Letter from Seán MacBride to Eric Louw (Paris)

Dear Mr. Louw,

[matter omitted]

The Chequers meeting was quite friendly. Mr. McGilligan and myself indicated that the repeal of the External Relations Act was not intended in any hostile sense, but only as a constructive step in the development of Anglo-Irish relations; we also indicated that we were willing and desirous of continuing the existing exchange of citizenship and trade rights. The British representatives indicated that they saw considerable legal and international difficulties in continuing the exchange of these rights. In reply, we expressed the view that any legal or international difficulties that might exist could be surmounted, provided it was desired on both sides to continue the exchange of rights and that it appeared to us that the first matter to decide was whether it was desired to continue the existing exchange of rights. No detailed discussion took place as to the difficulties, if any, that arose. We pointed out that we were not seeking to create any new rights as would entitle an outside country to intervene, but were merely offering to continue the longstanding traditional exchange of rights that had existed hitherto; we also pointed out that, in the Geneva Trade and Tariff Agreement and in the Draft Havana Charter, trade preferences between Ireland and the Commonwealth nations were exempted and that this exemption was not dependent upon membership of the Commonwealth. We also referred to the fact that, in the case of Burma, the exchange of preferences had continued.

We also pointed out that we had formally ceased to be a member of the Commonwealth in 1937 when the then Constitution, which provided that we were a member of the Commonwealth was repealed and was replaced by the present Constitution which declares us to be an Independent Democratic State.

Dr. Evatt and Mr. St. Laurent suggested that it might be possible to evolve a link based on common citizenship. We explained that we were willing and desirous to continue to exchange citizenship rights as hitherto and could continue to do so under our present legislation but that we were not anxious to substitute another formal link for the Act we were about to repeal.

The foregoing is a brief summary of the discussions which were, as I have already indicated, quite friendly. No decision was reached about anything, and no arrangements were made for a further meeting, but Dr. Evatt and Mr. Fraser suggested that one should take place; I got the feeling, however, that the British representatives did not desire a further meeting.

In connection with the Chequers meeting, a rather disturbing thing happened. It was agreed by all that nothing would be said to the press save the release of a carefully worded official statement. I left Chequers slightly before 6 p.m. and subsequently found that the BBC 6 o'clock news handout contained a spate of propaganda warning us of the dire consequences which might follow if we persisted in our intention to repeal the External Relations Act. On arrival in Dublin some two hours later, I found that while we were actually meeting in Chequers, a press conference was being held by the Commonwealth Relations Office in London at which material for a hostile press campaign was handed out to the press of the world. This, of course, was completely contrary to the understanding reached at Chequers about publicity and to the spirit of the discussions.

Following upon the Chequers meeting, McGilligan and I reported to the Cabinet and on the 20th October, the Government sent a further note to the British Government, a copy of which is enclosed.¹ We have not heard anything since and there the matter has rested.

We propose communicating with each of the nations of the Commonwealth by way of a note somewhat in the terms of our last note to the British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Governments of the 20th October expressing our desire to continue the existing exchange of citizenship and trade preference rights. This note will be ready within the next day or two and I shall have it delivered to you by our Minister in Paris. I do hope that your Government will be able to let us have an early reply, indicating that South Africa will, on its part, be quite prepared to continue the existing exchange of rights.

Was anything definitely decided in London as to the post of High Commissioner? I have seen the reports in the press that Dr. Malan² intends to raise the post to the status of Ambassador. If these reports are correct, it would be of considerable help to know the date upon which and the method by which Dr. Malan proposes to raise the status of South Africa's High Commissioners. We, of course, wish to do likewise.

I have asked our Department of Industry and Commerce and the Trade Section of my own Department to examine the position in relation to trade possibilities between our two countries so that, if you are able to come over, we could review the situation and possibly even, conclude the general agreement.