3 DECEMBER 1983, Page 3

Opportunity in Athens

When she goes to Athens next week, Mrs Thatcher will need to make use of arts very different from those which she

displayed in Delhi. At the Commonwealth prime ministers' conference, the skill was all in framing irenic statements, showing evenhandedness and avoiding criticism. Bri- tain's interests were not closely involved, and so vagueness and generalisation seemed the best policy. At the summit of EEC government leaders, British interests, in their clearest and most straightforward form — taxpayers' money — will be at issue, and so British diplomacy needs to be direct and particular.

In this the Foreign Office is unlikely to serve Britain well. Since it is not responsible for the level of government spending, and since diplomats believe that international questions are best settled by agreeable com- promises, the Foreign Office is disposed to regard all such meetings as occasions for reconciliation, and to judge their results not by actual financial advantages but by the at- mosphere that has been created.

There would be nothing wrong with such an attitude if reconciliation would actually

benefit Britain; but the fact is that Mrs Thatcher goes to Athens with a list of grievances. There is almost nothing about the present level of EEC spending, about the methods of raising money, or about what it is spent on which is satisfactory from a British point of view. The Govern- ment has no choice but to complain: the on- ly question is whether it will complain most about the most important issues. It may be that Mrs Thatcher will choose to centre her arguments round the rebate of £450 million owed to Britain which the Community agreed to in principle earlier this year, but which has not yet been forthcoming. Of course that money should be paid, but there is a danger that Mrs Thatcher might make it the only sticking point.

The EEC has all but broken down through its own wastefulness. If its work, especially the Common Agricultural Policy, is to continue as at present, it needs more money. This it hopes to get by an increase in 'own resources' — the money paid by the member states — from one per cent VAT to 1.4 per cent. This would be the first.such in- crease since Britain joined the Common Market, and it would be important not merely because it would take more money, but because it would signal a larger role for the EEC and its growing control of the policy and resources of its members. It should not, therefore, be conceded as a trade-off in a deal. It involves questions of principle. Before the election, the opposition of the Government to the increase was clear. Since June, although it has not gone back on previous statements, the Government has begun to blur the edges of its position. The talk has been of finding a better way for member countries to control the increase in spending, and of a fairer distribution of the spending between them. To general sur- prise, France has just proposed that all spending should be controlled by the finance ministers of the member countries and that there would be a separate 'binding guideline' for agricultural spending. As Bri- tain has already advocated, the French pro- posal would base EEC spending on the money available each year, rather than allowing expenditure to find its own level and then expect income to catch up. Grow- ing French reasonableness may lead Britain to accept the increase in 'own resources'. The Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, has said that Britain is 'very keen' to reach agreement in Athens. That keenness may well be allowed to obscure the real question at stake. The pressure for an increase in 'own resources' should encourage all member governments, especially the British, to review the character and advan- tages of the EEC. If the opportunity is not taken now it will be much harder to find in the future.

This government which, unlike Conser- vative predecessors over the past 20 years, is not strongly cononunautaire and contains few important members prepared to sacrifice themselves for the Community, is in a good position to conduct such a review. If it did so it would be hard-pressed to find any strong positive advantages arising from membership, unless one includes jobs for civil servants and subsidies to farmers who were not, even without the hand-outs, among the poorest in the land. The Com- mon Agricultural Policy, in particular, was not designed for British needs. It has pro- duced a protectionism which, by encourag- ing over-production, has damaged the land- scape, assisted the Soviet Union (which gets the surpluses cheap), and made the landed interest almost as powerful, and far more irresponsible than in the 19th century.

Against such arguments, supporters of the present arrangements can only propose their negative or nebulous advantages. They are said to improve the friendship bet- ween European nations (despite the acrimony which they arouse) and to strengthen democracy. And it is said that any country which withdrew from the Com- munity would at once be excluded from the markets which were previously open to her. There is little evidence for such claims.

What is certain is that a member of the EEC

only succeeds by insisting on what it wants. Britain wants an end to the Common Agricultural Policy as we know it. This might come about, as the Conservative European Reform Group has suggested, by taking all dairy products out of the policy. If reform is not achieved, Britain has no use for the Treaty of Rome.