The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1938. The Future of Ireland

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22304, 19 January 1938, Page 8

The Press WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1938. The Future of Ireland

Not only in Great Britain and Ireland, but throughout the British Commonwealth, the discussions in London on the Irish question will be watched with interest and hope; and it can at least be said that at no time since Mr de Valera came into power has there been a better oppoitunity for a settlement of differences. The collapse of the experiment in collective security has compelled Mr de Valera to think more realistically about the problem of defence and has brought home to the British Government the danger of having a dissatisfied neighbour across the Irish Channel. Under the treaty of 1921, by which the southern counties became an independent State, the naval defence of Ireland was reserved to the British Navy, and as a necessary consequence of this the British Government acquired certain rights over Irish ports, as well as aerodrome and oil storage facilities. Mr de Valera has referred to this as “ the occupying of our ports against the will of “ the people,” and even as ” in fact an act of “ aggression ”; he has also indicated that his Government is willing, subject to an agreement on the question of ports, to undertake the responsibilities of defence and to guarantee that Ireland will never be used as a base for hostile operations against Great Britain. It should not be difficult, therefore, to adjust the military relationship between Great Britain and Eiie bj means of a mutual assistance pact on the lines of that between Great Britain and Egypt. It should also be possible to adjust trade relationships and the allied question of the annuities. Since the beginning of the trade war between the two countries, Eire has travelled far on the road to economic self-sufficiency, so that a restoration of free trade is hardly likely. But the growing stream of migration from Eiie to Great Britain, largely due to the better opportunities for employment in Great Britain, is compelling Mr de Valera to give more attention to the economic situation; and the obvious way to improve economic conditions is to increase trade with Eire’s best customer. As for the annuities, Mr de Valera is generally credited with a willingness either to devote the to defence or to pay a lump sum in final settlement, provided that neither action is construed as an admission of the illegality of withholding payment from Great Britain. The question which seems still as far from solution as ever is the constitutional question. Though Mr de Valera’s ultimate goal is the establishment of a republic, he has announced in the plainest terms he will take no further step in this direction until the northern counties have been brought within the scope of the present constitution. If this is show" to be outside the bounds of practical politics, then it is inevitable that Mr de Valera’s control over the extremists will weaken and that he, or his successor, will be compelled to sever all ties between Eire and the British Commonwealth. On the other hand, in a united Ireland there would undoubtedly be a substantial electoral majority in favour of the Imperial connexion. It is therefore most desirable that there should be a full and frank discussion of the constitutional issue by representatives of the three governments concerned. Unfortunately' it seems most unlikely that the Government of Northern Ireland will agree to participate. To some extent it has already prejudiced the issue by securing a dissolution to enable it to go to the country on the partition question; and it is impossible to doubt what the result will be. Standard Sacks The statement by the secretary of the New Zealand Standards Institute published in “ The “ Press ” yesterday shows the Canterbury executive of the Farmers’ Union in an unfavourable light. Some time ago the Standards Institute and the Farmers’ Union decided to investigate the possibility of recommending’ to the farming community the adoption of a standard sack.- At later meetings of branches of the Farmers’ Union statements were made which seepied to show that the Standards Institute was attempting to secure the adoption of one particular type of sack and that it had supplied inaccurate information about this sack. At a meeting of the Canterbury executive of the Farmers’ Union last month, a letter was received from the Standards Institute replying to these statements; but the executive took the unusual step of withholding the letter from publication on the grounds that it was investigating the matter, and that in the meantime it did not wish to publish information which was possibly unreliable. Considering that the charges against the Standards Institute had been given wide publicity and that the institute had asked that its letter be published, such a course was indefensible and fully justified the institute in handing its letter to the newspapers. Even if the executive of the Farmers’ Union had the best of reasons for believing that the institute was misinformed, it was still unjustified in denying it the right of reply to criticism. But the text of the letter seems to show that in fact it is the Farmers’ Union which has been misinformed and that the institute has not asked for the adoption of the type of sack which is under discussion. In itself, the episode is trivial enough. But it will be most unfortunate if the hasty criticisms which have been levelled against the Standards Institute prejudice farmers against the proposal to adopt a uniform sack or cause them to misunderstand the institute’s nature and purpose. For the farming industry, standardisation of articles in common use is a method of reducing costs which has as yet been too little exploited.