Following the Lemass–O’Neill meeting there was a flurry of ministerial meetings between Irish and Northern Ireland ministers both in Belfast and Dublin. On 12 February, Haughey met his ministerial counterpart from the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Harry West, in Dublin. Although this was a social encounter, with wives present at a dinner in Haughey’s home in Raheny, it was a sign of how far relations between Dublin and Belfast had moved on.145 The very fact that the two governments had commenced discussions on cross-border issues at ministerial and civil-service level was noteworthy, ‘signifying the commencement of a policy of normalisation in North–South relations which only a few years before seemed unattainable’.146
Indeed, on 9 February, Haughey had stood in for Lemass at a debate at Queen’s University Belfast, held under the auspices of the Literary and Scientific Debating Society. During the course of his speech, Haughey laid out some of his vision for the future of North–South co-operation on agricultural matters and more generally on the ‘future of Irish politics’. Apart from focusing on his support for food processing, he spoke of the need to break down barriers between North and South. It was ‘the function of politics’, he said, ‘to reconcile, to bring together and so to create an atmosphere in which men could give of their best to’.147 Haughey was eager to convert his own words into concrete actions. In March and again in May of 1965, he held further talks with Harry West.148
Haughey’s attitude towards Northern Ireland during this time was determined by the ongoing Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area negotiations (the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement was eventually signed on 14 December 1965) and ultimately the Irish government’s desire to secure membership of the EEC. Like Lemass, Haughey strongly favoured Ireland fostering closer ties with Europe in anticipation of the country’s eventual membership of the EEC. The minister for agriculture made his views clear during a speech at the Irish Club in London on St Patrick’s Day, 17 March 1965.
As Haughey delivered his speech to assembled dignitaries, including the British prime minister, Harold Wilson, he must have considered how far he had travelled along the political path of reconciliation. His escapades in helping to burn a Union flag in 1945 must have seemed a distant memory. Two decades on, he was now a respected statesman, propagating to his audience the merits of cordial British–Irish relations, in the context of his support for British and Irish membership of the EEC. European integration, he explained during the course of his speech, was the best avenue for the economic prosperity of both neighbouring countries. ‘Ireland,’ he said, should ‘go forward into the future with Britain in a spirit of mutual co-operation.’ In reference to Ireland’s past, but with his sights firmly focused on the future, he noted that Dublin and London had a responsibility to respect the history and traditions of one another and not to be afraid to challenge long-held stereotypes and misconceptions.149
During the Irish general election campaign of April 1965, Haughey and his ministerial colleagues continued to endorse the merits of European integration and to encourage further co-operation between Belfast and Dublin.150 By now Haughey’s influence over Fianna Fáil was steadily growing. He was Fianna Fáil’s national director of elections during this election campaign (and again at the 1969 general election) and heavily involved in revamping the party’s fund-raising capabilities.151 During the 1965 election campaign, Lemass felt particularly confident that his meetings with O’Neill would be viewed as a positive factor by the Irish electorate. However, as in previous elections, the economy, not Northern Ireland, dominated the election trail. When the election results were announced, on 13 April, Fianna Fáil won exactly half the seats, seventy-two, a gain of two seats. The result did not give Lemass the overall majority that he desperately wanted. The close result, as noted by John Horgan, suggests that without the Northern issue he might have been forced into another minority government.152 Despite the narrowness of the election victory, Fianna Fáil returned to government for the third successive occasion, with Haughey retaining his portfolio as minister for agriculture.
In June 1966, Lemass informed close friends of his intention to resign as taoiseach and Fianna Fáil president.153 After serving nine years as taoiseach and a further twenty-one years as a Fianna Fáil minister, Lemass, who was sixty-seven years old, had grown tired of the day-to-day hustle and bustle of political life. On 9 November of that year, he notified a gathering of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party of his intention to resign. He asked deputies to offer ‘no sympathetic speeches’.154 Lemass’s announcement left his cabinet colleagues shocked. Seán MacEntee was outraged by his leader’s decision. He could not believe that the taoiseach should ‘wash his hands of responsibility for the country’s affairs’.155 Frank Aiken was likewise upset. He recorded that he had tried his ‘utmost to persuade him [Lemass] to carry on at least for another few years’.156
Attention quickly turned to who would succeed Lemass. The choice ranged across a broad spectrum within Fianna Fáil. Haughey was believed to have a good chance, as was George Colley, Neil Blaney and Jack Lynch. Haughey, however, did have one major handicap in the ongoing farmers’ protests.157 It was believed that Lemass favoured Lynch as his successor, Colley his second. Initially, Lynch refused to be considered for the leadership, with the result that Colley and Haughey emerged as the early favourites. However, Blaney then threw a spanner in the works by announcing his intention to run.
The prospect of Haughey becoming Fianna Fáil president set off alarm bells among many of the old guard within Fianna Fáil. Again Aiken led the protests. He believed that under Lemass’s leadership Fianna Fáil had already become too cosy with big business. Aiken particularly disliked Fianna Fáil’s decision in 1966 to establish Taca, a fund-raising organisation of 500 businessmen, who each paid relatively large sums of monies and in return obtained privileged access to Fianna Fáil ministers and exclusive dinners in the Gresham Hotel, Dublin.158 Haughey, together with Brian Lenihan and Donogh O’Malley, the so-called ‘three musketeers’, embodied Fianna Fáil’s cosy relationship with the business world. Writing in 1965 (little doubt in reference to this new breed of ‘Mohair-suited Young Turks’ taking over Fianna Fáil) Gerald Boland noted that ‘Some of the young set make me actually sick and disgusted.’159 Indeed, privately Boland even went so far as to describe Brian Lenihan as ‘a shit’.160
In the eyes of men like Aiken and Boland, Taca was indicative of Fianna Fáil’s ‘moral collapse’.161 Many of the party stalwarts detested the idea of ministers aligning themselves with a ‘golden circle’ of builders, property developers and speculators, all of whom benefited greatly from the economic boom of the 1960s. Aiken was particularly concerned by accusations that some senior Fianna Fáil figures had abused planning laws, ‘with inside information lubricating the accumulation of substantial private fortunes’.162 Aiken believed that if Haughey secured the Fianna Fáil leadership, the organisation’s pathway to moral bankruptcy would be inevitable. Aiken’s concerns were no doubt alerted because of Haughey’s ability during this period to acquire considerable personal wealth without the apparent means to do so.
Aiken, therefore, announced his support for Colley in the leadership contest. He then tried his ‘utmost to persuade’ Lemass to carry on for another few years in order to allow Colley sufficient time to gain further ministerial experience and to raise his national profile.163 In many ways Colley was the complete opposite to Haughey. The former represented the traditional-wing of the party; he had a love of the Irish language and a reputation as a decent and honest politician. Haughey, on the other hand, was widely known for his love of money. He represented the brash, progressive and at times snobby, new breed of politician who had infiltrated Fianna Fáil during the 1960s.
The prospect that a leadership battle might lead to a split within the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party spurred Lemass to ask Lynch a second time if he would stand. After consulting his wife, Maureen, Lynch agreed. As soon as Lynch announced his intension to run for the leadership Haughey withdrew from the contest, as did Blaney. Encouraged by Aiken, Colley decided to remain in the contest. On 9 November 1966, the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party met to vote for the new president of the organisation. A vote was taken on Lemass’s successor so as to avoid, as the records of the meeting phrase it, ‘acrimonious discussions and intemperate statements that could cause unnecessary division in the party’.164
Aiken ‘spoke at length’ and said that ‘the decision