I am sure that every member of the House will be glad to know that an agreement has been reached. I doubt if many Senators, following the Minister, will be able to grasp exactly the significance of what he said. He did not tell us in plain English whether he regarded it as fully satisfactory or not. At a quick glance, it would seem to be, not perhaps wholly satisfactory, but very much better than the present condition. It is extremely difficult to follow a complicated document of that kind and most of us will feel it cannot be debated now. As the Minister has pointed out, it cannot be ratified without legislation, so it will have to come before both Houses at a time when it can be fully debated and understood.
The Appropriation Bill provides the only occasion when Senators can deal with general subjects affecting administration. We take advantage of the Bill in order to debate many matters which might not come before us in legislation. It is tempting to deal with a very large number of subjects, but I personally propose to confine myself to one or two matters which were debated on the Estimates in the Dáil.
I would like to express my satisfaction at the fact that Ireland was invited to take part in the conference in Paris on what is usually called the Marshall plan. In their efforts to co-operate in plans for European economic recovery, our representatives in Paris have behind them the goodwill and best wishes of the majority of the people at home, irrespective of their political or Party opinions. I think it is important that when political opponents of the Government approve of its external relations policy they should express that approval in public. We in Ireland know quite well that a change of Government, if and when it does occur, will not affect in any way our desire for close relationship with the States of Europe, and with the United States of America, but this may not be widely appreciated outside the country. Now that we are getting a higher place in international affairs, it should be made clear when we are unitedly behind the Government in these matters.
I doubt if it is realised as widely as it should be that we are a European nation, and that our economy is closely linked with that of other European nations. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was right when he said in Paris that to neglect the chances of an all-European plan would have been inexcusable on mere grounds of political consideration. I also agreed with him when he pointed out that
"...the repercussions of economic decline in other countries are particularly felt by small nations, who cannot solve their problem by temporary patching up of their own economies."
I am quoting from the report in the Irish Times.
I am personally glad that the Government applied on behalf of the State for membership of the United Nations Organisation and that our application still stands. We regret that it was not immediately successful, but I do not think it did us any harm and even if it is not successful later, I do not think it will do us any harm either.
The subject of Partition was amongst those discussed in the Dáil on the Estimates. I was glad that the Taoiseach once again repeated his statement that there could be no question of attempting to coerce the people of the Six Counties to unite with us. Every thinking person will agree that the use of force by us or with our approval against our fellow-countrymen in the north-eastern counties is unthinkable, but if force is ruled out the only alternative is persuasion.
Persuasion will take time, and it will succeed only if it is continuous and is the result of a united and well-thoughtout policy. I do not believe that the majority of the people in the Six Counties will ever be convinced of the desirability of a United Ireland by the present policy, which seems to me to consist solely in talking about the wrong of a divided Ireland and explaining that England is largely to blame for it. As a historical fact, this may be true, but simply stating it will not get us anywhere. It only aggravates the English people, who are not interested in the past, and who believe that the only reason why Ireland is partitioned is that the majority in the Six Counties want to stay out. I may be wrong, but I cannot help feeling that it is a mistake to keep on saying that our relationships with Great Britain can never be as friendly as they should be until Partition is ended. I do not doubt that it contains an element of truth, but it is not always wise to keep on making a statement that can be misunderstood simply because it happens largely to be true.
All Parties in this State are convinced that Partition is a bad thing; all are desirous of ending it, but there is no united policy, except a policy of talk, which seems to me to have no effect whatsoever on the majority in the Six Counties—or, if it has any effect, it only makes them more hostile. In my opinion, we should stop talking about the Border and commence an active policy of conciliation and co-operation, especially in economic affairs.
The first step towards persuading another person to your point of view is to understand his mind and outlook, however much you may disagree with it. To understand the mind and outlook of another person, you must meet him and, if possible, work with him. We already co-operate with our fellow-countrymen of the north-east in many ways. None of the Churches or religious denominations in Ireland has been partitioned. This is a fact of more importance than is generally recognised. In the field of sport, there is much co-operation also, and even if this is not perfect, the position is fairly satisfactory.
If we are at some future date to persuade—I want to emphasise the word "persuade" as I am advocating a policy of persuasion—it being agreed that you cannot force the people of the Six Counties to join us except of their own free will, we should seek active co-operation with them in all matters, including politics and economics, and the first steps should come from this side of the Border.
Take the realm of economics first—I think we should aim at removing any cause of irritation which can be removed by unilateral action on our part. First of all, I would like to see an announcement by the Government that it will not encourage any industrial development in the Twenty-Six Counties which would seriously compete with any industry in the Six Counties. Where there happens to be an industry in the Six Counties which, either alone or together with the present production in the Twenty-Six Counties, could supply the whole of Ireland, I think it would be foolish to protect any new industry here which would compete and which might therefore create a new economic interest in the maintenance of the Border. I do not, of course, suggest that we should interfere with private enterprise. If anyone wants to start a new industry here, they know, or at least they ought to know, that some day the Border will disappear, and if that does not interest them from an economic point of view it is their own look-out but it is a very different matter from the Government encouraging such action or protecting such industries.
Next, I think that where there is a protective duty on goods imported into this country, we should provide a special preferential tariff for goods which are certified to have been manufactured in the Six Counties. The more trade we do with the north-east, the more they will understand us and we them. I recognise that this proposal might involve an adjustment or amendment of our trade agreements with Great Britain and possibly Canada, but I do not believe that either of these countries would create serious difficulties.
Our Control of Manufactures Acts should be amended so as to make it easy for citizens of the Six Counties to take part in industrial development on this side of the Border. The more money they have invested here, the more they will be interested in our prosperity and the less they will like the Border.
It has always seemed to me strange and somewhat absurd that we should state in our Constitution that our national territory is the whole of Ireland, and then proceed by legislation to provide that residents in one part of Ireland are not to be regarded as Irish nationals when they invest their money in another part of the national territory. That is the present position. I also think that co-operation between manufacturers in the Six Counties and in the Twenty-Six should be encouraged actively where it is possible. I think if goods have to be finished that are made here they should be sent there in preference to Great Britain, if it can be done, etc. I need not go into the details.
In the realm of politics as distinct from economics, it is not so easy to propose or to suggest unilateral action, but we might at least actively seek cooperation. At first our advances may be coldly received or may even be ignored, but if our deliberate and considered policy is one of persuasion we need not be discouraged and should keep on trying.
I would like to see our Government approaching the Government of Northern Ireland as it is called, and saying in effect—"You know our attitude towards the Border and we know yours. As we have agreed that there can be no question of the use of force against you, is there any reason why we should not consult on matters of common interest without prejudice to our opinions on the question of the Border?"
I would like to see the Minister for Agriculture, for instance, inviting the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland to a conference every year for the purpose of consultation and seeing how far agricultural policy in the whole of Ireland might be coordinated and made uniform where agreement is possible.
The Ministers for Industry and Commerce, Education and Health might seek similar conferences, and if and when these began to meet with some success, as I believe after a time they would, the idea might be extended to almost every Department of Government.
I will probably be told that this is impracticable and would never work. I do not think so, and surely it is worth trying if we are sincere about a policy of persuasion. It may be that the present Government in the Six Counties would refuse at first, but if we repeated our invitations every year in friendly terms I believe the effect on the people of the Six Counties would be considerable, especially on the younger generation. And remember that just as the generation which is now grown up is not much interested in who was out in 1916 or what happened 25 years ago, not nearly as much interested in it as we of an older generation are, so in the Six Counties and amongst what we call the majority there, I know perfectly well that the younger people —and I know quite a number of them and have relatives amongst them—are not a bit interested in the time when "No Surrender" was almost the only thing which one talked about. That may still be used for Orange meetings on the 12th but it does not cut much ice with the younger generation.
I agree very strongly with the Taoiseach when he said that the opinion of the people of Great Britain in relation to Partition is important. It might well be that repeated efforts at co-operation, even if repulsed, might have a very great effect on the people of England and convince them, as they could be convinced in no other way, of our sincerity in desiring the unity of our country.
It may be objected that this would mean the full recognition of the Government of Northern Ireland at least as a de facto Government, and that it would mean at least a tacit acquiescence in Partition. I admit there may be something in that argument, but I would point out that in fact we do recognise Partition by our customs posts on the Border and in many other ways just as theoretically objectionable. We put up notices on our roads by which visitors think they are entering Eire when they cross the Border, when in fact we claim that Eire is the whole of Ireland. While Partition continues it will be impossible to be consistent, and we may as well face this fact.
The Minister for Local Government was reported in the Sunday Independent to have issued an invitation to the people of Northern Ireland to cross the Border and enter a free Ireland. I find it difficult to believe that he was correctly reported, but if he did say this I disagree with him. I would say to our friends in the Six Counties: “Stay where you are and help us to develop a prosperous and contented Ireland, both North and South, and ultimately to abolish the Border by mutual consent.”
If I had my way I would go much further in an active policy to end Partition. I would like to see a Bill introduced amending the Constitution so as to enlarge the Dáil and provide that every elected member of the Northern Parliament who had taken his seat would be allowed also to attend the Dáil as a full member and take part in the Government of the Twenty-Six Counties. This would in effect be to say to the people of the Six Counties: "You are part of our national territory—we cannot force you to let us share in the Government of your area because of the partition of our country but because we wish to create a situation when no one will want Partition we are willing to let your elected representatives share in the government of the Twenty-Six Counties. If you do not like what we do, come and tell us why—there is free speech in our Parliament and you will be welcome."
I am well aware of the arguments that can be advanced against this suggestion. Theoretically it is all wrong to allow people to vote on legislation which will not immediately apply to them or their constituents. It is probably theoretically more objectionable still to allow people to vote on expenditure which their constituents may not have to pay for. I honestly believe, however, that it would be worth overriding these objections, and that if we admitted Six-County representatives to our Parliament as part of an active policy of conciliation and persuasion, it would ultimately result in the abolition of the Border by common consent.
I would not allow elected members of the Northern Parliament to take their seats in the Dáil unless and until they had taken their seats in the Northern Parliament. Unless they had done so, they would be of little value in a policy of conciliation. The ultimate aim would be to secure a majority in the Northern Parliament of members who had also taken their seats in the Dáil, so as to make it possible to have uniform legislation passed for the whole of Ireland.
How would this idea work if it were adopted and a Constitution Bill was introduced and passed by referendum? I think that at first only a few members of the Northern Parliament would take their seats in the Dáil, but at the first election thereafter it would become a question for the electors. Candidates would, I believe, be found who would fight the elections in every constituency on a pledge that if elected they would take their seats in both Parliaments, and it would very soon be the people and not the present Party leaders who would decide the issue.
I believe that every election in the Six Counties would increase the number of members who would sit in the Dáil and in the Northern House of Commons. If I am right in this we would very soon see that it would be impossible for members of the Northern Parliament to sit in the Dáil without making personal friends amongst members representing constituencies on this side of the Border. The value of such friendships would be much greater than years of talking about the evil of Partition. We know perfectly well that although we have amongst us very strong and sometimes violent differences of opinion, personal friendships are in no way confined to Parties. I have heard it said that the only real political enemies one is likely to meet are to be found in one's own Party. We do know that you can have the closest friendships even though there may be disagreements on many matters. That could operate to a very great extent if you only got a small number of representatives of the Six Counties to join with us here. Personally, I would be surprised if, after a very short time, you did not have all Parties in the North divided on the issue as to whether or not they should take their seats in both Parliaments, provided, of course, there was no question of being coerced and no threat of force.
The suggestions I have made may not be practicable in the near future. They could not be carried out unless adopted by the Government and supported by a considerable volume of public opinion. I put them forward here in the hope that they may be discussed by members of all Parties, and that some day a Government on this side of the Border will think out and adopt a policy of active friendship towards the people in the Six Counties as part of a plan for the ending of Partition by persuasion and consent.
I do not, of course, suggest that we should cease to criticise things in the Six Counties, of which we disapprove, or pretend that we do not differ from the majority there on many issues beside that of Partition. I do, however, suggest that the rejection of force as a method of ending the Border and the adoption of a policy of persuasion means that our criticism should be friendly as well as frank, and should, where possible, be done in conference between Ministers from each side of the Border.
A few days ago I was reading through some personal letters I received from Michael Collins in 1922. Some documents and papers belonging to the White Cross, of which I was the treasurer, had been seized in St. Mary's Hall, Belfast, by the then Craig Government. I asked Michael Collins to see if there was anything he could do about getting the papers back. He promised to get in touch with Sir James Craig, as he was then, and in the letter which I still have, Michael Collins informed me that he had received a promise from Sir James Craig that the papers would be handed over to the White Cross.
If it was possible to have a delicate matter like that put right in 1922 by personal contact between the head of the then Irish Government and the head of the Government of the Six Counties—is it unreasonable to hope that in 1947 similar methods might not produce similar results? Persuasion, if it is to succeed, will mean not only patience and perseverance, but also a considerable amount of Christian forbearance.
When asked by the Apostle Peter: "How oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him—until seven times?", Our Lord replied: "Until seventy times seven." The advice given by Our Lord might very well be adopted on both sides of the Border. It should be remembered that if we think we have been sinned against by the Six-County Government in the treatment of minorities and in their determination to continue the partition of our country, they are equally convinced that we have sinned against them by rejecting many things which they hold dear such, for instance, as retaining the King for external purposes only. I understood from reading—I thought carefully— the speech made by the Taoiseach in the Dáil recently that he would not favour any further constitutional or legal changes in our relationships with the King or with the Commonwealth unless and until such changes could be made by a united Ireland. However anomolous and open to theoretic criticism the present position may be, I felt that the decision of the Taoiseach was a wise one—to leave well alone. I was, therefore, somewhat astonished to read in yesterday's Irish Press that President O'Kelly told the Ballina branch of the Gaelic League that: “Every man and woman of them could play their part to put an end to the last link of the British Empire within our land.” Most people I think will assume that this statement was made on the advice of or with the knowledge of the Government. Without some further explanation it may be regarded, perhaps, as a reversal of the policy announced by the Taoiseach. All the suggestions I have made to-day are on the assumption that that is not the case, and that the policy of the Government is to continue such links as do now exist with the British Commonwealth.
I hate the term "British Empire"— and I always did—but I believe that, as far as this country both North and South is concerned, the old British Empire died and was buried when the Statute of Westminster became law. The representatives of this country played quite a considerable part in the killing and also, I think, in the decent burial of it.
It is my considered opinion, based on a fair amount of contact with people in the Six Counties, that there are a large number of persons in the Six Counties more or less supporters of the majority party there, who would be ready to co-operate with us in the building of a prosperous Ireland if they could do so without feeling that they were sacrificing opinions which they hold honestly and sincerely. But they will not do so if their actions can be taken as helping to put an end to the last link with the British Empire or the British Commonwealth.
If we really hope to end Partition some day by "persuasion", this kind of talk by responsible persons should cease. Instead of talking about ending the last link, we should say to the people of the north-east counties: "We are now recognised by the world as an independent State and are free to act as we think right. It is our interest as well as yours that we should have the friendliest possible relations with Great Britain and the Commonwealth. If we had your co-operation, we believe the relationships could be put on a more permanent and satisfactory basis. Why not help us to do this?"