by
Philip Benwell MBE
House of Lords, London, 13 June 2016
My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,
When I was a young adult, we would leave home, make our own friends and establish our own way of life and get married. I suppose it’s called standing on your own two feet and ‘growing up’. It’s what Britain taught us to do over a hundred years ago! And it was Britain which also taught us to value our own sovereignty, a sovereignty Britain itself should never, ever, have quit from.
Britain first started to stand on its own two feet well over 1000 years ago when Alfred the Great established a rule of law and a constitution for England. Four and a half centuries ago, another Elizabeth was then sitting on the throne and she vigorously defended England against the European invader as did kings and queens before and after her, including Her Majesty’s own father and grandfather.
What would all these monarchs have thought when Britain some forty years ago entered into what they inferred was a trading relationship but quickly developed into a political suzerainty on a similar basis to the Roman Empire: an arrangement under which Britain’s parliament would be dictated to by a foreign power?
Yes, Britain having built up the greatest empire the world has ever known, having encouraged so many of its colonies to seek independence under the rule of law and the Westminster system of Parliamentary governance then decided itself to lie down and submit its own independence to the rule of an alien authority.
Ladies and Gentlemen
To be able to talk about an Australian perspective of Britain leaving the European Union one must initially comment on what happened to us when the United Kingdom first sought entry into what was then misnamed as the European Common Market.
Just like an uncaring parent may discard children when taking a new partner who does not want to be encumbered with them, so was it necessary for those who were manipulating Britain's entry into Europe to first destroy the bond that existed between the British peoples throughout what was then termed the 'white Commonwealth'. (So called because at that time Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were mainly populated by ‘white’ people from Britain.) This description quickly became ‘politically incorrect’ and then, following Macmillan’s 1960 ‘winds of change’ speech all but disappeared.
THE SEPARATION OF THE BRITISH PEOPLES
The separation of the British peoples began, whether by design or by coincidence, in 1948 with the British Nationality Act. Hitherto, it was the accepted convention that all persons born under the Crown were subjects of the Queen and thereby British.
The British Nationality Act established the national citizenships of the United Kingdom and those places, such as Australia, that were still British. It was agreed that all would adopt a national citizenship and, from 1962, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act controlled entry into Britain of the British outside the kingdom and it was thus that so many Australians discovered that their homeland had become for them a foreign country.
Nowhere during this process was any provision made for those persons outside of the United Kingdom who had Her Majesty as their sovereign and who were thus subjects of the Queen.
Our greatest Australian statesman, Sir Robert Menzies, whose wife, Dame Pattie, later became the first Patron of the Australian Monarchist League, spoke, when in London in 1948, warning that the British Nationality Act would, by the: “very unnecessary act of separation performed by British Parliaments and States bring new hope to those who would destroy us and new confusions in the minds of our friends1.”
At the same time, he also made a very appropriate comment most pertinent to the situation in which we find ourselves today. He said: “We cannot hack away at the foundations and then express surprise when some day the house falls1.”
Within 20 years of that speech, Britain was to renege on its trading commitments to the Old Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.
As far as Harold Macmillan was concerned, there was no future with us. His supposed motive was that the future for the Commonwealth lay in the non-white nations of Africa, but the real motive was to unshackle Britain from its ties to us so as to facilitate its entry into Europe.
In the aftermath of the Second World War, the United States was using the Marshall Plan to pressure Britain into Europe and at the same time was trying to wean the old Empire countries away from the ‘Motherland’ but when Macmillan formally announced Britain’s application for EEC membership in the House of Commons on the 31st July 1961, he specified: “No agreement will be entered into until it has been approved by the House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries by whatever procedure they may generally agree2.” The fact is, there was never consultation, only an ultimatum.
Ten days earlier, Macmillan had dispatched a trio of ministers to the far corners of the Commonwealth. Their mission was to argue that “what is good for Britain is good for the Commonwealth3.” During this visit, the Australian correspondent of the London Economist observed “Old friendships fade. The far-flung Empire became the glorious Commonwealth; and then suddenly it seemed nothing but a millstone around Britain's neck as Britain tried to get into the swim of the Six3.'' The ‘six’ being the then Common Market.
Duncan Sandys had been delegated to meet with the prime ministers of New Zealand, Australia and Canada at which time he announced that the Imperial Preferential Trade agreements were at an end as Britain was entering into new arrangements with Europe. They argued that what is good for Britain would be good for the Commonwealth.
It was made very clear that the British Government had no intention of allowing its ties to the Commonwealth - and particularly to the former Dominions or ‘Old Commonwealth’ - to hamper its union with Europe. However, Sandys found that these three Dominions did not easily accept Macmillan’s ultimatum. Australia strongly felt that it was being ‘sold down the river’ particular since it was just twenty years following the time when so many Australians volunteered to fight in Europe for Britain against Britain’s then enemy!
AUSTRALIA WAS ALWAYS BRITAIN’S FRIEND
In fact, Australia has always come to the aid of Britain when it was in need. Some months prior to the beginning of the First World War when laying the foundation stone of Australia House in London, King George V stated: “I am well assured that as in the past in any national emergency Australia will play her part for the common cause and that the loyalty of her sons will never be appealed to in vain4”.
Indeed, five days before Britain’s declaration of War, the soon to be prime minister of Australia, Andrew Fisher, declared “Australians will stand beside her own to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling5.” Australia sent nearly forty percent of her young people to fight in Europe and around four and a half percent of our total population was either killed or wounded. It is often forgotten that immediately war was declared in 1939, Australians again immediately volunteered to fight for Britain in Europe. There is so much emphasis today given to our own battles in the Pacific, but people forget that as many Australians lost their lives in fighting the Germans and Italians as they did fighting the Japanese.
Sandys conveyed Macmillan’s ultimatum that the Imperial preferential trading arrangements were to be at an end just some sixteen years after the Second World War and just nine years following the Queen’s farewell broadcast at the end of her tour of Australia in 1954 at which she had said: “I hope that this visit has served to remind you of the wonderful heritage we share. I also hope that it has demonstrated that the Crown is a human link between all the people who owe allegiance to me, and allegiance of mutual love and respect never of compulsion6”.
In reminding Macmillan of the mutual obligations imposed between Australia and Britain by the ties of history, language and culture, the then Prime Minister Robert Menzies wrote in May 1961 to say: “Your European partners would require obligations of you in respect of world political and strategic problems and in respect of United Kingdom decisions on these matters. What, in these circumstances, would be the United Kingdom outlook towards Australia, towards Canada, towards the Commonwealth collectively7?”
Macmillan responded with an assurance that no approach to Europe would be made until ‘satisfactory arrangements to protect Commonwealth interests had been found’.
Earlier in 1955 the then Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden had advised Menzies that Britain would not join a project that would so: “substantially weaken the Commonwealth relationship, both economically and politically8”.
This sentiment was continued by Macmillan who went even further to assure us that provision would be made for the Commonwealth when at the same time Europe was stating that this was not to be so. Clearly we were all to be cast adrift with Britain, then still considered to be our Motherland, intent on reneging upon all of its obligations!
THE PLUNGE INTO EUROPE
The British Government then decided in 1973 to plunge into what had become the European Union and it was thus that the process of the undermining of Britain’s sovereignty by its own Parliament began.
There is no longer any need to remind people of the deceptive comments of leaders such as Edward Heath, and his reassurance to the Parliament in 1973 that what they were joining was solely a ‘trading partnership’ and his earlier comments that there was no question of ‘Britain losing essential national sovereignty’. These were all exposed in 1990 but we in Australia already had experience of British government deceptions as far as Europe was concerned.
Had the facts and information and the implications of union with Europe been clearly laid out before the British electorate, I very much doubt that the ordinary voter would have voted to remain in Europe in the 1975 referendum. I must say, however, that no one should really have been deceived because the European powers always made their motives clear, as did Robert Schuman himself in his Declaration of May 1950 which stated that the ‘Federation of Europe’ was one of their long-term political objectives.
Indeed, anyone with any common sense at the time having read the 1957 Treaty of Rome would have had a clear understanding that the principle objective of the Treaty was ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. It was evident that this was the basis by which member nations would develop into an European Federation in fact if not in name. Tony Blair himself had later stated: “Europe is no longer just about peace. It is about the projection of collective power ... Europe must become a superpower9”.
But, as the late Lord Deedes told me, hardly anyone, including the MPs voting on the Treaty of Accession, had ever read it!
And so the United Kingdom went into Europe and those countries that Churchill once mooted should become a union, Australia, Canada and New Zealand each went their separate ways and today even our High Court declared in 1999 that the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a 'foreign power10.”
In this manner the close rapport that once existed between the British peoples was purposely dismembered as Britain submitted itself before Europe, pleading for entry into the ‘club’ it itself had created.
In his ‘Masque of Pandora’ Longfellow wrote: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad". Similarly, in putting together the building blocks to facilitate Britain’s entry into Europe, the British government had first to rid itself of the old Commonwealth. They could not take the Queen away from us but what did happen was the gradual acceptance that each of the Realms had different crowns, each apart from the other. In many ways, this was fortunate because when, following enactment of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the Queen was declared to be a ‘citizen of Europe’ we, in Australia, were somewhat insulated from the potential implications of having our own Australian constitutional arrangements tainted by having our Queen subject to the laws and citizenry of the European Union.
THE DEBASING OF THE CROWN
In my opinion, the integrity of the Crown of the United Kingdom was somewhat debased by making the monarch subject to Europe.
How is it possible that our English Common Law handed down to us over the centuries and which embodies our ancient liberties has been made subject to the totally alien body of Napoleonic law which by tradition has never had any empathy with liberty or true democracy?
How is it possible that our once robust governance has allowed an alien bureaucracy to gradually usurp power and authority both from the British people and the British Crown?
What you have done is to hand to those in countries of the Commonwealth Realms who seek to undermine the systems of checks and balances through the Crown, (which have ensured true democracy in our land for over a century), a gold-plated ticket for themselves to do what you have done in this country - and that is to remove the authority of the Queen and replace it with that of politicians. In this country you have made the Crown subservient to foreign politicians and their bloated bureaucracies which all seem to exercise power without accountability.
Despite the Realms each declaring their own sovereignty, there is nevertheless only one Queen, one Coronation Oath and in accordance with the Statute of Westminster of 1931 there is but one Crown under which the Realms are united by a common allegiance.
Whilst the ‘Crown of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland’ is also separately the Crowns of Australia and of the other fourteen Realms, it is also one.
We must, however, be thankful that the slow bureaucratic nature of the European Union has meant that it has not already absorbed a complicit Britain fully into a union in a similar manner to that in which the old Saxon kingdoms were integrated into the new country of England over 1000 years ago.
In 1970, Sir Robert Menzies pondered upon Britain’s entry into Europe and the consequences to Australia and indeed to the whole Commonwealth in his book: ‘Measure of the Years’: “I rather gather that though the parties in the House are pro-European, the people outside the Parliament are not so sure .... I think there are deep-seated instincts and a sort of patriotic insularity which combine to make the Englishman distrust the idea of subordinating his interests, and his political rights to any institution established in Europe, empowered to give him orders but not responsible to him ... Britain is the home of responsible government, of the supremacy of Parliament and of the rule of law, the law involved being British.
“In incorporating ‘European Law’ into the body of legislation in Britain the Parliament would not be exercising its own judgment or the judgment of the electors, but would be carrying out its duty to the European Community.
“My only constitutional concern has been to show that the normal concept of sovereignty which is applied to the British Parliament would be qualified in a large number of very important ways”. He went on to say that: “the structure of the European Commission and Parliament can in no way be termed ‘responsible government’ in British terms11”.
It is such a shame that on his retirement, Sir Robert was not made a peer so that Britain could benefit from this wise man’s expertise. I have for long believed that following the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, representatives from the then dominions should have been invited to join the House of Lords so that that body would become truly representative of the British peoples. If that had occurred, Britain may never have moved away from the close relationship we once enjoyed and our familial relationship under the Queen may have continued.
Had this occurred, Australia may never have faced a republic referendum. In fact, I blame the initial growth of republican sentiment in our country and the destabilisation of our constitutional stability on the actions of the British government in destroying the union of our peoples and severing the close bonds we once enjoyed.
THE MOMENT IS UPON US
In ten days’ time Britain will be voting on whether to stay in or whether to leave Europe and the way in which pro-European politicians manipulated facts to facilitate union will not be considered by the majority of those voting. All of these things now lie largely forgotten in the mists of history and the time has passed for talking about what Macmillan said or what Heath did.
It is of no avail talking today about what should have been done, but only about what must be achieved for Britain if it is to have any future as an independent nation.
The British people will consider - that is those who may consider to vote at all – whether they themselves will be better or worse off if Britain leaves Europe and the fact is, no one can possibly tell.
We don’t know what the attitude of the European powers will be if Britain does vote to leave. We don’t know whether they may look at punishing Britain and if so whether they have considered the eventual costs were they to do so.
Obviously there will be pain in leaving the existing arrangements with Europe and we know not at this stage how other countries, particularly within the Commonwealth, will respond to a call from Britain for a stronger trading association.
Whatever Barack Hussein Obama, Christine Lagarde or even your own Bank of England governor may say, what we do know is that should the people vote to leave Europe Britain will be able to totally secure its borders, restore the supremacy of British law and order and ensure that the billions spent to uphold the European empire are spent within the United Kingdom to make each and every individual in this country better off.
What started, essentially, as a customs union allowing free trade between countries has become an all-encompassing bureaucratically driven empire stifling national sovereignty, free will and initiative. Even the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance taken by all Members of the European Parliament is ‘to represent no individual or national interests but to uphold the aims of the European Union’.
Whilst there were obvious benefits in a close trading relationship with European nations, how could Britain ever have agreed to bind itself so closely that it was forbidden to do anything that was not agreed to by the European powers. You have created a relationship that has not only affected but purposefully endeavoured to stamp out the spirit of liberty that was once every Briton’s right, only to be replaced by bureaucratic directives - something so very alien and hitherto obnoxious to our shared heritage.
Only citizens of a country should have the right of entry to it. It is reprehensible that any sovereign parliament would ever allow an external entity any sort of say over the borders of its country. This is particularly so as we see mass movements of peoples marching through Europe, most fleeing from the mess created by the Western powers through their interference in cultures they cannot understand.
However, the way in which the former dominions were treated by Britain is all but forgotten, both in the realms as well as in the United Kingdom itself. Today we are all separate powers and the only motivation each will have in entering into any treaty is profit. How will that treaty benefit the country entering into it? That is the only criterion that will motivate involvement. You cannot look at loyalty and with our republican orientated politicians entrenched in all of our governments in Australia you cannot rely upon the fact that we share the same monarch
The simple fact is that we are both separate countries today. Mass immigration and generational changes have meant that our past history is just that - past. Of course, there are Australians, some in this very room, who love Britain but statistics show that many today love other countries more. Of those Australians travelling overseas on holiday, around 6% travel to the UK but around 10% go to the USA.
However, Australia, Canada and New Zealand all share the same language, the same base laws and the same base culture. All ingredients for a friendly association. Commonwealth countries such as India, also share similarities which make trading relationships easier.
There is one matter that must be resolved if we are to renew our friendship and that is entry into the kingdom.
Just imagine the confusion, the anger and the bitterness of those Australians who fought for Britain in Europe when they, returning to the Motherland they served, found themselves directed to the aliens or others gate whilst the enemy they fought against walked blithely through the special and privileged EU entrance. For some 17 years I have been advocating a special entry for subjects of the Queen, but time and time and time again the government and its bureaucracy have refused.
In preparing notes for my comments tonight I looked at reams and reams of papers containing economic and political arguments and statistics galore. Whilst all are necessary, their impact will only influence the very few. I am reminded of the phrase by Andrew Lang in his book ‘The Making of Religion’ “Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination.”
We have seen leaders of foreign countries, including Australia, voicing opinions in favour of staying in Europe.
Most are thought to be doing David Cameron a favour, but are they? Barack Obama’s comment that Britain would go to the "back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it votes to leave the European Union is, in a similar manner to the comments of the Macmillan and Heath government, simply not true. Obama’s reign is at an end and we know not whether we will see a President Trump next year. To paraphrase Churchill one can only say of Mr Obama, “some lame-duck, some friend.”
Australian business is divided. Britain has promoted itself as a stepping stone to Europe for Australian, and other Commonwealth businesses, but has it really succeeded? Our trade deficit with the EU non-UK countries is around 35.5 billion dollars and you can’t tell me or any other person with common sense that the remaining countries within the European Union are going to give up that sort of trading relationship with Australia whatever happens with the United Kingdom. Will the French give up the potential $50-billion-dollar submarine contract? And what about our trade with Germany. We export A$3 billion but import A$14 billion! Are they going to give that up because Britain has left the European Union? Of course not.
I have written to the Prime Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull, to ask him on what basis he has stated: “From our point of view it is an unalloyed plus for Britain to remain in the EU12” to ask what he means by “our point of view” and on what statistical basis has he constructed his comment that it will be “an unalloyed (for those of us who had to look the word up, it means ‘absolute’) plus for Britain to remain in the EU”.
TO SUMMARISE
In the first instance Britain should never have dumped former allies, such as Australia, to join the European Common Market. Immediately that requirement was put to the British government it should have walked away.
As the new treaties which eroded British law and British sovereignty came into play, Britain should have walked away.
The European Union has grown from the original six to the current twenty-eight. Like the Roman Empire, it has grown too big and unwieldy and the free movement of peoples, once an advantage, is now to the detriment of all. It will fragment just like the Roman Empire did and all those countries involved will suffer the consequences.
Britain is far better being out of Europe and establishing its own trading relationships and once again taking its place on the world stage as the United Kingdom and not as a vassal of a suzerain state.
Whatever our politicians and our chattering classes may say, Britain can still be certain of a warm reception from the majority of the Australian people.
Many of our older people still fondly look upon Britain as home and we should not forget that there remains a large British population in Australia - probably in excess of one million - who are either sole British passport holders or dual nationals. These people could well form a very strong lobby force to promote British trade and British culture within Australia.
I might mention that the lobbying of the Australian Monarchist League has resulted in a cohesive group of supportive politicians ready to oppose any move by the Australian government towards a republic. Advertising companies are now reluctant to ridicule the Queen as was once their wont, and the media, although virtually republican throughout, now infrequently raises the issue. These factors have been achieved through constant lobbying. It seems to me such a waste that the resource of British people throughout the Commonwealth is not used instead of relying totally upon indifferent bureaucrats speaking to indifferent bureaucrats.
To close, let me quote again from our greatest statesman, Robert Menzies, whose comments form a major part of this paper. He wrote these words nearly 50 years ago:
“Recognise that our common destiny is not just pounds, shillings and pence. Do not treat us Australians of British birth simply as strangers with whom you will be perfectly friendly. Friendship is not enough. Warren Hastings is my Hastings, not merely yours; England is my England, not merely yours13.”
My message to you is to no longer allow foreign pressure groups to dictate what trading arrangements Britain may enter into. What you buy and what you sell should be your business and your business alone.
Cease being a vassal of nameless bureaucrats. Leave the European Empire, and come back to your friends.
References:
1 - Source – The National Review October 1948
2 - ADDRESS GIVEN BY HAROLD MACMILLAN IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS on the United Kingdom's application for membership to the European Community (31 July 1961)
“The future relations between the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and the rest of Europe are clearly matters of capital importance in the life of our country and, indeed, of all the countries of the free world. This is a political as well as an economic issue. Although the Treaty of Rome is concerned with economic matters it has an important political objective, namely, to promote unity and stability in Europe which is so essential a factor in the struggle for freedom and progress throughout the world. In this modern world the tendency towards larger groups of nations acting together in the common interest leads to greater unity and thus adds to our strength in the struggle for freedom.
I believe that it is both our duty and our interest to contribute towards that strength by securing the closest possible unity within Europe. At the same time, if a closer relationship between the United Kingdom and the
countries of the European Economic Community were to disrupt the long-standing and historic ties between the United Kingdom and the other nations of the Commonwealth the loss would be greater than the gain. The Commonwealth is a great source of stability and strength both to Western Europe and to the world as a whole, and I am sure that its value is fully appreciated by the member Governments of the European Economic Community. I do not think that Britain’s contribution to the Commonwealth will be reduced if Europe unites. On the contrary, I think that its value will be enhanced.
On the economic side, a community comprising, as members or in association, the countries of free Europe could have a very rapidly expanding economy supplying, as eventually it would, a single market of approaching 300 million people. This rapidly expanding economy could, in turn, lead to an increased demand for products from other parts of the world and so help to expand world trade and improve the prospects of the less developed areas of the world.
No British Government could join the European Economic Community without prior negotiation with a view to meeting the needs of the Commonwealth countries, of our European Free Trade Association partners, and of British agriculture consistently with the broad principles and purpose which have inspired the concept of European unity and which are embodied in the Rome Treaty.
As the House knows, Ministers have recently visited Commonwealth countries to discuss the problems which would arise if the British Government decided to negotiate for membership of the European Economic Community. We have explained to Commonwealth Governments the broad political and economic considerations which we have to take into account. They, for their part, told us their views and, in some cases, their anxieties about their essential interests. We have assured Commonwealth Governments that we shall keep in close consultation with them throughout any negotiations which might take place.
Secondly, there is the European Free Trade Association. We have treaty and other obligations to our partners in this Association and my right hon. friends have just returned from a meeting of the European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council, in Geneva, where all were agreed that they should work closely together throughout any negotiations. Finally, we are determined to continue to protect the standard of living of our agricultural community.
During the past nine months, we have had useful and frank discussions with the European Economic Community Governments. We have now reached the stage where we cannot make further progress without entering into formal negotiations. I believe that the great majority in the House and in the country will feel that they cannot fairly judge whether it is possible for the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community until there is a clearer picture before them of the conditions on which we could join and the extent to which these could meet our special needs.
Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome envisages that the conditions of admission of a new member and the changes in the Treaty necessitated thereby should be the subject of an agreement. Negotiations must, therefore, be held in order to establish the conditions on which we might join. In order to enter into these negotiations it is necessary, under the Treaty, to make formal application to join the Community, although the ultimate decision whether to join or not must depend on the result of the negotiations.
Therefore, after long and earnest consideration, Her Majesty’s Government have come to the conclusion that it would be right for Britain to make a formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty for negotiations with a view to joining the Community if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special needs of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association.
If, as I earnestly hope, our offer to enter into negotiations with the European Economic Community is accepted we shall spare no efforts to reach a satisfactory agreement. These negotiations must inevitably be of a detailed and technical character, covering a very large number of the most delicate and difficult matters. They may, therefore, be protracted and there can, of course, be no guarantee of success. When any negotiations are brought to a conclusion then it will be the duty of the Government to recommend to the House what course we should pursue. No agreement will be entered into until it has been approved by the House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries by whatever procedure they may generally agree.”
Source - European Economic Community (Government Policy), in Parliamentary Debates. 1960-1961, No 645; fifth series, pp. 928-931. Crown copyright is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HM Stationery Office and the Queen's Printer for Scotland
3 - TIME MAGAZINE - The Balky Partners - Jul. 21, 1961
Sidling toward entry into Europe's flourishing six-nation Common Market, Britain had recognized that the Commonwealth countries might object. But nobody had anticipated the violence of the reaction. Three weeks ago, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan dispatched a trio of ministers to the far corners of the Commonwealth. Their mission was to argue that what is good for Britain is good for the Commonwealth. Last week the three headed home in a minor state of shock. They had found the Commonwealth hostile, and even bitter. Fearful of the loss of their trading privileges with a Britain economically wedded to the Six (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands), the Commonwealth countries wanted no part of the Common Market. ‘Old friendships fade’, observed the Australian correspondent of the London Economist acidly: "The club is not what it was. The far-flung Empire became the glorious Commonwealth; and then suddenly it seemed nothing but a millstone round Britain's neck as Britain tried to get into the swim of the Six.'' The travelling salesman with the roughest route was Britain's tough, shrewd Duncan Sandys, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Sandys' first stop was New Zealand, which, surprisingly, made the least fuss despite the fact that it stands to lose the most should Britain cuts its Common wealth trade ties. Last year New Zealand shipped 89% of its butter, 94% of its cheese, 94% of its lamb and mutton to Britain—all told, half of its total exports. "The British government provides our very livelihood," pleaded Prime Minister Keith Holyoake, then agreed to a Sandys communiqué approving Britain's opening negotiations with the Six, provided that New Zealand's interests were safe guarded. Flabbergasted. Sandys' honeymoon was short-lived. Considered the toughest man in the Commons, Sandys met his match in Australia's determined Prime Minister Menzies. Though only 25% of Australia's exports go to Britain, and the nation's economy is far more balanced than agricultural New Zealand's, Menzies was adamant against Britain's entry into the Market. In four days of tough bargaining, Sandys failed even to win approval for Britain to open negotiations. According to an aide, Sandys was "shocked and flabbergasted." It took nine hours to draft the final brief communiqué. Virtually dictated by Menzies. it stipulated that if Britain did begin talks with the Six,
Australia would be forced to "negotiate direct on Australia's behalf when details and arrangements affecting items of Australian trade were being discussed."
Flying on to Canada, the weary Sandys got a brusque reception. He was flown from Montreal to Ottawa in a creaking old DC-3, while a Nigerian trade mission arriving the same day was assigned a plush government Viscount. At the
bargaining table, the Canadians demanded not only assurances of protection for their exports to Britain (which constitute only 20% of their sales abroad), but also that Britain would call a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting before opening talks with the Six. Sandys had no authority to agree to either (and Macmillan, who will not even let the Commons debate the Common Market issue, has no intention of assembling the whole Commonwealth to clamour against him). Though the schedule called for five days of talks, the angry Canadians stalked out on the second day and issued a terse communiqué: "The Canadian ministers indicated that their government's assessment of the situation was different from that put forward by Mr. Sandys." A frustrated Sandys returned to his Ottawa hotel, announced that he would sit tight until his prescheduled departure day, in the hope that the Canadians would reopen the talks. At week's end, weary of waiting, Sandys flew off to Quebec to go fishing.
Macmillan's other emissaries fared little better. Labour Minister John Hare, sent to Africa, was told by Nigeria's Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa that Nigeria was not interested on any terms. Even if Britain took the Commonwealth countries into the Six as full trading partners, Balewa said flatly, "there is no question of Nigeria joining. We want to protect our industries, and if we join the Market, we shall find it difficult to do so." Balewa's explanation: he feared
the Common Market's ultimate goal of political federation might result in an industrial United States of Europe that would try to keep Africa a perpetual producer of raw materials to feed its factories.
In Ghana, Nkrumah was privately cordial to Hare's overtures, but as soon as Hare left, Nkrumah took the platform to declare that Ghana "would almost certainly be forced to leave the sterling area to safeguard our trading position"
if Britain joined the Six.
Swinging through Asia was Minister of Aviation Peter Thorneycroft. India sends one-third of its exports to Britain, Pakistan one-fifth. Ceylon's tea enters Britain duty-free, but faces a 35% tariff entering the Common Market. Thorneycroft talked for an hour with Nehru, who emerged to note sourly that Britain's entry into the Market "would certainly weaken the Commonwealth." Most Indian businessmen take a more hard-headed view. As India's Economic Times observed: "If the Commonwealth trade preferences which formed the real and tangible advantages of Commonwealth membership did not exist, the Commonwealth itself might fall apart." Ceylon asked for special guarantees for its vital tea trade, which makes up 60% of its exports. The cheeriest support Britain got anywhere in the Commonwealth came from Pakistan's President Ayub Khan, who forthrightly said, "I think it would be a good thing if Britain joined the Common Market.'' His reason: it would strengthen Europe and the West against Communism.
Like Poland? The unexpected violence of the Commonwealth's reaction posed a sharp dilemma for Britain: whether to risk splitting the Commonwealth, with all its historic ties, or to risk missing the Common Market boat. To many Englishmen, the dissolution of the Commonwealth is unthinkable. But one distinguished British statesman argues privately that "the United Kingdom will have a foreign policy like Poland's within four or five years if she does not join the Common Market. Failure to join the Market would cause depression and unemployment in the U.K., with a Labour victory as a result. The Labour government would not be a Gaitskel government, but would consist of men who would be neutralists, who would make a deal with the Soviet Union and take the U.K. out of NATO."
Though few Britons accept this gloomy analysis (for instance, Gaitskell's neutralist opponents have lost ground recently), there is no doubt that most Britons would like to get into the Common Market: a recent Gallup poll showed 78% of the British public in favour of joining. Despite the Commonwealth, Macmillan's government continued to move slowly toward the Six. Mused Macmillan, contemplating the complexities of perhaps the greatest issue to face Britain in modern times: "For all we know, it might not be possible to get in."
4 - My Reminiscences George Houstoun Reid - 1917 - Australia
5 - Imperial Ties And World War One , Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
6 - Australian Cultural History S. L. Goldberg, F. B. Smith - 1988 - History
7 - MENZIES TO MACMlLLAN - Department of Foreign Affairs dfat.gov.au/about-us
8 - The Unknown Nation: Australia After Empire James Curran, Stuart Ward - 2010
9 - “Europe” – a threat to our freedoms and our peace - Bruges Group
10 - McConvill, James --- "The United Kingdom is a Foreign Power" DeakinLawRw/1999
11 - Robert Menzies - Cassell Australia, 1970 - Australia
12 - Express UK Philip Hammond
13 - ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN ATTITUDES by Michael Davie. Published by Secker & Warburg. London 2000. See also R.G. Menzies - Records of Royal Institute of International Affairs - RIIA/8/376 Apr 9 1935
