Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Jun 1970

Vol. 247 No. 11

Membership of EEC: Motion.

The Taoiseach

I move:

That Dáil Éireann takes note of the White Paper entitled Membership of the European Communities: Implications for Ireland.

The decision to issue a White Paper on the implications of membership of the European Communities was taken by the Government following The Hague Summit Conference of December, 1969, at which the member states reached agreement in principle on the opening of negotiations with the four applicant countries. The indications were that negotiations would open about the middle of the year and the Government felt, in these circumstances, it would be desirable to make available a document setting out what membership of the Communities would involve.

The earlier White Papers of 1961, 1962 and 1967 had been aimed at giving a factual account of the provisions of the Treaties of Rome and Paris and the action taken in implementing the treaties. As Deputies are no doubt aware the formal opening of negotiations will take place in Luxembourg on June 30th. Following this the Community will have meetings at ministerial level with the United Kingdom on July 21st, with Ireland on September 21st and with Denmark and Norway on September 22nd.

The primary purpose of the White Paper is to set out, for the information of both Houses of the Oireachtas and the general public, what membership of the Communities will involve for the country as a whole and for particular sectors of the economy. In doing so we aimed to be objective, to cover the full range of implications, constitutional and political as well as economic and social, and to give as complete an assessment as possible, given the many uncertainties and imponderables involved. I think it has been accepted generally that the White Paper is an objective document.

Some people may think, however, that the White Paper should contain more detailed quantifications and more sophisticated analyses of the implications of membership for the economic sectors. I need not go into these at length here since they will be dealt with by the Ministers concerned in the course of the debate. I should like to emphasise that it is the long-run consequences of membership which are the more relevant factors on which to base any judgment about the merits or demerits of EEC membership. Detailed statistical estimates, on the other hand tend to relate primarily to the immediate impact and the short run transitional effects of entry. While such adjustment problems are undoubtedly of importance in their own right it would, to my mind, be wrong that they should dominate any discussion on the overall question. Numerous studies and estimates will, of course, be prepared and used in the course of the negotiations on entry but it did not seem appropriate that these should be extensively quoted in the White Paper itself. The reasons for this are given in paragraph 6 of the introduction, but as these seem to have been overlooked by many commentators I may summarise them briefly here. They are:

(i) the necessity to avoid prejudicing our negotiating position on particular issues.

(ii) The fact that the assessment depends, in the more important instances, on the outcome of the accession negotiations, including the transitional arrangements that may be arranged.

(iii) The fact that in the case of industry and agriculture the consequences will be determined not only by the terms of accession but also by the response of individual firms and producers to the opportunities which our entry to the Communities will create for them, and

(iv) The consideration that the Community will continue to evolve and decisions taken by the present member states before the negotiations are completed could modify the implications of membership in particular areas. Where necessary the assumption by new members of obligations arising from such decisions will, of course, be included in negotiations relating to transitional arrangements.

Turning now to the body of the White Paper, I propose to comment on some of the implications given. On the questions of constitutional and legal implications, the Government accept the view of the Attorney General's Committee that an amendment of the Constitution would be necessary to enable the State to undertake obligations which membership will entail. Membership will, of course, involve for us acceptance of the Treaties of Rome and Paris and the legislation of the Communities in the form of regulations and decisions in the implementation of the treaties, and the purpose of the amendment will be to ensure that this can be done in conformity with the Constitution.

It is important that it should be clearly understood that the provisions of the treaties themselves and the implementing legislation are concerned solely with economic and commercial activities and related social matters. A few commentators have talked of our scrapping the Constitution and replacing it by the Treaty of Rome. There is no basis whatsoever for such far-fetched ideas.

In the final analysis of course it is the Irish people who will decide whether the Constitution will be amended and commitment to membership of the EEC on our part necessarily involves commitment to convincing the public that an amendment of the Constitution is desirable.

Some concern exists as to the effects which membership of the EEC in its present form and as it may in future evolve may have on our national sovereignty. Since our sovereignty was won so recently and at such great cost it is only proper that any issues affecting it should be fully examined and debated here. Membership of the Communities involves only a limited transfer of sovereignty. As I have said, the Treaties of Rome and Paris deal with economic and commercial activities and related social matters.

By acceding to the treaties we will accept obligations in these fields, some of which are set out in the treaties and others are set out in the regulations and decisions issued by the Council and Commission under the treaty provisions. We will, for example, undertake commitments relating to the free movement of goods, the implementation of the common agricultural policy and the abolition of restrictions on the movement of persons and capital and on the supply of services. By assuming these obligations we undertake not to act contrary to them but such a partial surrender of our freedom of action is inherent in our becoming a party to any international agreement.

In so far as trade is concerned our obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, known as the GATT, and the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, are not dissimilar to those we will assume as a member of the Communities. It should be recognised that EEC membership will lead to a greater degree of coordination and interdependence of economic policies among the members than would be entailed under a simple trade agreement. The machinery exists and is gradually being put in motion for the harmonisation of tax systems, economic and monetary arrangements. The White Paper refers to the fact that a value-added tax would need to be introduced here since the existing member countries of the Communities have already agreed on the measure for harmonisation in this sphere. The actual rate at which this tax would be levied and the consequential changes in the components of our tax structure are matters which remain to be discussed.

At first glance it might seem that such a requirement to harmonise fiscal, monetary and economic policies generally over a wide sphere must entail a substantial curb on the exercise of our sovereignty. The reality for any small nation is that the environment within which it conducts its economic affairs can be substantially influenced by the actions of the larger nations and trading blocs. Membership of the Communities, far from diminishing our situation, could result in our having a greater influence and scope for the exercise of economic policies because as a member we would participate in the formulation of common codes of action by member states.

This in turn raises the question of the manner in which decision-making takes place in the EEC. It is possible that uneasiness regarding our sovereignty stems from the fear that Community decisions will be taken without proper regard to Irish interests and that we will have little or no effective say in the making of these decisions. The process of decision-making in the Community takes full account of the interests of member states. Most decisions of importance are taken by the Council—that is the Council of Ministers—on proposals by the Commission. It seems likely that the Commission of the enlarged Communities will consist of 14 members, two nationals from each of the four larger countries and one national from each of the smaller countries. We shall be anxious to ensure that there will be a permanent place for an Irish national on the enlarged Commission. While an Irish Commissioner would be completely independent—like the other Commissioners—in the performance of his function and would act in the general interests of the Communities he would naturally be alive to any problems that proposals under consideration by the Commission might create for Ireland, if they were adopted.

The formulation of proposals by the Commission is preceded by detailed discussion with experts of the member states. In the case of all major proposals discussion takes places in the Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament, in both of which Ireland would be represented, before decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers.

We would have full participation in the consideration of proposals by the Council through membership of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which prepares the Council's work, and membership of the special committees and expert groups which assist the Committee of Permanent Representatives. In all these bodies the Irish Government will have a voice and the capacity to influence decisions. The member of the Irish Government sitting in the Council would participate fully in the process of decision-making. The practice in the Council has been to seek decisions which are acceptable to all the member states and which allow for each member's interests as well as those of the Community.

It will be clear from what I have said that accession to the Treaties of Rome and Paris will involve some pooling of sovereignty with the other member states and that in all important respects we will participate, as a full partner with the other member states, in the formulation of and in decisions on proposals on matters with which the Treaties are concerned.

In my earlier remarks I distinguished between the Communities as they exist and as they may evolve towards political unification. This process of evolution is clearly envisaged in the opening words of the preamble to the EEC Treaty which records the determination of the signatory states and I quote, "to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples." This closer union is something to which the peoples of Europe including our own must surely aspire but as yet progress towards the attainment of this goal has been limited. It is not possible at this stage to indicate what form it will take or when it will be achieved. The form of political unification to be agreed upon eventually may necessitate the adoption of a new Treaty to stand alongside the Treaties of Rome and Paris. All member states, including Ireland, would participate in the negotiation of such a Treaty. Ireland would be in a position to play a full part in shaping the future political evolution of the Communities. We recognise that this may involve in time some commitment to assist, if necessary, in the defence of the Community but it is too soon to say what form any such commitment would take.

In the discussion on the question of Ireland's membership of the European Communities some mention has been made of the possible cultural implications of such membership. It is to be expected that membership would have some cultural consequences but the extent and direction of these effects is not a matter on which there is likely to be a unity of view. For my part I can see no reason why such effects need be anything but good. Culture is a living thing which is enriched and revitalised by successive generations. The ease of communication and movement in recent times has meant a heightened degree of cross fertilisation between peoples which will influence our way of life whether we are inside or outside the EEC.

For some centuries past the outside influences have come mainly from one source. The wider range of stimuli which would result from closer relations with continental Europe would correct any such imbalance and be of potential beneficial influence. Our culture has flourished in the past when there was active two-way interchange between our centres and those of western Europe. While the contemporary world has changed dramatically since these earlier periods there is no reason why we should not confidently expect that all that is good and valuable in our culture will flourish in the enriched climate provided by membership of a wider Community.

In the chapters dealing with economic aspects of membership, the White Paper attempts to set out the principal obligations which membership will involve for us and to assess their implications as fully as possible. I would again emphasise that a distinction should be drawn between the long-term results and the changes that will be required during the transitional period from the date of accession to the stage at which full harmonisation with the Communities' policies is attained. It is possible that this transitional period may be comparatively short in duration. Variations in the length of the transitional period would affect the rate at which adjustments would proceed in the different sectors of the economy and hence would influence any detailed assessments of the likely consequences of membership.

In addition to seeking the most suitable period for the transitional phase we shall be concerned to explore how the adjustments in tariffs and alterations in relevant trading rules can proceed in the most suitable manner. The Departments and the other agencies concerned are examining these issues.

The conclusion reached in regard to industry is that it is reasonable to expect that the gains from membership would be progressive and, in the longer-term, should significantly outweigh any losses that might occur. The problems of adjustment to the enlarged market would chiefly arise in the earlier years of membership but it should be possible, nevertheless, to maintain in these years an industrial growth rate of the order projected in the Third Programme.

Irish industry would come under increased competitive pressure but, to a large extent, this will occur in any event as the Free Trade Area Agreement is implemented. The additional competition which would result from our membership of the Communities should be more than offset by increased opportunities for existing firms through access to wider export markets and by the establishment of new industries to serve the enlarged Community market. Higher farm incomes would also provide a considerable stimulus for the home market. Therefore, we consider that the balance of advantages in the industrial sector favours membership.

The advantages of membership for Irish agriculture are fairly clear. The Irish farmer would receive substantially higher prices for most of his agricultural produce, prices that would apply whether the produce was disposed of on the home market, on the market of the enlarged Community or was exported to third countries. The White Paper summarises the position for our principal products. While it is difficult to forecast with any precision the overall effects of membership on our agricultural production, it is estimated tentatively that the volume of gross agricultural output might be expected to increase by 30 to 40 per cent by the end of the decade. I have already referred to the beneficial effects which the increased farm incomes would have on the demand for the products of Irish industry. We must also bear in mind the influence which the increase in the volume and value of our agricultural exports would have on our balance of payments.

In assessing the overall economic implications of membership, the White Paper states that in the light of the growing strength of the economy and given equitable transitional terms, it is reasonable to conclude that membership would give a strong impetus to production and exports from the agricultural and industrial point of view and hence to the growth of the economy. The opportunities for maintaining a satisfactory rate of economic growth would be greatly reduced if we remained outside an enlarged Community which included Britain.

In my statement to Dáil Éireann in July, 1967, on the reactivating of our application for membership, I adverted to a suggestion that our relationship with the enlarged Community should take the form of association rather than membership and pointed out the shortcomings of this kind of link as compared with membership. As the question may be raised again, I think I should take this opportunity of restating the Government's views on the matter.

The Community's attitude is that a European country should not be granted associate status in place of membership unless it is economically undeveloped or is unable because of its international relations to become a full member. Neither of these obstacles applies in our case. The Commission in its Opinion of October, 1969, on enlargement refers to the applicant countries, including Ireland, as having achieved a level of development comparable with that of the six member States. There are no political obstacles to our acceptance of the obligations of full membership.

If we were, nevertheless, to seek associate status the question must be asked what form of association would be of value to us assuming, of course, that the Community would be prepared to give us such status and bearing in mind that the United Kingdom would be a member of the enlarged EEC? A trading arrangement would not be of any real value: under the GATT any tariff or trading concession given us under such an arrangement would have to be extended by the enlarged Community to all GATT countries and, therefore, the content of any such arrangement would be very meagre. Almost all of our exports would remain subject to the common customs tariff on import into the enlarged Community including the United Kingdom, as well as to the levy restrictions applied to agricultural imports under the common agricultural policy. These levies have had disastrous effects on our agricultural export trade with the Six. What would be the effect on this country's economy if the same were to happen to our agricultural trade with Britain?

A preferential trading arrangement would be contrary to the provisions of the GATT unless it took the form of a free trade area or customs union. It is clear, therefore, that an association agreement of any worthwhile scope would have to take the form of a free trade area or customs union. The Community has always been opposed in principle to entering into a free trade area arrangement with European countries and would probably insist on any such association agreement taking the form of a customs union which, under the terms of the GATT, would have to apply to substantially all the trade between this country and the enlarged Community. In addition, it must be expected that an association agreement would incorporate rules of competition analogous to those in the EEC treaty. So far, therefore, as industrial trade is concerned, our obligations and rights under an association agreement would be very similar to those under the EEC treaty.

The principal difficulties would arise in regard to the agricultural sector. All the indications the Government have received point to the conclusion that an associate country would be unlikely to be accorded anything approaching full participation in the enlarged Community's common agricultural policy. The agricultural concessions which we would be likely to obtain would be relatively minor and we would have no say in the formulation of the Community's agricultural policy as it would affect us. Our agricultural exports to the British market would be in jeopardy and we would have little hope of expanding exports to the Continent. Therefore, the Government's view is that an association agreement would not afford us a favourable balance of economic advantages and that only full membership of the enlarged Community would provide an environment favourable to the continuing expansion of our economy.

I cannot emphasise too much that, as an associate member, Ireland would have no voice or vote in the decision-making process of the Community and many Community decisions could certainly have a significant effect on our position as an associate. Apart from purely economic considerations, we would be cut off from full participation in the future evolution of the European Communities, participation which will only be possible for us through membership.

The Government hope that the White Paper will encourage discussion of the important issues that arise in relation to our accession and will stimulate the various economic and other interests to prepare in good time for the changes which membership will entail. The question of membership has been before us now for close on a decade and the false starts that have occurred may have caused some people to think that our accession will never take place. The present situation is very different from that in the 1961-63 period and in 1967. All the member states have expressed their commitment to the enlargement of the Community and we must plan, therefore, on the basis that negotiations will succeed. Accession may take effect within a few years. It will be the most momentous step taken by the Irish people since the foundation of the State.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

The Taoiseach

If our people are to reap the full opportunities which membership will open to them an effort will be required of all economic sections, of management and labour, of all shades of opinion and, not least, of all political parties.

In the nine years since our application for membership of the EEC was first made, major steps have been taken to prepare and adapt the economy for conditions of free trade and, specifically, for membership of the Community when that becomes a possibility. This objective of membership and a recognition of the obligations and opportunities involved in it has informed the Government's policies and actions in the economic field and we have endeavoured to interest and involve all sectors of the economy in this essential preparatory work. The imminence now of negotiations makes it all the more essential that our preparations for entry to the Community be intensified and completed. I am fully conscious this is not a task for the Government alone. Our people as a whole, all sectors of the economy, have a significant part to play in this preparatory work and should be very closely involved in it. I see the need for a close liaison, therefore, between the Government and representative bodies during the period of negotiations. It is the Government's intention to maintain consultation with bodies such as the NFA, the Confederation of Irish Industries, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Chambers of Commerce and others during the period of the negotiations. I should mention that the process of consultation has, in fact, already been instituted. The national interest is so very much involved in this question of our negotiations for membership of the EEC that I consider it most desirable that the Opposition parties should also be kept informed of developments during the period of negotiations.

Mr. Corish

That is a change.

The Taoiseach

A welcome change, perhaps.

Mr. Corish

The Taoiseach is bursting for allies.

The Taoiseach

I am not looking for allies. It is purely a courtesy and, as I said, I think it is in the national interest. For this reason I propose to initiate a system of briefings of Opposition parties on the progress of our negotiations. I shall be in touch with the other parties on this matter in due course.

I consider it most desirable, indeed necessary, that the general public also be kept informed. For that purpose a system of briefings for the Press and other news media will be established. I understand the Minister for External Affairs has already indicated as much to the Press and Press representatives.

In this debate we will be concerned with the obligations and advantages of membership for Ireland, but we must not lose sight of the larger issues involved. The European Communities have sprung from the determination of the member states to end the long history of wars in Europe, wars which, in recent years, have involved all the continents of the world. By pooling their resources the member states have not only removed any danger of war between them but have also enhanced their ability to promote the maintenance of peace throughout the world. This is a cause which we, as a nation, are anxious to support. We also wish to participate in the contribution being made by the member states to the less developed countries. In this field it must be admitted that our effort has fallen short of that of the member states but the increased prosperity which membership will bring will enable us to raise substantially the present level of our assistance.

Finally, we must not forget the part that Europe has played in the development of mankind and the contribution Europe is capable of making in the years to come. We can claim a share in what has been achieved. We wish to contribute fully to Europe's achievements in the future.

I have outlined the Government's purpose in issuing the White Paper and I have commented on some of the more important implications. Other Ministers will deal more fully with aspects which fall within their particular spheres of responsibility. I recommend the motion to the approval of the House.

Mr. Corish

On a point or order. This is a motion?

The Taoiseach

Every debate must come before the House in the form of a motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move the amendment standing in my name:

"and urges the Government to ensure that the terms of membership to be negotiated adequately safeguard the interests of the people of Ireland."

Most Deputies are, I think, interested in one of the matters referred to by the Taoiseach in the concluding stages of his speech, namely, the proposal to brief Opposition parties and Deputies generally on the implications of associate membership. That short comment reinforces, I think, the case that has often been made here for the establishment of a foreign affairs committee of all parties to consider external affairs and foreign affairs generally and to discuss with the appropriate Minister the various implications of national policy. I take it from what the Taoiseach has said that he and the Government feel that, in present circumstances, there is an advantage in having full information made available and seek the assistance of Deputies in having the case on behalf of this country presented adequately in Brussels.

This particular debate will involve a number of matters being discussed in great detail. Certain matters will be dealt with in depth by other speakers from these benches, such as the provisions of the treaty, the tax provisions, the movement of capital, the harmonising of tax systems, the question of the added value tax, the right of establishment and detailed matters in regard to industry, matters such as dumping and State aids for regional development, with particular reference to the underdeveloped areas, and the constitutional and legal changes which may be necessary. This is a matter on which the fullest possible information is of considerable concern to every section of the community and to every citizen in every section of the community. For that reason, a debate of this character is designed to provide information and to disclose attitudes, and so on, in order that the people may be aware of the different questions involved.

A great deal of public discussion has already been focussed on this question and much of it has, in many ways, been forgotten or regarded as of less significance because of the length of time which has elapsed since the original application was made. Nevertheless, in recent months some newspaper articles, particularly in the Irish Independent, were very useful in focussing attention, and protecting the interest of those concerned, on certain important aspects of the EEC as it has developed, particularly in recent years.

This debate is not primarily an argument about whether we should or should not become a member of the EEC. I think most responsible opinion has come to the conclusion, over a number of years, that there is a clear case for participation by this country in the EEC. I agree with the view that has been expressed that, in this matter, it is not a choice between full membership and associate membership. Whatever disadvantages there may be in membership in the initial stages, the disadvantages of associate membership are far greater. We should have no voting rights; we should have no rights of influencing decisions; we should have no effective voice in or influence on the train of events. If anything other than membership were to be considered, it seems that the only arrangement that would offer us any scope for development or any advantages would be a trade agreement with the Community.

The case, however, for membership does not rest merely on the argument that we have no alternative but rather on the condition that the objectives of the EEC are objectives which we as a nation share and want to play our full part in achieving. These objectives were re-emphasised last December in the communiqué issued by the Heads of State or Government of the member states at The Hague on 1st and 2nd December, 1969, in the course of which it was stated:

The Heads of State or Government therefore wish to reaffirm their belief in the political objectives which give the Community its meaning and purport, their determination to carry their undertaking through to the end, and their confidence in the final success of their efforts. Indeed, they have a common conviction that a Europe composed of States which, in spite of their different national characteristics, are united in their essential interests, assured of its internal cohesion, true to its friendly relations with outside countries, conscious of the role it has to play in promoting the relaxation of international tension and the rapprochement among all peoples, and first and foremost among those of the entire European Continent, is indispensable if the mainspring of development, progress and culture, world equilibrium and peace is to be preserved.

These are objectives which we as a nation share and which have characterised our efforts since our State was established—established on the conviction of our people that only in freedom and independence could we achieve the objectives which we, as a people, had fought for so long to accomplish.

There was a strong conviction that this nation had a separate identity which ought to be preserved and that we had a particular role, even as a small country, to play in the world. In the half-century or so since the State was founded, some of these hopes and aspirations have been fulfilled: others have been frustrated. Although we won full political independence, in the world in which we find ourselves independence is not always meaningful. The great powers act ultimately to suit themselves. The small countries have no ultimate sanction of force to defend their rights.

We in this country have had a particular problem of making a reality of independence because we have been so heavily overshadowed by our powerful neighbour, Britain. In that regard, those who argue that we would be obliged to surrender some portion of our sovereignty fail, I believe, to recognise the safeguards included in the Treaty of Rome and in the provisions made to ensure that the rights of the small as well as of the strong are protected. It was inevitable, because of the long and close association between Britain and ourselves—as well as of our closeness geographically—that we would continue to be much influenced by Britain, particularly in economic matters. The geographic and economic position of Britain has tended to act as a powerful barrier between us and the rest of Europe. Although we have been a sovereign, independent, European nation for almost 50 years, it is only recently that any large number of European countries have become aware of our separate identity, particularly since our application to join the EEC.

The most important result of our membership of the EEC will, therefore, be the prospect of escaping from this long period of economic dominance by Britain. We shall have, for the first time since the State was founded, a realistic opportunity to take our place on equal terms alongside the other sovereign nations of Europe and to work with them in building a new kind of European community which embodies the ideals and traditions common to all of us, at the same time safeguarding the special identity of each. It is, therefore, vital that the strongest possible efforts be made by Ireland to influence decisions during the negotiations and that we participate in negotiations during the disscussions on the British application for membership so that Ireland may have a say during these negotiations and before a final decision is made on the British application. Otherwise decisions may be arrived at which would indirectly affect our interests and in the conclusion of which we should be directly involved.

These apply in particular to the length of the transition period and the rhythm of tariff reductions as well as the permitted exceptions during the transitional period. The actual details in respect of individual aspects will be referred to later on in the course of the debate, but it is of crucial importance to the course of the whole negotiations that no final decision should be taken in respect of Britain's application, so far as it may impinge on our trading position, unless this country is allowed actual participation in the discussions on these negotiations.

Those who are arguing against the loss of national independence have failed, I believe, to grasp the reality of international relationships so far as the European Economic Community is concerned. That is, that it is small nations which benefit from communities like the EEC. It is possibly the large nations which have to sacrifice most. In the free for all world of power politics, a large nation has no formal obligations towards a small nation. We have seen that already in respect of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. The small nation has no effective procedure for ensuring that its interests are respected by others. A community like the EEC strictly defines the obligations of the large nation to the small nation, and gives the small nation legal rights and legal institutions to secure them. It is of vital importance for us to understand this. Even in the present community tiny Luxembourg has its rights and cannot be pushed around by anybody.

In the past in our bilateral trade agreements, particularly as I said in our trade agreements with Britain, to a very great extent we were in a position of dependence for much the largest portion of our trade with Britain. It is right to say in this connection that our trade with Britain will continue to be of a considerable size. That has meant that under our existing trading arrangements for many years we have supplied the British housewife with subsidised food at relatively low prices. It has also meant that, although we had a trade agreement with Britain for industrial goods, when it suited the British they were in a position to impose levies against us contrary to the terms of that agreement.

Indeed, in our trading arrangements with other countries we have not had much greater success because, although the terms of particular agreements might have been acted upon in the spirit, we had experience with some continental countries of administrative devices being used to interfere with the spirit of the agreement, if not the letter. The fact is that in trade negotiations, with our tiny market here, we have little or nothing to offer and, therefore, little claim to consideration from anybody. While nobody can suggest that the EEC represents an effortless bonanza for any Irish interest, whether industrial or agricultural, the fact is that membership of the EEC will, for the first time in the history of the State, give us absolutely guaranteed access to large and profitable markets for anything we can make or produce. Those markets will, of course, have to be fought for with vigour. The competition is tough, but at least the opportunity is there as it has never been in the past. If we fail to rise to the challenge that failure can be blamed on no one but ourselves.

These then are the basic arguments in favour of EEC membership for Ireland: first, the opportunity to achieve effective economic as well as political independence; and, secondly, new opportunities to develop economically and socially. This decision is being referred to as one of the most momentous decisions to be taken since the establishment of the State. Because of that we are convinced that on this great national question of entry into the EEC the people are entitled to express their opinion. In moving this motion the Taoiseach referred to the constitutional and legal changes which will be involved and said that an amendment of the Constitution will be required. We believe that the people must be consulted by means of a referendum and their approval obtained before a final decision is taken.

It is important to approach negotiations with the EEC from this point of view. It is important for us to realise the implications involved and to ensure that the public are fully aware of the consequences. At the same time, it is right that we should make it clear that, while theoretically there are arguments against any limitations on our sovereignty, the historical association of this country with Europe in the past was based on a number of factors similar to those that influenced the people responsible for initiating and drawing up the Treaty of Rome.

To remain outside the EEC would, to a much greater extent, make this country subservient economically to British dominance and influence. In present circumstances surely this would be a retrogressive step and opposed to the real interests of Ireland. In approaching these negotiations, therefore, the worst mistake we could make would be to adopt a hang-dog defensive attitude. We should establish from the very beginning that we are not simply being dragged into the EEC in Britain's wake, but that we value the opportunity to participate in the EEC and look on it as something which is positively good. We must try to avoid appearing obsessed with our own detailed problems which are in many respects large in our own estimation but which are small compared with the problems of certain other European countries.

We should rid ourselves of the mentality of thinking that the EEC is an antagonist we should try to outsmart in negotiations. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that we are in at every level of the negotiations and that the maximum possible advantages are secured from these discussions. These negotiations are not bilateral trade negotiations in which each side is higgling and haggling to get the best bargain. The negotiations are really discussions about the whole future of the European Community and in particular about how we as new members can help to make that Community stronger and more effective, more effective not only for ourselves but for the other members as well.

If we join the European Community we shall be entering into a partnership with friends and the emphasis must be on what we can do together rather than what we can get out of each other. It is necessary to say this, I believe, because on the last occasion when this country was involved in negotiations there was some surprise that our approach lacked the essential understanding of the real purpose of EEC as laid down in the Rome Treaty. It is natural that we should be strongly influenced and affected by Britain and, to a great extent, our attitude in the negotiations reflected the concern shown in the British application in presenting long lists of goods that were likely to be affected and which they regarded as necessary to bring before the Community, because on the feasibility of satisfactory arrangements in respect of these goods they depended for their terms of entry.

I believe this to be the wrong approach. The right policy is to join the Community on the basis of the known facts of the terms of the Rome Treaty, secure the goodwill of the other members on the basis of the terms of the treaty and the arrangements that have already been negotiated, and work out the internal problems as they arise in the development of the Community. The EEC laws and institutions are not fixed for all time. It is true that amendments would involve a complicated and protracted procedure. Nevertheless, there are obviously within the framework of the Treaty of Rome procedures and arrangements and provisions for consultation in order to make the changes necessary for the development of the Community as a whole.

The strongest possible argument for not bogging down the negotiations with detailed lists of problems is that these problems can be more effectively dealt with once we are inside rather than trying to get in. The whole concept of EEC is not to cause problems to members but rather to try to solve them. Naturally, one of our principal preoccupations is economic development, particularly regional development and the extent to which State aid for it can be continued and maintained. In that connection, to a very considerable extent we have common cause with portion of the territory within the jurisdiction of the North of Ireland Government. Most of our undeveloped areas are in the western and sea board fringe, and west of the Bann the Northern Government also have a problem of regional development. I am convinced that an imaginative approach to this problem would be to advocate a joint national scheme for undeveloped areas of the west and southwest as well as west of the Bann in the north. In that we would have common cause and a common interest in producing a common solution.

The primary aim of EEC is to get the fullest possible development for all member states and all regions and areas within member countries. In the first decade of its existence EEC has proved extremely flexible in reconciling the problems of its members within the overall objective of the Community. This might be regarded as one of its most impressive achievements. I think it can be said that no member, from the largest to the smallest, feels at the moment that membership of the Community has seriously damaged or interfered with that member's vital interest. All are agreed on the enormous benefits which have followed from it.

It is interesting to go back to the discussions which took place between the present six members of the Community when it was being established. Many of us recall being present at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at the time of the Messina conference which was the forerunner of what has now come to be known as the European Economic Community and which eventually resulted in the Treaty of Rome. It is possible to see now how ill-founded were many of the fears expressed at the time about the dangers and problems that membership would bring.

It is also important for us to ensure during the negotiations that no serious problems affecting such matters as dumping arise for this country, particularly during the transitional period. Our position is different from that of other European countries. In their case, all of them have land frontiers. Provision is made for the re-shipment, trans-shipment or return of goods that got in by dumping and had to be returned. Because this country is an island, with the exception of the Border area in which it would not apply, the machinery which is already available might present difficulties in this regard. Dumping is naturally one of the matters that must be of vital concern to us and our industrialists especially because of the size of our industrial pattern as a whole and also because of this lack of a land frontier. It is, therefore, important that employment here should be safeguarded. We must ensure that our rate of reduction of industrial protection is fairly matched by the rate at which we participate in common agricultural policies.

In that connection estimates have been made of the extent to which we shall benefit from the increase in prices in respect of agriculture. The other side of that coin is the considerable rise in the cost of living that is likely to occur. This is an aspect of the matter that should be faced and realised, if rises in the cost of living, estimated at from 11 per cent to 16 per cent according to the White Paper, will occur. One estimate is that we shall have a saving in respect of agriculture of approximately £35 million and that, allowing for a payment of something like £10 million, there should be a net saving of £25 million. These figures are liable to change but whatever figure is arrived at it is essential that adequate compensatory social welfare benefits should be paid in respect of the weaker sections and those who would be affected both in direct and social welfare benefits, such as children's allowances and particularly in respect of pensioners and others on fixed incomes.

A good deal of the concern and alarm that has been expressed about the effect of membership of the Common Market has not come from those directly concerned. In fact, many industrial organisations and, of course, the agricultural organisations, have made it clear that they favour membership. Indeed, the Confederation of Irish Industries, while expressing concern about certain aspects, has also expressed the view that it offers important opportunities for expansion. These people directly involved, either industrialists or representatives of farmer organisations, are much more likely to be well informed than those who have expressed the view that industry would be ruined or certain aspects of agriculture might be adversely affected.

There is one area in which I believe the White Paper is not being sufficiently explicit in respect of agriculture, and that is fisheries. This is a sensitive area and some fish conservation policy particularly in respect of sea fisheries must be adopted so as to ensure that fishing in Irish territorial waters by fishing fleets with much greater capital and more modern equipment will not adversely affect the interests of Irish fishermen. How the details of that will be worked out is a matter for consideration and discussion, but it is a sensitive area and one in which care must be taken to ensure that our interests and the interests of our fishermen are safeguarded.

The key to effective negotiations in Brussels this year is how we as a nation perform when we become members. In this connection our present political situation must cause some concern. Already the recent political crisis has caused bewilderment in Brussels and in political circles in other European countries. To that extent I believe the proposal to brief Opposition parties and the direct involvement of this Dáil as representing the nation is important. There can be no doubt that recent events have to some extent damaged our standing. It is important therefore that the Government should fully recognise this and make a conscious effort to reestablish confidence and respect for this country as a mature democracy.

We have argued that one of the most pressing reasons for a general election at this time was the need to have in power during the coming negotiations with the EEC authorities a Government which was recognised in Europe as stable and responsible and which could be shown to have a clear mandate from the people. Without such an election the task of restoring credibility is greater. Nevertheless it is essential that all our efforts should be concentrated on impressing on those who will be involved in the negotiations that this is a national decision, that this Parliament speaks for the nation.

One of the aspects of EEC membership about which concern has been expressed from time to time is that of a possible commitment to defence arrangements should we or when we become members. The fact is that at this time membership of the EEC involves no defence commitments. Indeed one of the principal members, France, is not a member of NATO. On the other hand, it may well be—and this should be realised—that in future members will think it desirable to develop some common defence institution. Should this come about we shall have as members the fullest opportunities to influence policy. We should, however, recognise right at the beginning that as responsible members of the Community we must shoulder our share of responsibility for the defence of the Community, no less than our share of responsibility for securing its well-being in every other department. At present we can be certain that there is no question of membership of the EEC involving the imposition on us of military policies or military commitments against our will. I have stated before that a divided Ireland in a European Community in which Ireland and Britain were members would be economically and politically even more absurd than the present insecure position of a partitioned Ireland. The most glorious pages in this nation's history are those which recount how we took the initiative in leading Europe out of the Dark Ages. It is in that spirit we should approach the opportunity which membership of the EEC offers for full participation in the making of a new Europe.

The really important responsibility of the Government now is to give an effective lead at home in securing, on the widest possible basis, an understanding by the country of what membership means and what we must do to prepare ourselves for effective participation in it. The most effective lead is by example. One of the great tasks will be one which has not so far been seriously tackled: the adaptation of the machinery of Government and administration.

Some reports, particularly the Buchanan and Devlin Reports, have been published some time ago. There is no general confidence that the major issues which have been thrown up by these reports have been dealt with energetically by the Government. While one may not accept all the detailed proposals of the Buchanan Report, the fact is it demonstrates how urgently we must identify national priorities for Government investment and work to a plan based on these priorities. In that regard there are certain aspects of the EEC which also require careful consideration, banking and insurance, which are sensitive areas, as well as the whole question of our balance of payments.

There is one other aspect that must command attention and consideration, that is, in relation to certain United States tax laws, this country is regarded as undeveloped, and provision is made in the United States tax code for less developed corporations. This may conflict with the EEC, and it is a matter that will need to be considered in the light of the actual terms of investment as well as banking and insurance.

It is true that some tentative moves have been made to act on some of the recommendations of the Devlin Report. It is almost a year now since the report was published and the approach of the Government so far has been leisurely. One of the aspects of the Devlin Report which underlines how the public service should be organised was the recommendation of a national plan. Fine Gael have consistently argued the importance of sound national planning, that we should use the limited resources we have to the best possible effect. In many fields the level of performance of the Government and the public service decides how efficient the rest of the country is.

The Devlin Report has shown that the organisation of the public service has been ineffective and recommended that its reform should be a top priority. Joining the EEC offers this country an opportunity which it has not had since the State was founded. To exploit that opportunity will require outstanding performance from every section. We have shown in the past that challenges evoke the greatest possible response and that we rise to tough challenges and can energetically pursue causes in which we believe.

Given good leadership Ireland can win a position of respect and influence in the European Community of nations far out of proportion to our size and influence in economic terms. This is an opportunity which should appeal to all the most dynamic, ambitious and imaginative among our people. Many of those who in the past had to emigrate because of the smallness of our economy and because the size of the country did not offer them sufficient scope, may now feel confident that in Europe we are offered much greater possibilities, possibilities that will, of course, have to be fought and worked for in business, farming, industry, and public affairs. This surely is a prospect which should appeal to the best elements in our community, the energetic, the courageous and those prepared to make the necessary effort.

These were the attributes which won political freedom here with the establishment of the State in 1922. We can now make, with the same effort, economic freedom a reality. We can pursue the objectives in which we believe through the organisation established by the Treaty of Rome provided the people are given the necessary lead and are enabled to participate directly in many of the decisions and consequences involved in it. It is because of that we are convinced that this great national question must be decided by a referendum before the country is committed or the people's approval given to the decision involved in it. We believe it is important in negotiating the terms of this accession that the aspects that have already been referred to in the course of other debates, and the details of which will be enlarged upon during this debate, involve consequences for nearly every section of the community and a great many individuals and for that reason the terms of membership will require that the real interests of the people are properly and justly safeguarded.

Mr. Corish

On this matter of our application for membership of the EEC and the EEC itself, the House could be divided into two—those who have hopes and those who have fears. In the last hour or so we have heard from those who have hopes. Frankly, I must confess that as far as my party and I are concerned we are the people who have fears. One hope I would like to express is that the maximum number of Deputies will participate in this debate because, as has been said by me on other occasions, a decision to join the European Economic Community will be the most important decision representatives of the people will ever have been called upon to make. Our application for entry to the EEC has been off and on for ten years. Our application has been hot for one particular period and cold for another. When it was hot we all got excited and exhorted people to do this, that and the other thing but when it was cold—and this was for most of the time—I would suggest that not sufficient was done to equip ourselves to compete not alone against the six existing members of the Community but the three other applicants who have hopes that they may be admitted as well.

We have repeatedly voiced our opposition to the concept of the EEC and, needless to remark, we have been severely criticised for that, particularly by the Government party. As far as our opposition is concerned, we believe it is just as valid now as it was when we first expressed it in 1960. We were the party who opposed the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement for the reasons we gave and for the reasons which are now apparent to everybody and this emphasises the consistency of our party as far as that type of free trading is concerned. We oppose the concept of it because not alone are we republican but we are socialist as well. As republicans we believe that if we have to accede to the conditions of the Treaty of Rome we will lose our sovereign, independent status and be dominated by a Brussels bureaucracy. We oppose it as socialists because we believe the EEC is anti-planning and is based on the principles of laissez faire and free competition. We have always said in this House—and this is not the least important—that there is little, if any, concern for the third world—the third world of underdeveloped and starving nations which are still being exploited by their former colonial masters.

I have not got the same trust in the EEC countries or those at the head of affairs in those countries as Deputy Cosgrave appears to have and as the Taoiseach appears to have. This is called a free trade area. This is an area in which there will be common trading, an area which in some time to come will be regarded more or less as the same area, but vis-à-vis the rest of the world in my view and the evidence is there, it appears to be a trade bloc not so much against the rest of the world, when one thinks in terms of Russia and America, but the undeveloped countries, these countries which at present have starving millions. Therefore, we must ask ourselves: “Must we seek membership of the European Economic Community?” Of course, the view is, although it was not stated here today by the Taoiseach, that we have to, according to him, seek membership because Great Britain has also applied and because Great Britain's application has been reactivated and negotiations will commence within the next month or six weeks.

I suppose we are ashamed, so to speak, to say this, that we seek membership because Britain does, because of our continued economic dependence on Britain; this dependence is so great it appears, that we have to. This is borne out in the various trade figures, figures that have not varied very much in the last ten years, which show that by far the majority of our trading is with the United Kingdom. The consequences of membership have also to be spelled out. We cannot talk vaguely about what we may expect for industry and agriculture and neither can we talk vaguely or gloss over what constitutional amendments we may have to make. These I should like to deal with first of all—the constitutional changes to which the Taoiseach referred but did not examine or consider in very great detail. The White Paper did to a greater extent refer to what constitutional changes might have to be made. I think they are much greater and much more far reaching than we were led to believe over the past ten years. The Taoiseach must remember—and I do not expect that he would hold himself out to be an expert constitutional lawyer—that in recent years, when questioned about what changes might have to be made in the Constitution, he was even less than vague. He did not believe the Constitution would have to be changed, he said on one occasion, and on other occasions he said there might have to be a change to some degree. The last debate we had on this matter was on 27th July, 1967, and in that debate the ex-Minister for Finance, Deputy Charles Haughey, spoke about the changes we might have to make in our Constitution. At column 1103 of the Official Report of 26th July, 1967, he said that the Attorney General and his committee reached conclusions that membership of the EEC would not entail any fundamental change in our Constitution. Indeed, to quote him from the same column he said:

... a comparatively narrow specific amendment in regard to Article 29 would probably have to be made to meet requirements.

Therefore, as far as constitutional changes are concerned the then Minister for Finance dismissed, or treated of these constitutional changes in 13 lines of the Dáil debate. The White Paper has been a little more frank in this respect. It is not good enough for us to be told at this relatively late hour that greater changes are required in our Constitution than were at first envisaged. Let us remember that in 1960 we thought we would be in the EEC within a few years and when, again, the subject became hot, we were to have got in within a few years. It is amazing that only a White Paper issued in April of 1970 can further expand on these constitutional changes. This is something that should have been considered and announced in this House years ago by a Member of the Government.

According to this White Paper we must now consider changing Article 5 of the Constitution. This article reads:

Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.

The Attorney General, or whoever is the author of this White Paper, believes that we may have to either change or scrap Article 5 of the Constitution— the article which declares the Republic of Ireland to be a sovereign, independent and democratic state. We have heard much talk of republicanism in recent times but to what extent are these changes to be swallowed by the republican Fianna Fáil Party? One might ask what price that type of republicanism? We may have to abandon our sovereignty. It is suggested that we might have to delete the word "independent" from Article 5 of the Constitution so that in future we might be subject to decisions of other states acting collectively. According to this White Paper, we may be expected to scrap Article 5 which describes us as being a democratic state.

Here again, in those circumstances we might be subject to decisions not made by the democratically elected representatives of the people of this country but by autocrats or bureaucrats acting as commissioners in Brussels. This White Paper also suggests that Article 6.2 of the Constitution, which deals with the powers of government as being exercisable only by or on the authority of the organs of State established by the Constitution, may have to be changed or deleted. Therefore, with membership of the EEC we may expect—I say "may expect" because the White Paper is not specific—to give away the powers we have to act as a sovereign and independent State to a European Parliament, where we may have about eight seats out of a membership of 206 or to a Council of Ministers of ten, on which there will be one representative from this country, or to the all powerful Commission to which the Taoiseach referred on which we would probably have a representation of one on a body of 14. These commissioners, who are not politicians and who are not elected in any democratic way, will have the sole right to initiate proposals for legislation. It is true that there may be a curb by the Council of Ministers but, as far as I can gather, they have only power to propose amendments but not to change decisions.

It is suggested also in the White Paper that consideration may have to be given to Article 15.2 of our Constitution. This is the Article that vests in the Oireachtas the sole and exclusive power to make laws for the State and which provides that no other legislative authority has power to make laws for the State. Again, this provision may have to be abandoned and I ask the Taoiseach if he believes that this power should be given away in return for the hoped for benefits of membership of the EEC.

We are told also that Article 34.1 of our Constitution may have to be either amended or deleted. This Article provides that:

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

This, I may point out, is only in relation to Article 164 of the Treaty of Rome which deals with decisions of the community and does not apply to domestic laws. We are told that Article 34.46º of the Constitution may also have to be changed or amended. That is the Article which says that:

The decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and conclusive.

That would mean that if we become members we would have to go to another court in respect of certain decisions and that certain cases could not be heard or decided on by the Supreme Court of this country.

Article 29.5 and 6 may also have to be changed or deleted according to the White Paper. Paragraph 2 of No. 5 of this Article reads:

The State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of the agreement shall have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

Is this Article to be either amended or scrapped altogether? This, in so far as my interpretation goes, is tantamount to saying that the EEC, through the commissioners, may have the power to interfere with any budgetary proposals that a Minister for Finance may bring into this House and may, in fact, impose an extra charge not proposed by an Irish Minister for Finance but proposed by the EEC through the commissioners.

Deputy Haughey was right when he said that Article 29.6 might have to be considered. This was the only Article to which Deputy Haughey referred when he spoke on this matter on the 27th July, 1967. Apparently, he knew nothing about the other changes that might have to be made. Article 29.6 reads:

No international agreement shall be part of the domestic law of the State save as may be determined by the Oireachtas.

Therefore, in future, the Oireachtas will have no say in such matters. I know that these changes are not in the White Paper by way of positive statements and that all that has been said is that these Articles will have to be considered and may be deleted or amended.

We are told—perhaps this is a joke when one remembers that our negotiations will commence in September— that the Attorney General is examining all these matters and the possible changes in our domestic law. However, when one thinks of recent happenings in the country, one wonders what time the Attorney General has to devote to this trivial matter of the Irish application for admission to the EEC. Apart from other considerations, we may be expected to surrender these constitutional rights for the very doubtful—and I stress the word "doubtful"—economic advantages of EEC membership not only in industry but also in agriculture.

I must confess that, as far as I am concerned, it is frightening that the so-called republican party — which brand I do not know—are prepared to sell out what is left of the republic and, goodness knows, they have sold out quite an amount of it during the past ten or 13 years. Since the Taoiseach has said our entry to EEC is imminent, it should be stressed—although it has been said before—that foreigners, and I do not use the word in any disrespectful sense, may come in here and purchase Irish land. This has been a serious bone of contention with Irish people, particularly Irish farmers. Some years ago, when people were free to come here and buy land, certain restrictions were imposed on foreigners buying land in this country. On entry into the European Economic Community they will have absolute freedom because those controls are to go. We will have a situation where there will be wealthy Europeans— remember there are wealthy Europeans —who will be engaging in what I would regard as unfair competition with Irish farmers who certainly have not the financial resources to go into competition with them when it comes to buying farms or land.

The White Paper is an improvement on the document we got a few years ago but it is fair criticism to say it is not specific particularly in respect of Irish industries. It is not specific as to what Irish industries would be vulnerable. In the second paragraph of the Introduction and Summary it says:

There would be problems in the short term but gains would be progressive in the long term.

It talks again vaguely, and I suppose hopefully, about Ireland being attractive as a base for new foreign industries. That is just an opinion. There is no evidence in that White Paper to support that opinion. There is no evidence in that White Paper to support what one might regard as a contention. There may be problems in the short term it says but gains would be progressive in the long term.

Might I be permitted to pose the question: "What happens in the short term? What happens during those times when we are having problems? Do we send another 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 per year across to Great Britain or to some other country in order to get employment?" It describes Ireland as being attractive as a base for new foreign industry. I think it has been attractive for quite a time. I am not very well acquainted with the grants that are offered by other countries in order to attract industries but I say that the Irish Government, the Fianna Fáil Government, could not be considered as having been ungenerous in the grants, the loan facilities and the general financial facilities given to foreigners in order to attract them to invest in this country but they have not done so to the degree we need in order to cut down our unemployment figures and cut down our emigration in free trade circumstances or in the free movement of capital.

I cannot see what greater attraction there would be for those people to come to this country when they have not been attracted by the financial facilities that have been and still are offered by the Irish Government.

The White Paper also says that whilst our industrial grants would come under review they might be acceptable. Again that should be gone into in more detail. It talks about grants but there is no reference to the tax reliefs we offer on export profits. I do not know whether or not those will have to be scrapped. If they are scrapped it certainly will be the contrary to an attraction to foreign industrialists to establish industry in this country.

I said this White Paper is not specific and I repeat that. We should be told the industries for which we should seek special terms. In the various CIO reports various industries have been mentioned as being vulnerable in ordinary circumstances and in circumstances where there would be adaptation. We have had various Committees on Industrial Organisation reports since 1960 or 1961 but those were more or less summed up in a comprehensive way in a report by the Committee on Industrial Organisation in the year 1964. As I said, this was for all industry. They summed up all previous reports on specific industries and they stated in Chapter IV of that report:

Every Irish industry could expect to lose some of its share of the home market. The extent of the loss would depend on the degree of adaptation.

I do not think anything that could be described as being dramatic has happened since that report was brought out in 1964. If anything dramatic happened it has not been given the publicity it might have been given by the Taoiseach, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or by any of the senior Ministers in his Cabinet. May I quote a review by the Department of Finance in 1969, which said at page 150 :

Over 1,400 firms in this country had received adaptation grants.

That is only one-third of manufacturing firms. As far as I can gather it has not told us about the employment content of those 1,400 firms who received adaptation grants. It is reasonable for us to ask, now that we are on the brink of negotiations for membership of the EEC, what about the other two-thirds? Have they done anything to improve or to adapt? Have they refused to take the money that was offered to them by the Government? As we said before if they have refused to do this, if they have accepted that they will have to fold up eventually, what action do the Government now propose? What action did they take over the last four or five years? Remember—and again we stressed this from these benches before —what we are concerned about is people and work in this country. We have not been told in this White Paper, nor have we been told by the Department of Finance, in what firms and in what industries there has been successful adaptation. The only thing we are told here is that 1,400 firms received adaptation grants. First, what happened in respect of the other two-thirds? Secondly, was adaptation successful in respect of the one-third of the industries of this country that got the adaptation grants? Thirdly, and above all, what was the employment involved in the 1,400 firms that received the grants?

It is only reasonable to ask ourselves, and let this not be regarded as defeatist, are we equipped to take on what was described by Mr. Lemass as this challenge of Europe? I do not think the picture is so good that we can expand our chests and claim that we can compete with the giants of Europe. In 1969 there was an increase in imports that competed with Irish manufactured goods. This increase practically offset our increase in manufacturing exports. This shows that the increase in imports under free trade is nullifying our exports. I do not think we have any reason to pat ourselves on the back for that sort of development.

I would like to give some examples with regard to the vulnerability of Irish industry. Since 1965 imports of foodstuffs have practically doubled. In 1965 we imported foodstuffs to the extent of £6½ million and in 1969 the figure had gone up to £10.1 million. In textiles, the increase in imports was from £17 million in 1965 to £32.2 million in 1969. This is an industry in which we all express pride. Imported textiles now represent over one-third of the home market. Imports of clothing and footwear have nearly trebled, from £2.5 million in 1965 to £6.9 million in 1969 and now account for one-sixth of the home market. In other manufactured goods the increase since 1965 has been from £5.2 million to £15.7 million and now such imports constitute one-quarter of the home market. Total imports of manufactured goods have doubled from £88.9 million in 1965 to £161.5 million in 1969 and now account for one-fifth of the home market.

This is a result of the exercises engaged in following the signing by our Government of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement which opened the floodgates. Accession to membership of the EEC must make the position worse. We must be realistic in our approach and not just express pious hopes that things might happen. We are somewhat different from the six existing members of the EEC and We are somewhat different in many respects from the other three applicants.

The question we pose is "Can we compete and can we improve our economy?" If one were to think in terms of leagues and points, one could not regard the economy as being anywhere near the top of the league table. It might be rather near the bottom of the table. It is no consolation for me to tell the Fianna Fáil Party about this. The facts speak for themselves. The Fianna Fáil Party are responsible for our economy being at such a low level. Fianna Fáil must take the major portion of the responsibility because they have been in Government for the past 13 years. They have been in Government over the last ten years when we first thought of making application for membership of the EEC. Fianna Fáil have been the Government of this country for 32 years out of the last 38 years. The burden of responsibility in so far as our economy is concerned must rest on the shoulders of the present Fianna Fáil Party members and those who were in that party over the last 32 years, and particularly during the last 13 years.

We should not be ashamed or afraid to admit our shortcomings. We cannot go into the Community as equals having regard to the state of the economy. With the exception of Luxembourg, our population is the smallest of the new applicants. Our average increase in population from 1958 to 1968 is the lowest of the ten countries standing at 0.2 per cent. Our rate of unemployment which was 6.4 per cent, stood at the top of the league in 1969. How do we think we will fare? How will our unemployed fare if Ireland becomes a member of the EEC? Will our men end up in Britain or in Germany, where they are looking for workers, or in Belgium or Holland, where they are short of workers, or will they be permitted to be employed in their own country at reasonable wages? Needless to say, this is not something we should shout too loudly about. We have the highest emigration rate of all the nine countries. In the two years ended March, 1969, despite the boast of industrial progress in this country, 82,000 Irish men and women failed to get employment at home and had to emigrate to Britain or elsewhere. Our record in house-building is at the bottom of the league. Our national income per head of the population is also at the bottom of the league. Our social welfare expenditure per head of the population is also very low in comparison with those of the other countries. It is not unreasonable to ask ourselves whether we are properly equipped to go into the EEC as a full member. I have said that we in this party are opposed to entry. We are justified in our opposition having regard to the state of the economy, not alone in regard to the things I have mentioned but in other respects also.

The Government have not proved so far in this debate—we will see whether they do so later on—that we are fully equipped to take our place with the other nine European nations. The onus is on the Government to prove that we are capable of competing. In so far as agriculture is concerned, according to the White Paper, there will be benefits. We are told that there should be benefits in regard to cattle, beef, milk, dairy products and sheep; that a reduction could be expected in cereals and in horticulture, that the production of beet and potatoes would be down. This is not good for the country. Cattle, beef, milk, dairy products and sheep are not products which are regarded as being high in employment content. If we do well with cattle, beef, milk, dairy products and sheep this will result in a reduction in employment and would necessarily lead to an increased flight from the land. There is no estimate in the White Paper of the numbers who will be left in agriculture.

We must have regard to the special position of agriculture in our economy. The position of agriculture is very different in the other nine countries. Those sectors in which it is suggested that we will benefit are not labour-intensive sectors. Paragraph 112 of the White Paper says that in so far as agriculture is concerned there will be an increase in output by 1980 to the extent of 30 to 40 per cent. It does not tell us what this will mean in terms of farmers or loss of farms. We would like to know the effect of the EEC agricultural policy. We have not been told what effect it will have on rural Ireland. There must be some special reference to Ireland's position of dependence on agriculture compared to that of the existing members and the applicant states.

The work force in Irish agriculture represents 28.4 per cent of our total work force. In Britain the work force in agriculture was 3.1 per cent in 1968. Britain will be negotiating for entry on different terms. In Belgium the agricultural work force is 5.6 per cent, while in Denmark, which we have come to regard as a predominantly agricultural country, agricultural workers constitute 13.1 per cent of the work force. In Holland, which is regarded as an agricultural and horticultural country, the agricultural work force represents 7.9 per cent of the total.

It is the stated policy of the EEC to get some farmers off the land by 1980. Irish farmers should think about this. This would not be too bad if we had industrial employment to offer them. There is no suggestion in the White Paper that industrial employment would be provided in the next five to ten years in order to absorb those who undoubtedly will have to leave employment on the land, whether as workers or landholders.

One also is not impressed by either the document on agriculture or the document entitled "Membership of the European Communities". They refer all the time to the economy. I know the economy is important, that the state of the country's wealth or otherwise is very important. However, there is no reference at all, or if there is, very little, to society. This is typical of the approach of the EEC commissions. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, after two or three days of discussion with officials in Brussels, this appears to be their approach. They are concerned about economies rather than people. I feel we must temper the two. It appears to me that this is a dehumanised approach. There is no point in talking about the prosperity of this country if it is all concentrated in Dublin or Cork when there are people in Connaught, in Donegal and in other parts of the country who have to live and expect to live in these places. Economic statistics are no more than indications of some aspects of human development. We cannot, therefore, take economic statistics as an indication of the true state of people in various areas. Our approach must always be in terms of people.

I will not say that the present members of the EEC are not concerned about people but I do not believe they are concerned where people work. We have this particular problem in Ireland where our population has been depleted so much over the last 100 years. We should be very much concerned in our negotiations to ensure, by our demands, that not alone will the people who are at present in Ireland receive full employment but that we can attract Irish people to the country as well.

We are a minority Opposition party. The Government have made this decision to apply for admission to the European Economic Community. The Government have the responsibility to negotiate. They have the members to ratify the decision. I welcome the idea of the Taoiseach that there should be liaison but the power, as far as we know it, is over there with 75 or 76 Members or whatever it is.

Dr. FitzGerald

Seventy-four today.

Mr. Corish

We have two Independents now.

Let me stress again that we can express views and we can make suggestions but the Government have the decision to apply for membership. They have the responsibility to negotiate and by reason of their numbers, no matter what is said here or outside this House and, no matter what the issue is, the 74 will trot behind the Fianna Fáil Party, as is their right, to ratify the conditions under which Ireland, if accepted, will go into the EEC. Our role is to criticise and I quote as my author one who is famed in the history of the Fianna Fáil Party, Mr. Seán Lemass.

We suggest there are things which this country should look for, there are minimum conditions which should be laid down. I would suggest ten broad conditions on which our negotiators should discuss Ireland's application, if it must be for full membership. The underdeveloped state of our industrial sector must be recognised because it is smaller than any of the other nine and the Government negotiators should insist that there should be no net loss of employment to result from EEC membership. They should insist, in negotiation, that the social structure of our rural community must not be damaged by the enforced implementation of the EEC agricultural policy which is now being designed to speed up the movement of farmers from the land. The special dependence of the Irish economy on agriculture must be recognised and must be safeguarded.

I propose that our negotiators should also insist, in negotiation, that there should be freedom in international affairs, that that freedom must be preserved and that no defence commitments be entered into which would interfere with our position of neutrality. We do not want to see a situation wherein, if there is to be agreement in some years to come on international policy, we will become part of a group, a bloc and vote and act as a bloc, say, within the United Nations Organisation. All the signs point to that because gradually we are being edged into, I will not say specific, but vague commitments as far as defence is concerned, as far as foreign affairs are concerned. The Minister for External Affairs and his negotiators will want to ensure that that sort of situation does not arise. The Minister for External Affairs incidentally talked about defence in reply to a question recently and said that, of course, we would defend whatever institution we were in. He said nothing about aggression. Mind you, there are within these nine, people who have been aggressors in the past so let him not think merely in terms of defence. If they decide to become aggressors against some other force, then we wonder what commitment there is on the part of our Government and our Army.

I feel also, because they proclaim themselves as socialists, that his negotiators should insist on the right of the Irish Government to implement socialist policies. They must insist that membership of the EEC is to be used as a means of strengthening the links between the Republic and the north and the regional policy of the EEC must be applied in the same way on both sides of the Border.

They should insist, in negotiations, that the entire area west of the Shannon, the three counties of Ulster which are under our jurisdiction, places like west Cork and Kerry, are classified as underdeveloped areas by the European Economic Community.

I am sure the Minister for External Affairs is very conscious of the seventh condition which I feel should influence our negotiators when in Brussels— that the special position of the Shannon Free Airport be maintained and that our system of industrial development grants be allowed to continue because I feel the Minister for External Affairs appreciates much more than most of us in the House what valuable employment there is in that area and how it could be cut off gradually in what is called the transition period of five years.

I have referred before, and I feel it must be included in the discussions by our negotiators, to the undemocratic nature of the EEC institutions. They must insist that these must be altered at least by the end of the transition period, in particular, radically extending the power of the European Parliament over the Commission because as it is, as far as I can gather, the European Parliament does not have any real function, does not make any real decisions, ask questions that I presume must be answered.

Membership of the EEC must not result in the loss of national sovereignty over our land, our industries or our national resources. There should be special policies to preserve our national culture, especially the Gaeltacht areas. I feel that any special measures we must engage in to do these things must be allowed by the EEC.

I agree with Deputy Cosgrave when I say to the Taoiseach that the final decision to enter must be put to the people by way of referendum. Far too little thought has been given to our application and the consequences. We are not fully informed as to the implications. We should also have regard to people outside who know vaguely what the EEC is but do not understand the implications. There is a Gilbertian situation in which we might find ourselves. It is that, if there is not a referendum, the Dáil by reason of the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party have a majority will approve of the application and the terms under which we go into the EEC, but if, on the other hand, there is to be a referendum on constitutional amendments, the Government may be beaten as they were the last time a referendum was held. The Taoiseach might care to comment on a situation in which the Dáil would approve of accession to the EEC but the people would not agree to throw away the sovereignty, independence and democratic systems which they have at present in this Parliament.

I should also like the Taoiseach to elaborate on his statement about keeping the Opposition parties up to date and say whether this means discussion or merely an exchange of documents. The Labour Party welcome the idea of being kept up to date as far as negotiations are concerned but I want to insist that this does not commit the Labour Party in any way to any decisions which may be made in Brussels or in this House. The Taoiseach could have employed the same type of consultation aye, if you like, of briefing since the terrible troubles in the north on 12th and 13th August last. I hope he has learned his lesson and will consider taking into his confidence those people democratically elected to this House.

The Taoiseach spoke about association. I am all in favour of association. I do not believe that the Taoiseach, the former Taoiseach or any Government Minister has explored to the full the idea of association. I favour association because I believe this country is not equipped for full membership apart from the fact that full membership means a loss of our sovereign independence. Our influence within the European Economic Community will be marginal if not minimal. The institutions are undemocratic and all the signs are that we will have to abandon our traditional role of neutrality. The Labour Party, therefore, propose that we seek a treaty of association. This would not tie us down to any specific terms; it could be negotiated from zero to 100. We could negotiate on the basis of the capability of the Irish economy to improve and on the many other defects which we have.

We should seek a treaty of association on the lines negotiated by Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Finland. The Taoiseach may say they have special individual problems: their proximity to certain countries and the fact that they have certain trade relations with certain countries but we have our problem, too, and this should be recognised by the Commissions of the EEC and by the EEC generally. I do not believe they are going to be as kindhearted to us as some people in this House seem to think. They are hardheaded and possibly hard-hearted as well when it comes to the making of decisions. If special treatment is given to Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and Finland by reason of their special problems I do not think we would lose any face by admitting our special problems of insufficient industrial development, a dependence on agriculture that does not give us sufficient employment and a high rate of unemployment. We should not be ashamed to admit these things. We should put our cards on the table when we are negotiating and ask to be given either a treaty of association or an extended transitional period far beyond the five years because I do not believe five years is sufficient time within which this country could gear its economy to compete with these people. With full membership of the European Economic Community I believe we are in danger of being swamped by the economic empires of Europe. I believe we are in grave danger of having our population further denuded and of becoming a colony of a huge empire just as we were prior to 1922.

The Tánaiste

At a later stage in this debate there will be speeches from this side of the House dealing more closely with the economic aspects of our joining the EEC. I want to say a few words about what entry to the EEC will mean to the people in future and the changes it will mean in our whole historic projection in the next 20 years. I believe our joining the EEC will immensely enrich our national identity, much of which is partly concealed. Our close contact with nations with different cultures and languages, our visiting them, negotiating with them and collaborating with them will be of immense value in stimulating the Irish personality.

We have survived through centuries because of our capacity for adaptability and for our tenacity in facing appallingly difficult situations and in facing the effects of oppression over a long period. We have for too long negotiated and traded with just one partner. It will be of immense benefit to us to have to get to know other people, to work and collaborate with them, to argue with them and defend ourselves when our interests are challenged.

It is true to say that we shall be resuming a communion with Europe which began many centuries ago. As I listened to Deputy Corish, I was thinking about the monks who sat in the court of Charlemagne, which was, perhaps, the first international European society. I was also thinking of our missionary work in Europe and our Christianising of a great part of Germany and the journeys of St. Columbanus through Germany, France and down to Bobbio in Italy. During that time we acquired the reputation for scholarship—not only scholarship in religious matters but scholarship even in scientific matters. I believe it was a young Irish monk called Virgilius at the court of Charlemagne who said that the earth was round and that it went round the sun long before that became a matter of controversy. In another period of history the smaller Irish landowners left this country in large numbers in desperation after the Treaty of Limerick and with the coming of the penal laws. Anyone who has read the books of Dr. Richard Hayes will know of the immense contribution the Irish people who left this country at that time made in the military world, the administrative world and the religious world all over Europe, many of them concentrated in France, and the cultural impact we had in Europe on two occasions.

We have tended to become passive acceptors of one culture—the English culture—by reason of our geographical position. As an island off the west coast of Great Britain we have been so hopelessly dependent on British trade and British cultural influences— some of which have been very valuable as in the case of the Abbey Literary School—that it has caused us to become passive in preserving our Irish identity.

Other small nations have also been dependent on several great Powers: it is fortunate that in the case of Denmark, a country nearly as small as Ireland in terms of population, they have had two nations with whom they could trade—the German people and the British. If Denmark were to lose both of those markets they would be in the same desperate state as we would be if we were to lose our market in Britain. Fortunately for the Danes they have had these two trading partners and have been able to play off one against the other in trade negotiations.

We have had this utter dependence on Britain for no other reason than our geographical position. However, with modern communications and with our opportunity to join the EEC we will be able to come closer to the dynamic world of the German people. Our connection with those nations of the EEC who speak the Latin tongue will be magnificent for the Irish personality. Although I am only partly Irish, whenever I have been in France I have felt far nearer in temperament to the French people than I do to the people of any other country. This may be a purely personal impression but the fact that we shall have to learn to understand the personality of the French and Italian peoples, to learn their weaknesses and their strength, will be of immense value in strengthening that part of the Irish personality that has not been overlaid with the English influence. There is some Celtic quality in our people that will help us to understand and respond to the people on the Continent. If one reads the description by Caesar of the character of the Gauls one can read there some of the characteristics—the most magnificent and also the most dangerous—of the Irish personality. At least it is something that distinguishes us from English people and I hope this part of our character will re-develop when we circulate among the Latin countries. Equally, we have much to share with and to learn from the German people and the two Scandinavian countries—Denmark and Norway.

Joining the EEC will give us the opportunity of having to collaborate for the first time with a number of small countries. We have never had to do this before: we may have had negotiations with them, we may have had bilateral treaties with them, we may have invited their experts to this country for international conferences, but now we must work, collaborate and negotiate with many small nations in Europe. We can gain from their experience in Europe and we can give them something of our own experience and personality. I regard this as an immense advantage and a further reason we will benefit by joining the European Economic Community.

I should like to repeat that the inevitable and almost passive acceptance of one foreign culture has obviously limited the extent to which we can use our imagination in industry, in art and in every artistic endeavour. I hope this opportunity of coming closer to those other nations will result in a gradual renaissance of the ancient Irish personality, having at the same time to meet the challenges of the new world. I hope I am not speaking too idealistically; I genuinely believe that having to mingle with other peoples will be of immense benefit. Not only should it stimulate our trade connections with these European countries, it will also help Anglo-Irish trade. The stimulus to us of having to trade with other countries could well result in an improvement in our trade with Great Britain which will be part of a growth in our total exports and our industrial development.

I hope that joining the EEC will stimulate those people who have revealed their capacity for producing splendid articles of special quality and individual design. In the last ten years we have seen the growth in ceramic development, the growth of couture and many other industries in which design is involved. The stimulus we shall receive by going into Europe, seeing what they are producing and then making use of our native talent will result in greater opportunities for Irish people with imagination and talent.

At the same time, we will have to demonstrate our own identity. If we are going to survive in Europe far more Irish people will have to identify themselves as Irish. We have never had to do this very much with Great Britain; we simply had the trade there. When we go into Europe each of us must know enough about our country to demonstrate his identity and that in itself will be a useful exercise for many people who have failed to learn enough about our cultural heritage or even what constitutes the Irish economy. As ambassadors in Europe we must have far more understanding of what is best in Ireland, of the things we produce, of our literature and of our culture. That will also be a stimulus to our development as a nation.

I have made these general remarks because I thought they should be on the record of the House. I could speak on other matters which perhaps would be better dealt with by my colleagues who are engaged in their various specialist fields. I think it is important to realise that there is one unique feature about the EEC which will be excellent for this country: they have a concerted long-term programme to raise the status, the privileges and the opportunities for a full life of the lower income groups in their member countries. It is interesting to have a grouping of countries engaged in trading with one another, still rivalling one another in many ways, where a pure materialist desire for trade has not inhibited their determination that they should have minimum standards for conditions of employment and conditions of social living. Although many of these objectives have not been achieved this is reinforcing the work that is being done on a more voluntary basis by the International Labour Organisation. This is something which is of obligation on becoming a member of the EEC and that, I think, should be valuable for us as well.

Lastly, while the re-unification of this country is not immediately obvious, I cannot but believe that the people of the Six Countries will eventually recognise that, if we join the EEC, their special problems, their special interests and their special contribution in economic and other fields in the EEC can be very much better looked after by a group coming from Ireland as a whole than they ever could be by what may be very competent British Ministries who, however hard they might try, could really never present the special interests of one and a quarter million people as well as those interests could be presented by an all-Ireland Ministry acting on behalf of the people of the whole of the country.

I have met people in the north who, even though they continue to say they are Unionists, admit that in the field of European collaboration, European negotiation and the growth of European federation, it would be a good thing from their standpoint if they could feel they were part of a negotiating team in which their interests would get full consideration and full examination rather than that they should be involved inevitably in the massive agenda from month to month and year to year of the British Board of Trade. That may, perhaps, be long term policy, but it is something we will have to work towards and it is something about which we will have to convince our northern kinsmen. This is part of the advantage of unification. That is abundantly evident to me at any rate. I mention it in passing believing we should at all times consider what kind of policy we should have in approaching our kinsmen in the north with a view to unification.

That is really all I have to say. I am not dealing with the very difficult problems involved. As a student of both Irish and European history, I delight in the thought that we can plunge into Europe. I believe the cultural influences we will receive from Europe will stimulate our own native culture, as it did in the past and, just as the ornamentation of the Book of Kells and the Book of Durrow derived from a number of foreign countries, enlarged, illuminated and recreated by our own craftsmen, so in the years ahead we should be able to develop a more widespread and richer Irish culture if we join the EEC.

Mr. Creed

I agree with the Tánaiste in his reference to the British Board of Trade. Our negotiators in the EEC could, I think, spotlight this problem. I mention it in passing because the Tánaiste reminded me of it. This could possibly speed the day of the re-unification of the country.

This is one of the most important debates in this House for many a long day. It is important that every Deputy should contribute to it since it is vitally important, indeed imperative, that we should have the views of all the people on this major issue. Membership of the Community will affect us economically and socially. We are a very small nation, but we have a part to play and a great deal will depend on the way we play our part between now and the time when we become full members. Our negotiators should remember that.

I am sure the decision here will be to join the Community but, before any major decision is taken, the people should be consulted by way of referendum. Both Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish referred to this. The Taoiseach said today that there would be consultation and discussion with all political parties here. I do not know who will be in the Taoiseach's place by the time we become members of the EEC but, while the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Government remain, it is vitally important that there should be full consultation. Indeed, there should be an all-party committee to advise on the best concessions we can get.

Fianna Fáil have always had the idea that all the brains are on their side of the House. They should realise now that the Opposition have a great deal to offer. If we are to get the maximum benefits from membership of the Community it is important that we should have the co-operation of the people. I hope the Taoiseach will have frequent consultation with the Opposition. That would be the best step the Taoiseach could take. He has given an assurance that there will be discussion. I do not quite know what that means. I hope no important decisions will be announced at Fianna Fáil cumainn dinners. Unity on the part of the Government is important. We must be regarded as trustworthy and united. The recent crisis has placed our negotiators in a rather embarrassing position. There is disunion at the moment.

As to whether or not we should join the Common Market, there are differences of opinion. My experience is that people generally have no idea what is involved. I suggest to the Taoiseach that it would be a good idea if we had a ten-minute programme every day on the mass media of communication on different aspects of our economy and the probable effects on that economy of our entry into the Common Market. Dairy farmers ask what they will get for a gallon of milk delivered to the creameries when we become members of the Common Market. There are advantages, as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, in being a member of this Community. There are disadvantages in our joining from the industrial point of view. The question may well be asked if we have availed of the time presented to us to gear ourselves to meet conditions within the Community. Was expert advice given to our industries and to our people? Our country has been spared the ravages of war, excessive flooding and earthquakes. How do we stand compared with other countries? In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, German industry was brought to the ground but today German industry is achieving an unbelievable output. We have not geared our industry to meet the inevitable competition within the EEC. The fault lies with the Fianna Fáil Government and with them alone.

I wish to dwell mainly on agriculture in the context of the EEC. I have every confidence that our farming community will take full advantage of membership of the Community. Even at this late stage, if we make the necessary preparations, I believe our country as a whole has quite a considerable amount to gain from Common Market concessions. In particular, co-operation among the farming community will play a very important part.

I have here a copy of the Mansholt Report. I have not heard Fianna Fáil speakers say that they accept it. Here is an extract from it:

The Commission considers that equilibrium cannot be re-established on the agricultural market unless the area of cultivated land is reduced.

It goes on to say:

A directive which has been submitted to the Council bans the reclamation of new farm land from the sea, et cetera. Clearance of land for farming is discouraged. All new reclamation schemes will have to be notified to the Commission. There is a system of financial incentives for turning farm land over to woodland or recreational purposes.

If this is so, and if we become a full member, we must accept it. Is it not time, therefore, a move were made to intensify the Land Reclamation Scheme and, in the time available to us, to bring the maximum amount of-land into full fertility and full production? Grants under the scheme are generous enough in some cases and, indeed, certain progress has been made under the scheme in recent years.

The report continues:

The Commission has thus given practical expression to the concept set out in its memorandum on reform of agriculture. A draft directive now provides for the refund of at least 80 per cent of afforestation costs incurred by owners who withdraw all or part of their land from farming.

This indicates that there will have to be a drastic reduction in our agricultural production.

The report continues:

Compensation will be paid for nine or more years towards the income lost by such of these owners who stop farming completely or whose tenants do so. These arrangements eliminate a major impediment to decisions by owners to turn all their land over to woodland or recreational activities.

The reference is The Mansholt Plan, May, 1970: The Reform of Agriculture in the European Community.

Do we accept the sweeping statement which I have just quoted? I suppose we have a greater small farm problem than any European country. This must be tackled. We shall have to bring about a situation whereby we no longer continue to make uneconomic holdings viable. We cannot detach the rural population from the farming community. When the Land Commission give extra land to farmers they are automatically reducing the number of people in rural Ireland. I think we require part-time farming: there are many ways in which we could employ our small-farming population. We will benefit through tourism when we become a member of the Community. The small-farming community can do a lot and earn a lot in this field.

The afforestation programme should be intensified. There are some amenities which should be provided for our people. We have the problem of the flight from the land particularly in the small-farming areas and the congested areas. This problem has gone on unchecked for a number of years. We are losing the most hardworking section of the farming community. There are many things which could be done and should be done if the Government had not got a lackadaisical approach to this problem.

We have quite a lot to offer to tourists. We have our forests and our seashores which are second to none in Europe. If we become an integral part of this Community we will gain considerably from tourism. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that the farming community will respond magnificently but there is a school of thought which suggests that we should look for a longer transitional period for industry and a shorter one for agriculture. The transitional period is the period after we become a member of the Community in one form or another during which prices in member States are to be aligned and trading and marketing systems are to be harmonised with a view to an ultimate common price within the Community.

As far as the dairy farmer is concerned, I understand that at this point in time within the Six the price paid for a gallon of milk is 4s 1d and the price here is, in fact, less than 2s a gallon. This seems to be a very wide gap. We should say to our milk producers that we cannot hope to gain the top price within the Community for our milk unless we put the emphasis on quality. A lot of encouragement should be given to the production of quality milk. The small farmer should have all the facilities available to produce quality milk.

I want to ask are our processing factories and manufacturing units geared to produce top quality and are they efficient enough to get the maximum results when we enter the Community? In the case of milk, from the point of production in the farmyard right through to the delivery in the creamery—whether it is a multican collection or a bulk collection—it is vitally important that once it goes to the processor the marketing and transport and everything else must be efficient if we are to get the maximum price. Quality and efficiency will determine the end price and the price which the farmer will get for his gallon of milk. The Government are to blame because this has gone on without any notice being taken of it. We had report after report. We have had boards set up but we have had no action.

If we are to face cold, economic facts, if we become a member of the Community we will have to rationalise the creamery structure. Not only must we rationalise our creamery structure but we must also rationalise the areas in which milk is produced. The country could be divided up into the traditional milk, grain and beef producing areas. There are areas in which there is a dairy disposals board creamery in which a co-operative society could not provide an economic creamery service. A problem which has been neglected by the Government is the rationalisation of the creamery structure.

There is also the fact that once we become a member of the Community it will be absolutely uneconomic for the five, six or ten cow farmer to produce milk. Therefore, the Government should not force anybody out of whatever line of production he decides on. Sufficient inducements should be given to people to diversify. Our people and particularly the farming community are very slow to change. It is a costly process to change from milk production into any other line because of the cost of laying out a farmyard for milk production. Once we become a member we will be exporting surpluses into an area in which there is already a surplus of butter and milk products. If we have not got a remunerative market for milk we should encourage farmers to diversify.

There seems to be a great future for beef within the Common Market. If we can produce efficiently and if we can produce the right type of animal having regard to body composition and weight growth, we will have a decided advantage. Because of our climatic conditions, our cattle have to be housed over the winter months for a shorter time. We must have regard to our beef breeds. I should like to ask how do they compare with those of our counterparts in Europe? Can we compete with them in growth rate and in body composition? Is it necessary to change the breeds?

There is uncontrolled cattle breeding in this country which leads to a poorer type of animal. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries should have some control and he should give more information to the cattle breeders and the farmers. The House would be surprised at the number of farmers who, once a cow becomes in calf, are not concerned with the type of calf the cow will have. This could be rectified.

We have a problem as far as our agricultural advisory services are concerned. It is a very serious and growing problem. Years ago we should have arranged for our agricultural instructors to visit European countries, come back and help to gear our farmers for whatever line of production is necessary to meet the demands of the European Community. This is vitally important. First, we have the problem of a scarcity of instructors whose number is rapidly diminishing because they are not adequately paid. Without going into detail, I want to emphasise the necessity to bring our agricultural advisory service up to date and the only way in which we can do this is to ensure that our instructors have a knowledge of the type of farming and agricultural production practised in the European Community.

For a number of years we have had a butter surplus problem. We shall now be exporting to an area that already has a surplus. We must first tackle this through diversification. I can remember a former Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Dillon, advocating that we should walk our surplus grain and milk off the land. This is as relevant now as it was then, perhaps, more relevant, particularly in the case of the beef producers if they grow the grain and feed it to livestock and use surplus milk to feed calves. I think this is happening in the Common Market countries even though Mr. Dillon was laughed at by some members of Fianna Fáil at that time.

We must become part and parcel of the European Community because economically and otherwise we are tied to Britain. If Britain enters we must go in because otherwise we would not have a market for our produce. If Britain and Ireland are members of the Community are we free to offer our produce on the British market as heretofore? The fact that Britain is geographically near us would help with transport costs. Our negotiations should proceed simultaneously with the British negotiations. If we go back on history we find that every agreement we had with Britain was not sacrosanct. We should be careful here. They are shrewd, hard negotiators and even though, in my opinion, we are not fully geared industrially, I should hate to have us concede anything in our negotiations on the agricultural side as a bargaining point on the industrial side.

We in this party believe that we should proceed with our application for membership. Certainly, so far as the farming community are concerned there will be a more remunerative market for their produce. I want to repeat what I said at the outset. I hope there will be consultation by the Government with farming organisations and with the Opposition parties so that the matter will get the full co-operation of everybody concerned.

Dr. Browne

I have opposed the Common Market proposal from the very first and as we have seen it develop I have been confirmed in my belief that the proposal, for a country such as Ireland, is one fraught with dangers of a very serious and fundamental kind that can so change our whole society and community as to be equalled only in significance by the last great revolutionary change in our society, the 1916 Rising.

On the part of the Government and the Opposition this seems to represent an extraordinary surrender of national responsibility, our responsibility to those who helped to found this independent, democratic Republic. It seems to me an extraordinary decision for either of the great parties, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, to deprive themselves of the power to retain the right to make day-to-day decisions concerning our political future, our industrial security and strength, the vitality of our agricultural industry, the protection of our right to concern ourselves with the social repercussions of indiscriminate abuse of power in the pursuit of profit which is the sole underlying dynamic of the Common Market countries. As a socialist party, we oppose in principle joining with a group of nations dominated by the profit motive as its sole criterion or yardstick for the exploitation of the collective Communities in the existing Common Market and in the proposed enlarged Common Market, should we agree to join. A number of Deputies have already referred to the responsibility of our negotiators and the part to be played by them.

Successive Governments here over the last half century have failed to create viable industrial and agricultural arms united to create the wealth which would make us an independent, free democratic republic. They have so far betrayed that responsibility handed on to them by the revolutionaries of 1916 as to leave us now with the real political truth that our negotiators in these forthcoming discussions with the EEC will be whatever team Edward Health chooses to appoint on behalf of the British.

I remember saying years ago to Mr. Lemass that the decision whether we go into the Common Market or not will be taken for London, Belfast and Dublin in Westminster. That was the reality and that is the reality. That reality was shown time and again. As the conflict between de Gaulle and the British developed and he resisted their absorption into the Common Market, so did our hopes and beliefs disappear, our hopes of getting in and our alleged beliefs in the benefits of getting into the Common Market.

I could not help being amused—"amused" is probably the wrong word —by the exposure of the total emptiness of the protestations of the Government that they intended to go into the Common Market because of its inestimable benefit to our economy, to our culture, as the Minister for Health, Deputy Childers, told us a few minutes ago, and to our social and economic wellbeing. At a certain stage when the British withdrew their application or when de Gaulle refused to consider it, we were then able to envisage a situation in which the Irish community could carry on. We were told by the Government in office that under our own steam we could create a prosperous society, that it was not a precondition to our economic survival to go into the Common Market.

For a number of years during de Gaulle's period of office we were told —most of us in the Labour Party contested it—that we were doing very well on our own outside the Common Market. Of course, that was equally an untruth. The truth that nobody would admit is that we are not independent, that except for that enormous river, called the Irish Sea, that runs down between the two countries, we are effectively, economically an integral part of Great Britain.

That is the achievement of half a century of native Governments, that we have no rights whatever left to negotiate independently of the British. If the Powell-Labour factions in the British Parliament unite, if Health decides that it is not a good idea for Britain to go in, everyone here knows quite well that Ireland will not continue to press for entry independently. The continued hypocrisy is this alleged independent negotiation on the part of the Irish delegation.

If nothing else highlighted the fraudulent claims of the Blaney-Boland-Haughey faction in the Fianna Fáil Party to be concerned for the independent, democratic republic here in Ireland it has been the very fact that they have been Ministers in key Ministries over many years and that they and the other so-called republicans have most assiduously and in the most dedicated way created a conjoint economy from which it now appears impossible for them or for anybody else to extricate us.

The Republican Party have restored us to the Siamese-twin unity which has bedevilled our whole society, culture and industrial and agricultural economy since 1932. It is now intended to compound that betrayal of our independence by establishing this apparently indestructible unity with Britain, by entering into an even more destructive alliance with the other great, ruthless, monopoly-capitalist powers of western Europe.

The Tánaiste talks about this Common Market, our missionaries, our culture, our scientists and mathematicians and all we are going to contribute to Europe, as if it were some sort of night at the opera. This is a trade agreement, a market in which we will try to sell, in which we will be persuaded to buy. If we cannot pay, we will get nothing on charity. We will not be kept as pets in this Community. The truth is that even the British people are frightened of the prospects ahead of them, whether they will be able to survive, at their level of independence, with their very powerful industrial arm built up over the years, in the new Common Market.

The whole behaviour of our Government on this issue has been completely and irresponsibly ill-considered in so far as without even knowing the terms or conditions for entry whenever the deal is on, whenever the British decide to go in, we will simply say: "We, too" and undertake to go in without knowing in full the consequences to the very sensitive sectors of our industrial and agricultural economies. What hope have the negotiators in that situation? The people they are negotiating with know in advance that the decision has already been taken. There is no qualification. They cannot, like various others as they negotiated their entry, look over their shoulders and say: "Well, we cannot accept that particular decision because our people would not stand for it."

We have shown that we are not an independent society, that we are not an independent nation and since the EEC negotiators are hard, tough businessmen, in my view the negotiators will have little or no influence whatever on the outcome of these dealings with the Common Market. We have already seen the results of such a situation here in our close links with the British. Even in our own community our belief in the dynamic of profit, the yardstick of success—profit—has motivated our economy, our industrial attitudes and agricultural attitudes since the State was formed and we know the consequences. We have seen the appalling demographic changes, the rural depopulation, the whole western seaboard with nothing but very old people and children left, the absurd growth of Dublin and to a lesser extent of Cork and Limerick. We have seen the continued emigration of thousands upon thousands of our people— a million of our people altogether. We have seen the continued high unemployment and above all we are left with a pathetic, inept and inefficient industrial arm which only the most absurdly patriotic individual could suggest will be able to stand up to the great British companies and in particular the great West German firms of one kind or another who will be competing against us.

It defies understanding how anybody could rationalise a decision to go into the Common Market. We have seen it happening here again in microcosm. It formed part of a little leaflet we got out many years ago on this issue when we forecast what would happen when the retail and distributive trades were taken over by the great British concerns and the gradual absorption, and in fact annihilation, of the small shopkeepers by the great shopping centres and so on. They could not survive against the powerful cartels of the American and British and Anglo-American retail and distributive firms. With the exception of a handful of big firms, and only a handful that again is in microcosm, what almost inevitably must eventuate should we join the Common Market.

Why on earth should companies— most of our very big companies are subsidiaries of British, German, American, French, Dutch or Swedish companies—transfer their industries to Ireland or expand their industries in Ireland? On what administrative, practical or economic grounds could the transfer of a firm from the Ruhr, say, to Connemara, Donegal or Kerry, be justified? What justification could there be for transferring a firm which will try to compete in the great Common Market from Coventry, Birmingham, London or Liverpool? What case could possibly be made for transferring those companies from Europe or even from Britain across to our agricultural hinterland?

The only single statistic that could be quoted in defence of going into the Common Market is, regrettably, our high unemployment figure. That is the only incentive that could justify an industrialist in heading off for Mayo, Galway or wherever it is. That is not even a valid point because due to the failure of our educational system, through no fault of their own, the technical qualifications of the unemployed in those areas, those who remained and did not go looking for work elsewhere, would not justify the establishment of a modern firm in those areas now.

It seems to me that the Government are taking a lazy decision as well as an irresponsible one in refusing to examine seriously the alternatives to joining the Common Market. We have seen that small countries like Switzerland, Austria, Iceland, Portugal and Spain have so far refused to be attracted into this economic spider's web of the Common Market. They believe that it is possible for them to survive by negotiating an independent treaty arrangement with the Common Market and so having the best of both worlds by having access to EEC markets and, at the same time, maintaining the right to make independent trading arrangements with any other country in the world with whom they wish to make such arrangements.

Deputy Creed appeared to be worried about the economic inter-dependence which is clearly there in relation to Britain and the fact that we cannot make any decisions independently of Great Britain. There is one hopeful factor in this relationship with Britain and that is that we are a very big customer of the British. For that reason they have a vested interest in helping us to negotiate a trade agreement outside the Common Market if we so decide in order that she might be allowed to retain her economic foothold here. The most regrettable feature of this whole debate of the past ten or 15 years is that we have made no attempt whatever, unlike most of the other European countries, to establish that our acceptance would be conditional on certain stated requirements that would be directed towards protecting our national interest at all levels, economic, political, agricultural and industrial.

I wonder if the implications of the Common Market are fully understood by the Government. It is difficult to believe that they are. It is also difficult to believe that we are prepared to subordinate our independent sovereignty to a group of bureaucrats—the nine members of the Council, the Commission and the Parliament of the EEC. Deputy Childers seemed to believe that we were joining a number of small European countries. Whatever about Belgium, Holland or Luxembourg, the term "small European country" hardly describes West Germany, France or Italy because these are the most politically powerful and highly industrialised nations in Europe. They are grouped together in the Common Market. They share three important characteristics none of which is healthy or desirable for a nation which for so long has asserted its belief in the idea of parliamentary democracy—independent democratic republican form of Government. The first characteristic is a system of agricultural protection which leads to dear food and a high cost of living. This must lead to discrimination against the food of poorer countries and of the Third World.

The second characteristic is the undemocratic and bureaucratic constitution of the EEC in which power is vested neither in parliament nor in government but in a group of officials who are outside the control of parliament or government and, above all, who are outside the power of the ordinary people in society.

The third characteristic is an economic union in industry and in manufacturing sectors which is based on the classical principle of laissez faire capitalism and which leads to the greatest amount of competition between industries throughout the Community.

Can the Government seriously suggest, can the Fine Gael Party seriously suggest that Ireland, underdeveloped, undercapitalised, poorly mechanised, indifferently managed, as is stated in the CIO reports, can survive in the Common Market? The Government have failed to create employment for our people, have failed to create the wealth to give us the social infrastructure expected by any modern advanced community. The Government have, in fact, created a situation in which we are going into Europe with cap in hand, the poor relations of British negotiators.

Could matters be worse? Could there be a worse record of failure and betrayal by successive Governments after 50 years of home government? Could somebody name an industry which will stand up to the best the Germans, the French or the British can produce? Because we could not defend ourselves and knew it against British competition we had to accept a pattern of protection, tariffs, quota restrictions and so on. Is it not a fact that as a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement we now find that there is a virtual complete take over here of the retail and distributive trades by the great British and American companies, that we are unable to stand up to them, that they are stocking most of their retail outlets from the parent companies in Britain which they are now being allowed to do under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement? This tendency to steamroll the Irish retailer and industrialist, and ultimately the farmer into the ground will be greatly intensified as a result of the flood gates being opened to even more efficient competition than that provided by Britain.

It is not fully appreciated how relatively inefficient British industry is. Its welfare state is relatively poverty stricken, inadequate and defective in relation to some of the other west European countries. We really do not know what serious industrial competition is although we had some inkling of it when, because of our inability to cope with British restrictions, we pursued a policy of protection by imposing tariffs, quotas and so on. We know little or nothing about the extreme intensity of competition mounted by the great West German firms and some French firms. Does anybody seriously believe that Germany, France and Britain, whose whole historic development depended on the pillage, the plunder and the absorption of whatever small weak nations stood in their way, have now suffered a change and decided that because our Irish eyes are smiling they will help us with our problems of unemployment, emigration, defective industries and rural depopulation? Does anybody in his senses seriously put that forward as a sustainable postulate? Those countries have never been interested in small nations. When the British fought for gallant little Belgium they were going to protect British West Africa against the Germans. It was a struggle between two great Imperial powers.

I believe the Taoiseach, the Minister for External Affairs, the Fianna Fáil Government and the Fine Gael Party are humbugging themselves and misleading the community by not examining the full implications of this development in Europe. It is a monstrous, naked take-over by European monopoly capital. As far as they are concerned, a number of firms because of mergers, because of take-overs, because of what they call rationalisation of industry, have outgrown their own national outlets and they want to create one enormous captive outlet, the European Common Market. We know quite well what that will do. We know what our own monopoly capitalists did in Ireland during the years they enjoyed protection. Every kind of price fixing racket, every kind of monopoly, every kind of trade agreement and restrictive trading practice which could be employed against the unfortunate Irish consumer was ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited to make money at the expense of the community. Now we are going to get that as members of the Common Market. We are going to experience precisely the same destruction of individual interests in the pursuit of unrestricted profits. The industries which have outgrown their national boundaries are mainly those involved in aircraft production, and electronics, the motor car industry, computers, the petro-chemical industry and the nuclear power industry. These very powerful financial interests have succeeded in creating a demand for this political superstructure in Europe and for its inevitable development into some form of defence commitment. These are the firms which have already dominated the move towards the creation of the Common Market. These are the firms which have already benefited in the Common Market. These firms, for obvious technical and economic reasons, need to maximise profits by increasing their outlets. They must have huge markets. They must have vast capital resources for investment. They must have the right to send capital and goods across national borders. They must try to get the maximum possible power over democratically-elected parliaments and governments. These are the pre-conditions for the formation of enormous, giant, industrial cartels in Europe. Their prime function is to compete against equally enormous American cartels.

One of the Commission members of the EEC said if steps are taken to remove the impediments which company and tax laws place on mergers and acquisition of holdings across national frontiers then they will have to free the movement of capital from control. That is the only way they can achieve their objective. The freedom of movement of capital is one of the most important conditions of the EEC. They are encouraging cross-national border mergers and takeovers. The big firm is getting bigger and the small firms are being pushed out of existence. I would like the Taoiseach to give us now the names of ten industries which he believes will be still in operation in ten to 15 years from now, should we go into the Common Market. As these firms get bigger it is imperative that interference by national governments should be reduced or kept to a minimum in order to allow competition to be carried on in any way they desire. These are the primitive, essential conditions of the most basic fundamental kind, to early monopoly capitalism. They are like the conditions which were allowed to operate in the late part of the 19th century and the early part of this century, irrespective of the social consequences.

The social consequences are the most important factors which concern us in the Labour Party. We are concerned about the effects on the poorer areas. It is notable that there has been little or no significant improvement in southern Italy, which is a very poverty-stricken area, or in Brittany, in the existing Common Market. We have the old picture, which we know so much about here, of labour having to follow capital. We have the picture of people leaving Connemara and going to Dublin and of people leaving Dublin and going to Birmingham or Hudders-field. Our main export will once again become the emigrant. This time he will go to Europe rather than to Great Britain. From what one gathers about conditions of work in Europe the future of the unfortunate Irish emigrant will be on a par with the life our emigrants suffered in Glasgow, London and Liverpool in the 1920s and 1930s. There will be little pity or concern for him.

We are going back to the condition of a greedy pursuit of wealth and profit which was so widespread throughout Britain and Europe before the evolution of democracy and before the rise of the labour and trade union movements. In my view, it is as retrograde as that. The Rome Treaty forbids most kinds of government interference with free capital and free competition. A government must abandon their powers of economic development which are needed in order to develop any national economy. The economy of Ireland in the Common Market must be subjected to and co-ordinated with the economies of the neighbouring countries. It is suggested that there will be some attempt at regionalisation and the development of regional policies. Nobody can seriously suggest that we will be able to protect our western seaboard or to bring about some sort of revival in the undeveloped areas of the west of Ireland—or in the rest of Ireland. We are firmly convinced that we will not even get a continuation of the development which there has been in recent years along the eastern seaboard and in the southern part of the country. The hard economic fact of life is that capital will go wherever capital already is and labour has no choice but to follow it. These are the realities.

There are already in the Common Market enormous concentrations of industry. It is to these enormous concentrations of industry in western Europe and in Great Britain, and to a minimal extent possibly in the Dublin area, that capital will go. There will be no social direction. There will be no social intent. The Taoiseach's predecessor, Mr. Lemass, introduced legislation to assist the undeveloped areas. This legislation incidentally was almost totally ineffective through no fault of Mr. Lemass's but because of the inability of the monopoly capitalist ever to feel he has a serious responsibility to create an environment in which the social betterment of a community, of a society or of a nation should take precedence over his own accumulation of profit.

Aid to the poorer regions could only be given on our undertaking that such an enterprise would be lastingly competitive—that is taken from our own Government's White Paper on the Common Market—and help could be given only for a temporary period. Surely there are Deputies who have a serious concern for the very dangerous, damaging cultural repercussions of the demographic changes which have taken place here over the last 50 years and which must be expedited by entering an organisation such as this, which will be completely indifferent to any pleas we may make? If, for instance, the tiny residual Connemara Gaeltacht goes, then the language is finally and for all time extinct. Has nobody got any sense of remorse at the thought that that wonderful heritage, which we so misused over the years, will finally be exterminated? The EEC concedes this point. In one of its published documents it accepts that the poorer regions in the EEC have got poorer still. I quote:

Disparities between certain regions of the EEC had continued to get worse, some getting full benefits from economic growth, some unaffected by that growth.

In the Common Market we must abandon our right to impose tariffs and quotas and to protect our industries. We must abandon our right to sign independent treaties with other countries, abandon our right to diversify trade or to achieve what the Tánaiste suggested we would do—reduce our dependence on Great Britain. We would lose our power to give State aid to Irish industry and, heaven knows, if it were not for State aid in the form of loans and grants and technological advisory support over the years, there would be no industrial arm whatever here in Ireland bad and all as it may be. According to our own White Paper:

State aids which distort or threaten to distort competition are, to the extent to which they adversely affect trade between member States, deemed to be incompatible with the Common Market. The Commission, subject to the overriding authority of the Council, decided what aids can be allowed and which have to be eliminated or adapted.

As socialists we particularly resent the fact that the Community would have no power to establish State industries. Whatever the anti-socialist may say or think or believe about socialism, about publicly-owned industries or even publicly-managed industries, State capital industries, the truth is that no matter which side one is on, no matter how conservative one may be, one must concede that the State organised industries, the semi-State industries of one kind or another, are, with a couple of exceptions, the only industries which can be said to be highly efficiently organised. They are the only industries of which we can all be very proud because of their management record, their employment record and their general activities record. That is in a community which is hostile to State enterprise. Those are industries which are frequently run by people who are hostile to socialist ideas and to the organisation of State industry and publicly-operated industries. Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna, the ESB, CIE, Irish Steel Holdings—these are the worthwhile industries in Ireland. These are the great employing industries. Without these industries where would we be as a community? They are publicly owned. We are giving away the right to develop the only well worthwhile industries we have in Ireland. The French and the Italians are being told to break up their tobacco and oil monopolies.

There is the fact of the enormous increase in the cost of living because of the protective agricultural prices system dealt with by Deputy Corish. There is also the fact that the EEC is committed to the introduction of the added value tax, an indirect tax which raises prices, raises the cost of living, affecting, of course, as always, the least well off members of the community. Therefore, there will be a very marked increase in our cost of living. The figures have not been assessed. Eleven per cent has been mentioned somewhere. It will probably be very much more than that. At a time when the Government are pleading with the unions to try to introduce some sort of wage and salary restriction we are entering a Community in which it is inevitable that there will be consequential wage increases. We are already in a position in which we are told we are out-pricing ourselves in these European markets.

Deputy Corish dealt with the many constitutional amendments which are inevitable and which were in the most scandalous way glossed over by the Government. Any constitutional change is essentially a very important change but there are changes involved in about seven articles of the Constitution. They include the declaration that we are everything from a sovereign independent democratic state right up to the powers of our Supreme Court. These are very considerable changes affecting the whole prospect of future governments in our society.

A number of factors here represent the bizarre inanity and expediency of Irish politics over the years. Deputies Boland, Blaney and Haughey, who are attempting to put the Government out of power and intriguing against the Government on the issue of the republic, are the men, if they had not been caught in the act, who would have been negotiating our entry into the EEC. Certainly, Deputy Haughey would have been negotiating entry, as he is a very able man. They would have been negotiating our entry into a community in which we would completely abrogate our national identity as an independent democratic republic.

These constitutional changes would have been proposed so that we could creep and crawl in behind the battlements of the Fortress Europa. These four or five fundamental constitutional amendments would have been proposed by these great republicans so that we could get into this market. This is at a time when they refused to make what are now constitutional amendments in order to unite this country, the amendment concerning the position of the Catholic Church and the other amendments suggested by the all party committee. But they were prepared to amend the Constitution to enter the Common Market. They were prepared to do this for money. As Lenin once said, "The good capitalist will sell you the rope with which to hang him". These good capitalists would sell their republican birthright because they believed there was money in it.

Mr. Carter

Unfortunately, Deputy, as a result of Lenin's policy good men have been hanged in the years since he died and there is not a word about them. Worse still, he sent many to the saltmines.

Dr. Browne

I can give the Deputy an answer which will be worth listening to.

Mr. Carter

I doubt if the Deputy could on that point anyway.

Dr. Browne

We have also the undertaking of the Minister for External Affairs that he has volunteered we will accept the defence commitments under the Treaty of Rome. Time and time again Mr. Lemass refused to give this undertaking. The only Minister who ever looked like giving it was the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, when on one occasion he made an ebullient and boisterous speech in the west of Ireland exhorting us all to join NATO and fight for Christ in Europe—at least that is what it sounded like. That was the only occasion when I heard we would be agreeable to join in the defence of Europe. We are now told that the Minister for External Affairs has given an undertaking that we would be agreeable to committing ourselves to the implications of the defence of Europe. I shall not deal with the reasons why we decided not to fight against Hitler, a great evil if ever there was one, in the 1939-45 war. We sat on the touchline on that occasion.

The public should know if they are being committed to the idea of military bases here, not only naval bases, but air force bases, nuclear bases and the possibility of a reoccupation of the south of Ireland as well as the north of Ireland by British troops. Here again we have our famous republican friends' proposition. Last night the great Boland went off with his friends shouting, "Wrap the green flag round us." Deputy Boland might have negotiated a NATO agreement in which he would hand over parts of Ireland to any army at the command of NATO, including the British army, navy and air force. So much for the arrant hypocrisy of these so called fake republicans on both sides of the House.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht (Mr. Kitt)

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an rún seo a mhol an Taoiseach mar gheall ar na buntáistí go bhfuil súil aige a bhéas ag ár dtír má éiríonn linn a bheith páirteach i gComhphobail na hEorpa. Dar liomsa is é an buntáiste is mó a bhéas againn go mbeidh ar ár gcumas ár dteanga agus ár gcultúr féin a dhaingniú agus a dhéanamh níos láidre fós ná mar atá siad i láthair na huaire.

I disagree with Deputy Browne. I think one of the big advantages of becoming members of the EEC is that we shall have our own language and culture. We shall take on a new look and we will be marked as a separate and distinct nation instead of being looked upon as another John Bull's island because so many people speak English here at the present time. The Department with which I am associated, Roinn na Gaeltachta, is moving forward in many spheres. The territory in which the Irish language and culture survives is being looked after by the Minister for the Gaeltacht, Deputy Colley, who is doing everything possible to ensure that our culture and language will survive and that industrially the Gaeltacht will thrive. When looking through papers in my Department a few weeks ago I found that the Taoiseach some two years ago wrote to every Minister telling him that any particular aspect dealing with the Gaeltacht should get priority in his particular Department.

The Estimates for the Department of the Gaeltacht have increased fourfold in the last four years. The present Minister has projects to establish a local authority for the Gaeltacht areas and he recently announced that a radio station would be set up for those areas as soon as possible. Everything possible is being done to ensure that full employment and first-class citizen status for the people in the native-speaking areas in the country is achieved as soon as possible. When this is attained the Irish language and culture will spread from these areas to the rest of the country and our people will thereby have a distinct badge of nationhood which will distinguish them from other nations. In my view the native language and culture will be strengthened as a result of our membership of the EEC.

In the early centuries St. Columbanus, St. Gall and other Irish missionaries left Ireland to work in France, Switzerland and Italy and to this day their manuscripts in the Irish language can be seen in some of the monasteries of Europe.

Creidim go mbeidh ár dteanga agus ár gcultúr Gaelach neartaithe nuair a bheimid páirteach i gComhphobail na hEorpa. Guím rath Dé ar an obair atá idir lámhaibh ag an Rialtas agus tá súil agam go gcuirfear i gcrích í.

Mr. Donegan

The Taoiseach gave a résumé of what is contained in the White Paper but, apart from giving an undertaking to keep Members of the House informed of events regarding our application for membership of the EEC, we heard nothing new. None of the Government speakers has given any information to anybody about any steps that are being taken as to what sections of industry and agriculture will be in difficulty and what sections will be in a better position. There may have been political reasons before an election for not stating the position because people do not like to be told that their lot is not as good as it was. Therefore it was the Government's policy to keep the people in the dark. However, as negotiations are now about to commence it is time that the people were told precisely the situation and what they will face in the Common Market. Our party have not the information that is at the Government's disposal; we have not the private files that are available from the Ambassador in Brussels; we can only tell the truth as we see it.

It appears we have no choice but to enter the Common Market. When one bears in mind that 74 per cent of our external trade is with Britain and that trade with the Common Market countries has multiplied by eight since 1961, one realises we have no choice. The fact that the child may not wish to be thrown into the swimming pool may mean that the child although he can swim is not a very good swimmer; the temperature of the water may be cold and the first douche may be unpleasant.

There is no point in the Government trying to make political capital of this matter. What we need is an assessment of the difficulties and advantages and plain talking to the people. In the last few months we have seen factories close which, had there been a prospect of advancement in the future, would not have closed. Decisions were made by boards of directors on the basis of our future within the Common Market. No doubt, these assessments have come from the Confederation of Irish Industries and various other agencies. Dáil Éireann has not been given any such information; nothing new on the matter has been said today and, from this point of view, the debate here has been a serious disappointment.

It is obvious that if we do not enter the Common Market there will be raised against us a common external tariff. Automatically that would create another economic war with Britain, having regard to the extent of our trade with that country. Whether unpalatable or not, we must accept the fact that if Britain joins the EEC we have no choice but to do likewise. Therefore, our job must be to watch events very carefully. An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláir dó bheith glic— those that are not strong must be clever. We must see to it that every opportunity is taken to get special terms for us. There has not been any evidence that the Government have been doing this in the years since our application was first discussed. Neither have the Government warned our people about the implications of membership.

Agriculture will probably do well as a result of membership of the EEC. Apart from the production of pigs, eggs and broiler chickens, the Irish farmer will do well. It is British policy to provide for their industrial workers by having low food costs; they pay a subsidy to the British farmers, who constitute 2½ per cent of the population, and pay a lesser price to suppliers from abroad. It is true that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement changed this a little. In fact, the payment of subsidy on 25,000 tons of beef and a comparable amount on smaller quantities of mutton and lamb has meant that we have been able to pay the extra subsidy ourselves and there has been an advantage here in the encouragement and expansion of our meat factories.

However, the British policy of low food prices will not be permitted in the Common Market. I understand that in the EEC there is the system of target and intervention prices and, following that, the system of common external tariffs. The Irish farmer knows more than most people about common external tariffs. It is not so long since our highly valuable beef exports to Germany were cut off in a matter of one week when the common external tariff was applied on the basis that our exports of beef to Germany were affecting the German farmer. They were not, of course, affecting the German farmer; the German farmer is small and he is highly subsidised. The whole operation, in my view, and in the view of those close to it, was quite improper. However, they were allowed to do it and the common external tariff was applied. If we were within the Common Market the system of intervention price would apply and that would mean that the ordinary trade from country to country, farm to farm, man to man, would be close to the target price but, when the goods would drop to the point at which the Commission decided there should be an intervention price, that would immediately come into operation and these goods would be taken up by the Common Market authorities and the cost would be spread all over the countries involved.

In this context it is quite true that Ireland will derive advantage in her fiscal and budgetary situation. An example is provided by milk products. The cost of subsidising milk for butter last year was £31,500,000. The estimate of what it would cost as a subscription towards the Common Market to gain us a far higher price for our milk would be in the order of £10 million. Not only would we gain on the agricultural front as far as farmers' prices are concerned, because we would be on higher prices for all foods, but we would also have a lower budgetary responsibility in relation to budgeting for the intervention when prices would go too low. If you take the Common Market as constituting some 360,000,000 people and spread the cost of subsidisation taken up on intervention price over all these, then our share of the subscription would be far less than it is at the moment and we are still basically an agricultural country. The price of milk and milk products will increase and the intervention system guarantees that they will be taken up. Our contribution will be less.

With regard to beef, I regard the common external tariff raised against us by Germany at that particular point of time as quite improper and quite incorrect but, when one is outside and one has nowhere else to go, there is very little one can do about it. That is why one is better inside the club than outside. Be that as it may, all the figures I can get seem to indicate that as the standard of living rises in Europe, as it is rising everywhere, there is a heavier consumption of beef and there is a solid market for our very excellent beef at a higher price. The average figure quoted is £16 per cwt live for beef whereas our price at the moment averages about £9 15s or £10. Bearing in mind the cost of transport, and various other costs, it appears as if beef would be a very good thing within the Common Market. That is something that should be stressed in our beef breeds. I know the Department are doing some work in this field.

There has been some anxiety about the price of grain. There has been some worry that grain prices may not be satisfactory and we might become again the country of the stick, the dog and the bullock. Modern methods of producing beef do not allow for that kind of economy. Grain, however, is another matter. We will not be in any trouble. We have again the system of target and intervention prices. When wheat is dumped, it is dumped outside the Common Market and we are getting it at a price lower than that actually paid to the French farmer. The price of barely will go up. The price of wheat will go down. On balance, things will be satisfactory. I have no doubt that there will be a continuance of a high volume of grain farming here. I am quite certain there is a very good market in Europe for Irish malting barley. Last year Irish malting barley was exported to Europe; it was sold to Europe at a lower price because of the common external tariff. The quality of our barley is among the highest in Europe. There is in the traditional malting barley areas a tremendous opportunity for expansion. What we will probably see is an increase in the acreage under barley and a decrease in the acreage under wheat but, so long as the farmer gets his cheque at the end of the season, nobody cares. Barley is a sounder crop to grow than wheat. It is a crop with less risk in it.

We shall be up against very strong competition in horticulture. The Dutch and others will send fruit and vegetables in here. The position will be highly competitive. There is one aspect of horticulture which is very promising. To the credit of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, let it be said that they have concentrated on a very high quality tomato. Exports to Britain are on the basis of quality. All one need do the next time one is on the Continent is to eat a tomato and one will immediately note the difference. On the Continent they go in for quantity, not quality. We may hold our own in horticulture.

The position as far as agriculture is concerned is satisfactory. We must regard the system of common external tariff against Argentinian beef with satisfaction. Anyone who farms has had the experience of finding the beef market quite good; one feeds one's cattle during the winter and the next moment down goes the price of beef by £1 a cwt. because of the arrival of Argentinian beef. While there are exceptions made in respect of countries which would be economically destroyed if the Common Market acted strongly against them, Argentina will hardly be one of the exceptions. There have been concessions given to New Zealand in the case of butter because she would be economically wiped out without her milk products.

I view the advent of the Common Market as satisfactory as far as agriculture is concerned. I do not hold the same view with regard to industry. Where industry is concerned we are in a different sphere altogether. The sort of agriculture I have been talking about is the non-factory farming type of agriculture. The continentals are limited in their production just as we are limited in our production. They have their acreages; so have we. They have their skills; so have we. When we come to industry we have to take into account the fact that we are entering a capitalised society with an excellent social welfare code, a very good educational code and services far superior to those we have here. If one checks in the Treaty of Rome one will find there is actual discrimination against state-operated industries. It is, as I say, a capitalist society. We may as well face that this is so.

Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned our State industries—ESB, CIE, Aer Lingus, Irish Steel Holdings and various others, largely industries which are service industries. In every country, they are related to State enterprise. They are run on Government capital and so on. These are not the ones to which Deputy Dr. Browne is referring. As far as I know, there is no objection to Alitalia or Sabena as airlines, for example. There is objection to entry by the State into ordinary commerce such as into the sphere of tobacco. We are entering a capitalist, free enterprise society. At this stage, I would say, without the slightest hesitation at all, thanks be to God. If we could only get our educational system, our social welfare code and all the things that bring a State up to a developed condition then we would be right up with that.

If we can preserve our own free enterprise society, if we can compete and not find ourselves with massive unemployment, if we can integrate ourselves within Europe while holding our own cultural attributes and our own capital in our own country, holding ownership of our lands, factories, institutions, then that is our project and that is the challenge before us. I do not think there was any objection in the Rome Treaty or in any of the rules laid down in Brussels to institutions such as Aer Lingus, ESB, CIE, Irish Steel Holdings and so on. I think there is an objection, as far as the spirit of the Rome Treaty is concerned, to entry by the State into trade and commerce and the ordinary things such as the production of beer, tobacco or bread.

On page 27 of the Government's White Paper, the first sentence at paragraph 4.39 is:

Not every Irish farm can expect to survive in free trade.

I am quite certain that not every Irish farm can expect to survive in free trade conditions within the Common Market and this is a very sad thing to face. My objection to the Government's performance to date is that they have not indicated the sectors that may be in difficulty. They have set out in an appendix to this White Paper the aids they are giving to industry. I shall discuss later in this speech whether we shall be permitted to continue these aids. Largely, they have been global aids. There have been certain disqualifications. At one time, bakeries could not get a grant because it was felt they would be in very serious competition and might fade out as units within the Common Market. Apart from that, there has been no difference in State aid. A grant of 25 per cent was given all along the line. The Government shirked their duty and did not indicate sectors that might have difficulty lest they should lose a few seats at election time.

I feel that the great sector of difficulty is that of design goods where there is choice. For the past month or so I have been talking here about our worry in the boot and shoe trade. If a girl is offered a choice of ten pairs of shoes when she is making a purchase and if seven of these pairs are of foreign manufacture and three are of Irish manufacture, quality being equal, she will buy the pair of shoes best suited to her needs, irrespective of origin. However, design, colour and shape are important from the point of view of fashion. With the number of shoe factories in Britain and on the Continent, I should be a very optimistic man if I felt that the fashion-conscious girl would be shown only seven pairs of imported shoes for three pairs of Irish shoes; the ratio would be far more disadvantageous to us.

This morning I was speaking to the manager of a shoe firm who told me they do not know what the situation is; that, for the past six weeks, nobody has been buying any shoes; that they were all waiting to see, when the quotas go after 1st July, what will be on offer. Worse still, certain shoe factories which have been collecting cash from retailers or retailers who have been collecting cash from customers have been lodging it in Newry so as to have a cheque book and money with which to purchase imported shoes.

I am a politician myself. I do not expect any member of the Government to go out, a week before the election, and to tell workers in Drogheda or Carlow, or in some other shoe producing town, that they will lose their jobs. However, investigations can be carried out with a view to making our shoe factories viable. The approach should be to discover how it can be turned into a unit with a chance of survival rather than a global approach and giving a 25 per cent re-equipment grant.

Take clothing as an example. More and more, there is ready-made clothing. Almost all ladies' wear is ready-made. I come from beside a town where a factory is very successfully exporting ladies' wear to Germany and to Britain. Say the products of that factory were placed in the shops in Drogheda and in Dublin and beside them were the products of ten or 20 much larger factories within the Common Market. Fashions change, whether it is the maxi or the mini or the inbetween, and every lady is fashion conscious. If a lady is shown this choice of goods—and there are far more foreign goods on display than Irish goods—the chances are that she will buy the foreign goods.

Let us examine the position in relation to the boot and shoe industry and the clothing industry. Let us examine what was the position of the home trade. The Irish shoe factories were producing about 80 to 90 per cent of the needs of the home market. The assault first of all as far as the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement is concerned—and this is the precursor of the Common Market— will be right here in this country. The same thing applies to the clothing industry. In fact, the manager of the shoe factory who was discussing this with me this morning said to me: "Look, the decision as to whether or not shoe factories will open or close will be made on the basis of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and that freeing of trade will be quite sufficient to bring the moment of truth."

Let us take the field of design goods. Let us take all the things you buy for a house. Let us take wallpaper. I understand that if one goes into the wholesale house of a provider's firm in London and is brought to the wallpaper department, one may find as many as 10,000 patterns. How will our wallpaper factories compete against that in Common Market conditions? They can only do so if they can get their two dozen or three dozen or even ten dozen patterns into all the wholesale establishments all over Europe.

Has anybody mentioned that in this House? Have the Government taken any special steps in relation to that field of difficulty? The funny thing is that there are provisions whereby you can appeal on the basis of a difficult sector of a production industry. There are provisions which could have been explained to the people to indicate to them what advantage they could have and how they could stop the floodgates while they were building themselves up to the degree which would allow them to compete.

Another sector that affects me personally—I do not mean as a businessman; it affects my constituency and, therefore, it affects me politically —is the field of electrical appliances. Whether one buys this iron or that iron, this fire or that fire, this hair dryer or that hair dryer, this television set or that television set, this radio or that radio, is entirely a matter of choice. Once the choice is spread out, the home market is faced with very severe competition.

I do not want to sound like a weary Joe, but we must condemn the Government on the basis that in the sectors which are weak the information was not given. We have seen closures. We saw a textile mill closed. We heard of another one in difficulties. We saw a rope factory produce a loss of £45,000 when they had a profit the previous year of £187,000, I think. We saw the same pattern in Belfast where one of the biggest rope factories in the British economy produced a colossal loss and is on the point of closing. We saw a shoe factory closing. We heard what the Federation of Irish Industries have been saying, and the Government have merely had the global re-equipment grants across the line.

It would have been far better if the ones that will come out on top, the ones that will be home on the pig's back, got no grant at all and the others got far greater grants. That is not to say that there are not advantages. I said already that there are advantages. I said that whether we like it or not there is no choice open to us except to go in with Britain, and I have given the clear undeniable reasons for that. Anybody who says anything else in this House is only prevaricating, in my view, and only delaying the time of the House.

If we accept that we must go in, we can now decide what should be done, what should have been done, what blame should be apportioned, what praise should be apportioned, what are the steps and where are the difficulties. These are all the things to which we should address ourselves as ordinary pragmatic politicians. There is no point in saying that we can stay outside. People used to talk about every ship being at the bottom of the sea, wearing a hair shirt, keeping Egyptian bees and living on light beer. That day is gone. I freely admit that I do not want to do any of them and I do not think the other 143 Deputies want to either.

Mr. P. Belton

Two or three of them might.

Mr. Donegan

We might bring them to a realisation of the joys of life at a later stage. I want to go on now to the question of gains. There is no doubt that the size of the market to which we are acceding brings us a great challenge and a great opportunity. After one or two decades the gains will very probably outweigh the losses. I remember seeing a cartoon not so long ago. A man comes home in his dungarees to his wife who has about four children hanging out of her skirt and says: "Mary, I am in the forefront of the fight for economic stability. Also I have been fired."

This is the corollary. Nobody wants to see factories closing. Nobody wants to lose his job. Nobody wants to be told that there will be another job for him in six months time or that there is another job 50 miles away. Nobody wants to be told: "We will take all steps to help you. We will retrain you and AnCO and other people will shake your hand." Nobody wants to be a displaced person in any sense of the term.

Over the past number of years, without any reference to politics we should have been exerting every nerve to see to it that the minimum of displacement took place. I want to urge on the Government that they should take every step possible to see that there is the minimum of displacement as we go into the Common Market.

There are provisions whereby we can continue giving grants. There are provisions whereby they can allow us to continue freeing new industrial exports from income tax. There are things that can be done. Italy got them done for the south of that country which is very poor. We want a first class negotiating team, an experienced negotiating team composed of people who have been in politics and in this House for many years but, taking into account the events of the past 24 hours and before that, it appears that unless there is a change of Government the chances of that are very remote.

I should like now to discuss the question of dumping. As I understand it, there is a provision against dumping in the Rome Treaty and there is also a boomerang provision which provides that if it is proved that goods have been dumped from one country to another, they can be transferred back to the country of origin and create havoc there. That is a wise provision. It is a penal clause. It means that if a citizen of a country sends goods at dumped prices to some other country and the boomerang provision operates, he will be highly unpopular with his own country's administration and will never get the chance to do that again.

Where the discrepancy in price is not very great we must bear in mind the question of transport from Ireland to the Common Market. It is very easy to get something across the border between Belgium and France or between Italy and France or Italy and Germany but if goods arrived here which were being sold at £20 or £30 a ton at a price which allowed their sale at £27 a ton and if this put 500 workers out of employment here we could send the goods back but it might cost £5 a ton to do so. The boomerang provision while operating very nicely in the landlocked countries and the contiguous countries of the Community whether landlocked or not, is not a great provision for us. The Government should, when negotiating on the Common Market in Brussels, first make quite certain that there are better anti-dumping provisions than the simple boomerang provision.

This is also very important because Ireland, due to its size and population, is particularly susceptible to dumping. We have known in the past 20 or 30 years, situations to occur, particularly in the drapery trade, where consignments of goods arrived here sufficient to supply, perhaps, the working people of the country who might be buying certain products. It is quite clear that they would buy them for six or 12 months. The goods came in at a dumped price; tariff barriers were immediately erected but there was little point in locking the stable when the horse had gone. Persons did succeed in dumping here, largely from Britain but sometimes from the Continent, and this had sad effects on industry. If our industrial units are small and must continue to get a major slice of the home trade we must regard dumping as a great danger. In Britain, the arrival of one consignment followed by a closing of the gates would only mean that somebody had made some money.

I accept that State aids are incompatible with the Rome Treaty and the EEC Commission and Council will decide whether these aids can be continued but certain countries have succeeded in getting exceptions made. In my view we have no hope of encouraging industry if we are not allowed to proceed with our State aid programme. I am glad the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Colley, the present Minister for Finance, has arrived. Where he may next find himself is another matter but we shall be friends in any case. We need these State aids. I have already criticised the lack of graded State aids to factories, no special consideration for sectors now proved to be highly vulnerable. I am glad the Minister for Finance is here to hear me say so again.

We must, as a State, fight like tigers to ensure that every form of State aid and every advantage for a small undeveloped industrial community is extended to us during the transition period. Later, I shall advert to certain provisions of the Rome Treaty that have been completely contravened by the larger members of the Community. Whether they have more power is another matter. If we make every effort humanly possible and if our negotiating team is excellent we shall lessen the effect of accession to the Community. In the case of industry the effect will not be very palatable. I agree that certain industries will succeed and expand.

I want to refer to free movement of persons, services and capital. While at the Council of Europe I went to some trouble to investigate free movement of persons, free movement of workers to jobs. It is no more free than I am to fly to the moon tonight. It is much easier to go from here to Liverpool and take a job than to go from Italy to France to take a job. You must first put down your name on a list of those desiring jobs in a particular sphere in the area to which you wish to go. You must then wait three months during which job occupancy is worked out to see if there is a job available. If there is, you may go but you may not take your wife and children with you until a house is available. Even if you have the money you may not go and occupy any house. What you are getting, in fact, is a liberalisation of a far tougher and more restrictive situation which existed before the Rome Treaty. Here and in England we are far ahead as regards free movement of people. A lot of cod is being talked and when you investigate the matter at source you find the liberalisation is proceeding very slowly.

In one of the more lurid magazines coming here in the past few months I read last night of a member of the Swiss Parliament who was rather like Mr. Enoch Powell in Britain in that his main line and policy was: "No Italians, no French, no anybody only the Swiss." When it came to a vote on his motion, it received only one vote. He got the matter to a referendum and his proposal was defeated by 600,000 to 500,000 votes. In regard to free movement of people, liberalisation and so on, one may as well face the fact that what they say is one thing and what they do is another. Anyone who ever had business with a continental knows that.

On the question of the supply of services there has not been liberalisation so far. Under the Rome Treaty a laundry operating in Strasbourg can go across the bridge into Kehl, pick up the laundry of the Minister for Finance and bring it back to Strasbourg for washing—there is no political connotation there. That has not occurred although it is implied in the Rome Treaty that you are meant to liberalise services. It has not happened and there are barriers within the Common Market which in some cases are as high and as difficult to surmount as the common external tariff to which I have referred.

Another thing we must watch carefully is the liberalisation of retail and wholesale trade. This is also included in the Rome Treaty. We have a situation in which our small shopkeepers, who provided a very good service, are being wiped out not by price but by selectivity and presentation which I have already mentioned in respect of boots and shoes and other goods. The supermarkets are literally wiping them out. If we find that by a stroke of the pen, if the Government does not resist it, and ensure that we get the best possible out of this bargain and that we do not liberalise when every other country in the Common Market is being extremely tough, we shall have a series of continental services provided here and shops owned by continentals if they can succeed in doing so. The one thing that would stop them is that it is not so easy to liberalise in regard to money or property within the Common Market.

It should have been said by Government speakers many times in the past few years, so as not to cod the people, that the Common Market countries have failed to implement the principle of equal pay for equal work. I am aware that it is difficult to get equal work. Somebody asked me the other day at a Fine Gael front bench meeting what was equal work and the only quick reply I could make was: "A waiter and a waitress serving six tables each in the same restaurant." I suppose that could be described as equal work.

Mr. P. Belton

One of them might throw it at you.

Mr. Donegan

Yes, and one of them might be very nice to you. In Paris or in Brussels the waitress does not get equal pay for equal work, and that is enshrined in the Rome Treaty. Therefore, we must see to it that we get the best bargain we can, that we are as tough as the continentals can be, that we are as clever as they can be. May I refer again to the saying: "An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláir dó bheith glic"?

It is not easy to purchase land in the Common Market. The White Paper indicates you have to buy land which has been abandoned or you have to buy land for a horticultural or an agricultural pursuit which is foreign to the country in which the land is, which is something the ordinary farmer does not do. The real truth is you cannot go to Holland and buy a farm. You are meant to be able to do so if you have worked on a farm for two years, but as far as I know that has not happened in the Common Market.

In regard to cartels and monopolies, the trend generally in Europe has been not to produce them but in Britain and here the trend has been the other way. I suppose the simple example of this is the little bakery at every corner in every village in France. You will find a village with three little bakeries and the bread being baked, perhaps, by the lady of the house who is, perhaps, also the lady of the bakery. This is just a fact of life, but the Common Market has not tended to produce cartels and monopolies. In fact, it is meant to operate directly against such a development. There was a survey on the Common Market by The Times after the Rome Treaty was signed in November, 1962. The rules governing competition absolutely forbid things like market sharing or sharing the sources of supply. If there is a certain quantity of a commodity, say, hundreds of thousands of tons, a cartel cannot say: “We will have 500,000 tons and you will have 500,000 tons. Nobody else will have any and we will charge anything we like.” The rule forbids “the application to parties to transactions of unequal terms in respect of equivalent supplies.” In other words, it is the same as our Fair Trade Commission. You are not meant to be allowed to charge one person more for a specific article than another. Direct or indirect fixing of purchase or selling prices or any other conditions are also forbidden. I quote:

The limitation or control of production, markets, technical development or investment. The subjection of the conclusion of a contract to the acceptance by a party of additional supplies which either by their nature or according to commercial usage have no connection with the subject of such a contract.

These are good provisions, and our job as a small nation will be to fight hard. If monopolies or cartels try to come in here to take over a certain part of our industrial structure which is exclusively Irish, perhaps, one of the weaker sections or even one we thought was a stronger section, we must use every line, every syllable and every comma within the Treaty of Rome to see to it that those cartels or monopolies do not succeed. However, as far as I can see those cartels or monopolies will not come from Europe. I would be more afraid they might come from Britain.

Deputy Browne referred to defence commitments. Again I should like to be extremely pragmatic about this. To talk about our having any defence at all is a joke. We have a small Army which probably is adequate to quell a civil commotion such as we have seen, not I say thankfully, in the Republic but sadly in the other part of our island. It is necessary to have a force which can quell a civil disturbance. That is all we have. The fact that we were not in the war of 1939-45 was an accident of history. It suited Churchill to leave us as we were, but if two German troop carriers had landed or if Germans had parachuted into the middle of the Bog of Allen in 1940 we would have had regiments of British soldiers marching across our land inside 24 hours. Anyone who says anything else is either a mystic or just plain dishonest.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has not much to do with the debate.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy was not in the Defence Forces or he would not have made that statement.

Mr. Donegan

I was a company officer in the Red Cross. What was the Deputy's rank?

Mr. Carter

I am afraid I happened to be on the Curragh.

Mr. Donegan

Defence commitments were referred to by Deputy Browne. The Minister for External Affairs was quoted by Deputy Browne, and properly so, as having said we were prepared to enter into any defence commitments that were necessary. There is a committee sitting in Brussels so as to bring political affairs closer day by day. I do not know any constitution on which we shall have to have a referendum before we go into the EEC. I do not know any situation that brings in politics that does not also bring in defence commitments. The question country and a great industrial country. might have been marching across the Bog of Allen in certain circumstances is relevant as a passing reference, so I shall say no more about it.

I think it is fair to look at what seems to have happened within the Common Market up to date. The customs union seems to be a fact. The common external tariff seems to operate. The system of target and intervention prices in agriculture seems to operate. The free movement of people and the free purchase of land and property does not seem to operate, and equal pay for equal work certainly does not operate. These are the matters we must look at. These must be our first line of defence. We must see that our tariff situation is one of gentle change. We must do our utmost to maintain every person in the country in his job without movement from that job. That is a detailed governmental operation. It is one that must be done by skilled men, by men who are prepared to work hard. It must be done with the greatest efficiency, and I believe the present Government are not the Government to do this.

In regard to monetary policies, the first attempt of the British to enter the Common Market, at a time when the principal negotiator was the present Prime Minister, Mr. Health, was rejected at least officially on the basis that their financial situation did not permit their entry, that they were not ready, that they were not in a position to accede to the Treaty of Rome, and that there would be chaos within the Community if they went in at that time in that state.

That evokes the thought that while you have all these unpleasant things to say about membership of the Common Market you also have the reassuring fact that within the Common Market, as areas go down, there must be consideration of that in Brussels and help given from Brussels. It was because of the position of Britain, her high-price industrial goods structure, her low efficiency and balance of payments situation that it was decided she was not able to go in. There was another line, which was a suspicious one, as far as General de Gaulle was concerned. France is a great agricultural as to whether or not certain armies She was the biggest country within the Common Market. It was said that General de Gaulle's line at the time was not that Britain was not fit to come in, was not that Britain would have been a heavy load for them to carry, it was, as he is said to have put it, that one cock and five hens were admirable but two cocks and eight hens were impossible. In other words, Britain would be another big, powerful nation coming in beside France and taking a share of the power and influence and all that went with it where previously there had been the nice little family of one cock and five hens. That may be right or it may be wrong.

I was very impressed at the Council of Europe by the reading of a paper which seemed to prove conclusively that the only way in which Britain could prepare herself for the Common Market was by budgeting for a surplus for at least five years. The author's point was that it was quite simple to lend Britain £500,000 millions, or some such colossal figure, but that with conditions in Britain as they were, with the trade union situation as it was, and with the inflationary situation as it was, nobody would believe that Britain would ever pay any of it back and that as the instalments came to be paid they would borrow more and that it was a question not exactly of money, or of their particular position at that time, but of credibility, if they were really serious about it. It is to the credit of the man who did not win the election in Britain that he seems to have got them to the position where they had a surplus of £1,000 million, their reserves had gone up by £1,027 million and they had a surplus on their balance of payments of £660 million. However, remember that while that was so it is also true that if you look at this surplus of £660 million, about £200 million has been borrowed anyway, so that it may have been that the de Gaulle veto had been removed with the removal of General de Gaulle. I do not know but it appears now that Britain is in a position to go in.

I do not agree with Deputy Dr. Browne that Britain is poor. All you have to do at this time of the year is visit the south of England and look around you and you will appreciate all the old wealth that there is there, wealth from colonial riches earned through people who perhaps were paid a pittance and perhaps almost in slavery, a type of wealth which in this country is a rarity. Anybody in business here who has done reasonably well, if he has money, it is money which was made in the last five years, whereas in Britain the sort of money you see there was made in the last 200 or 300 years. I do not agree with that at all. We must face the fact that if we are going in with Britain we must go in on the basis that we are an entity; we have got to get the best we can and we must bargain to the very last word. The Government have not indicated the sectors of industry which I have indicated to some extent tonight which will be in trouble; they have not taken special action in relation to those sectors. They have not warned these people and for that they merit blame. I also want to say that in their present depleted state and in the position in which they find themselves so far as their own credibility is concerned, they are not a team which should be entrusted with the Common Market negotiations and one of the best things that might happen would be a general election in which that team might be changed.

Mr. Carter

This debate has proceeded for some time and unfortunately at various points we are inclined to get our lines crossed somewhat. I do not think it adds very much to our efforts or to our prospects in regard to joining the Community to go back and dwell on what happened here during the emergency. I do not think that has any relevance whatever to our aim of becoming a member of the EEC. It has been said that the Government did not provide sufficient information and one gathers from that that Deputies are speaking in the dark. I have not got much time either to read or to assimilate what is handed out from the Department of External Affairs or from the Taoiseach's Office but I happen to know that there is no end to the documentation advising not merely the Members of this House but the community as well, and stating the facts in support of Ireland's aim of entering the Common Market. It is hardly fair, therefore, following three White Papers, following a number of discussions in this House on this subject, following numerous questions on the Order Paper every week, to charge the Minister for External Affairs or the Government with not supplying sufficient information.

As a Member of this House and as one who had the pleasure of being on a delegation to France recently I submit there is a welcome for us in the Community if we achieve membership and that there is a genuine welcome not only from France but from a number of other members of the Community. At this stage of our development, in the year 1970, we should make up our minds that even though it may be a step into the future and into the unknown it is better to take that step and take it now and that if we are accepted into the EEC it is up to us to make our own future there.

The Minister pointed out in the course of numerous papers that he had consultations with the president of the Commission of European Committees. He had discussions with them as far back as April last and in those discussions our Minister made clear Ireland's aim in seeking membership of the Community. He has told us that at that meeting there was a full exchange of views on the general question of the enlargement of the Community and that there was frank discussion on the forthcoming negotiations. The Minister has told us also that he emphasised the importance of the Irish point of view, namely, that there should be simultaneous opening of negotiations and simultaneous entry with Britain. Therefore, if one dwells on this point for a moment, one cannot see why we in this House should suffer from any inferiority complex about our aims in negotiating for entry to the EEC.

We have been dealing with Britain for a long time and apart from the political question we have always found the British to be very good businessmen and men of their word. However, we find that for many years we have been forced into the position of having to sell our goods in what may be deemed, literally and figuratively, to be a dump market. This is too bad for a developing country like ours. I submit to the House that any alternative that would give us any reasonable prospect of marketing our primary and our industrial goods outside would be better than continuing with a system in which we are more or less forced by reason of our geographical location to sell some of our goods at dump prices. We are fortunate in that we have been able to balance our economy up to now in so far as we were in a position to subsidise some of those products but if we had not been able to do so we would have found ourselves to be in a very unenviable position.

The Minister was right in emphasising that there should be simultaneous discussion and simultaneous entry with Britain. It may be inferred from that statement that, while we are only a small nation in relation to Britain, we shall be on a par with them in negotiating entry. It was rightly said in this House in 1963 that it was not the great powers that made history but, rather, that it was the small nations. Therefore, I cannot see any justification for all this anguish about entry.

I can understand and appreciate what was said by Deputy Cosgrave when he outlined the main points of the programme for entry and found himself to be in agreement, apart from some matters here and there, with the intention of the Government to negotiate for membership of EEC. I believe that it will be of considerable help to the Government when negotiating entry to know that the main Opposition Party are mainly in support of this step. However, I cannot understand the outlook of the socialists who claim to be the great levellers——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Deputy Carter should leave Deputy Boland out of this.

Mr. Carter

Deputy O'Leary is only a nestling here yet.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Carter is obviously blinding the Labour Party if we are to judge by the dark glasses that are being worn over there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter, without interruption.

Mr. Corish

I got mine without a medical card.

Mr. Carter

If it is a medical card that the Deputy is looking for I shall see what I can do for him.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He has called Deputy Boland a socialist.

Mr. Colley

There are left wing socialists, right wing socialists and many others.

Mr. Corish

Just as there are Wolfe Tone republicans, Eddie MacAteer republicans and many others.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter should be allowed make his contribution.

Mr. Carter

I did not mention Deputy Boland. Deputy O'Leary will turn this into something like a Bernadette Devlin meeting.

Mr. M. O'Leary

She will be a patriot after tomorrow.

Mr. Carter

The Right Honourable Member. At any rate, I was emphasising that I find it difficult to understand the socialists' point of view because it seems to me that the Labour Party are prepared to have us stand in isolation; that they are prepared to see Britain enter the EEC while we fight the tariff walls that will be formed the moment Britain enters. It would appear they are prepared to work here in the midst of the Atlantic and oblivious of the continent of Europe.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is no need for the Deputy to insult the western seaboard.

Mr. Carter

Frankly, I am not at all impressed by the speech either of my good friend, Deputy Corish, or of my friend, Deputy Browne.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Is he not also a good friend. The Deputy has made a careful distinction.

Mr. Carter

They are both good friends as far as I know. We must bear in mind that we are living in the age of grouping. We are living in the age of bamboo and iron curtains. We must bear in mind, also, that it was mainly because of the latter groupings that the Europeans got the idea of grouping. Since Ireland is one of the oldest of the European countries and since we have had long association with the leading members of the EEC, there is nothing wrong at this stage of our existence in seeking membership of the Community, or if accepted, in accepting membership.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Has the Deputy consulted his constituents? How do they feel about travelling to Hamburg?

Mr. Carter

We will consult our constituents in due time but I do not want my constituents to be confused by the doctrinaire approach of Deputy O'Leary or any other Deputy of his party. I shall take care so far as lies in my power, even at the trouble of having to go to every church gate, to ensure that they will not be confused.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There is free monopoly of labour in the EEC.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Carter is more in contact with his constituents than Deputy O'Leary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter without interruption.

Mr. Carter

Now, to get back to the point I was making regarding the statement of the Minister for External Affairs, we are also apprised of the fact that he not merely discussed the question of simultaneous negotiation and simultaneous entry but, arising from that, he had consultations on matters affecting Ireland's interests in general and matters which may arise during the course of those negotiations. The President of the Commission fully accepted the Irish case and also agreed that there would be special problems created for Ireland arising from entry to the EEC.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not think the Commission has agreed on simultaneous entry.

Mr. Carter

The Minister for External Affairs has stated so and I think he is better informed than the Deputy.

Mr. Colley

Deputy O'Leary is much more confused than his constituents.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I know as much about the Minister's constituents as he knows. When Deputy Boland is finished with you, you will be confused.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would appeal to Deputies not to interrupt the Deputy in possession.

Mr. Carter

We are now apprised of the fact that negotiations will take place shortly. I submit to the House that the White Paper gives us all the basic information which could reasonably be provided at the present time. It goes on to outline the principal implications which would emerge from our entry into the EEC.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It says nothing about defence obligations.

Mr. Carter

I am not sure if the Deputy was a member of the Council of Europe but surely if he were not he aspires to be.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I have not any such ambitions.

Mr. Carter

The Treaty of Rome does not so provide at the moment.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is true but the White Paper does not mention this.

Mr. Carter

The White Paper mentions it. The future is our own to make or mar as we like.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair would point out that the debate cannot be conducted by way of question and answer. Every Deputy will get an opportunity of speaking.

Mr. Carter

The White Paper goes on to outline how accession to the Community would bring about some amendments to the Constitution and great play was made out of this. The people made the Constitution and they are quite capable of amending it. If we have to make some amendments to the Constitution in order to achieve membership of the EEC it will be worthwhile.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Sectarian concessions?

Mr. Carter

There is machinery to amend the Constitution. I would not see any great stumbling block in this exercise, so some of the arguments put up here would not on examination stand up to a rigid test, would not stand up to the test as to whether or not we should at this point become members of the EEC. The White Paper also deals with the political implications of membership.

Mr. Corish

Has the Deputy any comment to make on Article 5 of the Constitution?

Mr. Carter

I have no comment to make on it at the moment. I am speaking in the context of the Community making a decision to accept us as members of the EEC.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy referred to constitutional amendments and it was also referred to in the White Paper.

Mr. Carter

I am referring to it in the context of our becoming members of the EEC. As I said, the people made the Constitution and they are quite capable of amending it. We must also recognise that the EEC as a group is young. In fact, when we come to talk about the political implications we must also realise that each country which achieves membership of the EEC has a share in the making of whatever plan is proposed or may be proposed for the political motivation of the Community. If we become members then we shall have a share in the political framework of the EEC. When I was for a short while at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg and when I first read the Articles of the Treaty of Rome I thought it was a very fair document. I thought then, and I still think, none of us could disagree with the aims and objectives of the Articles of the Treaty of Rome.

Let us take a few examples. It sets out the objectives of agricultural policy in a very fair way. In that regard one point is to increase agricultural productivity through technical progress and rational development. It was argued that the EEC had no social programme. It is not correct to say that. It was also said that the Mansholt Plan visualised large groupings in rural areas and a consequential reduction of farmers. I would be prepared to argue that when the various Governments making up the Community get together a populated rural area will be considered essential to any country.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not think Longford County Council will like it.

Mr. Carter

I do not like sarcastic remarks. I am a member of Longford County Council. Is there anything wrong with that?

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy knows the Mansholt policy with regard to agriculture. It could not be congenial.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has pointed out repeatedly that it is not prepared to put up with interruptions.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Deputy referred to Mansholt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Every Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking later.

Mr. Carter

I referred to Mansholt in the context of the general argument. Some Deputy speaking against membership said that the Mansholt Plan visualised the extermination of the small farmer.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That is right.

Mr. Carter

This is not so. Mansholt started out with the family farm. When I first attended the Council of Europe I discovered this fact early on. I am prepared——

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will not give any further warnings with regard to interruptions. The debate must be allowed to continue in an orderly fashion. Every Deputy will be given a fair chance to make his contribution.

Mr. Carter

I think the revised Mansholt Plan will be the subject of debate and possibly of decision. I believe that the Governments making up the Community will not agree with all the terms and that a solution will be found for the problem of overproduction. How does Dr. Mansholt know but that the units he might create might not over-produce to a greater extent than the small producers are producing at the moment? He is realistic about it. He is planning for what is happening. Mansholt's thesis is that it is better to plan for what might happen rather than let events take their course. I do not know whether the Governments making up the Community will agree in general with Mansholt's reasoning. I do not believe such Governments will ultimately agree with his reasoning on the rural pattern.

Another aim of the Rome Treaty was to ensure a fair standard of living for all. We all subscribe to this aim but we may differ as to the means of achieving it. There is a further aim of stabilising markets and ensuring reasonable prices for consumers. Every Government in Europe I know of would subscribe to this view. We have been trying to stabilise the sale of produce for a long time and have been finding it hard to do. We have been fortunate in that the British market has enabled us to do it for certain products. Otherwise we might not have been able to stabilise or adjust, as we should like, our basic agricultural prices.

Some one said that under the Treaty we would be in a difficult position regarding employment, farming and industrial effort. People who speak like this possibly overlook the fact that there is provision in the European group to take into account the special nature of farming in the Community. There is provision to deal with this problem even in a regional context. I am not as nervous as some speakers seem to be about this question of our aim in joining the EEC. Perhaps we could have a better pattern in agriculture and industry over the years. Unfortunately, we are being carried forward in this effort to increase standards of living too quickly at times. This creates competition between the groups. We see the pattern of strikes over the years. This will not help us when it comes to the question of entry to the Community. We hope to eliminate this by degrees. The black mark in this regard is on our record whether we like it or not. There may be gain on one side and loss on another. We might gain substantially on the agricultural side and then we could afford to lose a little on the industrial side. I do not think that unemployment figures would increase very much but we should make a special effort to see that, whatever we may do and whatever action is decided on, a phased exercise is the order of the day when it comes to dealing with industry. I believe the Commission realises this and the President of the Commission realises it. Hence the agreement reached in his talks with the Minister for External Affairs.

I do not propose to prolong this argument but I feel that at this stage in our development we should not be afraid of progressing towards entry into the EEC.

Dr. Thornley

Almost the first time I paid serious attention to the question of Irish entry into the Common Market was some seven years ago when I attended a conference held in Greystones to discuss this subject by an organisation of which I was then a member—a perfectly respectable organisation, I assure the Government benches. At that time the parish priest of Greystones was Father Fennelly, now dead.

Mr. M. O'Leary

A decent man.

Dr. Thornley

He was a decent man, as Deputy O'Leary says. He was in many ways in advance of his time and he became growingly irritated by the way in which Greystones was being used as a conference centre, feeling that many of these conferences discussed topics very remote from the real life and needs of the Irish people. Being a slightly original and, to some extent, eccentric man, he used to express these sentiments in the course of the Mass. At one point during the period of this conference he turned round and staring directly at me and my fellow delegates he said, in the middle of the Our Father: "The country is sinking under the weight of hot air."

I do not think there is a subject which has generated more hot air in the last ten years than the possibility of Irish entry into the Common Market. Deputy Carter expressed some bewilderment at the attitude of Members on these benches towards the Common Market. May I say that I think Members on these benches, and I enumerate in that body people who were on these benches long before I came upon them, have perhaps demonstrated a unique realism and consistency in their attitudes towards the Common Market and in the reservations which they have expressed towards Irish membership of it, at a time when the great bulk of speeches emanating from the Government benches and emanating from the battery of docile, Pavlovian economists whom they have retained to buttress and reassure them in their over-optimistic predilections, were suffused with a euphoria which was almost missionary in its zeal and fervour? Some traces of that euphoria were present in the extremely moving peroration delivered by Deputy Carter tonight when he reminded us that we are one of the oldest of European countries. It brought me back some years to a time when I heard speeches being made which anticipated that the entry of Ireland into the Common Market would bring a resurgence of that movement which took place in, I think, the 8th Century—I stand subject to correction —when the Irish nation brought its missionary fervour to the redemption of the Continent of Europe. It appears that large numbers of people, more in optimism than understanding, think that from the industrial and agricultural base of this, at best, developing country, whose major export for 50 years has been its people, a comparable civilising mission is now going to be mounted. I confess I view this attitude with about the most extreme degree of derision which is compatible with membership of this Assembly.

I thought, perhaps, the most witty and correct summing up of our position was that expressed by Deputy Carter. He put it in rather well chosen and convoluted language and I wrote it down quickly as he was speaking. If I do less than justice to the quality of his English I accept the responsibility for the failing being on my part. As my note stands what he said was that it was better to plan what was happening than have what was happening happen unplanned.

Mr. Andrews

Of course, that sort of remark is what is called academic arrogance.

Mr. Corish

That is what the man said and nobody knew what he was talking about.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Thornley.

Dr. Thornley

The implication of Deputy Carter's remarks was quite correct, that what was happening was inevitable and since it was inevitable it was better to plan it. Planning is supposed to exercise some control over the future happiness of one's community and its institutions and its economy. So, perhaps, the word "planning" was not the correct one. Perhaps he should have said that since what was happening was going to happen inevitably it was best to produce descriptive volumes like the White Paper with the green cover on membership of the European Economic Community which accurately forecasts what is seen as the inevitable by this Government.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy should not misquote me. I was speaking in the context of the Mansholt Plan.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We accept that.

Dr. Thornley

I am glad the Deputy confirmed that because, as Deputy O'Leary pointed out earlier, the implication of the Mansholt Plan is the virtual eradication of the small farmer in Ireland. I am glad to hear that Deputy Carter not merely accepts the "planning" of the inevitable as interpreted by the economic advisers of the Department of the Taoiseach——

Mr. Carter

That is merely propaganda.

Dr. Thornley

——he also accepts the "planning" of the inevitable as interpreted by Dr. Mansholt.

Mr. M. O'Leary

He thinks Dr. Mansholt and holy water will keep that fate from his constituents.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must appeal for a hearing for the Deputy in possession.

Dr. Thornley

My interest in the Common Market goes back quite seriously very many years. I have no difficulty in standing here and justifying the reservations which I and my colleagues in the Labour Party feel about membership of the Common Market. These reservations do not derive from any doctrinaire standpoint. They do not derive from any extreme socialist creed or any extreme Chauvinist, nationalist creed either. They stem from a realistic concern with the lives and happiness and jobs of Irish people.

When it was neither fashionable nor profitable to advance economic and political arguments against membership of the Common Market back in 1963 Deputy Dr. O'Donovan, Mr. David Hamilton in UCD and myself and one or two others were among the few who endeavoured to stem the wave of euphoria which then seemed to wash over Government thinking. I was one of the few people in that year to predict that we would not, in fact, attain membership of the Common Market. At that time a great, ranged battery of economists, civil servants, politicians and populace of one kind or another were indulging in expressions of optimism about the Common Market. The number who stood aside from this tide were few as they always are in Ireland. They included Dr. O'Donovan, as I have said. Mr. Raymond Crotty was another economist who was prepared to express reservations. The mood of most of the Pavlovian emissaries of the Fianna Fáil regime was one of euphoria.

When General de Gaulle, with the love of Ireland which Deputy Carter has reassured us the French still possess, with a paternal and careful solicitude for the needs of the Irish people, rightly refused the possibility of our being admitted to the Common Market he rendered us, in my opinion, a great service and perhaps qualified himself to be the most logical, practical replacement for Nelson in the middle of O'Connell Street, saving us from the folly to which our own rulers were in the process of committing us. In so doing he gave to us gratuitously, a quantity of time by which we could increase our preparedness for entry into the European Economic Community, but has that time been validly and properly used? In my opinion it has not.

Whatever the defects of the governmental mood which prevailed at the time of the first proposal to enter the Common Market it did at least have the effect of initiating through the Committee on Industrial Organisation and other bodies like the NIEC a programme of industrial reviews designed to gear and equip our industry for entry into a condition of free trade. The mood of almost crisis which prevailed in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 has passed away. It is common knowledge on all sides of the House that the various review bodies like the CIO have ground down to a virtual halt. These reviews were supposed to be reactivated and attempts were supposed to be made to streamline industry for conditions of free trade. With a few honourable exceptions these attempts have not been sustained and the business community itself—no socialists here—is fully aware that the process of adaptation by dialogue between Government and business has not in fact taken place. Instead, the Government have fallen back upon a compound of pious exhortation, culminating in that most weak-kneed of documents, The Third Programme, suggesting to private industry that it should adapt and reform its ways but going no further. The result is that the adaptation which has taken place in private industry has been in response to the most classic of 19th century motivation, the process of laissez faire, the kind of rationalisation which has eliminated with one stroke sectors of the footwear industry for example; the kind of rationalisation which eliminated the Electra lamps factory; the kind of rationalisation which will shortly eliminate at a blow the car assembly industry.

When we on these benches are accused by people like Deputy Carter of being doctrinaire or unrealistic I find it difficult to understand this. We are talking here in the first instance about the jobs of the ordinary men and women who, in the case of the car assembly industry, were assured that they were contributing towards a permanent, viable sector of our economy. They now find themselves told that the laws of economic progress which determine the area in which they work have become collectively redundant. The Taoiseach has hinted that there are substantial areas of industry which will become thus collectively redundant. he has not told us what they are, he has not spelled this out, but merely by hinting he has reminded the working men and women that a great question mark hangs over the competitiveness of the firms of which they are part and parcel. This question mark hangs over their jobs, the quality of their lives, their capacity to educate their children and their chances of permanent employment in this country. Is it doctrinaire to advert to this danger? I do not think it is in the slightest.

May I remind speakers from the Government benches who now approach this topic in the mood of missionary euphoria to which I referred at the outset, that the tariff walls which they are now dismantling were erected by them? The architect of the building of protectionist industry in this country was the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, who, in my opinion, rendered great service to this country in so doing. Has the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass the right to turn round after 30 years of building a tariff protected economy and say to the workers in those tariff protected industries, "Sorry about that chief, the Treaty of Rome says that you have had it"? I do not think he has that right. I am not being personal when I say this but people like the former Taoiseach, Mr. Lemass, are well taken care of by the world, as they should be and as they deserve to be. The people in my constituency like one man from T. & C. Martins are not comparably rewarded when they are thrown upon the human scrap heap of redundancy at the age of 65 with a handout of maybe £340 or £350. Is it doctrinaire to be concerned with the protection of those people? It is because we are so concerned that we demand that the negotiations sustained by our negotiators in Europe should be tough, vigorous and specifically and professionally geared to the needs of this country. That is the tenor of the Fine Gael amendment. It is a good amendment. It is not the kind of amendment we could have a vote on— I do not know—it might be supererogatory to have a vote on it but it is a necessary point to make.

Are those negotiations going to be separately, toughly and professionally geared to the protection of the livelihood and happiness of working men? I find no reassurance in the successive answers which the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs have given in this House to questions about the manner in which our negotiations will be conducted. I find no reassurance in the remark made by Deputy Carter that our negotiations will be on a par with the British negotiations for entry. What does, "on a par" mean? Could it be clearly understood in this House that by sheer economic fact there is an enormous diversity of interest between negotiations which would be appropriate and helpful to British entry and negotiations which would be appropriate and helpful to ours? This is a totally different kind of economy. Unless we want to turn our island into a cattle ranching reserve to feed the Common Market we have to accept the fact that we have an industrial base which is narrow, restricted and whose whole history rests upon the effective functioning of protective tariffs.

Here again the Government place us in a dilemma as they have done since the inception of the possibility of entry into EEC because if we rise inside this House or outside it—and we are less given to rising outside it and making ridiculous statements than some other Members are—and point to the patent weakness of our economy in the context of free trade we can be accused of providing material for our competitors in Europe, providing material for our detractors and weakening the hands of our negotiators.

Before I hear the Minister for External Affairs, as I presume it will be, concluding this debate, I know in advance that that is what he will say about the warnings that are emanating from the Labour and Fine Gael benches in this respect, that they are in some respects selling the country down the river and weakening the hands of the negotiators. The weakness of our economy is a fact. It is a fact that we are at best a developing economy. To baulk at or ignore this fact would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Members of this House.

It has to be accepted that the percentage devoted to industry in the structure of our gross domestic product in 1968 was the lowest of any member of the European Economic Community or any applicant to join it. The level of fixed investment as a percentage of gross national product was the second lowest and fixed investment per person was the lowest. This is the outcome of protective industrial policies. It is not digging up history to say that it is the product of politics which emanated from those benches.

It is therefore perfectly in order and in no sense destructive of our own national position to say to the people still active in politics who enunciated these policies that they should protect, rescue, look after and cherish the people working in the industries which have grown behind their tariff walls. Do not ditch these people to the laws of free trade. Similarly, protect and negotiate on behalf of the small farmers whom 30 years ago you pledged you would cherish, and do not abandon them to the tender mercies of Deputy Carter's friend, Dr. Mansholt. The implication of Common Market thinking is that they will not be protected any longer; it is also the implication of much of the Government's thinking, if it is as reflected in the Buchanan Report. If these people are finished they should be told. It is time the question of EEC entry was honestly faced and the euphoria and missionary zeal replaced by concern for the bread and butter of working Irish men and women in industry and agriculture.

I wish to echo a point made by Deputy Corish about the manner in which the possibility of association has been totally dismissed. I am not categorically saying we should strive for association rather than for membership but I am questioning whether the Government have explored satisfactorily any contingency plans. There is no evidence in the White Paper that they have done this. There is no costing of possible alternatives, no evaluation of what would be the best course for the material welfare of the Irish people. I remember asking the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Haughey, if he had got any contingency plans in the event of non-entry into the EEC and it was quite evident from his reply that he did not even know what a contingency plan meant.

Therefore, the question again arises: have we evaluated the cost of the alternatives? I do not think we have. The concept of association is shot down very quickly for two reasons: first, that the members of the EEC would not favour it so far as we are concerned—that may be true; secondly, that with three or four seats in the EEC we would be able to exert an influence on the manner in which decisions were reached. This supposition is patently absurd.

I share with other Deputies a passionate concern for Ireland's political independence. I share the misgivings of some Deputies that that political independence in some way will be limited by entry into the EEC. However, at the risk of being called a materialist—another of the stock dirty words of political debate in Ireland— may I say my prime concern is to protect the jobs of Irish workers and farmers? I do not think the Government have been honest with these people.

They have endeavoured here to present membership as an ideal choice for Ireland in a situation in which we have no choice at all other than to accept membership of the Communities. Perhaps this course was inevitable from the beginning but now it has been copperfastened round our necks by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement which has effectively reduced our field of manoeuvre to a point where it is almost non-existent. The Government tell us they will be negotiating pari passu with the British negotiators and from what we have been told it appears the negotiations will start next September. We are told that the maximum equipment period available to us is five years. In that time we will not be in a position to equip ourselves financially and what the Government are saying in effect is that a five-year sentence of death hangs over sectors of the Irish economy.

What are the alternatives? I am not saying we should take a "little Ireland" line, that we should totally ignore our European connections and the reality of our dependence on the British market. Neither am I much in sympathy with those extreme nationalistic elements who seem to think our cattle could be carried by helicopter to Czechoslovakia, North Africa or somewhere like that——

Mr. Corish

Or even Cuba.

Dr. Thornley

Well, I did not say that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It sounds good anyway.

Dr. Thornley

As Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby said, “Every man claims one virtue” and I claim to be a realist. I do not think realism is confined to the benches of the party of reality. Therefore, I am not arguing that we should adopt a “little Ireland” or a “know nothing” attitude towards the Common Market and, to this extent, my view of the EEC has softened since the time Deputy FitzGerald and I first exchanged courtesies in the television studios some years ago. However, we are entitled to state a number of facts: first, our economy is weak and to pretend otherwise is not telling the truth; secondly, entry into the EEC, except on the most favourable terms, will impose massive disruption on our traditional industries and on small farmers; thirdly, are the small farmers and people engaged in those traditional industries who have been given reassurance in the past 40 years by the Fianna Fáil Party that they were the backbone of the country, to be told now they have no rights? Are they to be subjected to a kind of economic laissez faire policy, worthy of Enoch Powell?

We have the right to demand that the negotiations on our behalf will be conducted by the most tough professional and gifted spokesmen in the country.

Mr. M. O'Leary

They are not around any more; they have been expelled.

Mr. Andrews

What about Deputy Browne and Deputy Coughlan?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This children's Cabinet could not negotiate their way.

Dr. Thornley

I never indulge in personalities in this House——

Mr. Andrews

The Deputy himself brought up the subject.

Mr. M. O'Leary

There are only juveniles on those benches over there.

Mr. Andrews

What about the juveniles in the Labour Party?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Most of the Cabinet should be up on the back benches.

Dr. Thornley

It was my impression that they were.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Thornley should proceed with his speech.

Dr. Thornley

There have been some distressing changes in the Government personnel but I shall not comment further on this matter: it is their problem and I am sure they will solve it in their usual impeccable way. However, in the light of those changes can a worker in Cabra, Ballyfermot or anywhere else, who has seen what happened to Electra and Potez, who knows how much his job is imperilled, believe that the splendid gallery of men named as our negotiators can sit down with Dr. Mansholt and extract toughly, forcibly, and no doubt fluently in three languages, concessions the Irish nation is entitled to expect to preserve the jobs of the ordinary people?

Debate adjourned.