Yes, but our approach antedated the arrival of economists. We are happy to find the economists supporting our political approach to this agreement in 1966. We are not happy about the effects of that agreement but we are happy that simple men looking at problems fairly can come to the correct conclusions. We understood that our economy, being an underdeveloped one, could not expand in perfect free trade conditions. We still suffer from the simple lack of understanding of how it can come about that our industries can expand in conditions of perfect free trade. We have looked at the pages of economic history to find such a miracle and we have found none. Ours has never been a developed economy. The whole makeup of our economy makes us as an applicant unique among the applicants, one with unique problems. That can be proved from the structures and from the proportion of our population employed in agriculture or by a measurement of the per capita income of the population. In this month's issue of the OECD Observer we are third last in a long list of countries. That is our position in the league. That is our situation when we say we are ready to comply with the full terms of the Treaty of Rome. On page 101 of this book on the Common Market it is stated:
Doubts about the wisdom of allowing Europe's major underdeveloped country
—that is us—
to join as a full member were largely dissolved by the charm, good sense and positive enthusiasm of the permanent heads of the Éireann Departments of External Affairs and of Finance who toured the capitals of the Six.
I do not doubt the good humour of those men but I have reservations about their good sense. I have been in trouble here before in doubting the qualities of the people in the diplomatic service. I doubt the good sense of the heads of the Departments whose enthusiasm and good humour persuaded these hard-headed Europeans that they could allow in "Europe's major underdeveloped country".
We have been accused by Government spokesmen who know the sensitive nature of the working people and who know on what a slender basis that confidence is based when they have said that we are telling Irish workers that they are inferior. We are not. We are defending the birthright of every Irish worker to have his job protected. It is the job of the Government to protect the jobs. When we speak about the nature of our economy and the dangerous position in which the worker is placed in a free trade situation we do no more than our duty and we do no more than declare our allegiance to the worker's cause and interest. It ill becomes others, whose negotiations affect the worker and put his job in danger, to accuse us of forgetting his real interests.
Britain is negotiating very seriously indeed now. It would have been heresy to say ten years ago that Britain might not go in. British public opinion has shifted perceptibly on this and it may never happen that Britain goes in, in which case we will have another alternative to discuss. But, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is correct in saying that if Britain does not go in on this occasion it may be the last time that Britain would try. I think he has made that statement and I would go along with him in saying it, at least for a very long time. It certainly would mean that our own accession to the Community would be postponed indefinitely or that certainly a different argument would commence. But they are now negotiating seriously and assuming that they get over their budgetary difficulties, their financial arrangements with the EEC, we shall know later this year whether these things will come to pass or not.
Norway is negotiating. The Government have just fallen today. Norway has complained of the lack of regional policy. It has referred to the fisheries problem which is not unique to Norway and to the agricultural industry. I referred earlier to the tremendous importance of political considerations in the make-up of EEC. We recall that Norway, wishing to keep her agriculture out, having a different approach not having the same agricultural problems as we have, sought exemption for her agriculture. It demonstrates the political considerations, which outweigh all economic considerations in the Community, when you remember that the understanding of the Norwegian Ambassador at Brussels was that the northern portion of Norway would gain exemptions in agriculture purely to maintain the population of that area for, in the words of the Commission, "security reasons"—these being the proximity to the borders of Russia. Which political considerations are advanced by our fiat to maintain our rural population? It would be very interesting also for Irish farmers to know which are the political considerations which under-pin the agricultural price support system in Europe and to understand that it is not a secure system.
Sweden is strong enough to stand by at the moment on the EEC. We have this position of the applicants at the moment: Norway, with a Government fallen today, on the whole question of accession to the EEC; Britain, a Government negotiating very seriously; Denmark, pretty complacent about the position as well she may be, looking at her economy. And, of our own negotiations it can be said that they are not really seriously facing up to Irish problems, or there is little evidence to suggest that they are. There is little evidence to suggest that the Irish negotiations are emphasising the lack of a regional policy, that the Irish negotiators, although they may represent a party of reality, know the reality of Irish industry when they declare their acceptance of the idea that a five year transition period is sufficient to protect Irish jobs in the years ahead. Of the four applicants, the one that is in fact doing least negotiating is the Irish applicant. The one that is repeatedly stating its confidence in overcoming all obstacles is the one with least reason for feeling any way confident in facing any obstacles in the EEC.
Under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in this month of January we have 800 redundancies resulting from that agreement. That is a staggering figure for one month especially when it represents 10,000, in round figures, for a year. There is little evidence to suggest that our negotiators in that five year transition period are looking for large derogations from the terms of that transition period which would take out of that period large sections of our industry and give them a longer period of preparation. I have seen no such evidence spelled out.
The clothing and footwear industries are obviously industries under penal servitude sentence in terms of the five year transition period which the Government are agreeing to, involving 20,000 to 25,000 working people. This is a matter about which the trade unions are gravely concerned. Here are problems and here are people in jobs and seemingly the negotiating attitude of the Government is one of indifference. We are, in fact, Europe's periphery and apparently we are not making the strongest case of all for a satisfactory regional policy because of this weak position. There is no emphasis on that point from Europe's periphery—ourselves.
It is interesting also to find in Swann's publication The Economics of the Common Market, page 117—a very good reference in regard to lack of a regional policy in the Community at present:
A glance at the map of the Six quickly reveals that the most highly developed regions form a block of concentrated economic activity centered on the Rhine-Rhone axis, extending from the Netherlands in the north to Northern Italy in the south. In 1963 a report to the European Parliament estimated that this area covered about 35 per cent of the land area of the Community but accounted for 45 per cent of its population and about 60 per cent of its gross product. Inevitably, the question arises as to whether a far reaching process of economic integration will lead to an acceleration of this concentration to the detriment of the relatively peripheral areas.
Then in brackets is added:
Within the context of British membership of EEC the question can be put in this way—
—a very interesting question for an English publication to put, by the way, in terms of this lack of a regional policy on the part of the EEC—the question they put is:
Will Britain become the Northern Ireland of the Common Market?
The question that should present itself to our minds is that on the basis of the present Government's conduct of the negotiations, will Ireland become what the Aran Islands now are to the mainland of Ireland? This is a question for us to think out in regard to our application and our negotiations at present. Of all countries seeking EEC membership the lack of a regional policy in that institution must most hit our interest and our position. Yet, the various reports of negotiations that we have give one little confidence that this life or death significance for us of a regional policy in the EEC is properly appreciated on the Government's side.
One might ask if the entire implications of an economic monetary union have been spelled out. From the official publications it would appear they have not. Have the implications of the Werner report for our economy been worked out? Has the idea of a single economy in Europe been worked out and what implications will it have for us? A single European currency and the whole idea of budgetary arrangements that harmonise with each other—what would be the position of an Irish Minister for Finance in such a situation?
The point to be made is that what started out as a customs union, as a simple agricultural market, is now something qualitatively different. I made this point before in a previous debate: there is so little difference in emphasis between the way our negotiations have been conducted on this round of talks on our application and the way we conducted a previous round in the early '60s that there appears to be little recognition that there has been a change in the institutions in the meantime. A political union, in fact, is the next stage. All the manifold implications of this situation have not been explained to the people. The Government and their spokesmen have side-stepped the awkward implications—and there are many awkward implications—involved in our accession to the EEC.
It is to the honour of this party that alone of the parties represented in this House we have done our best to bring into focus the disadvantages of accession to the EEC, disadvantages which have not been referred to adequately by other parties in this House; that alone of the national parties we sought to inaugurate a debate here on the whole position because we felt it was necessary in face of the seeming indifference of this Government, the long tenure of office apparently making them indifferent to the real position in Irish industry.
We have suffered for our stand. In the first phase it was considered a fellow-traveller posture to criticise the application, and even at this stage we find peculiar expressions used towards critics of the Government's policy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Hillery, in one of his airport seances referred to the enemies of Ireland. This must have been a rehearsal for the RDS a fortnight ago. We probably should have been on our guard but he did use that peculiar expression in relation to our criticism of the Government's application. Realising that this Government are the Government of all the people, including working people, if we succeed in bringing that Government to their senses we will have performed a service for the Irish people.
Most of the Fianna Fáil spokesmen, which includes Mr. Lemass and the Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party— with the possible exception of Deputy Childers who has been struck by the lyrical aspects of our entry to the EEC, the monks of Charlemagne's court and so on—have been satisfied with adumbrating the solid advantages of joining. Without misrepresenting them one could say that the idea was sold on the basis of higher prices for farmers : British prices are low; EEC prices are high. We just enter the EEC and we get the higher prices. In the meantime something will happen to save Irish industry, investments will come from somewhere and jobs will be retained.
The people who have been most duped in the whole affair are the farmers. I do not think their organisations have done a service to the farmers in not alerting them to the problems attendant on membership. There may be higher prices for some Irish farmers, but as to the effects of entry on small farms, none of the people in Brussels hide their real intention towards farming in the EEC, the intention to take people off the land. I am not saying this is not happening at the moment but it would be wrong not to point out that it will be intensified in EEC conditions. It will be. We are told there will be fewer farmers but they will be more prosperous. Will they be as prosperous as is suggested?
It is true that in the early 1960s the price increases for agriculture would have been unanswerable and the Government case then for Irish farmers on the basis of increased prices was unanswerable. Let that be said. However, the case is not unanswerable now. Inflation has cut into farm prices in the EEC. In fact, there is a silent conspiracy among the Government of the Six to allow inflation to do its dirty work. There can be no political or human agency when inflation is taking all the unpopular decisions of member Governments. The agricultural lobby in the EEC is on the retreat. No matter how many cows may be brought into the Brussels Parlour the fact is that the Government of the Six, by a gentleman's agreement are allowing the present volume of price supports for agricultural products to run down. Therefore, the Irish farmers' organisations are not standing by their members and outlining these dangers. Irish farmers are being led up the bridle path.
I agree that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement has all the ingredients for the destruction of industry and commerce in this island and that by 1975 that creature of Fianna Fáil negotiations the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement would have done all that was necessary to destroy it. We do not deny this. We do not deny that there is not enough fissionable material around this country in the hand of this Government to put every man and woman out of a job but a great proportion of jobs are in jeopardy. I have a copy of a letter here from the vice-President of the Transport Union, "Urgent by Hand", addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and dated 5th March, 1971, part of which I should like to quote :
... We have represented to you also our concern about the impact which the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and the possible EEC climate is having or can have on certain sectors of Irish industry and we have been especially concerned at the plight of textiles where there has been a substantial loss of employment over the last 12 months.
It goes on to say :
In the broad area of concern for the future, having regard to the impact which the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement is having on Irish industry and on Irish competitiveness, we have to suggest most strongly that the Government would immediately avail of the provisions of Articles 1, 18, 19 and 23 to initiate a major review of the terms and provisions of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement so that appropriate protective measures to safeguard the future of Irish industry may be taken.
I do not deny that all these things are in that agreement signed by the Government opposite. However, that agreement is at this moment weakening our competitive position vis-à-vis the EEC. The Federation of Irish Industries saw this some time ago when they referred with alarm to the effect this agreement was having on the home market and on the competitiveness of Irish firms. Of course, that agreement was a misconception of the realities of the EEC. It was a mistake, another monument to the Government's ignorance of events abroad in matters of trade, commerce and politics.
The peculiar thing is that throughout this debate there has been a tendency to suggest that the Labour Party's approach is peculiar and unsocialist. May I say we are in the good company of most of the European socialist parties as they looked upon their countries' accession at the appropriate times over the past few years. We are in the company of the Italian, German and Danish parties, all of whom at various times voiced their objections to particular aspects of their Government's negotiations. Admittedly, the Dutch and the Belgians, for historical reasons, had a different approach.
The Labour Party have been accused of being isolationist. This is ironic coming from the Government party and, indeed, coming from certain spokesmen of the chief Opposition party. It is ironic that the only party in this House having international connections and affiliated to other European parties should be accused of being isolationists. No other party in this House have as we have, fraternal relations with the socialist parties of all the major countries in Europe. In fairness, therefore, how could we be described as being isolationists? Related to our central preoccupation with Irish jobs, and we admit that our preoccupation is with Irish jobs, was the feeling that other matters related to that preoccupation—neutrality and sovereignty—were very important as a bargaining basis, that it was very important to utilise whatever advantages there were in our independence for the benefit of the country.
It has been suggested that this preoccupation of ours is isolationist and that it does not add up to the adult approach of the other two parties. I might say at this point that the Fine Gael amendment asks the Government to do everything possible during the present negotiations to safeguard Irish interests. Based on the policy matter before us which is the conduct of negotiations by the Government, Fine Gael because of their position on this vital matter could be described accurately as being one of Fianna Fáil's most loyal oppositions. I hope that that remark will not be taken personally or with rancour. Deputy Oliver Flanagan spoke today in tones of opposition to the Government's application and their conduct in relation to negotiations but tonight there was no real opposition in this regard or throughout the 60's to Fianna Fáil's free trade adventures.
Did anybody, two, three or four years ago, hear the case explained adequately in relation to our concern for the Irish fishing industry? I do not recall that they did. It was not until Norway voiced her objection that the Irish Government discovered there were fish around our coasts which might be taken by the French or the Germans in Common Market conditions. There have been omissions as there has been mishandling in the conduct of our negotiations. We accept that in trying to face up to the implications of the Irish situation, we could be misrepresented, that it could be said by our enemies that our position was one that was isolationist, that was anti-national and one that did not reflect the true feelings of the people of the country. As a responsible Opposition we believe it to be our duty to point to the indifference of the Government in relation to the negotiations as we must point also to the lack of information. This lack of information has been referred to time and again and I think it was a Fine Gael speaker who referred some weeks ago to the lack of information as to the prospects for Irish jobs within the EEC. White Papers will not tell us what will be the position in relation to Irish jobs at the end of the five year transitional period. We considered it to be our duty to oppose this Government and to force them into the open. We considered it our duty to make the people aware of the import of the Government's whole approach to EEC membership. I do not know whether we succeeded in doing that because the question is often put: "Are you for or against Europe?"
I accept that should the British join, with whom the Government have tied us hand and foot under the Free Trade Area Agreement—which agreement will certainly do its work in the economy during the next few years whether or not we join the EEC—it will then become necessary for this tied economy, whose major export markets are in Britain, to come to an arrangement with the enlarged Community. Of course, there is no guarantee that Britain will decide to join. The position of the British Labour Party is that they will await negotiations before they decide whether to support or oppose membership.
It ill becomes the Government opposite to taunt us because of our opposition with lack of a geographic alternative to that situation. It ill becomes a party who have been in Government almost continuously since 1932 to taunt us with the result of their labours—an economy tied to Britain, an economy that allows us very little manoeuvrability in 1971, 1972 or 1973 —but that is their attitude. They act as if this broken economy were some sort of socialist invention that we brought about.
If Britain decides to join the Community, we must then ask ourselves what kind of relationship with the Community would suit us best. I do not accept that it is a clear case of black and white. Who is to say what other forms of relationship may yet be devised between the Community and other countries? Who is to say what will be the end of the road in relation to Sweden who are not joining because it would damage their traditional neutrality and since they would not depart from that neutrality? Who can say with certainty that, in an evolving Community situation, the only alternative is full membership or a trade agreement? Will other forms of association be devised in the years ahead? We do not know. Yet, we now have the responsible Minister telling this House that full membership suited us totally at all times and that any idea of associate membership could not be considered. There is the whole question of State aid which I do not have time to go into.
How will this fare within the EEC? Large numbers of our work force depend for their jobs on State industry. I am aware that the different member countries have not complied totally with the terms of the Rome Treaty. Have the Government sought any particular assurance for the large number of employees who are engaged in State industry? Of course, we shall accept the democratic decision of the Irish people in relation to the EEC but because of the mistakes made in the past by this Government on the basis of a misunderstanding of the events and because of their apparent lack of appreciation of the political motivation of the Community and since they can abandon, almost without being asked, the whole idea of neutrality, how can we place our destiny in their competence to deal with the jobs of the majority of our people? I am speaking about the entire handling of our trade abroad by Fianna Fáil from the Lemass period through the Lynch period. One can have no confidence in them because of the mistakes they have made.
We have sought all along to fill our opposition with real objectives and I shall conclude by mentioning the position of the Labour Party should the Government go ahead with their application. I quote from our Administrative Council Statement on Irish Entry into the EEC:
12.1 Labour does not have to be reminded that the Government, if it continues in office, has a majority sufficient to give parliamentary approval to any terms of a treaty of accession to the European Communities. If the Government pursue their negotiations, which they will if Britain are doing likewise, then Labour will fight within the Dáil on the terms of the Treaty. If full membership is approved by the Dáil on the Government's present terms, then Labour will fight in any referendum that arises to amend the national Constitution.
Within the Dáil, Labour will seek to have the following principles accepted without prejudice to the party position :
(1) The underdeveloped state of our industrial sector must be recognised by the EEC and no net loss of industrial employment must result from membership;
(2) The social structure of our rural community must not be damaged by the enforced implementation of the EEC agricultural policy. The special dependence of the Irish economy on agriculture must be recognised and safeguarded;
(3) The impact of membership on the balance of payments must not worsen to any extent an already serious situation;
(4) The entire area west of the Shannon, the three counties of Ulster under our jurisdiction and West Cork and Kerry must be given special facilities for industrial development. The special position of the Shannon Free Airport must be maintained;
(5) The national policy of neutrality in relation to international military blocs must be maintained;
(6) In particular, there must be no loss of national sovereignty over our land, fisheries or natural resources and there must be strict limitations on the rights of foreigners to purchase Irish land;
(6) There must be no dissimilarities in the treatment of areas on either side of the Border within the context of an EEC regional policy, if ever drafted and implemented.
