Extract from a memorandum by the Political Section of the Department of External Affairs
'French Proposals for an Agricultural Pool'

[matter omitted]

Attitude of this country

4. The French proposals have been under consideration by the Departments concerned (principally, of course the Department of Agriculture) since the French invitation was received (on 2nd April last). No formal decision was reached by the last Government on the subject, though it is understood that it had been agreed that the invitation should be accepted and that the Minister for Agriculture should attend. The matter was discussed at an Interdepartmental Conference when the general feeling was that while there were a number of prima-facie objections to the French proposals from our point of view, we should be represented at the proposed conference. This attitude was particularly prompted by the fact that by attending the conference we would not be in any way committing ourselves to the principle of a unified agricultural market. The Department of Agriculture representatives stated that it was their view that the French proposals should be dealt with in the OEEC in view of the experience of that body in the European agricultural field (as stated above, this seems to be the attitude of most other countries, though the French were opposed to this course, holding that this would, in effect, result in nothing being done). The Department of Finance representatives reserved their position.
5. There are on the face of it a number of reasons why such a proposal as the present one would be impalatable to this country. An integrated European agricultural market with the abolition of tariffs and other restrictions could have adverse effects on our agriculture, as we are, in many respects a high cost producer. Furthermore our special position in the British market would be affected by the throwing open of that market to other European countries on terms of equal competition. The proposals, themselves, are not a little Utopian – the integration of so diversified and individualistic an enterprise as agriculture is a very different matter from the integration of the coal and steel industry already quasi-monopolised and cartelised – and even that was not carried out without considerable difficulty. The complexity of the problems raised is tremendous and even with enthusiasm on the part of all the countries concerned – which seems to be fairly conspicuously absent – even the first steps towards integration would involve very complicated negotiations and take a great deal of time. There has been a great deal of discussion but little fruitful action in the OEEC already on the relatively simpler question of liberalisation of trade in agriculture. However, there are problems of marketing in relation to European agriculture that could very usefully be discussed e.g. such questions as the disposal of temporary surpluses and the meeting of temporary shortages for which international co-ordination would be very useful and the proposed conference might decide that such problems should be discussed, on a realistic level, by the participating countries – preferably within the ambit of the OEEC.

Action to be taken

6. As stated no formal decision has yet been taken whether to accept the French invitation or not. The Department of Agriculture consider that, in all the circumstances, it should and that furthermore, it should be stated as our view, that the subject matter of the French proposals would best be discussed within the OEEC. The Department of Industry and Commerce and ourselves concur in this view. The Department of Finance, on the other hand have now stated that in their view, no useful purpose would be served so far as this country is concerned by the creation of a European Agricultural pool and that, therefore, the invitation should not be accepted. The point at issue is not really the merits or otherwise of the French proposals, since all Departments have an equally sceptical attitude to them, but whether anything is to be lost or gained by attendance or non-attendance at the conference. It appears that there will be general acceptance by other countries of the invitation, though at least some of them appear to have much the same attitude as ourselves. It can, certainly, be argued that refusal to accept the invitation, particularly when attendance does not commit us to anything, would be an excessively rigid and unco-operative gesture while something may be lost by not being present at the preliminary discussions even though we might, in due course, resist any positive steps to give effect to the proposals.

The letter from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe conveying the French Government’s invitations was received in April and a reply is by now long overdue.¹