Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1937. THE FUTURE OF IRELAND

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19315, 4 May 1937, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1937. THE FUTURE OF IRELAND

The draft constitution for (lie new Irish Free State appears to be strictly in accordance with the original Republican programme, and for this reason will be acclaimed by that section of the Irish people to whom complete severance from Great Britain and the Empire has been the only objective. To others, more concerned, perhaps, with practicalities than abstract theories, it will stand as a warning, not only of the completeness of the break that is proposed, but also of the discord and discontent it may engender. Mr. do Valera has, to some extent, been consistent. He was originally elected to oilicc under a pledge to create an independent Irish republic—to repudiate the treaty with the United Kingdom under which the Free State was given Dominion status. It is true that in the early years of his regime he hesitated to take the step for which he had so long worked, his attitude then being that the time was inopportune. This apparent failure to carry out his pledges provoked the wrath of his more extreme supporters; it caused others to wonder whether it; was admitted that the Republican policy was a mistake; and still others to be lulled into a sense of security and a belief that the Republicans in office were far more moderate than the Republicans in opposition. By a policy of caution, Mr. di> Valera has managed to consolidate his position, but to-day it is .difficult to say how much of his strength comes from those who adhere to the original programme of complete independence ami how much from those who have been attracted to the Gov-

ernment by its rejection of extremes. Presumably, the President feels secure, for now lie is definitely of)' the fence and is staking everything ami is prepared to stand or fall on a constitution which, whatever might be thought of it, at least has the merit of being plain and unequivocal, If the constitution is adopted, the

Free State, under a new name, will become "a sovereign, independent, democratic State, with all its powers coining, under God, from the people." The British commonwealth of nations is ignored and there is no mention of the King. The supremo head of the State will bo the President, and al-

ready it is clear that the President will, in many respects, have all the powers of a dictator, at least for the seven years of his office. Mr. do Yalera tacitly admits this when he says "the President will have wide powers," and attempts to justify this procedure by adding, "but, these are for safeguarding the people's rights." Every dictator, of course, has used similar words, but no verbiage can alter the fact that in a true democracy the people are the guardians of their own rights. The first question that arises, therefore, is whether the proposed new Ireland would, in truth, be a democracy or a dictatorship. The second outstanding feature of the draft constitution is the provision that it shall cover "all Ireland," which, of course, includes Ulster. In the meantime there is a proviso temporarily restricting the laws to the present Free State territory, but this will not allay fears of an attempt, sooner or later, to absorb Northern Ireland. Here there h promise of grave controversy. In the first place, if it is right and just that the people of the Free State should determine their own destiny, is it not equally right that the same freedom should be extended to the people of Ulster? fan Mr. de Yalera logically enforce an Irish union' when his whole policy is based on opposition to an allegedly enforced union of his own State witli the British commonwealth'? And the possible fate of Ulster immediately opens up the wider issue of British and Empire interests.

So far as the Free State itself is concerned, there is undoubted force in the contention that the people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they will continue their association with the British Empire 01 whether their country .should become, as is proposed, an independent State. Unfortunately, the issue is seldom considered either dispassionately or logically. Already, the Free State lias self-government in the same way as other British Dominions, and it can, if it desires, enjoy all the advantages of free association with other members of the commonwealth. Those advantages are obvious. What are the disadvantages? The position of New Zealand is analogous, ami who in this country would suggest that anything could be gained by the severenco of Empire ties? There ino question of domination under the existing constitution, no irksome commitments, and no loss of freedom or dignity. On the contrary, apart altogether from the common bonds of kinship and allegiance to the one Throne, there are the manifest benefits to be derived from any association of free peoples for their mutual economic advancement. Strangely enough, while the Free State is so anxious to sever its connections with the Empire there are other States who would willingly sacrifice their so-call-ed independence iii order to secure the benefits of co-operation in the British commonwealth. The people of the Free State will be given ar opportunity to make their choice at a general election to be held next month. Whether they will sacrifice the substance for the shadow will depend chiefly upon their full appreciation of the issues involved and the extent to which reason prevails ovei sentiment.