asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if any quantified study has been made of alternatives to full membership of the EEC.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Membership of EEC.
9.
In the Government's continuing examination of the implications for Ireland of membership of the EEC, the possible effects for the country of our remaining outside the enlarged EEC are taken fully into account. As the Deputy will appreciate, precise quantifications in these matters are really not possible.
Would the Minister make available the results obtained by these studies so that the debate on entry or non-entry can proceed from a more informed basis?
I shall see what can be done. The various Government Departments are making continuous studies. As the Deputy is aware, quantifications are calculations based on assumptions which themselves are based on a number of variables. The only way one can approach it is by taking different sets of assumptions and guess which will be nearer to reality. In fact, in regard to quantification of the future— whether the EEC question arises or does not arise—it would be a very doubtful matter as to whether it would have any relation to fact. The Deputy will be aware that forecasting is based on assumptions of certain matters remaining the same, whereas the future —irrespective of whether we join the EEC—will not be the same as the past.
I appreciate what the Minister has said with regard to the difficulty of forecasting. Nevertheless, is it not a feasible economic exercise to make quantified projections? Is it not essential for our negotiators that these should be made in advance so that they may have the advantage of information on projections which will obtain, to provide the minimum baseline after which the advantages or disadvantages become apparent?
By definition quantification implies precision which is not possible. The implications of membership in the different sectors is the subject of continuous study and forecasting and the weight is heavily in favour of membership.
If the Minister cannot have exact details of alternatives to full membership, it is difficult to understand how he can claim to have exact details of what the benefits would be under full membership. How can the Minister compare whether full membership is the better bet for the country than one or two alternatives if he is unable to quantify the effects of the alternatives?
Quantification implies precision. However, in regard to the common agricultural policy with its higher level of prices, with its stimulation of production and guaranteed market prices for the farmers, this is something that cannot be measured because it is obvious that it is better to have all these things.
It is not as simple as that.
If the Deputy does not want the answer, that is another matter.
Would the Minister not agree that on a previous occasion he accepted that in the White Paper to be published there would be a quantified assessment regarding the effects of membership? Would the Minister not accept that it is of vital importance to have this? Further, does he not accept that the House and the country will realise clearly that any such assessments or estimates must be based on stated, but reasoned, assumptions? The people can make up their own minds because they can judge for themselves whether the assumptions are reasonable. Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries stated here yesterday that he could not even estimate what would be the Irish price at this moment for agricultural products if we were members of the EEC now? He showed the greatest reluctance to consider any type of quantification for the present or for the future. Will the Minister reconsider the position in the light of what I have said?
One could say now that the price of beef would be, say, 60 per cent better in the Community now than it is here——
The Minister's colleague refused to say that.
I am calling Question No. 10.
When the Minister states that we are heavily in favour of joining the Community, does the Minister mean if Britain joins the Community? If Britain does not go in, do we go it alone?
I have answered this before. If Britain does not join the Community—an assumption I do not think we should make at the moment —it is not at all certain that the Community would consider enlarging to a lesser number than is proposed now. If they consider new applications, we would have to negotiate with the Community and see if what we could negotiate in those circumstances would leave us in a better position than our present position in the British market. As I have pointed out before, a totally new situation would arise, even for the Community, and the situation would have to be assessed at that time.
I have already called Question No. 10.
Does the Minister not appreciate that the people will need to have some assessment of the impact of membership?
Yes.
This involves quite complex calculations of the effects on employment and the increase in foreign spending which, I believe, would far exceed any redundancies—
That is an opinion.
I have stated it is my opinion. I am concerned that the Minister does not produce quantified assessment of membership carried through to its logical conclusion, based on stated and reasoned assumptions which people can accept or reject. There is no other possibility of people making up their minds in a sensible way on this issue.
We have had this before. If Deputies would accept the limitations on forecasting, the different assumptions that must be made and the different variables on which the assumptions are made, it would be possible to put out figures that would be totally knocked down by the Labour Party as being unfounded. If Deputies will accept the limitations of that kind of forecasting, I think we should make some attempt in this regard. However, I would ask the Deputy not to base all his argument in favour of membership on simple economic forecasting.
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would not answer a simple question——
I am calling Question No. 10. This is turning into a debate. Would Deputy FitzGerald please allow questions to continue?
The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries was quite right. When it is a matter of precise prices for commodities it is not possible to name them. It is merely that we know that is the gap.
What is the gap?
The 60 per cent gap in regard to beef.
The Minister did not give us that figure.
He has given that figure often but the Deputy is looking for precise commodity prices.
The Minister did not know.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 10.