‘U.K. Told Safeguards Not Acceptable’

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29799, 16 April 1962, Page 13

‘U.K. Told Safeguards Not Acceptable’

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, April 14, The six Common Market countries have told Britain the safeguards she has requested for exports of manufactured goods, foodstuffs and raw materials from Canada and Australia are not acceptable in their present form, the “Sunday Telegraph” reported in an article by its Commonwealth affairs correspondent. The newspaper said representatives of market members had given the warning in Brussels. A similar warning had been made on requests for safeguards for British farmers. The implication was that Britain must either reduce the requests or risk delaying negotiations on her entry into the market, the newspaper said.

The correspondent said the warnings were believed set out in a detailed report on progress of negotiations with Britain. The report would be considered by the Cabinet in London this coming week. Difficulties which had arisen in the Brussels talks were being considered in a series of meetings between the Commonwealth Relations Secretary (Mr Sandys) and the Australian Minister •of Trade (Mr McEwen), the correspondent said. The meetings, w>hich began last week, were understood to have progressed on defining the difficulties but not on solutions.

Mr McEwen is now in London after a tour of five of the market countries, where he discussed the possible effects on an enlarged Common Market which included Britain, with specific reference to Australian trade.

The correspondent said he had learned from Commonwealth sources in Brussels that the report showed the Six were willing to make satisfactory arrangements for linking British Africa, India.

Ceylon, Pakistan, Hong Kong, the West Indies and many smaller dependencies with the market. But the Six said they were determined to stand firm over trade with Australia and Canada. New Zealand, also troubled over the future of her farm exports to Britain, was not mentioned by the newspaper. The correspondent said: “To accept the safeguards of preferences for Australian and Canadian goods proposed by Britain could, the Six argue, undermine some of the important principles on which the Common Market is based.

“The effect, say the experts of the Six, would be to distort the market’s competitive system. Difficulties would arise over the origin of goods flowing into the market and circulating in member states “In answering these points, the British negotiators have. I understand, taken a determined line.

“They have pointed out that abolishing preferences on Australian and Canadian goods. without supplying comparable outlets or allowing a lengthy transitional period, would cause internal difficulties in Australia and Canada. The price mechanism in Britain would suffer

"Britain, it is emphasised, would, if she joined the market without adequate safeguards, be less able to compete with other member states.

“Most of these arguments have, I am authoritatively informed, been opposed by the Six,” the correspondent said.

The newspaper said first reaction of Commonwealth representatives to the report was that while it offered the prospect of a fair deal for the Asian and African Commonwealth, it was unduly tough on Australia and Canada But the two countries say they would continue to press for maximum safeguards.

The "Guardian” today argued that the more European, including British, farmers were protected, the less easy it would be to provide adequate markets tor the Commonwealth, whether or not Britain joined the European Common Market. “The treatment given to the Commonwealth will be a fair test of the liberalism of the European Economic Community. The essential terms here are fair recognition of the needs of New Zealand's agriculture and of the lowcost manufacturers of India and Hong Kong,” it said. The “Scotsman” claimed the “differences” between Australia and Britain on the issue of British participation

in the Common Market might be fairly wide. It said: "It is understood that the two Governments differ on the means by which Australia’s interests can best be safeguarded and also on the whole question of the future relationship between the Commonwealth and the Common Market. “Dr. Adenauer was reported recently as having said that the maintenance the Commonwealth in (tgHB present form will not be sible. It is certainly desirable that on thia vital M issue not only Australia, but 1 other Commonwealth coun- 1 tries should make their position clear and that the Commonwealth would present a united front.”