Chaos or Community?
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PITY poor David Mitchell! (Parliamentary Secretary to the Transport Department, for the benefit of those asking "David Who?").
One of the few pleasures of what is normally a dog'sbody job is to be sent to represent the United Kingdom at the EEC Council of Transport Ministers. After years of stagnation in the development of the Common Transport Policy, no one back home expects these meetings to achieve anything positive, while the DTp civil servants accompanying him can be relied on to make sure that he doesn't give away any points.
In any case it all takes place in private, so that disasters are easily concealed, unlike a bad performance at the Commons Despatch Box. Add to that VIP treatment at the airport, dinner on expenses at one of Brussels' justly celebrated restaurants, a lavish lunch provided by the EEC itself, and a bottle of genuine duty-free malt whisky from the diplomatic stores and you have the ingredients of a good day out.
But not last time. When Mr Mitchell set out for the Transport Council on March 22 the Summit of Prime Ministers and Presidents had just collapsed in total disarray. And rightly or wrongly the whole blame was being put on Britain. Mr Mitchell must have wondered, as he entered the Council meeting room on the 15th floor of the Charlemagne building, whether anyone would speak to him.
In the event he need not have worried. All 10 transport Ministers (or their deputies) seemed to realise that this meeting was more important than the usual bi-annual get-together. For once the main item on their agenda was in the public eye. The French lorry blockade attracted enormous public interest all over Europe, and was seen as a outward sign of an inner failure to achieve a Community transport policy.
This supports those who thought that the reason for slow progress was the absence of crisis. Despite all the national disharmony transport actually works. True it could work even more efficiently if the intentions of the Transport section of the Treaty of Rome had been fulfilled. But until recently goods and people moved with little difficulty inside their own countries and across Europe. The absence of crisis kept the subject out of the policital limelight. Mont Blanc changed all that.
By all accounts the Transport Council discussion was unusually constructive. Even the most right-wing delegates agreed that France's Communist Transport Minister Charles Fiterman, who presided, was an excellent chairman. The fact that the lorry blockade fell within the portfolio of Internal Market Commissioner Narjes, rather than that of the dismally ineffective Transport Commissioner Contegeorgis also helped matters along.
In consequence the problems were discussed realistically. The dialogue of the deaf, the normal script for these gatherings, was thrown away. And the Ministers agreed to meet again informally in Paris this week. This is usually a sign that there is at least some hope of progress towards dealing with the many problems affecting transport in the EEC.
It seems fair to say that in Britain, everyone concerned with transport sees such progress as taking the form of the rest coming into line with the United Kingdom. Ministers regularly complain about quota restrictions; users slate reference tariffs; bus operators say at Re gulation 543/69 was foisted on them in the interests of railway protection; hauliers complain about duty-free fuel limits; trade unions say that only Britain enforces EEC law. All the complainants have one common theme — they expect the others to fall into line with Britain.
As an opening negotiating position that would be fine. But in almost every case it seems to be the complainants' only position. Little thought is normally devoted to the give and take inevitable if 10 different sets of economic, political, geographical and social conditions are to be brought into line.
In this Britain is far from unique. A senior official of the Commission's Directorate-General of Transport, Dr Jurgen Erdm enge r, in a recent book (reviewed in CM February 18) showed how the interests of Member States diverge according to their geographical position. Although he does not explicitly say so, his book makes it clear that self-interest underlies national policies. And in this Britain is neither better nor worse than any other country.
Where Britain differs from the rest is in its style. Sir Geoffrey Howe recently admitted that Britain had not mastered EEC rhetoric. This is easily illustrated by the terminology used. Nearly always it is "the EEC" or "the Common Market", usually with a deprecatory adjective. Rarely does the term "Community" pass British lips.
Yet a Community is what we joined. And despite all the hyprocrisy and stubborness the Communautaire. attitude underlies most countries' approach to EEC matters. They take care to present their arguments in a Community context.
Britons prefer the pragmatic, common-sense approach. So they tend to be blunt. Moreover they also tend to glory in their bluntness.
To some extent this may be a reaction to the ludicrous overselling in 1971-72 by Eurofanatics of the benefits of EEC membership. It clearly has not done all that was claimed for it. But this has not prevented the same Eurofanatics from suggesting that Britain is making too much fuss about the situation in which we near the foot of the prosperity league table, support those countries richer than ourselves.
Such a supine approach during the accession negotiations is responsible for the present mess. It should certainly not be imported into the transport field,
But there is all the difference in the world between, on the one hand, surrendering one's own national interests and, on the other, trying to understand other countries' points of view. It is even more important to demonstrate that understanding when putting forward an opposing view.
The European Community is widely unpopular in Britain. And the row over Budget contribution has strengthened that hostility. But that row will almost certainly be resolved before long for the very persuasive reason that Britain can (and, I hope, will) block moves to stave off bankruptcy until justice is done.
Once the Budget dust has settled, and the Euroelections are over, it is at least possible that a more constructive attitude may permeate to other areas of EEC policy. If that happens our negotiators will best serve British interests by acknowledging that others have a point of view, and trying to accommodate it without selling out vital national interests.