“Two-Voiced” U.K. Approach To E.E.C. Criticised

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29802, 19 April 1962, Page 18

“Two-Voiced” U.K. Approach To E.E.C. Criticised

The ambivalence of the United Kingdom attitude in the current negotiations with the European Economic Community is criticised in the April issue of “Common Market,” an independent monthly review published in English in The Hague. “In the present Brussels negotiations, the United Kingdom tends to present itself to the Common Market as if it were two separate countries: the country of the most favoured nation tariff, ready to adopt the external E.E.C. tariff; and the country of the preferential system that wishes to maintain free entry for the members of the British Commonwealth," says the journal, under the heading: “Agriculture: A tale of two Kingdoms."

“This dualism lies at the root of many customs union problems now being negotiated in Brussels, but it is even more true with regard to agriculture, where E.E.C. seems at times to be dealing with two kingdoms following not only different, but often even downright conflicting policies. “It is a salient feature of present day British farm policy that seems to offer an escape from the painful necessity of trying to achieve an optimum combination of irreconcilables. “Due to the large net import position of the United Kingdom and to the fact that the domestic agricultural population comprises only 4.5 per cent, of the labour force, Great Britain has been able to permit free imports and to let farm prices sink to their lowest levels (thus satisfying the consumer objective and the foreign trade objective), while at the same time severing any connexion between

these market prices and domestic farm income, since farmers receive direct income supplement from the Exchequer. “In this way, the English seem to have combined the best of two possible worlds: low market prices and high producer incomes. It is obvious that without this system the free entry of Commonwealth farm products in the United Kingdom could not have been tolerated to the extent that it is today. The importance of the British deficiency payment system is illustrated by the fact that in the years 1956-60 some 54 per cent, of the net farm earnings in the United Kingdom derived from Government subsidy payments. Search for Compromise “In most Continental systems, however, there is no such split between the determination of producer incomes on the one hand and of market prices and trade policy on the other. Nor will there be in the E.E.C. farm policy. The common price levels, still to be agreed on, will determine both the income of the E.E.C. farmer, the total production level, the level of consumption, and the import possibilities for suppliers outside the Community. In other words, E.E.C. will not be able to escape the need to look for compromises among conflicting policy objectives. “The conditions on which Britain will agree to participate in the Common Market agricultural policy should be viewed against this background. They may be summarised as follows: "A long term guarantee for the average British farm income, combined with an appropriate procedure of

annual review; measures to protect farm incomes in the pigmeat and egg sectors, in addition to those now envisaged by the Common Market; a longer transitional period and. possibly, additional measures of protection in the horticultural and dairy sectors; specific preferential arrangements to secure for Commonwealth producers a continuation both of access to the British and E.E.C. markets and of their present competitive position; these arrangements to be valid for a considerable period of time; long-run general assurances to the Commonwealth to cover the period after the specific arrangements have expired and before worldwide solutions on a commodity agreement basis have been brought about. “There could be no clearer demonstration of the fact that the United Kingdom seems to speak in these negotiations with two separate voices than the juxtaposition of these demands. “In other words: the central question for the entire Commonwealth problem, and in many ways the key to its solution, is the maintenance of adequate net import needs in the enlarged community and this is largely a matter of price. “The contradiction in the United Kingdom position is too obvious to escape notice. Does it result from the fact that in Britain’s domestic farm policy a similar contradiction does not occur to the same extent? Or does the United Kingdom delegation not seriously intend to defend one of its two positions: if so, which one? “Is it possible that Britain still hopes to avoid a complete integration of its agricultural system with that of the Community? Such a hope would be in flat contradiction to a number of statements made by the British Government concerning its willing-

ness to co-operate in the Common Market farm policy. “A parallel is provided by Britain's explicit acceptance, as a common aim, of the agricultural common market in its final stage; a Communitywide market, with the same free circulation of farm products which is now found in each of the national markets, and with uniform price levels throughout. But how can this acceptance be reconciled with the simultaneous demands for special income measures for British farmers and a market separation for butter and other products, and with the maintenance of special Commonwealth privileges in the British market? A large part of the answer to questions such as these may lie in the circumspection with which the British Government wishes to approach public opinion in Britain, particularly in the fanning a reais and in the Commonwealth wing of the Conservative Party. “In view of these basic uncertainties it is not surprising that the Brussels negotiators have not yet got down to a search for specific solutions on a small number of vital products. This remains an urgent task. But it cannot be fruitfully tackled until the United Kingdoms have made up their minds;—until the British speak with a clearer voice.”