MACMILLAN SPEAKS "Talks Brutally Ended Because Success Near’

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30045, 1 February 1963, Page 9

MACMILLAN SPEAKS "Talks Brutally Ended Because Success Near’

(N.Z.P.A .-Reuter—Copyright)

LONDON, January 30.

France had “firmly and rather brutally” ended the Brussels negotiations on Britain’s bid to enter the Common Market, the British Prime Minister (Mr Macmillan) said tonight.

Speaking to the nation on radio and television on the collapse of the talks, he said:

What happened at Brussels yesterday was bad: bad for us, bad for Europe: bad for the whole free world. A great opportunity has been missed. Now, it’s no good trying to disguise or minimise that fact.

What we and our friends were trying to do at Brussels was something very creative, and imaginative, dramatic. We were trying to strengthen the whole of Western Europe in a way which would spread out all over the free world. We British didn’t enter into these negotiations in a light-hearted sort of way—we thought a great deal about them. Nor did we enter into them simply for our own material benefit. We had a deep purpose. Now, everybody is asking the natural question: “Well, what do we do now?” Well, before I come to that I want to say a word about what we were trying to do. Let me tell you as simply as I can. For many centuries Europe has been the cradle of civilisation. Everything has spread out from Europe, and yet it has been the scene of some deep, bitter struggles in the last 50 years. Twice in my own lifetime Europe has torn itself apart in the most frightful internecine wars.

Attempts To Dominate

These great conflicts have generally been brought about by the attempts of one nation—or sometimes of one man—to dominate the whole of Europe: to create a kind of sham United Europe, not by agreement, or partnership, or co-opera-tion, but by power. We want to stop this happening again.

We want to heal the divisions of Europe by a real unity and we want to see this freely-united Europe use strength and prosperity fsr the benefit of the whole world.

What happened in the last few weeks has really revealed a deep division of purpose between us and our friends and some other ways of looking at this. I am sorry to say it, but I fear it’s true that France—or at least the present Government of France—is looking backwards, not forwards. They seem to think that one nation can dominate Europe, and—equally wrong —thtft Europe can live alone, without friends, and without allies. Atlantic Alliance Of course, we must cooperate with the rest of the world: with the Commonwealth: with the United States, in an equal and honourable partnership. And that is why we in Britain are determined to stand by the Atlantic alliance. Of course, it isn’t all gloomy. There is a good side. During the last 17 years, there has been a wonderful story of reconstruction apd revival in the old world, and there have been sonse very fine men working for it. Marshall aid under President Truman’s direction gave Europe—gave us ail—a chance to pull ourselves together after the war, and then when the Russian Communist threat looked like spreading right across Europe, it was halted by the creation of NA.T.O. and the Atlantic alliance.

What folly it is for anyone now to try to put all this at risk. I know there are a lot of people in our country, it’s very natural, who have been worried about the British application to join the Common Market. They felt that our peculiar. special links with the Commonwealth might be weakened: that

Commonwealth trade might be reduced. Well, we went into all this and we have formed the opposite view. We felt that with the change in the Commonwealth, the variety, the changing pattern of trade, that really our membership, British membership, of the Common Market would open up new opportunities for Commonwealth countries—old and new—in a prosperous and expanding European market.

At any rate, it was largely about these things that the negotiations were concerned. These negotiations have been long and complicated. They have gone on steadily, stage by stage, and they were very near completion. We have certainly had a wonderful negotiator and ambassador in Mr Heath.

Well then, why have they broken down? Not because they were going to fail, but curiously enough because they were going to succeed. It seems a strange paradox, but it is true. All through the French have been tough, difficult negotiators. We expected that and we don’t resent it

But I’m afraid that in spite of assurances to the contrary the only explanation for what has happened is this—the French Government hoped that the thing would break down for one reason or another, or either because the Commonwealth conference wouldn’t accept it or because I wouldn’t be able to carry it through the Conservative Party conference, or because the argument would go on so long that the talks would sort of run into the sand and never reach an end.

Brought To An End

But when in the last few weeks it became clear that the remaining points were about to be settled quite quickly, then the French Government brought the negotiations firmly and rather brutally to an end. Well, to us, the economic side has always been important, as well as the political side. We had hoped by creating an enlarged market in Europe to create a great community equal in strength to Russia on the one side or American upon the other. And then, another thing, our idea of it wasn’t that Europe should be a kind of inwardlooking protected fortress. It should be outward-look-ing, helping the trade of the world: helping particularly the other poorer countries, the developing, the undeveloped, the new countries that are coming being—and have come into being since the war.

Well, it's no good arguing about this now. The negotiations have broken down. What we have got to decide is what we are going to do now.

Now people naturally ask me—what is the alternative?

Is there an alternative? Well, there isn’t in the sense of a sort of ready-made plan, better than the one which we have been pursuing. Of course, if it had been possible to create a Common Market with all these characteristics. a common tariff and all the rest, inside the Commonwealth, why we would have done it years ago.

No Easy Alternative

It would have been very attractive to us because of all the reasons of history and sentiment. But for technical and other reasons it is not possible in that shape, and so there isn’t an alternative in that sense—what I call easy, ready-made. But there is a lot we can do, and must do, and what we must do is to be creative and constructive, not vindictive. And all that we must do. if we are to be true to ourselves, must be in harmony with our purpose, our theme, our aim and not against it. All through the negotiations of course, we have been in the closest touch with the Commonwealth countries, at every level. Now we shall take counsel with them again as to what is best to be done. And the same with E.F.T.A. countries—the outer circle: Norway, Sweden and the rest.

And so, also of course, with the United States. We must work for the lowering of tariffs all round, for that is one of the best ways in which we can hope to increase world trade and we can do this in the tariff negotiations, The Kennedy round, as it’s called, whichi is just about to start, in which all of us the Commonwealth. Europe. America. E.F.T.A., all of us will all take part. Let us hope we are not going to let the breakdown of these negotiations weaken our resolve to master our own problems.

Acceptance Of Change

And what is that? To expand the economy. To get growth. To maintain full employment without inflation. That means that we must rely on our own determination, our own vigour, our own resources. We must be ready to accept change, to modernise, to adapt, to get rid of obsolete plant and perhaps more important, obsolete ideas—wherever they are—to work together, all of us. Is this a gloomy or grim prospect. Not at all . . . not at all. It’s the kind of situation in which we have always done best in the past, and so it will be again.

Record Road Deaths.— American traffic deaths bounded to an all-time record of 41,000 in 1962, the National Safety Council said today. The previous record of 39,969 was set in 1941.—(Chicago, January 30.)