E.E.C. Foreign Ministers split over proposals

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32521, 3 February 1971, Page 13

E.E.C. Foreign Ministers split over proposals

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) BRUSSELS, February 2. Common Market Foreign Ministers were split today over British entry proposals, indicating that the year’s first top level bargaining session might be slowed by more policy wrangles.

The Six .agree that Britain’s proposals for her share of payments to the European Community’s federal - type budget are unacceptable.

But after six hours of talks yesterday, the market’s foreign ministers failed to narrow differences on what coun-ter-proposals to make on this key issue in negotiations over Britain’s membership bid. They schedule an early morning sessions today in advance of meeting the British chief negotiator, Mr Geoffrey Rippon, for the start of the 1971 bargaining, but they are unlikely to bring major new elements to the discussions. The British-Six negotiations seem unlikely to yield early significant progress despite British efforts to speed the pace. All six E.E.C. countries are unanimous in ruling out the British proposal to start payments with a maximum share of 3 per cent of the . Common Market budget, increasing to 15.9 per cent over eight years. A gap has emerged between France and other partners over the contributions the British Government would make to the budget, which is largely spent on financing the E.E.C. farm policy. There is agreement among the Six that British payments should rise progressively during transition to a level that would avoid a big leap to the end of the eventual fullyautomatic contribution estimated at nearly 25 per cent. Italy and the Netherlands are adamant that Britain should not have to make a considerable leap at the beginning. This is to counter a French preference for Britain paying 21.9 per cent from the outset, as put forward in a formula from the E.E.C. commission.

The French Foreign Minister (Mr Maurice Schumann)

will preside over today’s meeting with the other five members on the rate at which Britain’s payments will grow from transition to final level. The Six are working on a paper that restricts itself to general statements without going into the amount Britain should pay, the length of time she should have to adjust or the request for a safeguard clause to prevent her contribution causing a major bal-ance-of-payments upset On the basis of a sugges-

tion by the Belgian Foreign Minister (M? Pierre Harmel) the Six have put these vital issues in the hands of their permanent representatives in Brussels for discussion in coming weeks. Mr Schumann will tell Britain of the Six’s conclusion sc far at the negotiating session.

Mr Rippon, who arrived in Brussels yesterday, told reporters that he would be explaining Britain’s initial budget proposals at the opening sessions. He said that the failure of the Six to agree on a joint attitude was not surprising, and he did not underestimate their difficulties. Besides the crucial financing issue, a chief topic today could be the alignment of industrial tariffs between the Six and Britain. The Six believe that all seven nations could dismantle tariffs towards one another in five steps of 20 per cent. The issue of Britain’s voting rights in the Common Market came to the forefront with contrasting statements by Mr Rippon and a spokesman for the Commission.

Mr Rippon told reporters that any agreement with the Six which did not give Bri-

tain full membership from the outset was “unthinkable.”

He had been asked about recent hints dropped in Community circles that Britain could only have limited voting rights on the basis of her present proposals for contributions to the Community budget. But Mr Jean-Francois Deniau, who is in charge of negotiations for the commission —the E.E.C.’s top planning body—later clearly spelled out a link between voting rights in E.E.C. institutions and the level of Britain’s budgetary contributions. Mr Deniau told the meeting of foreign ministers that a reasonable level for British contributions must be found to avoid “delicate institutional problems.”