No. 494 DFA/5/313/31/B
London, 21 November 1956
[matter omitted] | |
(b) | Sterling Area:
We have, of course, a joint interest in the soundness of the Sterling Area. Generally speaking, we do most of the things necessary for this end. |
[matter omitted] | |
(d) | Our position on Suez:
Mr. Butler was aware that we did not approve of the Franco-British action but he remarked that he thought that people are beginning to have a better understanding of what was done. |
[matter omitted] | |
(f) | Anglo-Irish Problems:
There are, on the whole, no serious problems between the two countries because neither side is trying ‘to be clever’. Having made this remark at an early point in the conversation, Mr. Butler seemed to clarify later what he meant by saying, after again using the same expression, that we are not too vociferous about the unity of the country and that this is a good thing as, while it is legitimate to strive for unity, obstacles in the way are very great and public talk about ending Partition does not remove them. He then went on to say that the Government here do not intend, at the present time, to restrict immigration, that there is good reason for this as Britain needs labour and that he supposed quite a problem would be created if at any time it were found necessary to impose restrictions. |
(g) | Our Government:
Mr. Butler said that he knows a number of members of the Government, having met them from time to time, and that he has had friendly relations with them. He remarked that they seem to prefer that these relations should be informal. He expressed the view that the Minister for Finance1 is doing a difficult job well. |
[matter omitted] | |
5. | The most significant remarks of Mr. Butler during this conversation were those recorded at 3 (f) above, and these remarks seem to me to be of real importance. As you know, Mr. Butler is rather serious-minded and deliberate in what he says – he always gave me, and I think all those who heard him at the OEEC meetings, the impression of talking with both sincerity and reflection. I think, therefore, that his remarks on this occasion cannot be regarded as obiter dicta, or as being said simply to make conversation. There is, I suppose, (but I intend to see what we have on file here) nothing surprising about his references to unity. What I do find surprising, and indeed somewhat disturbing, is his statement that the Government do not propose to introduce restrictions on immigration. I took him to say that the Government had, in fact, considered this question and had decided to do nothing about it at present. As far as I can ascertain at the moment, this is the first we have heard from any official source, at least in recent times, of the possibility of limitations being placed on the movement of our people into Britain. There has, however, as you know, been a small campaign on the part of Conservatives in the Birmingham area to place restrictions on the influx of Irish (as well as West Indian) labour and there have been a few questions in the House recently about the steps taken in the matter of tuberculosis in relation to Irish entrants. There was, indeed, a debate in the House of Lords yesterday about West Indian immigrants in which at least one speaker made reference to Irish immigrants (as constituting a greater danger to health than do immigrants from the West Indies) and in which also the Government spokesman, in replying, dealt with the question of limiting immigration and suggested that it has been examined. |
[matter omitted] |
The Royal Irish Academy's Documents on Irish Foreign Policy series has published an eBook of confidential correspondence on the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations.
The international network of Editors of Diplomatic Documents was founded in 1988. Delegations from different parts of the world met for the first time in London in 1989.
Read more ....