The Press TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1971. Harold de Gaulle?

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32663, 20 July 1971, Page 12

The Press TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1971. Harold de Gaulle?

The Leader of the British Labour Opposition (Mr Wilson) has all but cast himself in the role filled by President de Gaulle on the two previous occasions when Britain attempted to join the Common Market In 1963 and 1967 the French President’s veto kept Britain out: this time, with agreement reached on the terms of entry between Britain and the Six, Mr W’ilson appears to be attempting to rally his party—and British electors—solidly against entry. The party’s official policy, and Mr Wilson’s final word, will not be known until the party executive meets at the end of this month; but at a special Labour congress at the week-end Mr Wilson appeared to reject outright the agreed terms of entry. Fortunately for the British Government. Mr Wilson’s veto would not be the last word on the matter, as was the former French President’s. The final decision rests with Parliament; it will not be known until October. The mantle of President de Gaulle’s intransigence does not suit Mr Wilson. As Prime Minister he made one unsuccessful attempt to take Britain into Europe and also initiated the present negotiations before the Conservatives won the General Election last year. The terms which British negotiators gained last month must be at least as good as any the Labour Party might have hoped for; several of Mr Wilson’s former Cabinet colleagues have endorsed them. Whatever his private feelings, there is more than a suspicion that Mr Wilson is making himself the spokesman for the anti-Marketeers for short-term political advantages within his party and with the electorate. If this is so it is unworthy of him, and unworthy of the great issues involved in Britain’s relationship with Europe.

Opinion polls in Britain show a majority still opposed to entry. Although there is no suggestion that the issue will be tested in a General Election before October, the Conservative Party, and the proMarketeers in the Labour Party, are hoping to change the public’s attitude in the next three months. Mr W’ilson’s opposition will make their task more difficult; at the same time his claim that an antiMarket position is necessary to avoid a split in the Labour Party has some credence. Most of the Left wing of the party and some of the biggest unions are opposed to entry. Labour may still split on the issue, and some Labour M.P.s will vote for entry whatever instructions they receive from the party, but Mr Wilson must be acutely aware that defections from the moderate Right of the party will be much less damaging to unity and electoral prospects than a rebellion of the more militant Left.

The Conservatives, too, have their rebels who will vote against the Market in the Commons, regardless of their party’s directions. But it appears most unlikely that Parliament will reject the terms of entry. The real impact of Mr Wilson’s opposition will be felt when the time comes, probably next year, to draft and pass the elaborate legislation which British entry will require. Deft tactics then from the Labour Party in Parliament and its committees could still frustrate closer British ties with Europe.

Britain’s association with the E.E.C., or its failure to associate, is too important an issue to become the plaything of politicians. It may well decide Britain’s development for generations; the terms of entry which the Government has approved—and they are not harsh terms—are only a starting point for changes in Britain’s relations with her closest neighbours, changes which can hardly be foreseen. Likewise, now that the terms are known, they are less damaging to some of Britain’s traditional suppliers of primary products, including New Zealand, than might have been expected. This is not the time for New Zealanders, or the Commonwealth sugar producers, to allow themselves to be put fonvard as reasons why Britain should hold out for better terms —or, in effect, refuse to join. Yet disapproval of the terms from the Leader of the New’ Zealand Labour Party (Mr Kirk) was quoted by Mr Wilson on Saturday as one reason for his opposition to entry. Mr Kirk could hardly have had a clearer indication of the harm which might be done to New Zealand’s standing in Britain by attempts to meddle now in what must be a matter of the utmost importance for Britons to decide for themselves.

Mr Wilson has not quite taken the final step of uttering a Gaullist “Non” to Britain’s entry. Some of his remarks have been cautiously ambiguous, although at the week-end he accused the Prime Minister (Mr Heath) of attempting to rush British public opinion into agreement in “ panic and “hysteria”. No doubt his position in the Labour Party would be jeopardised if he were to swing back to approval of entry, however qualified, in the next few days. But for the sake of Britain —perhaps even for his own political future in anything more than the shortest view—Mr Wilson should consider carefully before he puts himself down in history as “ the “ man who said ‘ No ’ ”,