Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

More documents

Recommendations

Info

88Dermot Keogh“Nobody has yet told us that this is a condition. (...) On the other hand, nobody soloves us as to want us in the EEC on our own terms”. 36 Whitaker's memorandumdid have an influence and led to a number of significant changes in the text ofLemass's speech. 37The Taoiseach, keen to counteract the view that Ireland was only half-heartedabout her application, told the Brussels' meeting:“While Ireland did not accede to the North Atlantic Treaty, we have always agreedwith the general aim of the Treaty. The fact that we did not accede to it was due tothe special circumstances and does not qualify in any way our acceptance of theideal of European unity and of the conception, embodied in the Treaty of Rome andthe Bonn Declaration of 18 July last, of the duties, obligations and responsibilitieswhich European unity would impose.” 38Lemass covered all the major areas in his presentation. The overall impact wasfavourable according to Ambassador Biggar who spoke about the visit to officialsin the Netherlands, Swedish and Norwegian delegations. However, AmbassadorMcDonald in Paris was not able to ascertain with any degree of precision the reactionof the French who had taken over the EEC Council presidency in January. 39Senior officials in Dublin knew that, doubts lingered among the Six and in theCommission about the weak state of the Irish economy. There were also concernsover the country's non-membership of NATO. 40Domestic Concern over NATO and‘Political Union’Domestic reaction to the Irish application had been broadly very positive. Lemassreceived praise from his Fianna Fáil colleagues while the opposition Fine Gaelparty broadly agreed with the government's EEC strategy. The Labour Party and anumber of independent backbenchers were more agnostic; questions were asked inDáil Éireann about the country's neutral status in the light of the application formembership of the EEC. Were the political dimension of the EEC to become thesubject of internal political controversy, there would be a danger that such newswould only reinforce doubts already expressed in a number of the European capitalsover the bona fides of the Irish case. With the undoubted private promptings of36. “Whitaker keen to exclude NATO option from EEC talks”, Irish Times, 1/2 January 1993.37. Dr Whitaker, who made no claim to have been responsible for the changes, did mention one changein particular which was made to the text in relation to neutrality.38. D. J. MAHER, The Tortuous Path, pp. 375-376. [Maher reproduces the entire text.]39. Biggar to Cremin 30 January 1962 [dated 1961 in error] and Ambassador MacDonald, 31 January1962, D/T S17246A/62, NAI.40. The economic counselor at the Irish embassy in Brussels, Dr Donal O'Sullivan, heard from Van Costenof the Netherland's mission that the feeling in The Hague was “it will now be difficult for anymember government to justify opposition to your being accepted as full members”. Dr O'Sullivanto Cremin, 29 January 1962, D/T S17246A/62, NAI.
The Diplomacy of ‘dignified calm’ 89the Taoiseach, the Minister for Lands, Micheál O Moráin, made a speech in Claremorris,County Mayo, on 5 February 1962 in the course of which he said:“It had been made quite clear by the Taoiseach on different occasions that a policy ofneutrality here in the present world division between communism and freedom wasnever laid down by us or indeed ever envisaged by our people. Neutrality in this contextis not a policy to which we would even wish to appear committed. (...) Ourwhole history and cultural tradition and outlook has been bound up with that ofEurope for past ages. We have, I believe, a full part to play in this day and age in theintegration and development of a United States of Europe, and towards this end itmay be necessary for us to share any political decisions for the common good.” 41Perhaps the minister exceeded his brief? But the speech only brought furtherunwelcome publicity and fuelled domestic controversy over the future of Irish neutrality.That did not please Dr Whitaker who, on 10 February, told his counterpart in theDepartment of the Taoiseach, Nicholas Nolan, that if the political dimension of theEEC became the subject of internal controversy it would not escape the notice ofBrussels. He suggested that, in order to counter any further speculation, Lemassshould table a motion that Dáil Éireann approved of his statement in Brussels. 42 DrWhitaker was told that the idea would be put to the Taoiseach. 43 But that did nothappen.Lemass faced hostile questioning in Dáil Éireann on 14 February on the politicaland defence dimensions of the Irish application:“I say in this regard that it would be highly undesirable that remarks made hereshould give the impression in Europe that there is a public opinion in this countrywhich regards membership of NATO as something discreditable. The view of theGovernment in that regard has been made clear. We think the existence of NATO isnecessary for the preservation of peace and for the defence of the countries of WesternEurope, including this country. Although we are not members of NATO, we arein full agreement with its aims.” 44Seeking to ensure that the an unambiguous message would reach Brussels,Lemass took many opportunities to stress the message cited immediately above.But as the survival of the government depended upon the vote of a single independent,Lemass had also to ensure that he pacified backbenchers in Dáil Éireann.The secretaries [most senior civil servants] of government departments involvedin the application – the Taoiseach's office, Agriculture, Finance, Industry and Commerceand External Affairs – met on the same day as the parliamentary session. 4541. See text of speech delivered in Conway's Hotel, Claremorris, on 5 February 1962 on file D/T,S17246A/62, NAI.42. See minute on file D/T, S17246A/62, NAI.43. Whitaker to Nolan, 10 February 1962, S17246A/62, National Archives, Bishop St., Dublin.44. Dáil debates, Vol. 193, Cols. 6-8, 14 February 1962.45. It is worth noting two points here. The secretary of the Department of Defence did not participate inthe EEC inter-departmental committee discussions. There is no evidence that the views of the Ministerfor Defence were sought on the medium to long-term security and defence implications of Ireland'sproposed membership of the EEC.
Page 6:
4Introductory note - Introduction -
Page 9 and 10:
Dieses Dokument wurde erstellt mit
Page 11 and 12:
Challenge to the Community 91961. T
Page 13 and 14:
Challenge to the Community 11cellor
Page 15 and 16:
Challenge to the Community 13widesp
Page 17 and 18:
Challenge to the Community 15about
Page 19 and 20:
Challenge to the Community 17undoub
Page 21 and 22:
Challenge to the Community 19period
Page 23 and 24:
Challenge to the Community 21concer
Page 25 and 26:
Challenge to the Community 23partia
Page 27 and 28:
Challenge to the Community 25of-pay
Page 29 and 30:
Challenge to the Community 27ment b
Page 31 and 32:
Challenge to the Community 29With r
Page 33 and 34:
Challenge to the Community 31The Au
Page 35 and 36:
Challenge to the Community 33nauer
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: Industrial Interest in West Germany
Page 65 and 66: Dieses Dokument wurde erstellt mit
Page 67 and 68: Swedish Neutrality, the Finland Arg
Page 85 and 86: The Diplomacy of ‘dignified calm
Page 89: The Diplomacy of ‘dignified calm
Page 107 and 108: Association or Trade Agreement? 105
Page 125 and 126: Book reviews - Comptes rendus - Buc
Page 137 and 138: Notices - Informations - Mitteilung
Page 141 and 142:
Abstracts - Résumés - Zusammenfas
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Annual subscription: 75 - DM /1500-
show all

Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?