London, 8 June 1962
Confidential
Commonwealth Temperate Foodstuffs
The most important single item of the Common Market negotiations is an arrangement giving the Commonwealth an assurance of continuing ‘comparable’ outlets for temperate foodstuffs. After consultation with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we submitted to the Six a draft formula setting out our ideas on how this should be done.
2. At the Ministerial meeting in Brussels at the end of May, Signor Colombo, the Italian Chairman, speaking on behalf of the Six, made a statement to the effect that our formula could not be reconciled with the common agricultural policy because it would give Commonwealth countries assurances beyond those enjoyed by member states of the Community,1 would tend to create permanent discrimination in favour of the Commonwealth against third country suppliers, would tend to freeze the present pattern of trade and would reduce the chance of making progress towards world-wide commodity marketing arrangements. He proposed instead that there should be transitional arrangements extending up to 1970, during which time preferences would be progressively reduced. He also said that for the period after 1970, the Six would be prepared to consider a formal declaration of intent to pursue a reasonable price policy and to try to achieve world-wide arrangements.
3. In brief, the Six feel that we are asking them to accept a formula—an obligation to give a continuing guarantee of an absolute character—which goes beyond anything which Britain has ever given the Commonwealth in the past. There is undoubtedly considerable force in the arguments which the Six have advanced.
4. The Common Market Negotiations Committee met this morning to consider whether anything should be said about this problem to Mr Menzies and Mr Marshall2 before they go home. They will know the background from the briefing which has been given to their representatives in Brussels. We agreed that something more ought to be said to them before they went home but that it would be tactically unwise to say at this stage that we might try to meet the views of the Six by proposing a new formula, even if it could be devised in time. (We are, however, working on a number of possibilities, one of which—after full Commonwealth consultation, which could not start in any case until the Canadian General Election on June 18—we might eventually use in Brussels.)
5. You might, therefore, like to say to Mr Menzies that although the Six have given it a cold reception, we are continuing to negotiate hard on the basis of our comparable outlets formula. It must, however, be recognised that there is no sign of the Six giving way. Our aim in the immediate future must accordingly be to explore whether the Six’s difficulties are on points of presentation or whether they have more fundamental objections to our ideas. We shall, of course, have to examine Signor Colombo’s statement in detail during the negotiations. It might be that in the end we will get the substance of our formula by using different phraseology. We will keep Commonwealth Governments informed of the progress of these talks, and they have our assurance that we will not change our line or give up fighting for the formula in its present fonn without consulting them fully.
6. I understand that the Commonwealth Secretary proposes to speak on similar lines in his final talks with Mr Marshall and in any further talks he may have with Mr Menzies.
7. I am sending copies of this minute to the Home Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary.
1 It is unclear what was meant by this, as the Australian position demanded assurances only vis-a-vis ’third countries’ (that is, non-EEC member states). Westerman had conceded that Australia would lose its preferential position in relation to EEC producers (see Document 177). Nor is it clear how the assurances demanded by the Australians reached beyond those offered under the terms of the Treaty of Rome.
2 Jack Marshall, Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.
[UKNA: PREM 11/4017]