Without compromise U.K.'s E.E.C. bid may fail

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32567, 29 March 1971, Page 1

Without compromise U.K.'s E.E.C. bid may fail

(From

C. R. MENTIPLAY,

Parliamentary reporter of "The Press")

WELLINGTON, March 28. Unless the principal issues involved in Britain’s attempt to join the European Common Market are solved by the end of June, the entry programme is likely to be seriously compromised. This information comes direct from Brussels, where for more than nine months the talks have been going on.

In that time there have been five Ministerial and 14 officiallevel discussions involving negotiation. At the most recent Ministerial session both sides undertook to intensify the discussion from May onward. Some piquancy-is added to the situation by the presence In Britain just before the Intensifying process is due to Wn <rf..ooth Uto Prime and the Leader eff the Opposition (Mr Kirk). ; The Prime Minister will leave New Zealand on April 11 for Britain, calling at the United States, ahd Mr Kirk

will follow him in the middle I of the month. The conjunction of these visits might sharpen the negotiations. Some sources have suggested a merging of party interests in the New Zealand cause. This happened once before, when Sir Sidney Holland and Sir Walter Nash were in Britain together at a time of economic crisis. Timing important One senior source puts the position thus: "If the back of negotiations is not broken by toe European summer, the present timing will be destroyed.” The Continental summer, of course, is May-June-July. The reference to timing concerns the hope that negotiations will conclude by the end of this year, thus allowing the signing by January 1, 1972, of the entry treaty, and the promotion of Britain to full membership from January 1, 1973. Nine months of discussion have settled many things, but have not noticeably brought the disposal of the “crunch" items any closer. These remain as they were outlined by Britain’s Common Market negotiators when they visited New Zealand last year. Four issues • The issues which will determine the terms of Britain’s entry into the European Eco- 1 nomic Community have now 1 been reduced to four. They are: The size of Britain’s financial contribution to the E.E.C. . budget over what is being described as a "tran- ■ sitional period.” j The position for developing , countries in the Com- i monwealth who are sugar , exporters. The position relating to New i Zealand butter and 1 cheese exports to the enlarged E.E.C. 1 The pace and method, includ- j ing price levels, by which ' Britain must adjust to the E.E.C. agricultural , system. Britain has solutions to all , these problems, but to the first three there has been no definite E.E.C. reaction. During the past weeks the six E.E.C. members have been ne- ’ gotiating among themselves < ih an attempt to reach a ' common policy on all issues 1 relating to British entry. 1 This, New Zealand officials say, has been a complex process, mainly because the I French have been adamant on .■ forms and details of com-1 promise. Apparently all that can be said is that at the 1

lend of March, 1971, the overall negotiations are more advanced than when earlier talks were broken off in 1963. Rome Treaty The improvements, it , appears, stem mainly from , Britain’s attitude towards the , major commitments it must undertake on entry. Britain is prepared to accept the Rome treaty as it stands, and also the principles and im- : plementing regulations of the E.E.C. agricultural system. It ’ is the area of “special con- ’ sideration” for Britain and its Commonwealth which has I been reduced. It now seems that a final settlement, certainly on the ! first three of the four issues mentioned, will be made in a “package deal,” which would also relate to the co-ordina-tion of the enlarged Community and the linking of the individual members. Dairy cuts Proposals submitted by Britain last November concern only guarantees that New Zealand sales of butter and cheese will be related to its present entitlement through the “transitional period.” It has also been agreed that before the end of that period a review should be held which should consider the possibility of a continuing arrangement.

The Common Market countries have not reached a common position on this. Rather have they agreed to “guide lines.” One of these, it is clear, is that present New Zealand sales should not be guaranteed. The principle appears to have been accepted that whatever concessions are granted to New Zealand, its sales of dairy produce will be progressively reduced.

What will eventually be offered is a matter of speculation. The E.E.C. Commission and France both take the view that at the end of the transitional period only about 40 to 44 per cent of current exports by quantity should be guaranteed.

French view New Zealand’s “friends” in the Six have other views, but officials do not deny that these fall far short of what Britain has requested for New Zealand. France maintains that New Zealand can expect no favours beyond the “transitional period.” The French look to the solution of New Zealand’s problems—as do the other members of the Six —in a “world dairy agreement”—the viability of which is still open to question. At the Ministerial session in Brussels on March 16, Britain insisted that the! British proposal was made on! an objective appraisal of New Zealand’s heeds, and that failure to consider them would indicate the unwillingness of the Six to fulfil their responsibilities. This, observers suggest, was about as far as Britain, as a suppliant country, could go. Britain has accepted a term of five years for the transitional period in which it must bring its domestic prices to the E.E.C. level, but has. proposed a six-stage price-level adjustment spanning five years and a half. The Six have counterproposed a five-stage adjustment over four years and a half, and have demanded that Britain should apply full Community preference immediately on entry. Others excluded If Britain accepts the full margin of Community pre-

ference (which lays down that imports of commodities subject to the common agricultural policy cannot compete on equal terms with the E.E.C. product), all traditional third-country suppliers not singled out for special treatment would be excluded from the British market.

Butter is subject to proposal and counter-proposal in this respect. It is accepted by all Six that butter would pose immediate difficulties if the full margin of preference were accepted as soon as Britain entered. Examination by Britain of the counter-proposals will be going on .when Sir Keith Holyoake and Mr Kirk are in London.

There is also the problem of New Zealand lamb. This has not yet been taken up in negotiations, mainly because lamb, mutton and other sheep products (excluding wool) are not subjects of a common E.E.C. policy. If a common market regulation covering lamb were introduced, the situation would be the same as for butter and cheese.

Lamb considered According to recent reports, the E.E.C. Commission is considering a regulation relating specifically to lamb imports. In that event New Zealand’s position would need to be safeguarded. It is thus evident that New Zealand is in urgent need of representation in Britain at the topmost level.