HL Deb 29 June 1966 vol 275 cc694-9

3.55 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, we are discussing this afternoon one of the most important questions of any which have faced this country for centuries. I hope that that may not be regarded as a platitude. I believe we are discussing something which involves the future of Europe and the future of the world, and vital questions of war and peace. I believe that if there had been a European Community, say, in 1914, we should have had no First World War and, consequently, no Second World War. Therefore, this is a vital question, and I am glad that it has been synchronised—by pure accident, of course—with the announcement which has been made in the Press as to the new approaches that are being made by this country to the European Community.

If the Press reports are accurate—and I am sure my noble friend will be able to tell us in due course how accurate they are—questions are being discussed at diplomatic level as to possible ways and means of British entry into the Common Market. If this is correct, it is the first time there has been a clear and irrevocable statement of decision on the part of Her Majesty's Govrnment to seek entry into the Community.

I believe that public opinion to-day is enormously in favour of this step. In one form or another every speaker so far (I do not know whether this will apply to future speakers) has expressed approval of it. Even though we have recently seen in the Press that there were 70 signatories one way, and 80 in another way, the fact remains that all 150 of those signatories to various proposals accept the fact that we should go into the Common Market. But there are various ways of approach. One method of approach is that we are to lay down conditions beforehand. Of course, that is not negotiation. I do not believe in setting out in advance the conditions under which you are prepared to enter into an institution; that is more a form of dictatorship and, to my mind, does not savour of negotiation at all. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that some of the so-called conditions are really platitudes, things one would normally have in mind when negotiating entry into an organisation such as the European Market.

We must keep in mind two matters. Whether or not we make their settlement a pre-condition is another matter. The first is the position of the Commonwealth, and the second is the position of the European Free Trade Association, our partners in EFTA. As to the Commonwealth, I do not accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby (I am sorry he is not here at the moment) that the Commonwealth is in process of dissolution, and that it is not important to satisfy ourselves that we are doing everything we can to carry out the commitments we have to the Common Market. I believe that, even though there is no written Constitution for the Commonwealth, it is a very important and valuable world organisation and is capable of doing a great deal of good in the world. Admittedly, at the moment it has fallen on bad times, as may happen with any institution; but just to rule out the Commonwealth as being of no significance in this context is, I think, a fundamental and basic mistake.

With regard to our European Free Trade associates, there again we have entered into commitments with them which we must honour and cannot ignore; but in my view both of these commitments—our commitment to the Commonwealth and our commitment toEFTA—are, with good will and with a certain amount of give and take, capable of being resolved, before we enter the Common Market. For my part I can see no other obstacle. There are precedents—

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, merely to enlighten myself, may I ask this question? The noble Lord is an agriculturist, so would he not agree that agriculture raises a different problem? I would not say it is an insuperable problem, but surely it cannot be brushed aside as if it did not exist.

LORD SILKIN

I was not brushing it aside. It is open to us to raise all these points, but at the end of the day we either join the Treaty of Rome in its present form or we do not. We are not in a position to say to the other members of the Treaty of Rome, "We do not like your agricultural policy, so we will come in but not in regard to that". We have to make our case clear, but it is for us to determine our policy on agriculture and to satisfy our Commonwealth colleagues and our EFTA associates before going in. Questions of agriculture, and so on, in so far as they are negotiable (and they are not much negotiable) we have to accept, just as we have to accept all the other conditions of the Treaty of Rome.

I wonder how many people who are supporters of entry into the Common Market really understand all its implications? I think it is only fair that they should; they should study the Treaty itself and all its Articles and see what we are involved in if we join. Let me say at once that I have made a careful study of the Treaty of Rome in the last few days and I am prepared to accept it completely. If we join we must, as a nation, be in that same position; but there are a great many implications of joining the Treaty of Rome which I think even the noble Earl did not face up to. It not only involves an economic union—the free transport of goods right throughout the area, the free passage of workers and other people employed, the institution of businesses in any part of the area by any citizen—but almost eliminates citizenship. You may retain your citizenship of your particular country, but the free movement is a factor which, to a great extent, does away with the advantages of citizenship and the differences that exist between countries.

There is also the harmonisation of the social services—of benefits—so far as possible, and, in due course, some kind of harmonisation of wages and salaries, a unification of medical and other professional qualifications. Generally, if the terms of the Treaty of Rome as they are set out in the numerous Articles are carried out, in practice it constitutes a State in itself, whatever we may call it. Of course, each country will be master of its own fate in the sense that it will have its own Government and deal with its own internal affairs, but under the various Articles of the Treaty the Community will actually have jurisdiction over the member States in a number of respects. There is the setting up of a court of justice and there will be a Commission. The court of justice will be empowered to make decisions which will affect not only individuals of the various members of the Community but also the States themselves, and they will have the power to enforce those decisions. That is going a very long way towards some kind of European unity.

I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that it would be a mistake to set out in detail exactly what kind of a European Community we are going to have. We believe, and I think rightly, that these things ought to proceed by trial and error and as we go, rather than trying to work to a preconceived Constitution. But let us make no mistake as to the direction in which we are going, and, frankly, as to the direction in which I want to go if we join the European Community.

If we do this we shall be taking a big step towards political unity, as well as economic unity, and we shall be making (and I do not wish to minimise this at all) considerable sacrifices of sovereignty. I am not alarmed about that. We have already made considerable sacrifices of sovereignty if we are true members of the United Nations. It involves taking away from every member nation the right to decide a good many things for itself, and there is no clearer example of that than the steps taken by the United Nations at the time of Suez when, having invaded Egypt, we were forced to come out as a result of the decision of the United Nations. In addition to that, of course, every nation to-day is subject to world opinion. No nation can snap its fingers at world opinion and defy it; and to that extent also there is a curb on sovereignty. Therefore I think that in joining the European Community, and in actually realising and loyally carrying out the implications of joining, we are not making any greater sacrifice of our sovereignty than we have already made in connection with the United Nations.

I very much hope that the Government will carry out these discussions and negotiations in the spirit of accepting the Treaty of Rome in its present form. Of course, once we become members of the Community, our influence, which will be considerable, can be instrumental in carrying out variations of the Treaty, and I have no doubt that if these variations are required, and are reasonable, we shall get support. Some of them, of course, may require unanimity, but others can he carried out by majority decisions. I am satisfied myself that we need make no unreasonable requirements or extravagant requirements. I think everything we might conceive of as being necessary to negotiate upon should be acceptable to all parties.

It has been suggested that it might take five years. If it took anything like that time to negotiate, it would be an admission of failure. In my view, this question of entry into the Community should he settled within twelve months. I see no justification for long and protracted negotiations. I say this with all respect to Mr. Heath, who in my view did a very fine job. I think that one of his difficulties was that these negotiations were too long protracted, and possibly we stuck on too many matters that were not vital, so giving to some the impression that we were not really serious in our negotiations. If we mean business, we ought to come to terms within the next twelve months and give the impression that we genuinely want to come in. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to make a reassuring statement at the end of the debate, and one which will give us confidence that we are moving towards a stage in the world's history when we may live free from want and free from fear, and certainly free from any danger of war in the future in Europe.