Chapter 29 Section 3 From Empire to Europe

I wholeheartedly advocate the entry of Great Britain into the European Community, for the reasons outlined above.The departure of General de Gaulle from the Elysee Palace in April 1969 changed the situation.His successor, Georges Pompidou, was keen on Britain joining the European Community; and on our side of the Channel, of course, no one is more enthusiastic about it than the new prime minister, Ted Heath.There was never any doubt as to what position the new Conservative government would take; nor was there any doubt that many across the political spectrum would oppose it, including many of the most influential members such as Michael Foote, Peter Shaw Bill and Enoch Powell.But there is generally strong support from business, the news media, and popular opinion, for all sorts of noble and base reasons.

Formal negotiations began in Brussels at the end of October 1970.Jeffrey Rippon reports to Ted and a cabinet committee and sometimes to our full cabinet. In December, we discussed in detail the UK's negotiating position on the EC budget twice.Undoubtedly, the financial outlay of joining the EC will be high.Estimates suggest that the best we can hope for is a gross UK contribution of 17% of total EC expenditure, with a 5-year transition period followed by a 3-year so-called adjustment period (in order to keep the percentage at 17%).To guard against the inevitable criticism, Geoffrey Ripon also wants to negotiate a special review clause that we can invoke when the net contribution to the EC budget becomes unaffordable.But he seems to take it lightly, and thinks we can reopen the issue with or without a formal review mechanism.

Ted said at the time that no one thought the burden was so intolerable that we should break off negotiations.In this way he settled the discussion about the cost of joining the EC.Still, the whole financial issue deserves more careful consideration.This issue was the main issue in Britain's relations with the EC for more than a decade and proved not so easy to renegotiate.Although during the accession negotiations, the European Community issued a statement: If an unacceptable situation arises in the current European Community or in the enlarged European Community, the survival of the European Community will require Relevant agencies have found corresponding solutions.The fees to be paid by the UK are still growing steadily. The Labor government of 1974-1979 made no progress in reducing this fee.That's left for me to do later.

The matter was discussed again by the Cabinet in early May 1971, when it was reported that negotiations had reached an impasse.There were some unresolved problems: New Zealand products (cream and mutton) and the Commonwealth's preferential agreement on sugar, and the French tai chi over the functioning of the pound as an international currency.But budget is still the real issue.We had this idea of ​​what kind of deal terms could be offered: promises to cut costs incurred by the CAP and create a regional development fund from which the UK would benefit disproportionately.It was still not the solution we wanted - and in any case the promise could not be kept - and none of us at the time could have imagined how big the burden would be.Ted told CNN he plans to hold a summit with President Pompidou in Paris to wrap up the debate.Thus came the cabinet discussion.

Ted spent two days meeting with the French president, and the summit was seen as a real victory for him given past difficulties with France.Negotiations have since been swiftly concluded - with the exception of the Common Fisheries Policy, which took years to resolve - and the terms are approved by cabinet next month.Parliamentary passage is in question, with deep divisions in both parties and Labor reversing its past support for Britain's accession to the European Community, claiming the current terms of accession are unacceptable.In the end, the government decided that the Conservative Party would have a free vote on the principle of membership in the Commonwealth.This embarrasses the Labor Party, especially as 69 Labor MPs voted in disregard of their own party's orders, bringing the Commonwealth vote to a majority of 112 votes.But the debate was far from won when it came to conditions rather than the principle of whether to join. The second reading of the EC Act in February 1972 was passed by only 309 votes to 301, with the Liberals backing the government and strong pressure from the Conservative parliamentary caucus stewards.The bill became legislation in October.

An issue that received little attention at the time was that of sovereignty, both of the state and of parliament, which has grown in importance over time. The July 1971 Cabinet had some discussion on this issue, but only the general formulation of accession in the White Paper.The discussed paragraphs of the document - paragraphs 29-32 - can now be read in light of developments, and are clearly an outstanding example of artful confusion obscuring underlying problems.Two sentences in particular are masterpieces: There is no question of the fundamental sovereignty of the country being violated; the proposal now is to share and extend the sovereignty of each country for the benefit of all.

Customary law will remain the basis of our legal system and our courts will continue to function as they do now. I myself did not have a particularly deep understanding of these issues at the time.I felt then, and so did my colleagues, that the claims about sovereignty advanced by Enoch Powell and others were using theoretical arguments as a means of argument. During the debate on Title II of the bill, Jeffrey Howe, as Solicitor General, seemed to make a satisfactory and convincing account of the matter when he signed off on Derek Walker-Smith's criticism."At the end of the day, if someone proposes that [the European Community Act] be repealed in its entirety, the fundamental sovereignty of parliament must remain intact," he said.He also asked himself: "What if, in the future, Parliament passes an Act that inadvertently contradicts, more or less, Community Acts?" Geoffrey said: "The courts will try to do it in the traditional way in terms of our international obligations. Interpret the statute." But what if the two cannot be reconciled?He went on to say implicitly:

One can only go so far when there is no way out, reconciling the inescapable and permanent parliamentary sovereignty with the premise that we should fulfill our treaty obligations in order to ensure the primacy of Community law . . . If this kind of contradiction arises in the middle, it must be considered by the government and parliament at that time... The European Court of Justice ruled that the Merchant Shipping Act of 1988 violated the Treaty of Rome, making it impossible to delay consideration of these issues any longer. However, it is not this problem that makes the common market a problem for governments.The main political error is that we overestimated the benefits of joining the EC.In the government itself, this tendency has led ministers to formulate and tolerate unhealthy policies.Subsidies and intervention were said to be necessary to "equip" British industry to meet Europe's challenges - a line of thought that was supported in the 1972 Budget speech.To make matters worse, laissez-faire monetary and fiscal policies are seen as correct.The rationale is that high levels of economic growth - around 5 percent - can now be sustained within the new European market of around 300 million people.Others argue that competition from Europe will force unions to act more responsibly.As for the general public, expectations of the benefits of joining the Community were heightened—and then greatly disappointed, as the economic situation worsened and industrial dislocation increased.However, the white paper promises: "Participation in the enlarged Community will lead to substantial increases in the efficiency and productivity of British industry, accompanied by higher rates of investment and faster growth in real wages."

The successful negotiation and parliamentary approval of Britain's accession to the Community seems to have had an effect on Ted Heath's psyche.His enthusiasm for Europe has grown into a passion.As time went on, the passion grew to obsession—and so did the great and the good.There is less talk about what is in Britain's best interests and more talk about the importance of being a good European. There is a cheerful mood among the establishment.This sentiment culminated in the "Boom Europeans" celebrations for Britain's accession to the Common Market in January 1973. In a festive extravaganza at the Royal Opera House by British and international personalities, our former next-door neighbor Sybil Thorndike read Browning's poem. Afterwards, Dennis and I were invited to a state dinner at Lancaster House attended by hundreds. I can't help but think of a Downing Street dinner at Ted a few years ago The two ditties sung above: "All creatures are happy and happy", "Especially the story told in a hurry is too late".

Another issue that has lost many Conservative supporters is immigration, particularly in the West Midlands.As I have pointed out, Ted and the government's approach to this issue was in fact remarkably firm, and the Immigration Act, passed on second reading in March 1971, proposed a single system of control for Commonwealth citizens and foreigners, while granting " Nationals" means those who have the right of residence to enter freely.It is clear that the promise of approval for voluntary migration to the UK has effectively been put on hold.but.It is questionable how much this system affects net immigration.

Trouble arose in August 1972, when Ugandan President Idi Amin announced mass deportations of Asians who had prudently continued to hold British passports after independence. In September, an entire cabinet meeting was devoted to discussing Asians in Uganda.In the back of our minds, Asians holding British passports in Kenya and Tanzania are now also at risk of being deported.When I arrived at Cabinet, my first thought was that we should uphold the promise in our manifesto that there should be "no further mass immigration".But as soon as Ted opened his mouth, he said, "It is impossible for us to refuse to admit these deported British passport holders. Attorney-General Pod Laurinson explained that under international law, we have an obligation to accept them-if we do not consider domestic immigration law. No further debate was possible after that. I later felt that the decision was the right one in other respects. It was that we could not escape our humanitarian duty - no one else Will not accept this obligation. I see the Asians who come to live in my constituency are admirably hardworking people. And this measure has indeed proven to be an exception to the strict immigration rule, not a step toward abandoning the rule first step. However, my intuition accurately reflected the party's feelings.There was a great sense of unease about the resolution in the party.Enoch Powell, speaking at the party's annual meeting that year, strongly opposed the resolution. In late November, the government's motion was rejected due to opposition from a large number of backbenchers to the new immigration rules, and Ted himself was shaken.He recognized that public opinion would not tolerate a repetition of this phenomenon.He has set up a group of ministers to look into legislation to stop the re-flow of migrants. The group reported to the cabinet in December that it was not advocating legislation, but a "statement" that the UK would not necessarily have to take in large numbers of deportees, but that it should be negotiated internationally.There were divisions in the cabinet at this time, and the idea failed.It was one of the few cases where the Prime Minister's idea was not adopted. After our immigration bill suffered defeat in the House of Commons, the cabinet discussion on immigration recognized that dissatisfaction with a range of other issues was fueling the fire on immigration.To understand how this happened, we need to go back to economics.