§ Q2. Mr. Wadeasked the Prime Minister whether he will set up a separate Department to deal with matters relating to negotiations between Britain and the Common Market countries.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. WadeWill the Prime Minister agree that there is a danger of confusion and overlapping if a number of different Departments are concerned in these negotiations? Will the services of professional economists, scientists and business men be called in as well as civil servants during the course of these negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Question asks whether I will set up a separate Department. I think that that would add to the confusion and overlapping. What we have is our well-known system of committees at different levels, officials, Departments and Ministers, to try to guide negotiations so complicated as these. That is the main question. I do not think that the setting up of a new and separate Department would be the right way to deal with the matter.
§ Q7. Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Prime Minister, in view of the statements by the Lord Privy Seal and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in Paris and Brussels, respectively, concerning the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome, if he will now give details of the political commitments involved in the application.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I explained in my statement to the House on 31st July, although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely, to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world. I dealt with this subject in some detail during the foreign affairs debate on 18th October.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that no clear picture of the political implications emerges from a study of Ministerial speeches or a comparison of the two speeches named in the Question with those, for example, made in this House or at the Conservative Party Conference? Does my right hon. Friend not, therefore, think that he could render a signal service in this matter by making a clear and authoritative pronouncement 795 on the political implications for the guidance of the British people in the fateful decision that they may have to take?
§ The Prime MinisterI tried to do that in my speech in the debate on 31st July, when the House reached its decision. If my right hon. and learned Friend will refer to it again, I think he will see that I set it out frankly and in some detail. The obligations under the Treaty of Rome are concerned with economic and social questions arising from them. There are no political obligations as such, but there are, as I said and explained in detail, political implications based upon the concept —and this is the term made clear in the Preamble of the Treaty —that the signatories are determined to establish the foundations of an ever-closer union among the European people.
§ Mr. G. BrownIs the Prime Minister aware that while he said all that on 31st July, it was subsequent to that that the Lord Privy Seal went to Brussels and made a speech which went very much further in accepting political implications? Does the Prime Minister not consider that the time has come for him to come clean in this House and in this country and either endorse here what the Lord Privy Seal said or tell the Six that the Lord Privy Seal was not speaking for him?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman raised this matter in the debate rather unsuccessfully and I think I answered it quite conclusively.
§ Mr, GrimondIn his statement, the Prime Minister referred to a phrase by General de Gaulle, I'Europe des Patries. That implies a particular view of the political integration of Europe. As that phrase was used, may we take it that that view is held by the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, but I think the position is perfectly clear. The Treaty which we are now discussing whether it is possible for us to enter — they are chiefly the economic problems which are concerned in this negotiation —deals with economic matters and social questions arising from economic agreements. Amy further problems of how and by what method the broad unity of Europe should be developed are 796 matters for separate negotiation and, if the time comes, for separate treaty.
§ Mr. MendelsonWould not the Prime Minister agree that, in view of the fact that so many widely differing reports have been published about what the Lord Privy Seal said on the political future of the European Economic Community, it would be in the best interests of the country and allow hon. Members to judge if he were now to publish at least that part which dealt with the political announcement made by the Lord Privy Seal?
§ The Prime MinisterBy far the best thing to do is to allow the negotiations to proceed. They are about to begin. They will be difficult, complicated and, no doubt, with all the best will in the world, somewhat protracted. We shall then see where we stand and whether there is an opportunity of making economic arrangements which are agreeable to us having regard to our obligations to the Commonwealth and to our own internal interests. That is the point which we are now working towards and I feel sure that it will be best in the general interest to let that negotiation proceed.