INSULARITY
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BECAUSE Britain is coming late, if at all, into membership of the Common Market, it must make the best it can of the structure already laid down. The original six members—Belgium, France, Western Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—have naturally drawn up the rules to suit their own geographical situation as, so to speak, the heartland of Western Europe. The Treaty of Rome itself, is a land-locked piece of literature.
The transport provisions, for example are specifically limited to the carriage of traffic by rail, road and inland waterway. Little importance is attached to coastal shipping and presumably none at all to the constant stream of vessels plying backwards and forwards across the Channel. The Council of the Community, providing there is a unanimous vote, may in due course decide what provisions should be adopted for sea and air transport. The opportunity will obviously arise in the course of the negotiations for Britain's membership.
It seems likely that in the first place shipping was not regarded as an important element in the Common Market transport system. Otherwise, space would surely have been found for it in a treaty that devotes It Articles to the subject of transport. In the absence of a bridge or tunnel, neither of which is likely to be built for many years to come, the Channel introduces a new feature. It may require modifications in the original treaty or in the supranational regulations for which the treaty provides the foundation.
RITISH operators must make the most of any chances thus provided for introducing items that they would particularly like to see embodied in the Common Market charter, and for modifying some of the existing items that they would perhaps have vigorously opposed had their country been in on the ground floor. Arguments are already taking place among the six original signatories—not so much on the treaty itself as on some of the incidental legislation that is now being brought forward and put into effect. It is already time for British operators to make themselves acquainted with the current controversies and to decide on what side they should lend their support.
From the British point of view, it may not be easy to understand the process that governed the selection, obviously because they were. considered important, of the provisions on transport actually embodied in the treaty. One clause calls for the abolition within the Community of differences in the rates and conditions applied by a carrier solely because of the country of, origin or destination of the goods carried. Rules for enforcing this clause are to be laid down within a period of two years after the treaty takes effect.
Another article seeks to prohibit at an even earlier stage the imposition by a country within the Community of rates and conditions involving any element or support or protection in the interest of one or more particular enter prise or industry. There is a softening down of this provision. Regard may be had to the requirements of a suitable regional economic policy, the needs of underdeveloped regions and the problems of regions seriously affected by political circumstances. The effect on competition between the different forms of transport may also be taken into account.
It is also enacted in the treaty that a carrier should make no more than reasonable charges for crossing a frontier and that his charges should reflect the costs actually incurred. Provisions such as this and the others have mentioned may seem remote and even bizarre to British hauliers, insulated as they are by the Channel. They will have to study each clause carefully and decide exactly what application it has to trade and industry in this country.
The ultimate object of the transport articles in the treaty, and of the subsequent discussions, is to set up the framework of a common transport policy. The countries of the Common Market, it is hoped, will become more and more like a single country, a kind of United States of Europe. The completely free movement of goods and people within the Community is one of the first essentials. Industrial organizations may still compete with each other, but on terms of equality. Steps will be taken to raise the standard of living in all the countries.
FROM these premises, a common transport policy as well as a common agricultural policy seem to follow logically. In due course operators may eXpect to be at liberty to carry goods anywhere within the Community on the same basis as they are now entitled to operate in their own country.
Hauliers in some European countries already see this as a possible threat They may be paying wages or taxes at a higher rate than operators in other countries and would be exposed to what they rightly consider unfair competition in their own territory from the vehicles of those operators, who may even feel disposed to set up their own depots. This particular difficulty may not seem menacing to British hauliers at a time when the scope for sending vehicles and drivers to and from the Continent is still comparatively limited. Nevertheless, the use of ferries is increasing, and if the rewards seem worth while technical problems have a habit of disappearing. There is always the possibility also of a Channel bridge or tunnel. Operators cannot afford to be too complacent in their island fastness.
PERHAPS more serious is the determination, in some areas of the Common Market, to compel all professional transport operators to publish maximum and minimum rates and to adhere to them. It is argued that such a step is necessary to ensure that hidden subsidies are still not being paid to give certain firms or industries an unfair advantage over their competitors in other countries.
For hauliers fixed rates are not without their attraction. At least there would be the certainty of a reasonable return and some protection from cut-throat competition. There are also snags. Control of rates might mean loss of traffic and could be manipulated to the advantage of the railways. The treaty itself contains an assurance that the Community would look kindly on aids which "meet the needs of transport co-ordination or which constitute reimbursement for certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public utility."
The C-licence holder ought to be even more uneasy. If professional operators are not allowed to vary their charges beyond certain limits, they might well claim some protection if the customer on these grounds refuses to employ them and uses his own vehicles. His right to do so might be called in question, and this is the first step on a very slippery slope indeed.