10
Mr. Stewart: Well, I wouldn't press the comparison further than this: I think this is an important point. That the situation of France's former colonies vis-à-vis the Common Market, does demonstrate that it is possible to make arrangements of that kind, which do safeguard the interests of former dependent territories. To that extent it is an example that the thing can be done. Further comparisons I do not think one can press, because the history and make-up and form of government of the former French Empire and former British Empire differ in a great many ways. But there is this central point: it does demonstrate that the thing can be done.
The next questioner asked if Mr. Stewart would agree that public opinion in Britain on the EEC was lukewarm and whether this would help or hinder the negotiations.
Mr. Stewart: Well, first on the actual facts. I think you are right in saying that there is not as yet a great tide pushing us forward, indeed there's a good deal of opposition. But I was interested to notice in one of the recent opinion polls that over 60 per cent of people said that it was right to enter into the negotiations. So we can go into them feeling that this is what the country wants us to do. Now I don't see why the fact that opinion is still not fully formed in this country should damage us in the negotiations, because I don't think anyone now on the other side of the Channel doubts the good faith and firm intention of the British Government in its application for entry. The knowledge of the additional fact that we have quite a number of constituents here who will want to be satisfied at the end of the day that the negotiations have really been successful and the terms are fair and workable, the knowledge in everyone's mind on both sides of the Channel that we've got our people to satisfy on that point, should, I would have thought, if anything be a help to us in the negotiations. Our friends will realise that we are not coming forward and no British Government could come forward and say- "we must get in on whatever terms are available ", but we are negotiating, as the Prime Minister put it "resolutely and in good faith ".
The question was put whether the Secretary of State would be prepared to test the satisfaction of the people by a referendum.
Mr. Stewart: No, I do not believe that the referendum, at any rate for large countries, is a useful instrument of government. Partly because whenever any new proposal is made about anything it is always much easier to list all the difficulties than to envisage the possibilities. I believe the effect of referendum, whether it's on a matter like this, or on social questions or anything, is to make the whole pace of the development of a community slower and more sluggish than it ought to be. And the danger of democracies today is not that they'll be over-rash and rush into all kinds of new experiments too quickly: the danger is that for a nation to make up its political mind will not be done as quickly as the pace of events requires. I reject, therefore, referendum as a form of government generally. Also I think it puts your Member of Parliament in an impossible position. You elect him and then say: "Well, I don't care what you think, but you're not to do A, B, C, D and E." Now I believe if you put your Member of Parliament in that position you are asking him to be increasingly a rubber stamp and you will find in time that the kind of people who stand for Parliament will increasingly resemble rubber stamps. And I do not think that would be a public advantage.
Questioner: Do you feel that the Government's White Paper has helped to increase the tide in favour of joining and do you think it's helped to convince the Six that we mean " Yes "?
Mr. Stewart: The second question, quite certainly yes and I think the comments in most, although of course not all, of the Continental Press bear this
J
1
น