Renegotiation
Sir: Patrick Cosgrave was quite right, in his article 'The Charade of Renegotiation' (March 22) to conclude that "There has, thus, been .n? renegotiation." However this needs to be spelt out succinctly and in detail, which his article failed to do.
With the exception of three temPorary amendments, namely a return to deficiency payments for beef farmers and cOntinued access for Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand butter, there has been no 'inaPt change' in the CAP. The renegotiation case, on this point, rests largely on supposed changes in recent practices, and in well meaning intentions to press hard on further issues. Meanwhile the purposes and structure of the Com. munity Budget have remained, despite objections to both in the Labour Party Manifesto (Section 2), and it seems that Britain is to receive two rebates of about , £125m in 1978 and 1979. Beyond that ti me , o n owh f energy Britain e rgy s surplus, pmv f energy Britain e rgy s surplus, pmv l uos, moves it nt o a is a n ysoi tnu oes guess whit) will be paying what to the Community Budget. The fact that Britain, in principle, has to pay Int?re because of her larger non-Community trading relationships has not altered, as the basic system of financing the CAP remains intact. It is still the intention of the EEC to achieve economic and monetary union by 1980, a principle now formally accepted by HMG. There can be no doubt that this section of the Manifesto has been totally betrayed. .
Similarly, the Treaty of Rome is still
supra-ordinate to the Westminster Parliament, and any future applications of present Treaty rules by the Commission, or any new rules formulated by the Council of Ministers, will also be superior to parliamentary law. British courts must implement the Treaty of Rome in preference to laws passed at Westminster should the two come into Fonflict. Mr Wilson's case on this most iniportant point rests on certain sections of the Rome Treaty which in Principle do not rule out intended government policies, and on various hopes that future talks (on steel) will lead to amicable arrangements. Again there can be no doubt that this section of the Manifesto has been totally betrayed. We also find that British governments will not be able to control the movement of capital into or out of Europe as a concerted part of their economic policies. They can only do this as a temporary and emergency measure, but then they always could under the Treaty of Rome. Meanwhile, those articles of the Treaty requiring harmonisation of VAT are still there, despite Mr Wilson's assurances that "we will be able to resist any proposals that are unacceptable to us." Finally, one has to concede that the Lome Convention, negotiated by Judith Hart on Britain's behalf, was a genuine success story for the renegotiators. In other words out of the seven items 00 the original Labour Party Manifesto, four have in no way whatsoever been renegotiated, two have been chipped at In a minuscule way, and one has actually bee. n fulfilled as promised. Most of Mr 'Wilson's case for 'successful' renegotiation rests on a feeling that he has acquired, over the past year, that the EE.C. is not the bogyman that he originally suspected. The question is, who put that feeling there, and why?
Clive Ashworth Carisbrooke Road, Leicester
Previous page
