Brinkmanship in Brussels
Page 29
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
It would be disastrous if Mr Peyton's obdurate resistance to the 1 1-tonne axle were carried to the point where Britain was left out on a limb, with axle limits different from most of the other members of the Community. His championship of the 10-ton axle is understandable in view of the head of political steam which has built up on the issue of bigger vehicles, but it tends to be forgotten that the EEC proposals are for the period from 1980 onwards.
Manufacturers geared to the 10-ton axle may have good reason to oppose a higher limit but they would be even worse off if the end result of the present negotiations was a lack of standardization between domestic and Continental limits. And the growth of our international road transport operations would be jeopardized if differential axle or gross weight limits were adopted.
France. Belgium and Luxembourg are pressing for an 11tonne limit, Britain, Denmark and Eire are all for sticking to 10 tons, while Holland, Italy and Germany are chiefly concerned to get agreement across the board. With seven years in which to work towards whatever limit is agreed, this does not seem an impossible aim; and on economic grounds the higher axle weight figure makes sense.
The effect upon this situation of Mr Rippon's appointment as environmental overlord is difficult to assess at present. Will his European zeal incline him towards being more con ciliatory with the EEC, or will he want Britain to flex its muscles in a bid for the transport initiative? Mr Peyton has given the Common Market a foretaste of British firmness: let us hope he will be as forthright and steadfast in promoting the UK's liberal transport policies to the benefit of our own haulage industry.