"Horse-trading” in decision on N.Z. butter

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32819, 20 January 1972, Page 2

"Horse-trading” in decision on N.Z. butter

(From MICHAEL ROBSON, N.Z.P.A. staff correspondent) PARIS, January 19.

A dawn session of horse-trading was responsible for the successful French effort to get the “unanimity” clause reintroduced into the New Zealand protocol for dairy products to be attached to the British treaty of accession to the Common Market, informed sources said in Brussels.

The clause, in the fifth article of the protocol, specifies that any decision to continue New Zealand’s special arrangement past 1977 must be decided by the decision of the E.E.G.’s council of Ministers.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Marshall) rejected this aspect of a proposal put forward by the Six in Luxemburg last June on the ground that it would give the French a veto over continuation. At his insistence, the British refused to accept the wording “unanimous decision” and it was struck from the agreement.

The Brussels sources said yesterday that in return for concessions over the wording of certain parts of the fishing and agricultural provisions in the main treaty, the British gave way on New Zealand.

The treaty will be signed by the British Prime Minister (Mr Heath), the Foreign Secretary (Sir Alec DouglasHome), and the chief negotiator, Mr Geoffrey Rippon, in Brussels this Saturday.

Although the reintroduction of the "unanimity” clause does not have any substantive effect on the protocol, it is a political set-

back for Mr Marshall. Commenting on rumours that the French were holding out over this particular aspect of the protocol last week, Mr Marshall said this was not a new development but he was sure the British would stand firm, as they had done in the past. In practice, all major decisions by the Community are made on a unanimous basis, and it is certain that on such a vital matter as the continuation of the New Zealand protocol, the French would have insisted on this point, anyway. Some quarters yesterday were even ’saying that the clause could be to New Zealand’s advantage in that the British, inside the Community, could use it for their own purposes to block any new arrangement which they felt failed to protect New Zealand interests. “Past 1977” Britain’s chief negotiator at a Civil Service level, Sir Con O’Neill, who agreed to the final wording of the protocol, said afterwards at a press conference that the insertion of the unanimity clause was merely legalising what had been understood at Luxemburg. He added that it was implicit in the Luxemburg agreement that New Zealand’s arrangements would continue past 1977. The other four articles of the protocol apparently do not deviate from the agreements reached in Luxemburg. It is thought that the pricing formula—based on the average of the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972— will have enough flexibility to allow New Zealand a “fair” price after British entry. This was the one aspect of the agreement Mr Marshall refused to endorse at the time it was negotiated. French attitude

The French decision to fight over the unanimity clause probably reflects a growing feeling in Paris that too much was conceded in Luxemburg over New. Zealand. Also, France is extremely jealous of the unwritten rule that when the vital interests of any country are concerned, they cannot be overridden by a majority decision. Britain's decision to back down was probably caused by the necessity to reach agreement before this Saturday. There has been tremendous pressure from Downing Street and Whitehall to wrap matters up at the earliest opportunity, and at one time it was thought the treaty might have been signed before Christmas, but negotiating and drafting problems ruled this out.

It is certain that the official Conservative line will be to minimise the concession which has been made on the New Zealand arrangement. Whether the Labour Party or Tory market “rebels” choose to make an issue of the matter will be seen today in the House of Commons when there will be a general debate on the treaty. Whitehall sources insisted yesterday that New Zealand had much to gain from its continuing dairy produce arrangements with the E.E.C. being decided unanimously by the new 10-nation Community.

If the decision on New Zealand access to the E.E.C. dairy market after 1977 was not taken unanimously, the sources said, then the nine other E.E.C. members could side against Britain to give New Zealand a quite ridiculous trade, such as 1 per cent of 1971 levels.

It had always been clear at Luxemburg that details of the continuing arrangement after 1977, represented an “important question” and thus according to E.E.C. rules would be subject to the unanimity provisions. However, said the sources, it should be clearly understood in New Zealand that the unanimity would apply only to details of the arrangement. British denial Both the Luxemburg agreement and the protocol to be attached to the treaty of accession spelled out in writing that there would be a continuing arrangement for New Zealand dairy produce, and the voting that would take place under the unanimity rule would merely decide what form that-arrange-ment would take.

Whitehall denies that Britain gave way on the New Zealand issue because it won concession on other matters, but Brussels reports indicate that Britain had earlier in the night got its way on fishing and on other fanning questions. (Further details page 12)