Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JULY 14th., 1934. BRITAIN & OVERSEAS.

Greymouth Evening Star, 14 July 1934, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY, JULY 14th., 1934. BRITAIN & OVERSEAS.

T TTE Overseas lands of the Empire from the early days of settlement found it necessary and profitable to adopt a protectionist policy and to safeguard their primary and secondary industries from outside competitors, even against Britain which granted them free trade. True, British manufacturers were given preferential tariff rates against foreign goods, but none the less a tariff handicap existed. Britain was i often ridiculed by Overseas orators and publicists for her “open door”, to foreign trade. Homeland Tariff j Reformers urging the abolition of 1

Free Trade were generally supported Overseas. Now that Britain has adopted modified Protection, the Dominions find they are adversely affected, and their objections are, naturally, vociferous. They desire Free Trade for themselves, and the utmost Protection against non-Empire lands, or, at least, strong preferential treatment for Empire nations. Britain recognises that for political, commercial and sentimental reasons, it is well Io encourage Empire trading, but taking a lesson from Overseas, she now places the welfare of her own primary industries first. Tt is doubtful if it is sufficiently realised Overseas that agriculture is Britain’s greatest industry, with potentialities of development to make present production more than doubled. It is not [practicable for her to supply all the food needs of hei‘ 50 millions | in population, and her imports of these supplies must be considerable. She is eager to give Overseas preference of patronage, but one difficulty is that the Overseas lands are competitors among themselves for [the Homeland market, which they have, in recent years, flooded with primary produce. She cannot take all the foodstuffs they are eager to supply to her, as apart from safeguarding the interests of her own

farmers, she must buy from foreign countries to which she sells. In the past, the trade balance in this respect has been often against Britain, but under the new policy, she is making agreements with foreign countries redressing this balance. Britain can no more avoid buying from foreigners than can Overseas. The foregoing elementary facts must be taken into consideration when Overseas farmers are protesting against Britain’s request for restriction of produce exported to her.

To-day, a serious problem is pre sented to the statesmen in Britaii and Overseas, but its solution wil not be aided unless all aspects an given due thought, and compromisi achieved. Britain is as eager as evei to buy, say, from New Zealand but if Australia, for example, de mands equal, or better, treatment tvhat can Britain do but suggesl that their quotas of the Homelanc market be apportioned? Overseas inter-competition is the mair source of the trouble that has arisen and it is wrong to blame Britain for something for which she is not responsible. For two or three years past, warning after warning has been given of the probable restriction of food supply imports by Britain, but the Overseas lands refused to accept the unwelcome intimation, and no scheme was prepared to meet the new conditions. Sooner or later, a crisis was bound to come, and it is now at hand, where meat is concerned. The duty is co-operation, not recrimination. One British proposal after another has been rejected, and it is now the Overseas’ turn to suggest a practical remedy for the deadlock that has arisen. None will be more pleased than Britain if a scheme can be devised beneficial to her own farmers as well as their Overseas colleagues. Such scheme must be based on the principle of mutual give and take.