asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the reason given by the EEC for the last suspension of Ireland's application to join the Community.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
10.
I would refer the Deputy to paragraph 496 of the Government's White Paper on the European Communities of April, 1967, which describes the circumstances of the suspension in January, 1963, of action on the applications for membership of Ireland and the other applicant countries.
It is a slow way of obtaining information.
Can the Minister say whether the suspension was at our instance or at the instance of the Council of Ministers?
Before coming into Question Time I tried to obtain a copy of the White Paper so as to save time but I did not get it early enough. However, if the Deputy will read the paragraph I have referred to, this will be explained to him. It seems to me that what happened at the time was that the Six could not agree on a procedure and adjourned indefinitely. The Deputy should read the White Paper.
11.
asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what information or explanations given by the Community negotiators led the Irish delegation to abandon the question of possible action against dumping or practices of a dumping nature within the Community at the end of the transitional period.
The possibility of our taking action against practices of a dumping nature within the enlarged Community has not been abandoned. The Deputy's question does not, therefore, arise.
May I say that my question is a direct quotation from the Minister's statement as circulated last week and some further explanation is called for?
To clarify the document which the Deputy received, as a result of discussions between the Irish delegation and the Commission it is our understanding that if difficulties should arise for Irish industry after the transitional period, as a result of practices which would not be dumping but which would be of a dumping nature —the Deputy understands that there would not be dumping in a Common Market—recourse could be had to certain Articles of the provisions of the EEC Treaty, Articles 7, 85, 86 and 92.
With regard to possible dumping from third countries after the transitional period, we discussed with the Commission the circumstances in which an Irish industry would normally qualify for treatment as a community producing industry and for which special provision can be made under the EEC anti-dumping regulations. In the light of the information we received we do not consider it necessary to pursue further in the negotiations the question of possible practices of a dumping nature after the transitional period.
May I ask the Minister if the Government's ready acceptance of these explanations means that if a case occurs which we can, for the sake of simplicity, describe as dumping, between ourselves and another Community country after the transitional period we could, under these Articles, be able to take immediate unilateral action in the first instance so as to justify it after the event?
We will seek a situation whereby we can take action. The Deputy will understand that by that time we will be part of a single market, that is at the end of the transitional period. There will not be different and separate markets but one market. The Deputy might just as well say that dumping in Donegal is not dumping in Dublin. There are provisions to protect us.
What worries me is that the Minister should accept such a simplistic thesis. While the Common Market is, in a technical and economic sense, a single market, it is a market of different geographical areas and our position creates a totally different dumping situation within what is technically a common market.
We cannot have a discussion on the matter.
The word "dumping" would not apply in a single market.
Call it what you like.
Under the provisions of the Treaty that I have mentioned, action can be taken to protect geographic situations of industries.
What I want to know is if action can be taken unilaterally pending subsequent justification or would we have to wait until after the damage had been done before taking action?
We could take action unilaterally. The Deputy must not continue to give the impression that we are to have a separate market here with protective action. It will be a common market.
At least in so far as the Minister accepts it is a common market but——
The Deputy wants a common market and a separate market.
——within this market, certain isolated areas, like ours, with minimum transport charges, could be subject to certain practices of dumping that would not be possible within countries that are contiguous.
We cannot have speeches at Question Time.
The question I have asked relates to unilateral action.
The Deputy has asked several times.
As I have told the Deputy, action is possible. We would seek in certain circumstances to be able to take unilateral action because of the rapid nature of the required action.
The Minister has changed his formula.
I am telling the Deputy the position as explained to us and as it would be in a final common market. It would be possible for us to take action to protect industries but I cannot accept the Deputy's thesis that you can have a common market and ten separate markets at the same time. It is a total misunderstanding and the fact of the Deputy continuing to bring it up will not make it accurate.
I will continue——
The Deputy may not continue. I am calling Question No. 12.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputy FitzGerald please resume his seat and allow questions to continue? He is continually making speeches. This is the fifth supplementary that has been allowed.
I am awaiting a reply from the Minister but, if the Minister and the Chair so wish, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Perhaps Deputy FitzGerald and the Minister would get together and decide whether it is the same market they are trying to get into.
You cannot have ten and one but I suppose you can have anything you like over there.
You cannot have Boland and Lynch.