EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (Hansard, 16 February 1965)

§ Q2. Mr. Gower
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the Government's policy regarding the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community.

§ Q22. Mr. Park
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community.

§ The Prime Minister
There is no reason to suppose that the circumstances which led to the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations have changed. The position of Her Majesty's Government is and remains that, if a favourable opportunity were to arise for negotiating entry into the European Economic Community, we would be prepared to negotiate if and only if the necessary conditions relating to essential British and Commonwealth interests could be fulfilled. At the same time we are most anxious to do anything in our power to avoid the further economic division of Europe, and to do all we can to build a bridge between E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C.

§ Mr. Gower
Does the Prime Minister recognise that his Answer hardly creates the impression of an adventurous, forward-looking Administration ready to contemplate change but rather an inward-looking, old-fashioned, tired Administration? Will he say definitely whether his Government will still prescribe the very far-reaching and rigid conditions upon which they insisted when in Opposition and which created the impression that they would far prefer to remain unattached to Europe?

§ The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has so much more vigour putting Questions from 1004 that side of the House than he ever had from this. He referred to adventurousness, change and so on. If by "adventurous" he means the terms on which the previous Government were prepared to enter Europe, I am quite sure that on considering those terms the whole House would feel that the last Government were wrong in the terms which they were prepared to take, as we made clear in the debate even before the breakdown. We have stated the conditions—I do not need to detail them again today—but I made it clear at the beginning, and I am sure that the whole House would agree, that there is no immediate issue coming up. This is not a practical possibility now. What we have to do meanwhile, instead of sulking in our tents as some did after the last breakdown—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, cancelling Royal visits to Paris and peevish and pettish remarks from this Box—is to concentrate on finding functional means of improving our relations with Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Concord."] Those hon. Members who are shouting "Concord" are not exactly expressing the view which we are finding in our discussions with the French Government on aircraft developments.

§ Mr. Park
Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer has been received with great satisfaction on this side of the House? Will he reaffirm that the primary responsibility of the British Government is not to the European Economic Community, but to the Commonwealth of Nations?

§ The Prime Minister
We want the best possible relations we can get with Europe. That is why I stress again the importance of doing what we can to build bridges between E.F.T.A. and the Six, if that is possible. We want with our European neighbours, whether the Six or the Seven, to work out functional arrangements which will help to improve relations between us in any particular projects which will be of value to our country and the country concerned. However, I am perfectly certain that the House would agree that if we were faced with terms of entry in which we had to choose between accepting entry and the interests of our trading and other relationships with the Commonwealth, as we were faced in November 1962, we would be right to reject those terms.

§ Mr. Grimond
Will the Prime Minister remember from the experience of the last Administration that delay in these matters is often very harmful and that if any suitable opportunity were to arise, it would be absolutely essential for this country to make a firm affirmation of its belief in the ideals of a united Europe, and that so far we have never done that? I believe that it is the policy of the Government to be associated with talks about a possible political community of Europe. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether when he talks of "political community" he has in mind something even looser than the Europe of States put forward by President de Gaulle?

§ The Prime Minister
It is highly desirable that we should be in the talks on political relations within Europe. That was the position of the previous Government and it is the position of this. How ever, if by "political unity" the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting our entering some supranational organisation where vital questions of foreign policy going far beyond Europe—and we have very vital interests far beyond Europe—or of defence were to be decided by some system of majority voting, I am sure that the whole House would unite in saying that that would not be possible for this country.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
I think that we would all agree with the Prime Minister that it is necessary to build all the bridges we can between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market, and I dare say that it is not profitable to speculate as to the details of any future agreement or settlement. However, will the right hon. Gentleman in future remember that consultation with our friends and allies before the Government act is desirable and that it was conspicuously absent in the case of the Concord and the surcharge?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this. I have asked him twice what he means by "consultation" and I have still not been favoured with a reply. I asked whether he meant that the consultation was—[HON. MEMBERS: "What do you mean?"]—what we mean by it is what we did, and the right hon. Gentleman did not like it. At some time he should tell the House what he believes we ought to have done.