Britain firm at Brussels

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32430, 17 October 1970, Page 2

Britain firm at Brussels

(N.Z.PJi. Stag Correspondent) LONDON, Oct. 16. New Zealand can be well pleased with the firm way in which the British in Brussels yesterday indicated that New Zealand’s butter trade was a major problem to be settled before the United Kingdom could join the Common Market.

The leader of the British delegation (Sir Con O’Neill), in revealing that Britain was peeking a six-vear transitional period for adjustment to the E.E.C. agricultural policies, said that New Zealand’s butter trade, Commonwealth sugar, and the over-all financial cost of entry were separate problems, to be negotiated on a different basis. Although an encouragement that the British have taken this position, other aspects of yesterday’s session showed that the road to entry is still far from being negotiated. The French reaction over both the transitional period and the exceptions was sharp and predictable. The delegate to the negotiations, Mr JeanMare Boegner, • left the conference room almost immediately the proposals had been put, and told the press that he was “sharply disappointed.” He claimed the British were attempting to gain full access to the E.E.C. industrial market—the British having asked for a three-year transitional period on indus-try-while not paying the agricultural price. While the official Commission reaction was milder — Mr Hans-Georg Sachs, the official Community negotiator merely said that discussion of the issues should be postponed until after the next Ministers’ meeting on October 27—there is little doubt that the Six will attempt to force some compromise. The British proposal for an unequal transitional period for industry and agriculture is also likely to find little

favour with at least two of the other applicant countries, Ireland and Denmark. They will also be reluctant to see New Zealand receive any “favoured nation” treatment, something Mr Marshall will no doubt be told when he visits' Dublin and Copenhagen in November. Explaining the need for a longer transitional period for agriculture, Sir Con O’Neill said that there were three factors which had to be considered—the great discrepancy between British and E.E.C. primary produce prices, the need to give traditional suppliers time to make other arrangements, and the need to cushion the blow of higher food prices on the housewife’s budget. If Britain joined in 1973, British farm and retail food prices would be gradually increased to parity with the E.E.C. by 1979. According to experts, the total adjustment would be under 10 per cent, thus affecting the cost of living to a small extent only.

There is also little doubt that Mr Malfatti, the Italian president of the Common Market Commission, and Mr J. F. Deniau, the official in the commission responsible for negotiations with Britain, were given a run-down on the proposals by Mr Rippon, the British Minister for Europe, who met them yesterday morning. Mr Rippon appears increasingly concerned that the negotiations may become dead-locked. His trip to Brussels, as he himself admitted, was to speed matters up. In a press conference later, he said: “I envisage that next year the tempo.will increase, and we will have brpken the back of negotiations by next summer, and have everything signed, sealed, and delivered by January 1, 1972.” One of the reasons for Mr Rippon’s concern is the activity of the anti-marketeers and indications of indifference—and even outright hos-tility—-by a majority of the British public. If matters drag on, this aspect of the

situation could grow to such a proportion that the entry bid could fail for want of electoral support. A prime instance of this “anti-market attitude” was shown this morning in an editorial in the “Daily Express.” Under the heading, “End this charade now,” the paper took Mr Rippon to task for setting dates.