By its very nature a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ conference is a rather nebulous affair. In spite of the importance of the subject – the outcome up to date of Britain’s negotiations for joining the Common Market – the forthcoming conference opening here on September can produce at best only a vague joint statement. In fact too many questions remain open to enable the Prime Ministers to have even useful and frank discussions.
When the date for the conference was proposed by Britain and accepted by the other members it was expected that a broad agreement on matters of interest and concern to the Commonwealth countries would have been worked out by the end of July. That has not been possible. Barely two-thirds of the so-called outline is available and in the case of Australia, New Zealand and Canada this shrinks further to about half.
Basic Doubt
This is not all. This absence of an overall agreement between the Six and Britain means that the basic doubt whether the former are at all willing to admit the latter remains. If anything the doubt regarding French intentions and policy has been strengthened. As the price of entry France demands that Britain should be willing to finance the dumping of her agricultural surpluses on foreign markets. The confusion is worse confounded because it is far from clear whether France is willing to insist on these terms if they were to mean wrecking the negotiations and incurring the displeasure of the other members.
Once again, Dr. Adenauer has expressed misgivings on the consequences of British membership of the Community. It would, he said, create difficulties for German farming, the coal industry and textiles. It would revive the possibility of an Anglo-French alliance at the cost of Germany. Britain might revive the proposal to improve relations with Moscow. His Foreign Minister, Herr Schroeder, speaks in a different accent.
There is still another area of uncertainty. It has been agreed in the Brussels negotiations that the enlarged European Economic Community will offer associate status to African members of the Commonwealth. Ghana has been opposed to this proposal from the very start. President Nkrumah has characterised it as an attempt to perpetuate colonialism in a new form. The Nigerian Minister of Commerce and Industry has echoed the same sentiment that the proposal smacks of neo-colonialism though it is not clear what stand his Government will finally take.
Ghana and Nigeria are the only sizable African members of the Commonwealth. The British Government and press are on the whole critical of Ghana and might not mind leaving her out in the cold. There are even reports that Ghana might leave the Commonwealth. British public opinion would not regret it. But Britain has all along placed great store by Nigeria. Should Nigeria decide to reject the offer of association, Britain will have to reopen discussion with the Six on the question of safeguards for the African members of the Commonwealth. For Britain to abandon Nigeria is to give up hopes of continuing its influence in Africa.
One of the assumptions behind the British Government’s attempt to get into the Common Market is that the enlarged community would be able to negotiate major reductions in tariff with the United States. The Kennedy Administration shares this assumption and regards it as a major step in the evolution of the Atlantic community. But there are reports that the protectionist sentiment is growing in the United States Senate and that this body might severely curtail the President’s powers to reduce tariffs. Should these reports be vindicated, another area of confusion will have been added to the already confused picture. We should know more about it by the time the Prime Ministers meet.
Then there is the question of public opinion. With the exception of the Daily Express all national dailies favour entry. The Observer is non-committal. The B.B.C. and, I.T.V. are engaged in campaigning in favour of the Common Market. Still over 60 per cent of the electorate is either opposed to Britain merging her fate with that of the Community or undecided. The Labour party is split almost in the middle on this issue with about 100 MPs in favour and 120 against. The remaining 40 are like the leader, undecided. In the Conservative party about 40 MPs have come out openly in opposition to the move.
The Truth
On the face of it, therefore, there stands a big question mark about Britain joining the Common Market. Even the wholly pro-market Economist last week discussed the circumstances in which the negotiations could fail or at least decision postponed for some years. It envisaged a doldrums period, with postponements, fresh starts, and intervals when the countries concerned eyed each other and weighed each other’s intentions. This is a fair assessment as far as the facts of the situation go. Only there is the additional psychological factor which is of considerable importance and might well tilt the scales in favour of the advocates of Britain joining the Common Market.
The British Government and the people have often claimed credit for voluntary transfer of power in former colonies. There is a measure of truth in this claim. It is also a fact that there exists greater political coherence in the former British colonies than in other newly independent countries. The transformation of the empire into an association of free peoples is an achievement deserving credit. But somehow psychologically the Commonwealth if not a satisfactory substitute to Pax Brittanica. It does not produce the intoxicating feeling of grandeur and power. Since Britain no longer rules the waves, the pull of the mainland has been growing.
A number of tangible economic and political arguments have been discovered in support of this psychological urge. The pro-market case briefly is that membership of this dynamic community will offer Britain a vast expanding market and thus help solve the balance of payments difficulties. It will give a shot in the arm to both industrialists and workers and compel the former to modernise the plants and the latter to work harder. The community will be able better to resist the Soviet pressure and thus persuade the Kremlin to adopt a more reasonable approach.
Competition
These and similar arguments are open to challenge. The west European market will reach saturation point by 1970 and the future markets lie in developing countries like India. The competition from European industries will mean closure of the marginal and inefficient industries, thus hampering the development of relatively backward areas, like Scotland. For some years at least, imports from Europe into Britain might rise faster than exports from Britain into Europe, thus aggravating rather than easing the payments difficulties. A more assertive western Europe could create tensions within NATO and weaken British relations with America. The strength of the pro-market case is not that it is intrinsically sound but that it reflects a deeply felt psychological need.
Some of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers are known to be busy weighing the prospects. The Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Robert Menzies, obviously has not given up the hope of influencing the decision. By raising the question of British sovereignty, he is clearly intervening in the internal debate. By appearing to share the view that if Britain joins the Common Market she will cease to be a fully sovereign and independent member of the Commonwealth, Mr. Nehru has promoted the speculation here that he will make a common cause with Mr. Menzies. They can depend on the support of Canada and Pakistan. The British government depends on the indifference of some and support by others. The Ceylonese Prime Minister will not even attend the conference.
The Times of India, 25 August 1962