§ Q3. Mr. Farrasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the increasing tendency of the nations of the world to group on racial lines and the unique position of 245 Great Britain and the Commonwealth in this respect, he will confine Her Majesty's Government's approach to the European Economic Community to the exploration of the possibilities of a purely commercial association.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, I do not think this would be acceptable to the Community or in the best interests of Britain. I agree, however, with the importance of the Commonwealth to world affairs, and the hon. Member will know of the great efforts made by Her Majesty's Government to prevent a break-up of the Commonwealth last autumn.
§ Mr. FarrWould not the Prime Minister agree that he and his right hon. Friend had their noses rubbed firmly in the dirt by the French last week, and, in view of that, would not it be better if they were to stop trailing their coat-tails around Europe?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. Even allowing for the hon. Gentleman's mixed metaphors, I am aware that he hoped what he described would take place, but in fact it did not. I thought that the decision, which was very much approved by the House after a two-day debate, that my right hon. Friend and I should have these very active discussions with the Beads of Government of the Six was warmly supported by the Front Bench opposite.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisIs it my right hon. Friend's intention to present a White Paper on what has been learned from the Common Market probe, and will this have to await the outcome of the important discussions in Luxembourg at the end of March, or will there be an interim report?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said on 10th November, it is our intention that after these visits have been completed the Government will decide their attitude in the light of the information that we obtain from the talks, and then a statement will be made in the House. Whether it will be in the form of an oral statement or a White Paper, or supported by a White Paper, will be a matter to consider at that time.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that I believe he is right in saying 246 that it is full membership which is desirable, rather than association? I hope that he is now able to convince his right hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) of this fact, because he took exactly the opposite view.
Secondly, with regard to full membership and supranational powers, he will be aware that in Luxembourg a year ago Five registered their belief in the full supranational powers of the Treaty of Rome, and the French registered their reservations on this point? Can the right hon. Gentleman say where his position is on this?
§ The Prime MinisterI have said a number of times, both at Question Time and during debates, that as long as we are not members of the Community it is not for us to take sides between One and Five. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with that, but, if he is taking sides, perhaps some time he will tell us which side he is on. What I said during the debate here was that in coming to the decision to embark on these discussions we had studied not only the wording of the Treaty of Rome, but the growing experience of the operation of it; and, of course, the decisions reached and the statements made at Luxembourg were factors which we took into consideration.
§ Mr. HeathI have constantly stated where I stand, which is support for the Treaty of Rome. I have said so in this House and outside, but, as the Prime Minister was about to be asked this question in Brussels, I thought that he might like to tell the House of Commons first.
§ The Prime MinisterI have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman, since he is not yet accredited as the delegate on behalf of the Six to negotiate with us, that I would prefer to give these answers to those who are so accredited, and then to make, with rather less of a delay than the right hon. Gentleman did, a statement to the House.—[Interruption.] I very well remember the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement to the Common Market negotiations which he refused to disclose to this House until it leaked in Western Europe, and it was then dragged out of him. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman supports the Five against France on 247 the Luxembourg argument. In the House he was going to extreme lengths arguing about a defence agreement with France. On that at least he was supporting France against the Five. I have no doubt that his views will be studied with great interest all over Europe.
§ Mr. ThorpeIs the Prime Minister aware that this is a subject which arouses intense passion amongst young and old alike? Would he agree that, notwithstanding the dangers which may well lie ahead, it is more in the interests of the trading future of the British Commonwealth that we should be full members of the Community, rather than associate members, and still less not members at all?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with the preamble to the hon. Gentleman's question, though he did not say where he stood in the division. I certainly agree—and this is what I was trying to say in my original Answer—that it is in the interests of Britain, of Europe and of the Commonwealth, that if the right terms can be found we should go in as full members.