Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

96Dermot Keogh24 July. Biggar also learned later from his sources, however, that the Irish applicationwas unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing at that meeting. 68Dr O'Sullivan had a full account of the meeting of 12 July from a senior diplomatof the Netherlands Mission. He was told that when the Dutch head of missionhad approached the chairman of the Permanent Representatives, Signor Venturini,he discovered that the Ireland case was not on the agenda. The item was thenincluded on the insistence of the Dutch representative. At the meeting, Venturiniprefaced the opening of the discussion on the Irish case somewhat along the followinglines: “Have we not some doubts about the Irish on economic and politicalgrounds – they are not members of NATO.” The Netherlands representative said theIrish application had reached the Council before that of the Danes and that of theNorwegians. The French permanent representative read from a prepared note andtook the line that because of Ireland's economic dependence on the British market,there would be little point in proceeding with consideration of the Irish applicationuntil the situation in regard to the British negotiations was a good deal clearer thanat present. He also mentioned the existence of some doubts in his delegation aboutIreland's capacity to meet the full economic obligations of the Rome Treaty. [TheFrench at one stage suggested that the Irish case be referred back to the Commissionfor more detailed study.] On the whole, the French delegate felt that it wouldbe better to postpone discussion on the Irish case until after the summer recess.That suggestion was supported by the chairman who said that the Six had not yetreached agreement in regard to neutral countries.The German delegate said that while Bonn was fully satisfied that Irelandshould be treated as a serious candidate under article 237, he would not object tothe postponement of consideration of the Irish case until the autumn if that was thewish of the majority. The Netherlands representative again intervened to urge that itwas unrealistic to delay consideration of the Irish case because of her economicdependence on the British market. 69 With no real consensus at the meeting of theheads of the Permanent Representation, Ambassador Biggar reported to IveaghHouse following the 24 July Council meeting on his interview with the President ofthe Council, Colombo. The Ambassador was told bluntly that the Council had notime to go into the Irish case in detail. They had instructed the permanent representativesto continue their study of the case and to report in the middle of Septemberwith a view to the consideration of the matter at an early meeting of the Council.Colombo added that that was in no sense an unfavourable reflection on the Irishcase. 70Ambassador Biggar, attempting to convey the difficulties which procrastinationwould have for domestic political opinion, said that the Council's failure to give adecision would be a great disappointment to the Irish government and could wellhave a disturbing effect on public opinion. He pointed out that the Irish applicationhad been made a year ago and stressed the difference in the status of the Irish appli-68. See Biggar reports for July, D/T, S17246L/62, NAI.69. O'Sullivan to Cremin, 18 July 1962, D/T, S17246L/62, NAI.70. Biggar to Cremin, 25 July 1962, D/T, S17246L/62, NAI.