I move:—
That Seanad Eireann requests the Government to set up a commission or to take other decisive and energetic steps to consider and report on the best means of promoting social, economic and cultural co-operation between the Twenty-Six Counties and the Six Counties.
That is the motion I have the privilege of proposing.
There is a significant and deliberate omission in the wording of this motion: there is no mention of politics. Why? The reason, I think, will be clear to everyone. It is this: because in the narrower sense of the word "politics", especially in matters of Government and matters of allegiance, there is—I think we would all probably agree now, rather reluctantly —no prospect of immediate co-operation with the Six Counties. In fact, I would say there has been no progress in the political sphere in the past 36 years, so far as reconciliation or conciliation are concerned. At the moment, there is no encouragement from the leaders of the Six Counties to try for closer political co-operation. So far as they are concerned, the political door is bolted and barred at present.
But it seems to me there are other doors open to unity of action, if not to unity of Government. These doors are standing open, I think, in matters of economic, social and cultural co-operation, and I hope to prove that these doors are open in a moment or two. In what follows, I shall make no reference at all to political matters, to matters of loyalty and allegiance. I shall make no reference at all to the ancient rights and wrongs of Irish history. I hope that others will refrain from referring to political and historical matters, too. I know we all feel very deeply on them and for good reason. But I am convinced that if this debate to-night is to serve a genuinely constructive purpose, it should avoid the political and historical approach. Let us enter by the open doors and not try to batter down the bolted door.
I shall now try to substantiate my opinion that the door to co-operation in economic, social and cultural matters is open. First—and perhaps it will suffice for complete proof—I shall offer a quotation from a speech by the Northern Ireland Prime Minister, Lord Brooke borough, as reported in the Irish Times of 14th November, 1957. He was speaking about the policy of the political leaders in Northern Ireland and this is some of what he said. I quote:—
"We"—he means the leaders of the Six-County Government—"have done everything in our power to achieve a situation in Ireland where North and South, each respecting the rights of the other to pursue its own destiny, could co-operate on a friendly basis in a way that would be advantageous to both."
In the rest of his speech, Lord Brookeborough made it very clear that the Unionist leaders would not consider any change in the present constitutional position, but his speech clearly indicates to me that in social, economic and cultural matters, rapprochement and co-operation between the Six Counties and ourselves is feasible, and feasible now. What I shall go on to argue is that we should seize this opportunity at once.
Many members of the Seanad may be thinking at the moment that in fact there is a good deal of co-operation along these lines already. Let me remind the Seanad of some of the forms which this co-operation takes. In economic matters we have had the joint work on the Foyle Fisheries; we have had the Erne hydro-electric scheme; we have had the co-operation —now not so happy as it was—in the G.N.R., all very definite examples of friendly and valuable co-operation.
In social matters, most of us know that, in athletics, there are many crossBorder organisations—Gaelic football, rugby football, hurling and a good many other forms of athletics—but unhappily—and this is one of the things our inquiry should look into—for obscure reasons, in other forms of athletics, there are differences, some of them quite recent. Why, for example, is there the animosity in cycling; why can we not unite in ploughing competitions? I do not know the precise answers to that. An inquiry could find out and tell us and perhaps heal the divisions.
In social and cultural matters, there has been some co-operation too and we have some excellent societies which have encouraged this co-operation. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my admiration, and possibly the admiration of other members of the House, for the Irish Association for Cultural, Economic and Social Relations. This is a most worthy body which has been working for many years to bring North of Ireland people and people from the Republic close together and they have to a very great extent succeeded. I do think that that is the kind of work we should study and encourage.
Again, the Churches, of course, both Catholic and Protestant, recognise no border, that is the major Churches—a very striking point. Some business firms, I think, extend both ways across the Border, but fewer far than there used to be. That seems to be a subject for inquiry, too.
In education, there is a paradoxically happy situation in many ways. One might think that, in education, the separateness would be most forced and most rigorously exacted. One would think wrong, for, as a matter of fact, good education, higher education, is on the side of unity and friendliness. It is the half-educated, not the uneducated—very often the uneducated are as sensible as the educated—who like the divisions and enmities, in my opinion, and that seems to be borne out by the position at the moment. It is a very remarkable thing that the Irish National Teachers' Organisation recognises no border. In the universities, there is some very close co-operation. There is one very striking example which may not be familiar to members of the House. It is this: Magee University College in Derry is closely affiliated to Trinity College, Dublin, as well as to Queen's University, and every year sends us some excellent North of Ireland students to finish their courses in Trinity College, Dublin—very striking, considering that most of their grants come from the Northern Government. Yet, there has been no successful attempt, and I doubt if there has been any serious attempt, to break the connection between Trinity and Derry in that way.
Also, North of Ireland scholarships, county council scholarships and others, are, I believe, tenable in National University. They certainly are in Trinity. There also are some interuniversity societies which foster meetings between professors of most universities, both North and South.
As Senator O'Quigley said at a meeting of the Seanad last December, we should, and could, do a great deal more to promote this most useful form of co-operation and working together in the universities. Here I should like to quote from a very striking and encouraging article which has been produced by a young Irishman within the last couple of months. I refer to an article by Mr. Donal Barrington called "Uniting Ireland" which was originally published in Studies, in the winter number of 1957, which has now been published separately as the first of the Tuairim pamphlets published by the Tuairim Association. If anyone in this House has not read it, I do urge them to read it with care. It is a most salutary and sensible article from a young man. It is a most encouraging phenomenon in our time. This is what he says about promoting unity in education:—
"In the educational field, there are already some points of contact. Both Unionist and Nationalist students attend Queen's University, Belfast, which seems to help in fostering an increasingly enlightened approach to Northern politics. Moreover, several hundred Unionist students come to Dublin each year to study at Trinity College, which can, and does play, an important part in bringing Irishmen together."
I should perhaps mention that Mr. Barrington is a graduate of University College, Dublin, the National University. He goes on to say:—
"A corresponding number of Northern Nationalists come to study at University College, Dublin. This makes it all the greater pity that there is so little contact between two universities which are not a quarter of a mile apart."
He means, of course, the two universities in Dublin.
"Each university has its own tradition and there may be important reasons why each should retain its independence. But there seems to be a strong case on political, economic and academic grounds for closer co-operation between the two universities, particularly in the faculties of Arts, Law, Medicine and Science."
That co-operation bears directly on the unity we desire to foster. It happens that most of the 300 odd Northern Ireland students in Trinity College are probably of Unionist extraction and that most of those who go to the National University are of Nationalist extraction. If they could meet within the orbit of the two universities, it would do much to promote intellectual understanding between both sides of the Border. What is essentially desirable in all these organisations is that Nationalist and Unionist, Catholic and Protestant, should work and play, learn and teach, earn and spend, together in a friendly atmosphere. It is the difference of lives, not the difference of laws, that is real partition. The universities could do much to change that difference of lives.
I mention three other forms of co-operation which already exist. I am sure our hearts were warmed—and I know the hearts of Northern Ireland people were warmed—on the two occasions and I think, probably more, that our fire brigades went to the rescue in the case of fires across the Border. A narrow stupid politician would say: "Do not cross the Border." None of us took that point of view. From the point of view of friendship, those two cross-Border forays have done a great deal of good indeed.
Here is another example—not an entirely happy one and I shall not emphasise it: our police have worked together on certain occasions. If that has a political reference, I shall not dwell on it. However, it shows that the machinery of co-operation exists in various ways.
The schools at the Border show evidence of striking co-operation. I quote from the Irish Times of 30th December, 1957, in which there is an article which says that, out of 91 pupils in Northern Ireland at a voluntary school in County Derry, 73 were from the Republic. In other words, the Northern Ireland Government was paying for 73 students of the Republic and apparently not greatly objecting to it. Similarly, there are a few schools of ours along the Border which receive students from Northern Ireland and no hard words are spoken and, as far as I know, no complaints are made. That is a very sensible arrangement.
In my reference to schools, perhaps I may refer also to a remarkable fact brought to light by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien in an article in the same number of Studies. It is a small thing, but I think it is very significant. He tells that in a Protestant school in the Six Counties, a class of 26 boys aged from 13 to 14 years was asked to write an essay on Ireland. They were expected to comment on unity or Partition, whatever their point of view was. The result was this. Nine of those boys were positively in favour of unification in principle. One was positively against it and the rest were non-committal. It is remarkable that of the ten boys who expressed a positive opinion, nine were in favour of re-unification in principle.
It is clear that a fair amount of co-operation already exists in social, cultural and economic matters. Some of it is a survival from pre-Treaty days, —the Churches, athletics, university co-operation to same extent. On the other hand, most of the post-Treaty efforts at co-operation have, to my mind, been scattered and opportunistic, almost casual. These post-Treaty efforts have been designed to deal with crises as they arose, not planned in advance. That is the reason why I am proposing this motion, primarily. If thought and planning were applied to the present situation, it seems to me that there could be very much improvement.
The aim, then, of the proposed inquiry would be to study the existing forms of co-operation and explore how others could be developed—to consider why some kinds of co-operation have failed and other kinds have succeeded, and to explore further possibilities. The House may wonder what are the other possibilities and wonder whether I can give specific cases where co-operation is urgently called for— cases which the Northern Ireland people would recognise as demanding attention. I think I can mention a few, though I shall not dwell on them. The first, as the Taoiseach has already suggested, is the tourist trade, as separation on that is doing us harm. We could have much better propaganda, if we could advertise tourism for the whole country. Secondly, in matters of transport—I am afraid that the news in the newspapers about transport is rather sad in so far as one of our main arteries of unity has just been blocked. I am not commenting here on a matter of policy, but on the need for co-operation in matters of transport and communication.
Matters of agriculture obviously need joint study. Take, for instance, the marketing of Irish goods abroad. Then there is the most promising plan of the Minister for Industry and Commerce for all-Ireland free trade. It is full of difficulties, of course, but it is a most promising plan in theory, and I hope he will go far with it.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, Ireland as a whole—North and South— should consider its joint responsibilities and possibilities in the face of the proposed European Free Trade Area. We are obviously a unit, economically, as far as Europe is concerned, and we should really think together on this matter. I think the Northern Ireland economists realise they will have to think with us as well as with Britain on that proposed free trade area.
Here, now, is the essence of my argument. This motion aims at substituting a policy of planned and progressive co-operation for the present opportunistic and casual co-operation in economic, social and cultural matters.
Now, I think, we come to the crucial question. Will the Northern Unionists welcome such an effort, or will they regard any attempt at planned co-operation of this nature as a kind of Trojan Horse for the destruction of the northern citadel? That, I think, is the crucial question. Here, we should examine our own motives—our own motives in this House and the motives of people in the Republic as a whole.
If we in this House and in the Republic regard unity of life and unity of work as less important than political unity, less important than unity of Government, then all efforts of the kind I am suggesting would be futile and insincere and the Northern Ireland people, I think, would rightly reject them. Surely we have enough sense to see, especially in the light of our own relations with Great Britain, that friendly neighbourliness is better than a strained or forced political unity?
I speak perhaps with some sympathy in this matter. I was born in Belfast. I have spent most of my life in the Republic and my ancestors, going a good way back, have come from the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, I can perhaps see both sides a bit. My own view is that if full economic, social and cultural co-operation could be achieved, the problem of political organisation would solve itself. I would even go so far as to say it would hardly matter. It is unity of life, not unity of law, that I consider supreme.
To return to the crucial question: Will the Northern Ireland Unionists welcome and support any efforts we may make to achieve the co-operation I suggest? Well, it is anyone's guess, I suppose; but I think that there is a fair chance. I have already quoted what Lord Brookeborough said. He has said he is prepared to "co-operate on a friendly basis in matters of mutual advantage". That is clear enough. Besides, I would bank on this —the Northern Unionists are sensible and businesslike people. If there are practical advantages to be gained, they will join.
I would hope that they would regard this motion and its results, if they are positive, in the light of business talks, business joint conferences. I should like them to think of themselves as one big business firm and of us as another big business firm. We would like to amalgamate: they do not want to amalgamate; we are both doing the same business to a great extent; we can do things by consultation and co-operation to the benefit of both firms. It seems to me that, in terms of business practice, it is an attractive proposition. They know we want amalgamation; we know they do not want amalgamation. We can accept that position. Certainly, in my own mind, in making the present proposal, I would say it means absolutely no political commitments to any Northern Ireland Unionist who comes and helps us—absolutely no political commitments. We would have to emphasise that in our invitation.
We may hope, then, I think, that the people of Northern Ireland may be inclined to co-operate for purely practical reasons—to co-operate, as Lord Brookeborough put it, "on a friendly basis in a way that would be advantageous to both".
To return to the inquiry, if we agree that it is worth undertaking and may lead to some success, we must give serious thought to the way it will work. How should it go about its job? First of all, much of the success of such an inquiry will depend on the personnel, on the people who are working together on it. Something more than intelligence, more than good judgment and more than experience will be needed in this inquiry. We need people of varied loyalties, varied points of view, from both the North and the South, if it is really to succeed. If a group of ourselves from the Republic get together and put ideas from our point of view, they probably will not work—unless some of us prove to be unusually imaginative and unusually sympathetic. If we have a genuine representation from the Unionists of Northern Ireland, there is a chance that it will work—and, in fact, the very participation will be a practical form of co-operation and unity, even if it got no further. Therefore, if possible, we certainly should have some Northern Unionists, not necessarily politicians— perhaps not politicians—but they should be true-blue Northern Unionists, as members of the inquiry. It would be no use having just Northern Nationalists and people from the Republic—no use at all, I think.
There is another class of persons living in this country—and their numbers are increasing—which I think we should enlist in an inquiry of this kind and in other inquiries. These people have been neglected, for fairly obvious reasons, but I suggest we are being foolish in not including them. The retiring age for members of the British Colonial Service and the British Service in general is now rather low. Dozens of highly trained, highly experienced British Colonial administrators are coming to live in Dublin and in Ireland. If we can enlist the service of one or two of these from time to time, I think their experience and intelligence would be extremely valuable. We all probably can name some of them—ex-chief justices, ex-colonial secretaries, and so on. We may not like these titles, but they are good men; they are lovers of Ireland; and they are citizens of our country, eager to serve. I should like to see them serving not merely in an inquiry of this kind but in many other spheres.
The make-up of the inquiry, then, as I see it—perhaps a commission, perhaps something else—should be people of varied loyalties, varied points of view and people of varying professions —businessmen, farmers, teachers, scientists, labour representatives, writers, lawyers, industrialists, economists and so on—not primarily political at all costs. There may also be a few politicians, either part-time or whole-time, if you like, but they must be politicians who are prepared to cut out politics in that sense as far as this inquiry is concerned, if it is to succeed. If the political slant is brought in, if an attempt is made to construct a Trojan Horse out of this inquiry, we will be wasting our time and might as well drop it.
How will they go to work if we get them together? As I suggested, they will study the existing successes—like the Irish Rugby Football Union, the G.A.A., the Churches, the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and so on—how did they succeed when others failed? They will analyse the sources of failure, in activities like international cycling and ploughing. Why have they failed? They will explore the possible developments I have mentioned. They will publish a genuinely constructive and realistic report, a report looking to the present and to the future, a report which does not refer to and does not even think of past grievances. The watchword of the inquirers, I suggest, should be: "Planned and Progressive Co-operation."
There is a parallel to this kind of thing and it may be worth our while thinking of it for a moment or two. The Council of Europe at Strasbourg in its early days thought that a federation of Europe would come quickly, that there would be a united states of Europe. At least, many members of the council hoped for that and the United States of America, I know, was pressing very strongly in 1951 for a united states of Europe right away. I had some things to say on the matter —they were not popular, but I said them—because I thought at that time a united states of Europe was hopeless —and in fact that was so.
The Council of Europe at Strasbourg might have folded up fairly quickly when they found that a united states of Europe was not going to come quickly. There was no advance on the constitutional line, but they very sensibly did something else. They turned to economic co-operation, social co-operation and cultural co-operation, leaving aside the political and constitutional issues. In six or seven years, they have produced very remarkable feats of unity in those spheres. We have the remarkable union of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in Benelux, working very close together. Now there are six nations, some of them formerly bitter, hereditary enemies— the Germans, the French and the Italians—working together in the closest economic co-operation. We have other examples in the cultural sphere and in the social sphere, examples of genuine European co-operation in those spheres where political co-operation was impossible. Similarly in Ireland at the moment, advance on the political line is held up. Advance on the other lines could be, I think, just as quick as in the Council of Europe and just as effective if we planned it and worked it in the right way.
I must say something personal here. It was a very great inspiration and encouragement to me when I went into the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1951 and saw hereditary enemies go in side by side together—the Germans and the French, the Greeks and the Turks, the English and the Irish, with their flags flying together on the same building—because they had agreed to work together in matters where co-operation was possible, in economic and social matters as well as in cultural matters. That could quickly happen in Ireland if we went about it in a similar way.
I have not very much more to say. Other members of the Seanad will, I feel sure, add their arguments to what I have said and some will produce arguments against it. I shall be eager to hear what they have to say and shall be glad to reply. I should like to emphasise this: I want to repeat my firm conviction—I have had a year to think over this, and so has the Seanad, because this motion was put down in January of 1957—that an energetic move of this kind is at least worthy of trial now in 1958.
It is over 100 years since Thomas Davis offered Ireland a policy, if not a plan, for an Ireland united in mind and purpose. No Government in this country has had the courage or the wisdom to make his conciliatory policy a reality. We have tried arguments; we have tried threats; we have tried hostile propaganda. All have failed. They have done more harm than good. After 36 years should we now not try, as this motion suggests, to think out a better way?