Sovereign State

Matters of fact

Edward Taylor, MP

In a stirring call for "clarity and enlightenment" in the Referendum campaign, EEC Commissioner George Thomson called for an end to misleading propaganda so that the electors could judge the issue on the "facts". He then proceeded to set out his "facts" that the EEC membership had not really affected food prices much at all although it was perhaps true that our membership had made butter, lamb and cheese purchases "rather dearer".

Meanwhile in the Commons in answer to Labour beckbencher Brian Sedgemore, Agriculture Junior Minister Ted Bishop stated that in the month of February (the most recent month for which figures were available), cheese imports from New Zealand had cost £397 per ton compared with over £850 per ton from EEC countries like the Netherlands. In the case of butter and lamb, the EEC prices were about 50 per cent more. In fairness to Mr rhomson, of course, a Common Market food levy of around £300 was slapped on to imported cheese from New Zealand, so one has to assume that the New Zealand cheese came across the tariff barrier into our Co-op in the High Street at a price which was only "rather dearer" than the cheddar type Dutch cheese. So, as one would expect, we had a situation in which anti-N1arketeers claimed that EEC cheese cost a lot more — "about double" — and had facts to back up their argument, while Mr Thomson argued that the price was just "rather dearer" (and alse had "facts" to back up his argument).

As this particular example can be repeated over and over again from the campaign, it's little surprise that Mr Thomson's desire — and the electorate's desperation — for "facts" and "clarity and enlightenment" have not exactly been delivered. "Who can you believe?" is the question I get repeatedly on the doorsteps. The trouble is that true, reliable, uncontested and watertight facts are rare commodities in any referendum campaign. Where can the anxious public look for them?

One simple and agreeable method is to follow the advice of the good book and accept, in relation to the two campaigns, that by their works we should know them. When Britain joined the EEC in 1973, the vigorous and enthusiastic pro-Marketeers made some estimates which had the hallmark of pledges. As a minimum, we. could expect a substantial improvement .in our balance of payments, a steady and sustained inflow of foreign and European investment in exchange for a very marginal increase in food prices. In Norway, by comparison, the business community and the economists were making it clear beyond a shadow of prophetic doubt that doom, gloom and depression would follow a "No" vote.

It does seem to be a reasonably acceptable fact that the pro-Market estimates have not been fulfilled. Instead of improving, the balance of payinents has deteriorated to a situation which is unparalleled in Britain's long history. A 1970 non-oil surplus in trade with Europe has changed dramatically to a deficit of nearly £2,000,000,000. Nor have the Europeans been rushing to invest in Britain. Instead of exporting goods to the EEC, as was pledged, we have been exporting jobs with considerable success. In 1973, the countries of the EEC had their economies strengthened by investment by British firms to the extent of £519,000,000 while

the plucky Europeans, despite our most generous aid policies, invested £105,000,000 in Britain. On food prices, although Britain still has the cheapest prices in Europe (being only halfway to EEC prices under Mr Heath's terms of entry) and although Scandinavian prices have always been high, it's a sombre "fact" that British prices have risen at about twice the rate of those in Norway and Sweden. And to help food prices on their way, Common Market food taxes have been levied on our imports at a rate (over the past twelve months) of nearly £500,000 every week. There was also a pledge that sterling would be strengthened by our entry to the EEC, but the less said about this the better.

Of course it can be argued that many of these nasty economic indicators cannot be blamed wholly, largely or even significantly on EEC membership. I'm sure that Mr Roy Jenkins might even argue, as he does in other circumstances, that things would have been even worse if we had been outside the EEC. But the discerning British voter must at least be aware that the prophecies of the pro-Market teers jpst haven't 'happened, and prophets have an obligation to show that there was at least some accuracy in their track records. But on track record alone, the pro-Marketeers in both Britain and Norway have a lot to explain.

The other issues on which the confused electors can look for guidance are the actual extent and nature of the obligations we take on as full members of the EEC. In short, what do we know that we will lose and what do we know that we will gain?

First item is that as full members we accept the Treaty of Rome in its entirety and agree that our laws and practices must conform to it, with the Commission as the judge. But is this just a general statement which in practice will affect us little? A number of significant pointers have been given to how this will affect our freedom of action. To give just one example, we can look to oil. Many people have taken the view in business and politics that one of the best ways of ensuring that the divine gift of oil helps our industry and competitiveness would be to make North Sea oil available at a reasonable price to home industry and secure the maximum price possible from foreigners. But Energy Minister Eric Varley and others have made it clear that such a practice is inconsistent with the Treaty. We are obliged to sell it to the EEC at exactly the same price as to ourselves and it seems certain to me from the "five principles" adopted by the EEC on access to energy, that the EEC would have first call on our surplus oil. Second, we have to apply and implement regulations stemming from the Commission whether we like them or not. There are hosts of examples, but let's take one which affects every housewife and hen-pecked husband in Britain — the shopping basket. The housewives have been used to buying foodstuffs which, under British law, is marked "minimum weight." But we've to change the manufacturers' liability to a statement of what the "average weight" is. Not because we particularly want to make such a change. Not because it will particularly help the housewife to have rather less in her packets. But just because it's a Common Market ruling.

It's even nastier with metrication. Whether we like it or not, whether the British Parliament agrees or not, whether it will force up prices or not, whether the housewives want it or not, goods in the shops will have to be sold in metric measures in four years' time in 1979. The reason? Common Market regulation 71/354. We got a two years' "stay of execution" in our negotiations, but the crunch comes in 1979. Already the experts are telling us that it shouldn't make much difference to prices — there will be "rounding up" and "rounding down" — just the kind of assurances we got at the time of decimalisation.

There's no doubt that sovereignty is seriously affected. Of course it's possible, to argue that the EEC and the Commission will always do wonderful things, that they'll never make decisions which we'll object to, and that the interests of all the nations of the EEC will inevitably coincide. A lot will depend on the ability of British housewives to give an instant reaction on the supermarket counter as to whether 500 grammes of butter at 56p js a better bargain than half a pound at 30p.

Then we've got to accept the Common Market contributions arrangements — which can't be altered without the unanimous consent of Member states. Not even the most vehement pro-Marketeer would argue but that it will mean a substantial net payment by Britain of several hundreds of millions after transition.

Then there's the agricultural policy. "Where's the cheap food in the world?" ask the pro-Marketeers, as the price of sugar plunges from £700 per ton last year to about £180 per ton. The one thing which stands out a mile is that the one place not to look for cheap food is Europe. Britain still has the cheapest food in Europe — for the simple reason that we're only halfway to EEC prices.

In exchange for all these nasty burdens, we get in exchange the right of free access for our goods to the EEC markets instead of the average common taeiff of about 7 per cent which should, incidentally, fall later this year under the GATT arrangements. And likewise the average British tariff of about 10 per cent against EEC goods is removed. We also lose the right to make British trade deals with other nations although about two-thirds of our trade is with non-EEC nations.

But what about the vision for the future? Was Charlemange not on the right lines, as we've been assured so often by the pro-Marketeers? I would favour an arrangement of loose political union with nations if I believed that our interests coincided with them. For example, I support NATO because the countries of Europe have a common aim in containing Communist expansion. But I very much doubt if Britain and the other EEC nations, with the possible exception of Denmark and Eire, can be said to have common interests. The countries of the Six have traditionally done most of their trade with each other. Most of our trade has been elsewhere. The Six have traditionally had high food pricey. We have not. The Six have a history of strong non-elected executive bodies — like the EEC Commission is. In Britain the elected Parliament has always been supreme. Britain's interests demand a high price for oil and a low price for food. The Six would be happier with a low price for oil and a high price for food. In short, our basic interests do not coincide.

Perhaps the people of Britain are despairing of solving their own economic and social problems. They've seen Conservative and Labour governments failing to tackle issues like inflation, strikes and the balance of payments and are understandably looking for a. solution elsewhere. There's a dangerous opinion, in my view, that the Common Market may be a magic catalyst which will somehow find an offshore solution. In my view the EEC will neither save nor ruin our nation — we will have to try our best to overcome our basic problems whether we are in or out of Europe. My own judgement is that the burdens and restrictions of membership will make it more difficult for us to start out on the road to national recovery. I believe that in voting "No," we will ensure that Britain has the maximum freedom of action to solve its problems and that we will not burden ourselves unnecessarily with a drain of cash, of people and of industry towards the centre of an economic and political body the interests of which are not the same as the island off its shores.

Edward Taylor is Conservative MP for Glasgow Cathcart. He resigned from Mr Heath's government in 1971 because of his disagreement with that gove ment's policy on the EEC.