand why the Labour Party talk so much about NATO. NATO is changing very rapidly. The evolution goes on every day. Our maximum contribution towards winning a world war would be, I think, of very little importance. The big powers can destroy themselves without our help, because that is what another war will mean. One of the things we can do, however, is to try to win the peace and that should be our objective.

Our objective in foreign affairs should be not alone membership of the EEC but also doing everything that a small country of our size can do, with its very limited resources, to help to keep world peace. If a world war were to break out and we contributed in any way, either through neglect or through the implementation of a wrong policy, towards bringing it about, it would be very little consolation to the Irish people to know that we were either inside or outside the European Economic Community.

I do not agree with Fine Gael members who say we have taken no active steps. The terms of their motion read:

"but in the light of the obligations already imposed on our economy by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the possibility of EEC membership regrets the failure of the Government to take more realistic preparatory steps both at home and abroad."

The policy of the Fianna Fáil Party since coming into office in 1932 has been the development of our economy to the point at which we can hold our own in the economic field and give our people a standard of living which compares favourably with that in other countries. We have come a long way. Only 40 years ago we were depending for buying practically everything we ate and wore, except bacon and beef, on selling our agricultural produce. We even had to buy all our wheat. We have developed now to the point at which we are not only providing a great many of our own requirements of industrial products and practically all our requirements from the land but we are no longer altogether dependent upon the sale of our agricultural produce for the purchase of other essentials. Even though 40 per cent of our foreign earnings come from the sale of our industrial goods, we are still too dependent on our agricultural exports and we have, therefore, to reduce that dependence. Traditionally, we have become accustomed to selling our agricultural products, particularly our cattle, in the British market. One of the advantages in joining the EEC will be the opening up of markets for our agricultural produce in countries other than Britain. The amount we sell to the Six is a bagatelle compared with their total requirements.

We hope, too, that if we get into the Common Market, we will find outlets for our industrial products. But, even if we are never to get in, one of the heartening aspects of our application to join is the fact that it has encouraged the Government and industrialists generally to have a look at the operations of the industrial machine. Improvements have been brought about with the help of Government grants and loans and technical assistance. The result is that, if we continue to improve industry and industrial processes, we will be in a much better position to face the rigours of competition in the Common Market. Even if membership is delayed beyond 1970, we will continue to improve our industrial efficiency and our ability to sell our industrial products at the right price in other parts of the world.

I do not agree with Deputy Esmonde that we face stagnation if we cannot get immediately into the Common Market. If we are wise, instead of facing stagnation, we will take advantage of every month and every year between now and joining to fit ourselves the better to face the competition we will meet in both the industrial and agricultural fields when eventually we are accepted as members.

Whatever the Labour Party's opinion may be of entering the Common Market, I hope they will join with the Government in trying to get industrialists and workers to improve the efficiency of our industrial machinery. Whether we are in or out, we shall be in competition with other industrial countries. If we are to sell our agricultural produce abroad we must be able to produce it at as good a price and as good a quality as it is on offer by other countries. If we do not continue to export our industrial products, and increase the export of these products beyond the 40 per cent which we have reached, we shall become or tend to become as dependent upon the sale of agricultural produce as we were 30 or 40 years ago and that is a very bad dependence. While we must do what we can to develop our agricultural efficiency so that we can produce the right products at the right price and at the right time of the year, we must remember that most of the products entering international marketing are industrial products. If we are to make progress and develop the standard of life of our people we must organise ourselves to have factories efficiently run so as to give as good a livelihood to those working and controlling them as similar factories in other countries and so that their products can be sold in competition with the products of other countries in the foreign market.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In opening this discussion yesterday, the Taoiseach, in the very first statement, said the issue before the country at the present time is not whether we could join EEC but how best to prepare for membership. The issue then is how best to prepare for membership. In the next few lines, he said: "I am convinced that the Government, in deciding in 1961 to seek membership for Ireland, and the Dáil in supporting that decision, judged correctly." It is evident from the first paragraph of the Taoiseach's statement that we applied for membership in 1961. Six years afterwards, in 1967 in the first line of his statement to the House, we learn that the issue is how best to prepare for membership. The obvious questions to ask, in reply, are: "What has happened during the past six years, what preparations have been made in the past six years and are the preparations that have been made sufficient?" We in the Labour Party put down this amendment asking for a deferment of our application until we get answers to vital questions which have been posed here. We claim that the Government have had sufficient opportunity to answer these questions and to be in a position to bring before this House and before the Irish people answers to most, if not all, of the questions posed.

This discussion on EEC is nothing new here. It has been drawn in and out of several debates and other matters since the Association was set up ten or eleven years ago and particularly since we got it into our minds, in 1961, to join. As pointed out by the Taoiseach yesterday, our application was set out in 1961. We were told then that whether or not Britain joined made no difference to us. The former Taoiseach said we were prepared to "go it alone", that we were a sovereign State and would do our own business and were not dependent on Britain, on Britain's help or on Britain's advice in furthering our entry into what, from the discussion here yesterday and from the statements by the Leaders of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, could only be described as Heaven upon earth.

Once we get into the Common Market, it was implied in the wellprepared statement made by the Leader of the Government and by the Leader of Fine Gael yesterday, we shall benefit immensely. All the benefits are to flow our way. So far as could be ascertained, the disadvantages will be negligible. That is one of the reasons we in this Party set down this amendment. We feel that the six years which have elapsed since our application for membership have, to a large extent, been wasted by the Government in so far as they have not the information to give this House and the Irish people in answer to many questions which have been posed by Members of this House time and again and posed by outside organisations just as well.

One cannot help casting one's mind back to the debate on the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement in this House in January, 1966. That debate was then deemed to be one of the most important that had taken place within a number of years. We had, at that time, too, carefully prepared statements by the Minister, statements that I am sure were prepared for him by the senior executives. We were told that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement would bring many benefits to the Irish people and that it was essential for Dáil Éireann to put their seal on the Agreement.

The former Minister for Agriculture, in supporting the case for the sealing of that Agreement, said the main sector of our community which would benefit would be Agriculture. He had no hesitation in giving a definite figure so far as the advantages to agriculture were concerned. He stated that from 1st July, 1966, our cattle prices would benefit to the extent of £10 million from the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. Every agriculturist in the country got it into his head that they, as a body, were about to benefit £10 million as a result of that Agreement and that their income would be raised by that amount. That was the clear-cut statement of the Minister at that time. That view was supported by the Fine Gael Party. We, in the Labour Party, were rather hesitant. We were hopeful, as I expressed it here, that the statement was correct but we wanted more information. We wanted to know, for instance, if, in the event of changes, if world prices were to fluctuate and if further eventualities were to occur, agriculture could benefit to the extent named by the Minister.

Unfortunately, our doubts were proven correct. We have had a big decline in agricultural income, so much so that we have had a complete upheaval in the agricultural industry. We had farmers parading outside the gate of Leinster House. We had them parading through the country, being put into Black Marias and removed to jail. We had unrest and uneasiness among the farming community which were never experienced before, as a result of statements made here in support of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. It is my opinion that these statements, now proved to have been unwarranted, which were made by Government spokesmen were the root cause of the uneasiness and unrest which existed, and still exists, among our farming community

Picture, Sir, one of the most hardworking sections of our people reading the Ministers' statements in the newspapers that their incomes were going to improve and an improvement was essential for many of them. Picture them reading in the newspapers that as a result of the Government's activities and their bargaining power and as a result of negotiating this trade agreement we would have a market for 638,000 cattle and greater prices would increase their return by £10 million. Was that not what they read? Was that not what they heard on radio and television? What happened? Instead of our agricultural industry benefiting to the extent of £10 million as a result of that agreement the opposite was the case and hence the uneasiness and unrest, the strikes, the marching up and down outside Leinster House and the jailing of farmers.

It is not unreasonable then for the Labour Party to be watchful in so far as this debate is concerned, for them to ask reasonable questions and to expect answers to them from the Taoiseach and from the responsible Ministers, and the Minister for External Affairs. We have expressed doubts. The Government have had six years to give us the answers to our questions but six years after making our original application for EEC membership, we find the Taoiseach in his very first breath saying that it is not a question of whether we want to join but how best to prepare ourselves. In this document of 44 pages, there is no clear indication of what the Government have done over the past six years to prepare us for entry into the Common Market. We know that the Minister for External Affairs can have put very little effort into this work. His work has mainly been confined to representing us in the United Nations in New York. There is a consensus of opinion that, if we are to pursue our application for membership, the Minister's time would be better devoted to working in Brussels rather than in New York and that if the Minister had given as much time and attention to our application to the Six, than it appears he has done, as he gave to the United Nations, we should be able to get much more information than we have got from the Taoiseach's rather empty statement yesterday.

If this question is as big as it is— and I agree it is very big—it amazes me that the man charged with dealing with External Affairs and with looking after our foreign trade should have played only a very small part in our negotiations during the past six years. With the exception of one or two visits to Strasbourg, I doubt if the Minister has been engaged at all on this work. Indeed, such visits were made to the Council of Europe and despite his statement, I am sure he did not interest himself to any great extent—and we have good grounds for believing that—in our application for EEC membership. I do not know whether the Minister agrees with our application or not, but if he does, it would have been much more in line than sending him for six months——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not open for discussion. The Deputy must behave himself or I will have to ask him to resume his seat. There is a motion before the House and the Deputy has been called to speak on the motion. The question of criticising the Chair does not arise.

I understand that the Chair is now getting further information. Mistakes have been made in setting down the Order of Business and if a mistake has been made, I will expect the apology to which, I think, I am entitled.

The statements made yesterday surprised me. If the EEC were never there and we were not moving towards it, after all these years and despite the Tánaiste's statement, it appears we are becoming economically stagnant, our population is likely to decline, emigration likely to increase and our living standards likely to be greatly reduced. That is not a very bright picture to paint after almost 50 years of Irish government. In saying that, I am a confirmed believer in co-operation and in the work and objectives of the Common Market and of the Common Market countries. I have had the privilege of being a member of the Council of Europe for a number of years. I have learned there at first hand the many advantages that have accrued to member nations. I think my colleagues in the Labour Party are also aware that, as far as the present Six are concerned, general advantages have accrued to their people. They have improved their standard of living; they have almost wiped out unemployment and indeed it is putting it mildly to say they have done a good job of work.

We are very pleased that their position is thus—that countries which 25 years ago were fighting one another to the death are now joined economically, and one could almost say, politically, working for the common good of the people of all countries. Everyone appreciates that Germany and France are now friends, working together in every field within this Community. Surely we are not too far away from Europe to say from this Dáil that that is what we like to see happening? We like to see Germany and France working together for the future betterment of their peoples. It is a big change, and a pleasant change, from that which took place in 1939 when Germany and France, for the second time in this century, declared war on each other. We like to see this change in Western Europe. We hope that as a result of this Community, as a result of the co-operation which now exists—co-operation which has been helped by the deliberations of the Council of Europe —that never again will it happen in our lifetime that countries in Western Europe, and in that I include Britain and Ireland, will have the necessity arise to declare war on one another.

Mr Aiken

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I believe it would be to Ireland's advantage to join this Community, but we have a number of doubts. What we are asking in the Labour Party, and what I am personally asking here, is that we should not rush this through on the adjournment of the Dáil, but should during the next few months give Government Ministers, particularly the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, an opportunity of giving us more information as to what the advantages and the disadvantages of joining may be. Undoubtedly, side by side with the advantages, there are disadvantages. If we allowed six years to pass with a great deal of inaction on our part as far as furthering our application was concerned—it is not so long since it was allowed to lie dormant completely and we lost faith in ever joining—I cannot see why we should, after renewing our application two months ago, try to rush this reactivation motion through the House, giving the Irish people through this Dáil as little information as possible.

I must say at this stage that I am glad of the change of heart on the part of the Tánaiste and some other people in the Fianna Fáil Party. I am not a believer in hatred, in opening up old sores and trying to get our younger people to adopt a certain line of action as far as some countries are concerned. We know that that has happened here in relation to our nearest neighbour, Britain. I never liked it. We were told at school to forgive those who trespassed against us. But Fianna Fáil lived on that for a number of years. They cherished that idea. They used it to try to hold power and to get votes from some gullible people. I am glad to say they are changing now and that they believe in the statement: forgive those who trespass against you.

It is about time we forgot what has happened in the past. We hear too much about Oliver Cromwell and other people who were there hundreds of years ago. It is about time we looked to the future. I was pleased to hear the statement from the Tánaiste that we are now holding Britain's hand, that Britain is helping us along, that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown, in moving through the different capitals, along with doing their own business, are doing Ireland's business as well. We asked Mr. Brown why this 12 months standstill period he mentioned in his statement some weeks ago. That 12 months standstill period was put there to help poor, old Ireland. "If we get in, we will do nothing for 12 months in order to give our friend, Ireland, an opportunity of getting in." Is it not quite evident from that statement that we are entirely dependent on Britain, or almost entirely dependent on Britain, making our case?

Possibly there is nothing very wrong with that because, I believe, Britain is better versed in diplomacy and in dealing with foreign affairs than we are and maybe we are making no mistake in that. I am very pleased to see ourselves and our neighbour such good friends. It is like two farmers living along a boreen who for years have been at loggerheads suddenly becoming friends. This new friendship is something like that and I am very glad and hope it will flourish and grow because I believe in neighbours being on friendly and cooperative terms and being helpful to one another.

It is quite clear now that, despite Deputy Lemass's statement of some years ago, our application hinges on Britain and that if Britain were to be rejected, we would immediately withdraw. This question of going it alone was used at the time for a bit of political bluff but there is no need to labour that now. Let me say again that this change as between Britain and ourselves in the diplomatic world is welcome.

I must confess that I have not a great deal of faith in our ambassadors abroad. Our information is, of course, very limited. We get a brief synopsis on the External Affairs Estimate in the House annually. We get very little information. I doubt if they are doing a good job. This debate on the EEC brings that to my mind because the statistics for last year and for the previous years show an adverse balance in our trade with EEC countries. If memory serves me correctly, last year we bought from EEC countries £56 million worth and sold them, goods to the value of £28 million, so our trading adverse balance was in the ratio of two to one. It is bad business for a small country like ours to have such an adverse trade balance with the Common Market countries.

It may be irrelevant to this debate or it may not, according to the Chair's opinion, to ask why such a position arose. Why should a small country like Ireland, with relatively small trade in comparison with other countries, buy from the EEC annually £2 million worth of goods for every £1 million worth they buy from us? That is a position which I mentioned here in some debate two years ago and expressed the hope that it would be rectified and suggested that our embassies should be in a position to rectify it but, judging from the latest statistics, that position still obtains. Our trade with the eastern European countries with which we do business and with all foreign countries with the exception of Britain, shows an adverse balance.

How is it that the people charged with the duty of selling our goods or our embassies abroad who are supposed to help in the sale of our products, cannot do better business with these countries? What is wrong? Is it that something is wrong with our salesmen, if I may use that term, or is it that something is wrong with our products? I doubt that the fault lies with our products. This is a question that should be answered and it is a question that I shall be asking again, if I am spared, in the debate on the Estimate for External Affairs.

It is no harm to say a further sentence or two on this point, seeing that our Tánaiste and Minister for External Affairs is present and, in view of the fact that he is so seldom with us, we must avail of the opportunity of his being here to bring to his mind matters that concern us in relation to foreign trade. That is one matter that has concerned me and, I am sure, other Members of the House. The Labour Party has always felt general concern about this question of our adverse trade balance with the EEC and other countries, apart from Britain.

We have documents galore on the EEC and the advantages that will accrue to the agricultural community. I hope that, if we do succeed in having our application approved, what is set down in the documents will prove to be correct, namely, that so far as our two main agricultural products are concerned—cattle and milk—prices will be increased significantly and in an unlimited market. That is what has been set down for us. So far as other agricultural items are concerned—grain, sugar beet and horticultural products—I understand the position is not so bright. We are told that our two main items, milk and cattle, will benefit immensely. I think it is as a result of the benefit that is expected to be derived so far as cattle and milk are concerned that we are rushing into the EEC now because at present milk and cattle are a liability. We have to subsidise milk extensively and we are unable to sell the cattle now at a reasonable price, and the price of cattle is so uncertain that the question has arisen as to whether or not farmers will get subsidies to hold on to their cattle until such time as prices may improve.

Nobody knows—even our friends in the Press do not know—about this so-called mysterious trip of the Minister for Agriculture to Europe and back again. I do not think that mystery should surround a trip like that. If the Minister had to go to Europe on the Irish people's business or about our agricultural policy in so far as it relates to our application to join the EEC, on his return he should tell the Dáil what his mission was. Surely we have no secret organisations, no spies abroad to converse with whom we would send him abroad? There is no excuse for that secrecy on the part of the Government.

There may be doubt about the alleged benefits for the agricultural community from membership of the EEC but side by side with the statement forecasting these benefits is the indication that they will be for a reduced agricultural population. It is quite clear from the statements made that the agricultural population must decline. We have also the statement from the EEC countries that they have no specific plan formulated so far as the small farmers are concerned. We have a big problem here in trying to make our small farms economic. It is difficult to do that. How will membership of the EEC help us to do it? Small farms are such an important feature of our life that one would have thought that the Tánaiste would have told us something about agriculture and, in particular, about the small farmers in the context of membership of the EEC and what he or the Government had in mind to offer to the EEC with a view to solving the problem of small farmers. There is nothing definite so far as small farmers are concerned. That is clearly set down.

As one who is conversant with the agricultural community and who knows the problems of the small farmers and the low incomes they have, particularly at the present time, and the uncertainty of prices, I think that more attention should have been paid to this question by the Minister. That is one thing I like about the Commission's regulations so far as farmers are concerned, that prices are guaranteed. I appreciate the difficulty for us in guaranteeing prices for some commodities, but guaranteed prices undoubtedly are a big advantage. Therefore, I hope that in the event of our attaining membership, some policy will be formulated that will help our small and medium sized farmers.

On the industrial side, it appears from statements heard from all sides of the House that the disadvantages are likely to outweigh the advantages. We must bear in mind here that we have many industries set up with State aid. The State acts as a fairy godmother towards them, keeping out competitors by tariffs and helping industries to with incentives such as grants, and so on. We know that grants were given to people not because they had the business know-how, not because they were keen industrialists, not because they were a group whose merit warranted the payment of grants for further development, but because of their political affiliations. We know that people with some money and a business, possibly who were not the best so far as management of that business was concerned, got money at a time when influence was the main factor in getting grants from the State. Everyone knows that. Go down to the Library and read the list of firms who have got grants to date, even from An Foras Tionscal. It can be seen from that booklet that firms have received payment of grants who should never have received them, and that our public funds have been wantonly spent on such firms who could not, in my opinion, if they were investigated properly qualify for payment of such grants.

A number of our industries have been over-protected. Competition was removed from them, and they have the market to themselves. I appreciate it is difficult for such firms to compete within a free trade area. If we never went into the Common Market that difficulty faces them from our association with Britain through the recent Trade Agreement. Possibly it is a good thing to give some firms adaptation grants to try to build themselves up to meet competition, but, there again, reading the list of firms who have received adaptation grants, there is a question mark as to whether some of those firms should have got payment of grants under that heading or not.

There are a number of industries with which Deputies representing urban areas are more conversant than I am, but we know from our CIO reports that even our main industries are unlikely to survive within the Common Market. The motor assembly industry is given as one; leather and shoes is another, and an industry that is important to rural Ireland, processed foods. Whether or not the association of our Erin Foods Compay with the international firm will help them over that obstacle, we cannot say at present, but it is quite evident that industries in a number of centres will be hit. It is also evident beyond doubt that some industries will have to close down and that redundancy will be rampant.

At present there are big problems in relation to unemployment. Very few of our industries are increasing their employment content. Our State employing agencies or our State employing Departments such as Local Government, Lands and Finance are reducing their employment content. Forestry workers in the Department of Lands are being let go. In the Department of Local Government local authority employment has been reduced, and a number of road workers have been told that their services are no longer required due to the reduced grants made available. Therefore, the uncertainty of employment for our workers is a very big question and one that must be taken into account in dealing with issues such as this.

The Dáil will adjourn tonight until 18th October, but before it adjourns, while I am on this point, I want to say to the Minister for External Affairs and to the Government that some of our workers at present are faced with a situation that never before confronted them in the month of July. For instance, council employees are told that their services are no longer required in the third month of the financial year. That never happened before. Forestry workers are told that their services are no longer required, and people who used to obtain employment through the Department of Finance and the Special Employment Schemes office are told that work no longer exists for them, due to the wiping out of some of the schemes, or due to the reduction in the funds available for other schemes. I may be straying a little from the EEC debate, but this is quite relevant on the Adjournment Debate. That is the position that obtains as far as our workers are concerned. In relation to our rural population, there are water schemes which have been approved and which even down in my constituency, South-West Cork, where tenders were accepted, have had to be abandoned due to lack of public funds. As I mentioned before, our shopkeepers in the towns, particularly our small shopkeepers, are finding it difficult to make ends meet and grapple with the competition and the problems that confront them. There are also the problems of the farming community to which I have already referred.

In regard to our admission to the EEC, it has been asserted here, and I hope correctly so, that it will be most likely to improve agricultural income. The position of the industrial side is uncertain. We hope it is correct to suggest that the industries which have equipped themselves for this type of competition, with the aid of State grants, will prosper. However, it is true beyond any doubt that a number of industries will go by the board.

If we join the Common Market, surely we are not going to accept the advantages, enjoy their prosperity, and ignore them from the point of view of social adversity. The military alliance which the Tánaiste mentioned a while ago in reference to Deputy Corish's remarks is completely out of place. What Deputy Corish wants to know is—I was sitting beside him and I think he was completely relevant— why our application is for full membership. That is the basis of our application but there is no talk of what is happening in the case of Greece or Turkey. We want full association, apparently, not association. Surely if we become a member of EEC and surrender our sovereignty—I agree we must do that and I assume we will surrender it in the same way as it has been surrendered by other member countries and as it will be surrendered by Britain if she joins— and if we were to have another war —that possibility was mentioned by the Tánaiste—we cannot desert them and take the line that we would share in their prosperity but in the case of adversity we would come back and stay here until everything was calm again and we could again enjoy the benefits that we are told we would get from membership.

It is quite evident that as this association grows, and it has not come to the adult stage yet or even to its teens, it will be a matter of full co-operation economically and politically and surely we shall be obliged to stand side by side with our friends in the Six should war arise and that membership does mean the abandonment of the neutrality policy which we held during this century's world wars. I think that must be the case. We cannot say: "If difficult times arise we shall desert. We shall only join to share prosperity; we will not share adversity." I mention this because the Irish people are entitled to know. Generally, people have only a vague idea of what membership of the Common Market means. Some think it will give farmers increased prices and may help to give higher wages to industrial workers and that it involves no further commitments, not considering that if we join the cost of living may increase sharply and that we could be committed to action in the unfortunate event of another war and that we would have to share the difficulties as well as the advantages involved in membership.

It is considerations such as these that led the Labour Party to put down this amendment. We cannot see why a few months' delay should make any great difference. We want more information. It is six years since the original application was made and we have got very little information. Why rush now? Is it because we want to keep up with Britain? I think it makes no difference if we allow Britain to go ahead particularly if, as we are told by the British representatives, that they are looking after our interests as well as ourselves.

I cannot find a quotation to which I wanted to refer from the speech of Deputy Esmonde but he did express the view that the beliefs held by the two main Parties in the House—this is what his statement amounted to— about the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement were wrongly based and that the advantages that they thought would accrue from it did not arise. I admire the Deputy for his outspokenness. He is one of the Members I most admire. His knowledge of public affairs and particularly European affairs is second to none. If a mistake was made so far as the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement was concerned are we to make another mistake in regard to the EEC? Are the Government going to get away with a long statement which the Taoiseach read out for one-and-a-half hours and which could be usefully contained in a statement that could be read in 20 minutes?

The Labour Party are as mindful of the interests of the Irish people as any other Party. Our main interests have been, are and will be the uplifting and advancement of all sections of our people and the uplifting and advancement of the whole nation. We appreciate that this is a very important debate and we also appreciate that we must have some association with a community such as the EEC but we dislike the question being thrown at us here two days before the adjournment for the summer recess and without the information which we think is necessary. The Taoiseach yesterday said they could not be expected to disclose generally the terms of entry. We appreciate that but there are other factors in regard to which more information could be made available. In putting down this amendment, we are only seeking a deferment of this reactivation move by the Government.

It is very peculiar that the Government should bring in this motion with the Adjournment Debate. It is one that is politically useful for the Government as an answer to questions that will be posed by our people who are so dissatisfied with present economic conditions. It will be a useful answer to the farming community who are continuing their efforts to get some degree of justice. It will also be an answer to workers during the holiday recess and for some time to come for the Government Party to say: "Hold on. We have reactivated our application to the EEC and we hope it will be approved, even though it is contended that we may have to wait for a few years or even much longer. When we get into the EEC, everything in the garden will be bright and rosy." I believe that was one of the motives of the Taoiseach in introducing this motion. He wants to sidetrack other issues and cloud them out of the picture. He wants to take over the Press with our Common Market entry and what it will mean to Ireland and what the Government are doing for Ireland. He wants to cloud the other side of the picture portrayed in the debate, the economic stagnation which surrounds us and is almost upon us.

It could be implied from the Taoiseach's statement and from the statements of the Opposition that unemployment is exceptionally high, emigration is likely to increase, no improvement is likely in farming conditions and so far as work is concerned the outlook is anything but bright. So far as rural schemes are concerned—housing, water and sewerage schemes—no public funds are available for them. Money was never as scarce as it is at present. The Taoiseach brought this motion in here with all the urgency that he could command in order to wipe off our national slate, if he could, the other issues which concern the people so closely at present. What advantage will it be to the man who on last Friday or Saturday was told that there was no longer employment available for him to read our EEC discussion on today's paper? This kind of discussion is not going to help the man who was told that money is not available for the scheme he was looking forward to, whether it be a water and sewerage scheme or anything else, in the foreseeable future.

I say that our amendment is a fair and reasonable one. The Labour Party are as mindful of the interests of our people as any other Party in this House, but we were forced to the conclusion that one of the main motives behind this rushing through of reactivation of our application is to wipe out other important issues that cannot be dealt with at the present time. Indeed I do not see why the Government should have to reactivate our application at all. It has been there since 1961.

I shall conclude by saying that we gave this at our Party meeting a great deal of consideration. We have as a Party put a great deal of work and effort into it. We do not have the same advantages as the Government have of having innumerable advisers in setting out their policy statements and in making their case. We know that advice got from such advisers in the past has been proved incorrect. We have enough papers on closing gaps, economic expansion and so on, advice tendered by higher executives which in theory seems to be all right but which in practice was not workable. As a Party we felt deeply obliged to consider every aspect of this application. We have done that and we have come to the conclusion after a great deal of deliberation that our amendment is fair and reasonable and we are supporting it. I am sure, in view of the statements made by the other Parties, that it is little use, at this stage of the debate, to ask them to reconsider the position and to allow our amendment to go through. However, our amendment was put down after the greatest consideration and with the sole aim of keeping the interests of the Irish people uppermost and safeguarding their welfare. We feel that the House should approve of this amendment.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I rise to make a few comments on this very important matter. It is something that has exercised the minds of all intelligent Irish people for the past few years but we have found ourselves, for a variety of reasons, moving in a fog of half information and very little true enlightenment from the Government. When I say "true enlightenment", I do not mean to say for a moment that in a matter like this the Government have been telling lies or untruths but they certainly have been indulging in what the lawyers call suppressio veri. There has been a great deal of hiding and suppressing of the truth from the ordinary people of the country.

I dislike making purely political speeches and, in fact, I hardly ever make such a speech because I think that economic matters are in the end always more important than immediate political advantages. However, sometimes, as has happened on many occasions in the history of this country and in the world in general with tragic results, political considerations have overridden economic and geographical facts. That is what we are up against at the moment. We are up against the political viewpoint—I use "political" in its very widest sense—of the Government which has prevented them from putting before the people of Ireland the economic facts in all their starkness and all the dangers which they carry for the whole of this country.

This debate is on the motion: "That Dáil Éireann approves of the decision to reactivate Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community." We in Fine Gael have said "yes". We have not said that we disapprove of that but we have said that in the light of the obligations already imposed on our economy by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the possibility of EEC membership, we regret "the failure of the Government to take more realistic preparatory steps both at home and abroad." That is what we are speaking on today. We charge the Government with failure to give the people at home the true facts of the situation. Personally I would leave to those abroad the onus of getting some of the true facts themselves but the Government have a very real duty to place the facts in front of the people. They have been haunted by the ghosts of their own past and that is the simple and naked truth of this situation because it is not a question of whether we go into the EEC or stay out of it.

Listening to the Taoiseach yesterday —and indeed we knew it before—the position is that if Britain goes into the EEC, we, in no circumstances whatsoever, can afford to stay out of it. That is the truth and that should be the fundamental thing. This debate is not really about whether we should go into the EEC or not. That is something that is as clear as crystal in front of us. We must do it because we cannot afford to have the very big tariffs put up against us which automatically will have to be put up by Britain, who is our best customer. It would mean that there would be very big tariffs against all our industrial products entering Northern Ireland and Britain, and also enormous tariffs against our industrial goods seeking to enter the European Community. That in fact would not hinder us so much because the trade we do with those countries at the present moment, when those tariffs are there, is, unfortunately, rather slight.

I remember the time when the Government opposite spoke about alternative markets and there were great searchings for these markets. It was right that those searchings should be made for alternative markets. In fact, tragically they did not just work out. Personally, I would not have called them alternative markets: I would have called them additional markets. I do not see why any markets should be alternative. That is where politics impinged again on the economy. We now think of them as alternative markets and not additional markets.

Now, we know that the amount of trade we do with the EEC, whilst it is very welcome, such as it is, in fact would not keep our industries going. That is a particular aspect of the industrial side of our exports. What I am saying is solid fact. It is not palatable to me. I do not like that Ireland should be entirely dependent on trying to get markets which up to now have never existed in the EEC countries and also that we should be entirely dependent for our industrial export trade on Great Britain. It would be much better if we would regard Great Britain herself as trading with the rest of the world. Maybe in time we might for certain items do that but it will not keep our people in gainful employment in the near future, without really thinking for a moment that in the far distant future we would be able to do that either. That is the position of entering EEC from the industrial point of view.

When we turn to the agricultural point of view, we find that in regard to our livestock trade, overnight, if Britain goes into the EEC, it would mean, I am told, that there would be a figure of £27 per head against our cattle as well as against our cattle in all EEC countries. I am not prepared to stand over that figure as being absolutely correct but certainly tariffs would be raised against our cattle of such a magnitude that it would be extremely unlikely that we could get them in or alternatively, would not be worth our farmers' while to produce them. That is something we could not tolerate for one moment. Our economy could not continue if we were in that position.

That has not been clearly put in front of our people. One of the reasons is, as I say, the ghosts of the past are haunting the Party opposite. They should have put it clearly before the people. I know it would be a blow because of the high tariff policy in the past. In the 1930s, the industrial potential, the industrial arm, of this country was built up on a high tariff policy. I think it worth while to recapitulate these facts. They are historical facts. They are not something invented by me. They are on the records of this House and they are well known to anybody who takes the smallest amount of trouble to go into the facts of tariff history in Ireland.

The original Cumann na nGaedheal Government, as it was, put on tariffs. Their policy was a policy of selective tariffs. They took certain industries and protected them. They believed that was in the best interests of the national economy and that those industries were industries that could be carried out with materials which lay to our hands; in other words, materials which were a part of our agricultural life, or indeed of our industrial life and of our mineral products, such few as they are. We know that up to now we have not been fortunate in discovering the mineral products on which the great industries of the big manufacturing countries are based.

We had originally the selective tariff policy. The present Government then came in and adopted this policy of high tariffs. Behind that high tariff wall, our industries started. I remember protective tariffs as high as 150 per cent. Some of those industries prospered and some did not, even with the very high tariffs. We as a Party always felt that there was a great danger inherent in the high tariff policy. After the two wars, the 1914 and the 1939 wars, the European countries put their heads together and stopped putting up prohibitive tariffs against one another. The volume of trade is so immense in those countries that they have enjoyed, for the past few years, a prosperity, both industrially and agriculturally, which they have never enjoyed before.

It is not likely, at the same time, that the world will turn from a policy of tariffs to a policy of doing away with them generally. That is what has happened in European countries who banded themselves together and said: "We will sell to one another without putting up tariffs." Great Britain is trying to get into that group. We are trying to get in too, but our staying in or out depends mainly on Great Britain. This does not mean that she has the veto but certainly if she goes in, in no circumstances could we afford to stay out.

A friend of mine asked me a couple of months ago what I thought about the Common Market. I said: "Well, if by any chance we stay out of it, we will be ruined entirely. If we go into it, our industries and our agriculture will go through an appallingly difficult time; our capital will go through a very difficult time; and our trade will also go through a very difficult time." I am connected with and have some knowledge of the building trade. I know of certain industries that will not and could not survive a reduction of tariffs. I am not moving outside the trade which I know and there are some of those which may produce good products. It is not a question of that but the whole set-up of some of these means that they will find themselves in a very difficult position if we go into the Common Market, and even when the full effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement come to be felt, they will feel the draught very badly. I am not going to name those industries which I think will not survive, and I hope I may be wrong in what I am saying, but I do not think I am.

Where there is a high degree of research content in a business or industry, it will be increasingly difficult for our local industries to find the money for research scientists and research work on a large scale. I can think of a whole range of research, such as medical research, which it would be extremely difficult for Irish firms to carry out. There are many other industries which require a high degree of research and one of the reasons why that sort of thing would affect us greatly is that in modern times there are constantly changing recipes and formulae for various products. Something new might be produced, and if we were not in touch with the original people who produced it, we would not be able to produce it. In another instance, there may be a great variety of patterns and it would be difficult for our industries, working for a market of three million people, to produce that variety of patterns. Then there is the old story of heavy industries based on mineral raw material. We have not many of them but some of those we have would find it very difficult to carry on.

There is the question of the whole set-up of some of our local industries. In some cases they are only subsidiaries of foreign firms and the question will be the extent to which the parent companies will take over when tariffs are reduced. Those are the questions which can only be answered by the people in the industries and they will be loath to say it in public. I will not name any single one of these industries because other factors might come in and things sometimes do not turn out as black as they seem to be. However, this is something that should be discussed openly and frankly.

The Taoiseach touched on one particular matter in his speech yesterday but he could only touch on it. We have followed here a policy, introduced by Fine Gael in inter-Party times, a policy of export encouragement. Whether they be by way of direct subsidy or by way of tax relief, those various forms of encouragement, and they can be quite considerable, might come in conflict with the policies of EEC. Those are all things which are going to make the European Economic Community something the like of which this country has never seen before. There will be tremendous changes of capital, tremendous movements of labour and goodness knows, we have had enough movements of labour in this country. But we have come out of it all right.

This is not like a football or a hurling match in which one can pull up one's socks and go into win. This is going to mean a fundamental change in the lives of the Irish people and it is not going to be very pleasant. I hope what we have been told will prove to be true, that we are going to emerge better and richer from it, but we have heard nothing from the Government to indicate how that will come about. If we go into it, we will find it very difficult, and if we stay out of it, we will be ruined. Of course, for a Government to put that bluntly to their people would probably mean that they would be hunted out of office in a few weeks, but this Government should have thought out some better way of telling our people the realities of the situation.

We are a very tiny country, gamely doing our best, and we now have to take the fearful step of trying to get into the EEC, but even in Great Britain, there are people who are afraid of the effects on British industry and trade generally of membership of the Community. As she is one of the greatest industrial countries in the world, she need not be unduly fearful, but we have not had long enough to develop our infant industries. I heard one of the speakers on the Labour side of the House blaming the management of many of our native industries which he said started behind others. Of course that is true in certain cases They started as a result of political influence rather than on a commercial basis, or on industrial skill. I hope that since the early days of the commencement of many of these industries they have built up an industrial know-how and have been able to perfect their skills.

I am a believer in facing facts. How can a small country regrettably isolated from the rest of Europe, stand alone? If you look at the map, you will see that we are right out in the Atlantic. It certainly will take all our knowledge, all our skill and all our energy to develop and to keep an industrial arm, since we are close to one of the greatest industrial countries in the world and since we lie 300 to 400 miles from ports from which some of the biggest industrial countries can send goods cheaply by sea to our ports.

These are the geographical and economic facts of the situation. I do not think they should frighten us unduly, but certainly the situation is one of tremendous — I was almost about to say appalling — significance for us. We are facing one of the greatest difficulties economically this country has ever faced because we are facing the fact that our infant industries—and they are infant in size and in age compared with many others— are now quite suddenly about to face the full blast of unrestricted competition from a group of countries, comprised of several hundred million people.

That is what will happen, if and when we join the Common Market. That is what the Government should have been putting very clearly in front of our people. They have not been putting it to the extent they should have. They have been afraid to tell the people the truth which I have tried to do here today. I hope it has not been too harsh and I hope it will not frighten people. I sincerely wish I could see it in a more optimistic light.

I will close on this note. Although these are the dangers inherent for our agriculture and our industry, still I believe that we will adapt ourselves. Man is infinitely adaptable and the Irish are as adaptable as any other race, if not more so. We are facing a terrible situation and when I use the word "terrible", I mean that I believe it to be a very difficult situation for our industries, that is, if and when we join the Common Market. It should be remembered that we are on the horns of the classical dilemma. If we stay out, the position will be worse. This Party believe that in all the circumstances it is right that we should go into the European Economic Community, but we also believe that the Government should take much more active steps in relation to the truths of this inherently dangerous situation which very clearly confronts our people.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

In discussing the question of Ireland's entry to the European Economic Community, we are discussing a momentous event in the history of this nation; but, so momentous is it that it appears to me some people have allowed their wills and their imaginations to become paralysed by the extent of the possible change involved and, having viewed the possibility of the loss and danger involved in it, put their heads in the sand and said: "No; do not change; let us stay the way we are." Even if we could do this, I think it would be a poor reflection on the people of this country were they to adopt such an attitude.

In fact, this course is not open to us. It seems to me that in a debate such as this, we must first of all, be clear in our minds as to what is involved for us, what choice is open to us and where we stand in this movement that is going on. The principal objections that are being made to joining the European Economic Community could, I think, be largely put under three headings— economic, political and cultural. I shall deal with the economic side last because I think it will take more time than the others.

On the political level, I should like to ask those who are objecting on this ground or dragging their feet—and this might be a more accurate description of people in this House rather than outside it—do they believe that from this tremendous development taking place in Europe, one that has been sought for many a long year, through many a war and through many a famine, we should stand aside? Are we or are we not a part of Europe? Are our traditions, our beliefs, the things which we hold sacred, not a part of the European heritage and have we not contributed a great deal to that European heritage? Is it not ours to a great extent in the sense that we have contributed to it? Is it not ours to an even greater extent because of the fact that these are our traditions? This is where we come from. We are European and can we afford to stand aside while Europe is organising itself to ensure that the values, which are known as European values, the heritage which is certainly that of Europe—the belief in democracy, the belief in the right of the individual— these values which have come from Europe and have been developed in Europe, are preserved. These values are in danger of being swamped in this world today and this is all the more reason, therefore, why Europe must organise itself and ensure the preservation of these values.

I do not think it is part of the role of Ireland to stand aside in such an affair. Ireland's role—if it can do so at all—is to get involved in this development, to contribute to it, and I think we have a lot to contribute to it. We have demonstrated in the forum of the world—the United Nations—that what we have to contribute is greatly out of proportion to our relatively small size and influence otherwise. We can contribute very much to the development of Europe, to the political development of Europe, to ensuring that in so far as a European policy may emerge, it will be one based on the things which we hold dear. This is a matter of major importance for the future for our children and for their children. It may not be of major importance this moment but we as a people are not living just for today and we have an obligation to contribute in so far as we can to that development, to the maintenance and, if possible, the expansion of the values of European culture in which we believe.

On the political level, it has also been said that the objections which arise to the expansion of the Community are unreasonable. Let me say that I would think, if anybody were to adopt the attitude that the Community should never be enlarged, this would not alone be unreasonable; it would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome and would spell the death knell of the effort to organise Europe. But I do not think anybody has said that. Rather, I think what has been stressed is a fact which has not become sufficiently clear to most people in the English-speaking countries, that is, that what has been achieved in the European Economic Community to date has been achieved as a result of tremendous efforts, sacrifices, compromises and worked out with immense difficulty and tedium. There is a very genuine fear that all these efforts, all those sacrifices and all that they augur for the future might be endangered if at this moment there were to be an enlargement of the Community. I think this is a reasonable and a genuine fear but I also believe that the greater need of the Community and of Europe is that the Community should be expanded and, while there are risks inherent in that expansion, it is not by any means impossible to work out arrangements whereby the existing balance within the Community will not be upset.

The advent of new members would, of course, mean changes in the voting structure in the various institutions in the Community but I do not think this presents any insuperable problems. In particular, I do not think it presents insuperable problems, having regard to the applicant countries. It would, I think, upset the balance of the Community if at present only one large nation were to be admitted or only one small nation were to be admitted, but I think the present applicants, in themselves, constitute a bloc which can be integrated within the Community without upsetting the balance. I also think that the Community institutions could be used by us to great effect to overcome a number of the difficulties which people here anticipated arising from our membership of the Common Market.

I mentioned that the objections of some people could be grouped under the heading of the cultural field. I want to say I am convinced that the greatest shot in the arm which Irish culture and the Irish language could obtain would be our becoming a member of the European Economic Community. There are far too many people in this country who—whether they know it or not—think that the world is bounded by Britain on one side and the United States on the other. Most of our people, when they receive news from outside the country, receive it through this source and receive it in the English language. Naturally, news from this source in the English language takes a certain line. I do not say it is slanted but it is interested only in certain things, and interest in matters relating to continental Europe tends to be minimal, with the result that we are subjected all the time to a very powerful form of culture, against which our own culture, with all its vicissitudes, is struggling, and it is a real and difficult struggle.

I believe that the more we become aware of the fact that there are other cultures besides the English-speaking cultures; and that they involve the great traditions of Europe, that freedom and democracy do not have to be spoken of in English to be real—the more we realise that there are other small countries in Europe with the same kind of values as we have, who do not speak English, who have their own cultures and who are cultivating these, who are not asking that their language or their culture be abolished so that they can improve their trading position within Europe and the more our people get a view of reality in Europe—the better it will be for our culture and our language. Of that I am quite certain and I think the fears expressed with regard to our culture and our language in Europe are completely misplaced.

The main discussions in regard to our membership of the Community, of course, hinge on the economic front and, in this field, we find that many people seem to take the view that they can see only difficulties, no advantages, so they say: "Let us not go in; we cannot take the chance; the damage will be too great." I do not think this is true. There are grave risks but this is what life is about. Life is full of risks. All of us run risks every day of our lives and the people who progress, the people who find life is worth living, the people who justify their creation on this earth, are the people who run these risks, who work constructively to improve the lot of themselves and of their fellowmen; and any attitude of hiding one's head in the sand is not only ignoble but highly ineffective.

If we do not want to hide our heads in the sand, we must look at the situation as we see it, as it really is for us. What we see is that if Britain joins the Community and we do not, the common external tariff of the Common Market will be applied between Britain and ourselves against 70 per cent of our foreign trade, either immediately or gradually, probably gradually. If we join the Common Market and Britain does not, the same situation will arise. It is quite unrealistic to expect anything else, and if that situation arises, are we then better off than we are at present?

Clearly this, if it were to happen, would be disastrous for this country and would be of serious economic import for Britain. This kind of problem has arisen in fact in connection with the Austrian negotiations with the Community for a treaty of association. Incidentally, on the question of association, if one goes by the example of the Austrian negotiations, it is not encouraging because they have been going on for years. It seems clear that if and when those negotiations are completed, they will involve, to some extent at any rate, Austria withdrawing from EFTA or being involved in EEC tariffs against the EFTA group. If the EEC is enlarged, and being enlarged, a number of EFTA members go in, the position would be different for Austria.

This is the reality as far as we are concerned economically. As I say, we must never forget that statistic, whether we like it or not, that there is still 70 per cent of our foreign trade with Britain, including agriculture. I might add that in the situation as envisaged about the common external tariff being raised between ourselves and Britain, if Britain went in and we did not, this would occur at a time when Britain would be reducing her duties against the EEC countries and therefore the position would be even worse

We have in Europe today two trade blocs, EEC and EFTA, and they have achieved, or are about to achieve, complete free trade in industrial goods; and indeed within the EEC, they may even reach free trade in agricultural goods and they have gone a good distance along that road. We are outside both blocs. This is the background against which we must consider our situation and we cannot do one thing to change that situation that exists in Europe, even if we wanted to. The position is that all the countries of Western Europe with which we do any significant trade will have or already have abolished tariffs against trade between them, in one group or the other, and we are outside both.

These are the facts of life that we must face. It is an economic environment that exists to which we must adjust ourselves. We cannot isolate ourselves from this kind of development because to a greater extent than any other country in Europe, we live by external trade. We are heading into free trade because this is the environment that exists, and in the interests of our economy, we have got to do it. We know there may be painful adjustments involved in this, particularly in the short term, but they are not nearly as dangerous as the adjustments we would have to make if we were to sit aside while the world moves on, if we were to remain in the first half of the twentieth century while Europe moves into the second half.

I suggest that anybody who objects to the course the Government are following in regard to application for membership of the Community must face these facts and must give us an alternative, if he does not agree with the course being followed. It seems to me that the attitude of the Labour Party in this matter is to say the least ambiguous. We do not know whether the Labour Party are in favour of our joining the EEC as full members or not. I thought at one stage they were; now I am not so sure. They have dragged their feet on this issue and there have been suggestions from them that rather than seek full membership, we should become associated with the Common Market.

It has been made clear before that there is no such thing as associate membership of the Community. A country can be associated with it. Association means that you conclude a trade agreement with the Common Market and nobody can say what that trade agreement would involve. It would be the result of bargaining which would take place, with us in a very weak position as compared with the other party to the agreement. Nobody could say what we would achieve in such an agreement, but assuming we got a reasonably satisfactory agreement, we would have no say thereafter in the changes that would take place within the Community, in the direction of the common agricultural policy or in any of the other aspects which the Community is developing. It is a dynamic, developing community. It is changing all the time and will continue to change for many years to come.

If we had formal association with the Community, we would have no say in this: we would have to take what came. I do not think that is a position any of us would want to see ourselves in but those who oppose the course which the Government have adopted are obliged, if they want to be taken seriously, to demonstrate that it would be better for us to conclude a treaty of association or to have no association or membership. It is not enough to point out the difficulties and to drag one's feet. This matter is too serious for the future of this country, and it behoves us as politicians elected here to deal with matters such as this and to show clearly where we stand, to give a lead to our people, and if we honestly do not favour a particular course, to say so, and not to be trying to achieve a Tadhg-an-dá-thaobh situation where whatever happens, we can say we were right. This matter is so serious that the Irish people are entitled to more than that from their elected representatives.

It should be clear to us, even from a cursory examination of our economy, that if we are to have any hope of expanding our economy, of raising the standard of living of our people, of improving our social services, the only real way we can achieve this is by expanding our exports. With a small home market which is, to a great extent, saturated by our own produce at the moment, the only real hope of expansion lies in expanding exports. The evidence is there that we have the capacity for such expansion, both in agriculture and industry. In money terms, the export of industrial goods rose from £33 million, approximately, in 1956 to £96 million in 1966. Industrial exports as a percentage of total exports rose in the same period from 25.9 per cent to 40.7 per cent. This is no mean achievement, but we can do better, we will have to do better than that.

I want to stress the fact that too many people seem to have no faith in the ability of our industries to compete. I want to point out that that record alone is spectacular and shows what we are able to achieve. If anyone says to me: "That is all right, but it was achieved in the British Market where we had a preference or, in recent times, free entry", I want to point out to them that 40 per cent of our manufactured goods exports go to places other than Britain where they are competing in world markets without preference. That is something of which we should be conscious.

I do not want to say that the situation is going to be easy, but it is no good for us to go into this situation of the Common Market and free trade without faith in our industrialists and exporters. It is on them we depend largely. If we are not only to survive— that is not good enough—but to improve our standard of living, we must depend on our industrialists, and particularly our exporters. We want to help them in any way we can. Let us not decry their efforts; let us not assume that they are not able to compete. They have demonstrated that they are able to compete, and compete successfully.

One of the problems we have at the moment, especially having regard to the vital necessity to export, is that too few of our firms are exporting. Out of approximately 2,000 firms producing goods which could be sold on the export market only 750, roughly, are exporting. This is a higher percentage than in many other countries, but it is not high enough for us. We have to get these other 1,250 or 1,300 firms who are not exporting to export. We are devoting particular attention to those firms to try to induce them to do so.

The fact that we still have that relatively high number of firms which could export not exporting indicates the number of firms which have not been able to read the writing on the wall. One would have thought it was clear enough by now. Firms which are content to stay in the home market are going to have very difficult times in the years ahead because, in effect, there will be no home market in the sense that with free trade, goods from other countries will come in here and will be competing in this market with our manufacturers. So, unless our manufacturers can get a foothold in the export market now, they will find it much more difficult to do so in the future. They now have a few years in which to do it while there is still protection for the home market base. Those who have gone into the export market, and those who will go into the export market within the next few years, are very likely not only to survive but to do very well. If we go into the EEC, those who are not making a real effort will not do well, and may not survive.

The Government have never pretended that joining the EEC will not create problems for Irish industry. It will, and we know very well it will. In fact, we have assessed, and are continuing to assess, the problems for Irish industry sector by sector, to isolate these problems in free trade conditions, with a view to assisting those sectors of industry as effectively as we can to overcome the difficulties which we see arising. We know that some of our industries will gain, and gain substantially, by reason of the opening up of the huge continental markets without duties being placed against our goods, but we also know that some of our firms are going to be adversely affected. By and large, as I have said, the ones which will be adversely affected are those which have not made any preparation and have not tried to get into exports.

We must remember that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have free trade in certain sectors where it suits us, and not have it in other sectors where it does not. Free trade means free trade all across the board. We hope that in joining the Community we will be able to arrange for the removal of protection on a gradual basis for a reasonable transitional period, but we should recall also that there is very likely to be a demand that if we want a transitional period, say, for industry, the same kind of transitional period will apply against our goods, industrial or agricultural, going into the Common Market. Even assuming that we can achieve a reasonable transitional period, this should not give any false sense of security to industry.

One of the effects of going into the Common Market will be to oblige us to bring our tariffs into line with the common external tariffs of the EEC. This is likely to have two main effects on Irish industry. Where we have duties at the moment against goods coming in, other than from Britain, they are, generally speaking, at a higher level than the common external tariffs of the EEC. Where that obtains, we will have to reduce our tariffs against third countries down to the level of the common external tariff. Having regard to the fact that there has been a reduction in the common external tariff as a result of the Kennedy Round, we may take it that the duties we impose against third countries will be substantially reduced eventually. This will make it easier for these third countries, that is, non-EEC countries, to sell in the Irish market but, in certain sectors in which this could cause undue difficulty, we may be able to avail of the provisions of the common commercial policy of the EEC to restrict imports from low cost and state trading countries. The EEC are still working out this common commercial policy and the ultimate aim is that all the member States of the EEC will eventually have common arrangements covering all aspects of trade between them and the non-EEC countries.

Another aspect of reducing our tariffs against third countries is the fact that some of our basic raw materials, which at present come in free of Irish duty, would become liable to the common external tariffs of the EEC, but, where our manufacturers are buying these raw materials at present either from the EEC or from some of the applicant countries, there should not be any great difficulty because there will be no tariff applied, if they are in, or if the raw materials are coming from within the Common Market. However, where an Irish manufacturer at the moment is getting his raw materials from a non-EEC source, and where they are subject to a common external tariff, he will have to pay that tariff on the raw materials coming in.

I should, I think, point out that any disadvantages which may arise for a manufacturer in that situation should be offset by the fact that, when he manufactures his goods, he then has a much larger market in which he can sell without any tariff against his goods. At present there is a substantial tariff against the bulk of the market which would then be open to him. Our competitors, including Britain, would of course be subject to the same limitations.

Not enough stress has, I believe, been placed on the fact that the market available to us in the Common Market is a vast one, and an expanding one, and we can derive considerable benefits from this. We have demonstrated by our performance in the past that in certain sectors we can compete against goods in any part of the world. In competing in the European market, with protection against competition from outside the Common Market, we are likely to do extremely well. There are some sectors of industry at the moment—for instance, the clothing industry—in which we do not do a great deal of business, though we do some, with Common Market countries. We do not do a great deal because the extent of the tariff against our goods is such as to make it almost uneconomic in most cases; but, if that were removed, our manufacturers are quite capable—they would, of course, have to alter some of their stylings, and so on—of competing very successfully in that market.

In connection with the garment industry I might mention that we can, by supplying a very small percentage of the market which would be available in an expanded Common Market, derive certain advantages. This would be of enormous importance to us but would have no major effect within the Common Market. We could do this because, with certain distinctive styles of garments, the small numbers relatively coming in from us spread around the whole Community would constitute exclusive items commanding good prices. This is one aspect of the industry which might, I think, be borne in mind. There are some advantages in not being too large and in not being tied to enormous production runs and having to dispose of that production at any price.

We have already entered on an era of free trade with Britain and this is proceeding in accordance with the Free Trade Area Agreement, so that protection for our manufacturers is going in any event. In this light, the additional competition which our industries will have to face as a result of joining the EEC will, I think, be small compared with the export opportunities which will be opened up. It is true that most of our industries are small by Common Market standards but they can, by co-operation and rationalisation, improve their position enormously. I am not now speaking theoretically. I am speaking about things that are taking place.

There is in my Department a branch known as the Industrial Reorganisation Branch. That Branch is concerned with meeting industry on the shop floor and in the boardroom and urging industrialists on to co-operative marketing, to rationalisation, to mergers. They have been quite successful in many fields and some of our firms, small by European standards, have co-operated. They have gone into export marketing on a co-operative basis. They have been very successful and there is obviously plenty of room for expansion of this idea. The fact that our industries are small need not necessarily be a great inhibiting factor in competing in Europe. There are certain advantages and some of the disadvantages can be overcome by an intelligent approach to the whole problem.

Irish enterprises which have gone into the export field have, in the main, shown a steady expansion and a steady growth. I believe this will be the situation in future within the Common Market in the case of those firms which are getting into the export market now, should we go into the Common Market. They will continue to grow and expand. This has been the experience of the smaller countries of the Common Market. Many of them had the greatest fears as to what would happen to their industries and they have found that many of their industries have expanded and continue to grow. Some of them suffered but, taking it over all, the net position is a considerable gain to each of the countries concerned. If we approach our problems in the right way, I believe we will have exactly the same result.

As I have said, the position in Europe is that we have these two trading blocs abolishing tariffs between them. As a result of Britain being a member of one of them, the value of our preferences in the British market has been steadily eroded. We must, therefore, base our policies on this reality about which we cannot do anything except what we do ourselves and how we approach it. We cannot prevent these developments.

The Government intend to use all legitimate means to help any industry to survive which is willing to help itself. They will do everything possible to cushion the impact on workers who may find themselves displaced as a result of reorganisation and adjustment which will be forced on Irish industry. The House is aware that arrangements are being made to enable workers to be retrained and resettled, where necessary, and to provide a scheme of redundancy payments.

A factor we should bear in mind in regard to employment, apart from the expansion of employment in the firms which will do well in the Common Market, is that it is reasonable to assume that the number of foreign firms setting up in Ireland will increase when we are within the Common Market. One of our difficulties in attracting foreign enterprise to this country at the moment is that, from here, we do not have access to the large European market. If they had such access, combined with the pool of high-grade and adaptable labour which we have in this country, there is no doubt that many of them would want to come here and will come here when we are within the Common Market. This should certainly operate effectively to offset disadvantages from the point of view of employment in firms which are either closing down or having to readjust or rationalise and thereby let people off.

Mr. L'Estrange

How about the times when we were told we would do without England and the rest of the world? The Tánaiste said that: he committed himself. Today, he said that 70 per cent of our trade is now with dear old Britain.

Mr. Andrews

Deputy L'Estrange never had a commitment in his life.

Mr. L'Estrange

The State has stood by Deputy Andrews and his family all their life.

Mr. Andrews

Remember the Waterford by-election.

Mr. Colley

We have an infra-structure in this country which is of much greater strength than might perhaps be warranted by the level of our industrial development. That means that we have an infra-structure which can carry a much greater industrial development than we have at present. This is a potent factor in attracting foreign industry. I have no doubt that a large number of foreign industries will want to set up in this country if and when we are in the Common Market, the major factor for them being access to markets. The other factors needed by them we have here in abundance and better than anybody competing with us. The only thing needed from that point of view is access to much wider markets.

The question of adaptation to free trade has been mentioned in the debate. I think Deputy Cosgrave was of the opinion that we are not doing enough and that we are doing it on an indiscriminate basis rather than on a selective basis. Physical adaptation, that is, the modernisation of equipment, premises, and so on, is a basic requirement in connection with preparation for free trade—and it is only the first step. It is clear, I think, in the circumstances of Irish industry, that that kind of adaptation can be achieved only with State grants. The ultimate test of the effectiveness of this type of adaptation will be the actual performance of Irish industry in a free trade situation.

It would be quite wrong, I think, to assume that there has been anything hit and miss about the system of adaptation grants. An Foras Tionscal, in deciding on applications for these grants, has available to it all the information obtained by my Department regarding conditions in the industry, the market situation and whether or not there is excess capacity. It also employs its own technical experts.

I want to stress that physical adaptation is only the basic requirement. I mention rationalisation, amalgamation and the other steps. The principal ingredient of adaptation, in my opinion, is a frame of mind which is never satisfied with the efficiency at present attained and which is always trying to improve on that efficiency, a state of mind which is conscious that, in commerce, we cannot stand still and must always be going forward.

I believe that the efforts which have been made to encourage Irish industry to adaptation have been on the right lines and in many cases have been quite effective and have not been confined merely to physical adaptation, as I mentioned earlier. However, as the Taoiseach stated yesterday, he is not satisfied nor am I, with the rate of adaptation which has been achieved: it has been good but it is not good enough. I have made a number of efforts to speed up this process. I have also made arrangements to meet the chairmen of adaptation councils to review their work. I have made arrangements to meet representatives of industry, sector by sector, at regular intervals in co-operation with the Federation of Irish Industries. I have also requested, in this connection, regular meetings with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Due to the absence of certain officers, I have not got a final reply to this but I have no reason to believe that the fullest co-operation will not be forthcoming.

What we have to ensure, what we have to devise, is some method of getting the message through, not to the firms which are adapting themselves— they are always the better ones—but to the ones to which the message does not yet appear to have got through. It is largely a question of communication and I have been endeavouring to solve this problem, but if any Deputy has suggestions as to how it might be better solved, I will be very pleased to hear them.

There has also been talk about dumping and there has been a complaint that there has been a delay on the part of the Government in introducing anti-dumping legislation. I want to make it clear that I and the Government regard the introduction of this anti-dumping legislation as a matter of urgency, and have said so publicly. However, it is pretty well known by those most directly concerned that some of the delay involved in introducing the anti-dumping legislation was due to the fact that we were endeavouring to get the most effective anti-dumping legislation we could. We could have introduced legislation earlier which would have been less effective. We could also refer to the fact that when the legislation was drafted, after all the negotiations which were involved, both nationally and internationally, regulation tions to which we have to conform internationally in the GATT were changed, with the result that the draft of the legislation had to be changed again. Did the Deputy say something?

Mr. L'Estrange

You could have brought it in as quickly as you brought in the Marts Bill. You moved quickly on that: there was no time lost.

Mr. Colley

If the Deputy wants to discuss the Marts Bill, I will leave him to the Minister for Agriculture who will be speaking later.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

A bulldozer was used to crush our opposition.

Mr. Colley

As I say, we regard this question of anti-dumping legislation as a matter of importance and urgency but I should point out that under the tariffs and regulations which are in force at the moment, we have more control than we would have under anti-dumping legislation which conforms to international requirements. This is generally true and the urgency arises as our tariffs go down. This is when we need the anti-dumping legislation most. At present in most fields the control we can exercise is more effective than it would be if we were relying solely on anti-dumping legislation, but as the House knows, the legislation has been introduced by way of Long and Short Titles and will, I hope, be passed in the coming session.

There have been suggestions that the Government have not been sufficiently active in contacts with members of the Six. It is easy, of course, to make this kind of allegation; it is not quite so easy to refute it. However, I want to make it clear that the contacts which have been maintained with the Six, with the Commission, have been very effective and have kept us fully informed. We have, in fact, in the recent White Paper, made available to the House and the public generally the information available up to that time on the discussions and developments within the Community in various fields. I also want to make it clear that when I visited the Commission in February of this year, I discussed with them almost every possible area in which my Department might be concerned in the event of our entry into the Common Market.

I discussed with them the developments which had taken place within the Community, the projected developments and the chances of those developments taking place and when they were likely to take place I know that other Ministers have done likewise so that we are very well informed in relation to the situation obtaining. There are a number of things which I could say to the House about our position in regard to various items, the position that we should like to see, the position that we would be prepared to accept, and the position we would not accept at all, but it should be made clear to the House that, to say the least, it would be very foolish of me to talk in these terms. The Labour Party's amendment is very naïve in this regard.

The whole debate should centre on what type of relationship that should be. It is not right merely to dismiss all the possible nuances of that kind of relationship and only see this matter in black and white terms, full membership or nothing. Anybody looking at our situation honestly must realise that the decision we make in this matter is one that will colour the whole future of the development of whatever country may be left to us. In recent years— also unique in Europe—we have had a catastrophic drain on our manpower from rural areas and from city areas. If in the future, as a result of any new economic relationship, this tendency is intensified, it means that this country, in terms of having even a little say in its own destiny, will have passed the point of no return and will have reached the stage of Monaco or some other place.

If the whole ethos governing the Common Market set-up is planned competition, the drawing up of regulations for as much free competition as possible between equals in industry, one may wonder how this country of ours, where industry is so thinly spread, will fare. We have been attempting to get as much control as possible into the hands of the Government, to plan economic development in parts of the country not so well developed. We wonder if that kind of control we have sought to have over our economic destiny can continue in this new set-up. One must question the kind of future facing us in the Common Market in that particular area.

We are justified as a Party before the Irish people in putting the question marks, in trying to spell out as far as we can some of the problems we see looming before us in this Common Market set-up, especially if, on the other side, the minimum information is given by the Government about what might be expected to happen to the Irish economy in free trade conditions. Instead we have been fed on a diet of our European connections, of our contributions to European history and culture and of the possibility of our further contributions. As far as I am concerned, my enthusiasm for Europe begins and ends with the possibilities it has for this country of mine. As regards the future of Europe, I have no interest, if it means the extinction of this country as a nation or the passing of the point of no return. I have no use for Europe in terms of de Gaulle's idea of the Europe of the Fatherlands or the Hallsteinian idea of a federation of Europe, if this country goes down in the process. I, unashamedly, admit myself to be a narrow nationalist in looking only to the future of this country. The amendment in the name of this Party is put down on the basis of the future of the Irish people. This is all we are concerned with. Let Government Ministers take part in European moonshine about the future of Europe. It is the future of this country, inside or outside Europe, that I am interested in.

So far, the Government have convinced me in no White Paper that they are in possession of the facts as to the possibilities of prosperity or otherwise that membership of Europe will mean. The Taoiseach's speech was directed, as could only be understood in the circumstances, to the most part—and I suppose this is sufficient tribute and underlined the wisdom in putting down the amendbent—to the points we raised in our amendment. This serves its function, that we have succeeded in getting the Head of Government to begin to attempt to formulate the Government's answers to some of the questions we have raised. He has attempted, to the best of his ability, to examine what the Government's attitude is to some of the questions raised.

We mentioned national sovereignty and the Taoiseach makes the comparison that we will lose no more national sovereignty than we would lose in participation in any international body. This is palpably untrue and not in accordance with the facts. There can be no comparison between the kind of diminution of political sovereignty—the little we do enjoy— involved in the EEC set up and the diminution of political sovereignty that would occur in participation in the United Nations or the Council of Europe. There is a difference between one and the other. It is certainly laid down in the Rome Treaty that there would be severe limitations on the exercise of both political and social objectives employed by member Governments, by regulation or otherwise. It is quite clearly spelled out there that the Rome Treaty demands that there be certain supranational powers employed over and above those enjoyed by member Governments. Therefore, there is no comparison between our previous experience of our participation in international bodies and what may eventuate by membership of the EEC.

We have mentioned trade and, again, this is clouded in very romantic language by certain supporters of our entry to the EEC and as far as we can see there has been very little dealing in the facts as to what we may expect in matters of trade in membership.

Deputy Corish, leading for this Party, has already referred to our fears in regard to employment. Again, he threw down the figure to the Government, if you recall, from the Committee of Industrial Organisation, that if all adaptation measures were taken we could expect to see something like 12,000 redundant and, if none or not sufficient were taken, we could expect a figure of 45,000 redundant, in terms of freer trade. Again, we ask for no secret from the Government, we do not ask them to give away part of their hidden hand in the negotiations but we do ask, at least, that they should be able to assure these unfortunate people who work in Irish industry that their future is secure to some extent in this free trade future. This information has not been forthcoming.

It is extremely important that Parties such as Labour should put out the objections as we see them, the other side of the picture, and the questions ordinary people are asking. All the more important is that in view of the fact that this side of the case has not been put by any political Party in this House. The Fine Gael addendum does not ask the questions we have sought to ask. The Fine Gael addendum restricts itself merely to saying the Government have not done enough fast enough in terms of adaptation. Yet, to read yesterday's press one would imagine that the real Opposition Party, putting the opposition point of view in this House, as we put it, has been the Fine Gael Party in their addendum. This is the politics of the present free trade argument. I have many good friends in Fine Gael and in Fianna Fáil but the politics of this situation show that on this question of freer trade there is one Party ranged on one side for entry, without worrying about its effects on this country, and that is those primarily in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and, on the other hand, Labour and the trade unions are the only element asking the awkward questions, who are not committed to any enthusiasm for any free trade that will do harm to this country eventually. Yet, in yesterday's press, the comments on our amendment are lumped as only trivial points of a small Party.

Agreed that there has been a very well financed lobby in this country for the past five or six years who have pushed propaganda, day in, day out, on the mythical advantages of EEC membership for this country, who have poured money into lectures and seminars throughout the country calling for early entry into the Common Market and expecting extraordinary returns. Very many individual Deputies have fallen dupes for this propaganda without questioning what are the real worries and concerns of the Irish people and what are the real interests of the Irish people involved in such exercise.

It is one of the tragedies and ironies of the situation that the Fianna Fáil Government, who originally set out to attempt to run some kind of independent Government, are today in the vanguard of handling up the very last piece of sovereignty we have. In fact, one rather crude way of expressing the present pressure to enter the EEC is to describe it as the swan song of the 26 County experiment, the end of the road for the so-called Independence Movement that some of the veterans on the other side of the House led 45 or 46 years ago. This being the case, we must be assured that the Government are conscious of the uneasiness in the weak sectors of our economy. The question must be asked whether Fianna Fáil have grown tired of the industrial worker and whether the parting of the wavs has not, in fact, at last caught up with them, whether the lack of urgency in the adaptation of industry in the past few years shows the lack of serious intention on the Government's part to prepare our economy for the eventuality of free trade; whether in fact, the Government have not decided to jettison the industrial worker in terms of free trade, whether, in fact, in conformity with the political support coming to the Fianna Fáil Government in these days, they are now prepared to retreat to the rural corners for future support and to desert the industrial workers of the cities to their fate. This may be a loose reading of the situation but, undoubtedly, the kind of preparations taken in face of what may be in store in the Common Market suggest that they are no longer interested in the future of the industrial worker in this country.

The Common Market and the countries involved in that experiment have never been at pains to disguise the fact that more is involved than merely an economic gathering of nations in Europe. They have been at pains—and the Taoiseach has mentioned this in his opening speech referring to the Bonn Convention of 1961—to make it understood from the beginning that there were obligations other than economic involved in membership of the EEC. There is no excuse for ignoring these political implications of entry into Europe, ignoring them in the Taoiseach's sense. They must be considered as part of entry into Europe. Admittedly, there is the argument going on as to the kind of Europe that would emerge between the Gaullist idea of the Europe of the Fatherlands and the Hallsteinian idea of a looser federal arrangement but, no doubt, there are far reaching changes involved in entry which will mean overhaul of the ordinary ideas of the authority of this Parliament and of the Institutions in this country.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 26 Jul 1967

European Economic Community (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1967