eurealist.co.uk

Anne Palmer has been trawling through the archives of Hansard, what were the politicians saying about our proposed entry into the Common Market.

European Economic Community. 1st December 1970. Col 1075

Q1. Mr Kaufman asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for further discussions with the Prime Ministers of the countries of the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr Edward Heath): Various arrangements are now in train, but no dates have yet been fixed.

Mr Kaufman: When the Prime Minister takes part in such talks, will he take the opportunity of discussing with the Prime Ministers of the Six the curious anomaly which would arise under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome if we were to enter the Common Market; namely, that workers from the Six would have freedom of movement into Great Britain, whereas workers in Great Britain would have to have a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland? Will he further take- [Hon. MEMBERS: “Speech.”] –the opportunity of denying circumstantial Press reports that his Government intend to create a further anomaly by imposing restrictions on workers from the Republic of Ireland coming into this Country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with the last point in last week’s debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an anomaly of which I was not aware. I am perfectly prepared to look into it, but these are matters which should be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the negotiations them-selves, rather than at Prime Ministerial level during an official visit.

Mr Pentland: In the Prime Minister’s discussions, will he take note of the recent declaration of intent by the leaders of the Community to move towards full political unification with a federal union and a supra-national parliament? Does he not therefore think that the time has now arrived when he should state what would be the Government’s position towards these long-term objectives of the six?

The Prime Minister: The six have stated that they are now preparing for a series of discussions about political subjects in which they can co-ordinate their own affairs mote closely. They have already had a meeting about that, and tomorrow there will be a meeting of the Six and the four applicants for membership to discuss international affairs and related matters. We believe that this is a helpful development. I have always said that I should like to see this carried further. As for future policies, if we became a member of the community we should have a full voice in its development and exactly the same rights as any other member country.

Mr Chichester-Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the word “anomaly”, used by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr Kaufman), was a wrong description of the position, and that in Northern Ireland we should be glad to see it go once full employment was established?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend.

*****************************

20th January 1971. Col 1188.
Mr Mackintosh: ……Once we are in Europe and are a member of the common market we shall influence the total agricultural policy. As I think my hon. Friend knows, the policy in Europe is to reduce the area under production. The Mansholt plan is a gradual programme to take areas out of production. I remember pointing out to farmers in my constituency that the Mansholt plan intended to take out of production an area the size of Belgium. A farmer at the back of the hall shouted, “That’s damned bad luck for Belgium, isn’t it”? We appreciate that a cut in the area under production is made necessary by the improved productivity for farming and the inelastic demand for agricultural produce and that the situation will change as the Common Market develops, once we are members of the larger organisation.

What interests me is that, after the mid 1970’ when the Common Market becomes self-sufficient in temperate food products, the present agricultural policy simply will not work because there cannot be an import levy if there are no imports. The common agricultural policy will have to be re-thought and re-adapted to a self-sufficient pattern,..Etc

*******************************
21st January 1971 Col 1348.
Sir D Walker-Smith: ……It cannot be maintained that British sovereignty, particularly the sovereignty of Parliament, would not be seriously eroded by entry. Of course it would. That is what the Community is for—to substitute Community law and government for national law and government over a wide range of economic and social life. That is what Lord Denning, with the great authority of the Master of the Rolls, has said. He stated that entry would mean that

“our constitutional law must be re-written so as to show that the sovereignty of these Islands is not our alone but shared with others.”

That has become more clearer over the years with the steady flow of regulations, nearly 10.000 to date, which, in words of Article 189 of the Treaty, are binding in every respect and directly applicable in each Member State. It has become clearer too with the final evolution of a rigid supranational common agricultural policy. For the future it will be the same. There is no requirement of unanimity under Article 189 and consequently no possibility of veto. Under that Article, regulations made in Brussels would be enforceable in this country even if every Member of Parliament would wish to vote against them if he had the opportunity.

Col 1355. Mr Ginsburg: ……The big issue is whether Britain should go into a wider Community and it is much more vital than—I was about to say—the price of potatoes, but one is now tempted to say than the price of Cox’s applies; however, at the risk of being quoted, I am prepared to stand by that. Equally, I accept that the surrender of British sovereignty is a much bigger issue than any possible minor improvements in living standards which may result from joining the Community.
**************************
27th January 1971 Col 145.
Rev Ian Paisley asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the public statement by Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Ireland that entry into the Common Market will result in the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland withering away was made with his authority.

Mr Anthony Royal: This remark by Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Irish Republic was part of his response in the course of a newspaper interview published last November, to a question about economic and social harmonisation should both countries join the European community. The context makes quite plain that he was thinking in the very long term, and was pointing to the fact that the divisive effect of national frontiers was diminishing between the present members of the Community. It is Her Majesty’s government’s policy that there should be no change in status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
*****************************
9th June 1971 Col 1055
Mr Bruce-Gardyne………..Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us on this side of the house do not share the atavistic views of my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr Ronald Bell) on the subject of sterling and congratulate him on the admirable settlements he has reached on sterling and sugar? However, is he aware that it is not altogether easy to understand why the Foreign Office chose to abandon the 12-mile fisheries limit before the negotiations were even joined? Does he agree that the fisheries position announced by the Foreign Office spokesman last week is the extreme limit of negotiation on this point?

Mr Rippon : I think that we have made our position clear. As I explained, there never was an absolute right to a 12-mile limit because of the historic rights. But it will be understood when the matter is finally dealt with that we have had that point very much in mind and that we intend to seek arrangements which will safeguard the inshore fishing interests.

Mr Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the suspicion is a beginning to form in many minds that when he is unable to obtain what he asks for in the negotiations the tactic is that a form of words is agreed and it is said that the matter will be settled after the event, which means that we have conceded the point before the event? Is it not bound to cause considerable dissatisfaction on both sides of the House? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the house will want something very different before he comes before us with his White Paper?

Mr Rippon: It means the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

*****************************
16th Feb 1972 Col 449
Mr John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the impact upon individual citizens in the United Kingdom will only be indirect, through matters applying to the country and not directly falling upon any individual. Is it not rather strange that this major change, which will directly affect the livelihood and the future prospects of every steel worker in this country, should be hidden away in this general Clause? Is it not absolutely essential that this should be subject to special legislation?

Mr Davies: The Hon Gentleman will perhaps recognise that I have not sought to conceal the means by which this is to be attained, but it is attained perfectly effectively within the framework of the law as put before these provisions before the House. What I said earlier was that these provisions were of a general economic kind which might indeed have an impact upon individuals, but that they were not of a specific and social kind which affected them in the normal conduct of their lives. I am sure that is correct.
************************8
16th February 1972 Col 455
Sir Elwyn Jones: Many anxious questions were raised yesterday, not only about constitutional and legal matters, to which I shall come, but about matters like the Government’s intention on policy for the regions, if and when we enter the Community………..

One of my main objections to the Bill-and there are many-is that it conceals more than it exposes. Unlike much contemporary fashion, it hides more than it discloses. Entry into the Community will undoubtedly affect seriously the individual lives of every citizen. I thought the right hon. Gentleman rather underestimated that factor in his speech, not only because it will affect the citizen’s economic fate but because in certain respects, as I shall indicate shortly, it will affect him personally, and his rights and indeed, his freedom. There are provisions for criminal sanctions in the Bill to be introduced by a minister acting by Statutory Instrument. The measure of the failure of the Bill (European Communities Bill) to tell the House and the people of this Country what the government are doing and what is involved was perhaps the most graphically illustrated by the Hon, and learned Gentleman for Darwin (Mr Fletcher-Cooks) who supports the Bill. He said yesterday;

“I hope that during this debate…the Government will devote a long time to explaining exactly not merely what obligations we are undertaking but what opportunities we may insist upon, and for whom.”

That is a remarkable statement that needs to be made by a supporter of the Bill, that he does not know what obligations we are undertaking and what provisions and opportunities we may insist on. He went on to say:
“because unless this is done much as I approve of the price we are paying”-
and we on this side of the house, of course do not-
“I do not think it has been sufficiently spelt out. Let there be no hypocrisy, no misunderstanding and no vagueness”
[Official report, 15th February 1972; Vol831, c 342]
There is room for all those things, the hypocrisy, the misunderstanding and the vagueness, as a result of the content and the form of the Bill.

The Bill (the European Communities Bill) is of revolutionary importance so far as both the constitutional structure and the law of the country are concerned. The heart of the Bill, Clause 2 (1), is dismissed in a few words in the Explanatory Memorandum, yet the Clause not only adopts the Community treaties, hook, line and sinker, the lot of them, but it does not even trouble to list them all, least of all make them annexes to the Bill. I do not know whether the Government hoped that that would reduce Parliamentary discussion of them-we shall see. No fewer than 41 or 42 volumes of law, whatever the number may be, are to be domesticated into the law of England. While most of them, it is true, are small, some are very big and important.

Column460.
Sir Elwyn Jones: But we are moving into a whole new field where there is a massive transfer of decision making, affecting the whole pattern of our economic lives, to an immensely bureaucratic machine making its decisions in secret in the Council of Ministers. That is the reality of what we face. It under lines the importance of Parliament having an effective means of keeping these matters in check and under proper supervision.

********************************************

AND FINALLY.
1ST Feb 1972 col 232
Q1.Sir A Mayer asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to organise an exhibition to celebrate British entry into the European Economic Community.
Q2. Mr David Watkins asked the Prime Minister if he will announce a day’s national holiday to celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

The Prime Minister (Mr Edward Heath): Her Majesty’s Government are considering ways in which entry into the European Community might be celebrated. It is too early for me to be specific about the form the celebrations might take: but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their suggestion.

Sir A. Mayer: Does my right hon., Friend agree that such an exhibition would be by far the best way of arousing the interest and enthusiasm of the man in the street for the great opportunities that will open to this country when we join the Common Market? In choosing a site, will my right hon. Friend consider a place that really needs cheering up. Like North Battersea or South West Wolverhampton?

The Prime Minister: There have been a number of proposals for such an exhibition to be held so that Britain should be able to demonstrate the products of British industry in the most effective way to our European colleagues, and those proposals are being examined by the Government.

Mr Watkins: In view of the nature of the terms to which the right hon. Gentleman has appended his signature, might not it be more appropriate to consider a day of national mourning?

AND THAT IS WHERE I WILL LEAVE THESE JOTTINGS.
I decided to put down these words because of the death of Sir Edward Heath. Even the Regions are mentioned. Anne.