MR DE VALERA

Evening Star, Issue 21220, 29 September 1932, Page 8

MR DE VALERA

VIEWS OH HOME AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS INTERVIEWED AT GENEVA Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, September 28. (Received September 29, at 12.10 p.m.) The Press Association’s Geneva correspondent, in an exclusive interview with Mr De Valera, states that Mr De Valera expressed surprise at the persistence of the belief in'some quarters that any action taken by his Government would affect people of Irish birth and descent living in Australia and the other dominions. Though recognising the strong Irish sentiment in Australia, Mr De Valera insisted that they, as Australian citizens, could not possibly be affected by the policy of his Government any more than Irish-born people living in America or on the Continent.

Referring to the Anglo-Irish dispute, Mr De Valera said that he still hoped that a satisfactory solution would be found in order to remove the present discriminatory tariffs between Britain and Ireland. It was the policy of his Government to make the iree State more self-supporting. “If we go outside the British Commonwealth of Nations (Mr De Valera carefully avoided using the word Empire) we don’t pretend that Irish trade will become any easier, but as it is almost entirely with Britain, I cannot see that the dominions would be affected either way.”

Mr De Valera smiled and shook his head when asked about the development of the Government’s present policy. “It is not for me to forecast the Free State’s intentions regarding departing from the Commonwealth of Nations, but we. as a Government, have obligations to our people to whom we gave certain pledges, including the abolition of the oath of allegiance, and obtaining justice over the land annuities and other payments. Whether we go beyond those steps is for a future Government to decide.”

Discussing tho League’s future, Mr De Valera said that if it was to fulfil the functions it was meant to fulfil the component States must be prepared to sacrifice some liberty of action which they enjoyed as independent sovereign States in return for advantages, especially security derivable from membership; but the advantages would be small if each member retained complete liberty of action. Members of the League could not have it both ways.