In
1693 William Penn published his Essay
on the Present and Future Peace of Europe. In this pamphlet
Penn called for the establishment of a European Parliament. He argued
that the voting system should be based on the demographic and economic
importance of the various countries. Therefore Germany would have
twelve votes whereas France, Spain, Russia and Turkey would have ten
each, Italy eight and England six, an so on - a total of ninety votes
in all. Penn suggested that decisions taken by the European Parliament
should be enforced by a European Army.
Little
interest was shown in Penn's and it was not until the end of the 18th
century that the subject was revived. In 1795 the German philosopher,
Immanuel Kant, wrote Philosophical
Project for Perpetual Peace. He suggested that to achieve
this it was necessary to create a "federation of free states".
Kant's
views were supported by the English philosopher, Jeremy
Bentham. In 1798 he wrote Principles
of International Law where he argued that universal peace
could only be obtained by first achieving European unity. He hoped
that some form of European Parliament would be able to enforce the
liberty of the press, free trade, the abandonment of all colonies
and a reduction in the money being spent on armaments.
In
1814 the French philosopher Claude-Henri Saint-Simon
published On the Reorganisation of European
Society (1814). In his book
Saint-Simon argued that Europe was in "critical disequilibrium"
and would soon undergo reconstruction. He argued strongly for a planned
economy. He suggested a framework of three chambers: one body made
up of engineers and artists to propose plans, a second of scientists
responsible for assessing the plans, and a third group of industrialists
whose task would be that of implementing the schemes according to
the interests of the whole community.
In
1851 an International Peace Congress was held in Paris. At the conference
Victor Hugo called for the creation of a
United States of Europe. "We say to France, to England, to Prussia,
to Austria, to Spain, to Italy, to Russia, we say to them, 'A day
will come when your weapons will fall from your hands, a day when
war will seem absurd and be as impossible between Paris and London,
St. Petersburg and Berlin, Vienna and Turin, as today it would seem
impossible between Rouen and Amiens, Boston and Philadelphia."
Pierre
Joseph Proudhon was also a supporter of European Unity. In Principle
of Federation (1863) he argued that nationalism inevitably
leads to war. To reduce the power of nationalism Proudhon called for
a Federal Europe. Proudhon believed that Federalism is "the supreme
guarantee of all liberty and of all law, and must, without soldiers
or priests, replace both feudal and Christian society." Proudhon
went on to predict that "the twentieth century will open the
era of federations, or humanity will begin again a purgatory of a
thousand years."
In 1900 there was a conference at the Institute of Paris on the subject
of European Unity. At the conference the French lawyer, Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu,
argued: "It is no longer only the dreamers and philosophers,
men in love with a perhaps superhuman ideal of peace and justice,
who long to realize the old Utopian idea of a European union. It is
also more positive minds, concerned above all about material interests
or political advantages and preoccupied with the damage which its
hates and internal divisions could bring to ancient Europe."
After
the First World War, the Italian industrialist,
Giovanni Agnelli joined the campaign
against the formation of the League of Nations.
Instead he urged the establishment of "a federation of European
states under a central power which governs them." He thought
this would maintain peace in Europe. Agnetti also argued it would
help economic growth: "Only a federal Europe will be able to
give us a more economic realization of the division of labour, with
the elimination of all customs barriers."
Giovanni
Agnelli eventually became disillusioned with this idea and became
a supporter of Benito Mussolini. Figures
on the far left also embraced the idea of a a united Europe. In his
book, Perspectives of World Development
(1924), Leon Trotsky urged the formation
of a United Socialist States of Europe in order to resist the power
of American capitalism.
In
1926 Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi published his ideas for a united Europe
in the Pan-Europa. The same year
he established the Pan-European Union. People who joined included
Albert Einstein, Thomas
Mann, Sigmund Freud, Rainer
Maria Rilke, Ortega y Gasset and Konrad
Adenauer.
The
first leading politician to propose a united Europe was the French
foreign minister, Aristide Briand. In
1929 he published a memorandum where he advocated the establishment
of a European Federal Union. He gained support from Edouard
Herriot but the idea stimulated little interest and was not taken
up by other political leaders.
In
1945 Jean Monnet was appointed as Planning
Commissioner in France. In this post he became responsible for economic
reconstruction. He began working on a scheme that he eventually proposed
to Robert Schuman, the French Foreign
Minister, in 1949. The Schuman Plan,
as it became known, was the basis for the European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) that was established in 1952.
It was agreed that the six countries that signed the Treaty of Paris,
Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany,
would pool its coal and steel resources.
In
1958 the European Coal and Steel Community evolved into the European
Economic Community (EEC). Under the ECC attempts were made to achieve
harmonization. This included measures in areas such as indirect taxation,
industrial regulation, agriculture, fisheries and monetary policies.
The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was introduced in 1962.
Britain
made attempts to join the EEC in 1963 and 1967. This ended in failure,
mainly due to the opposition of President Charles
De Gaulle of France. Britain, under the leadership of Edward
Heath, was finally admitted in 1973. Denmark and Ireland also
joined at the same time.
In
1975, the new British prime minister, Harold
Wilson decided to hold a referendum on membership of the European
Economic Community. Wilson allowed his Cabinet to support both the
"Yes" and "No" campaigns and this led to a bitter
split in the party. The Conservative Party
was also divided over this issue but the British people eventually
voted to remain in the EEC.
In
1979 the EEC introduced the European Monetary System (EMS). The lost-term
objective of the EMS was to achieve currency union and the Exchange
Rate Mechanism (ERM), a system of semi-fixed exchange rates.
Greece
joined the EEC in 1981. This was followed by Portugal (1986), Spain
(1986) and the former East Germany (1990). In 1993 the organization
was renamed the European Union (EU). Austria, Finland and Sweden joined
the EU in 1995.
In
January 2002 the euro becomes the sole currency within the twelve
participating Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and
Spain).
(1)
Victor Hugo, speech made at the International
Peace Congress held in Paris in 1851.
Gentlemen,
if someone four centuries ago, at a time when war raged from parish
to parish, from parish to parish, from town to town, from province
- if someone had said to Lorraine, to Picardy, to Normandy, to Brittany,
to Auvergne, to Province, to Dauphine, to Burgundy, 'A day will come
when you will no longer wage war, when you will no longer raise men
of arms against each other, when it will no longer raise men of arms
against each other, when it will no longer be said that Normans have
attacked the men of Picardy, and the men of Lorraine have driven back
those of Burgundy; that you will still have differences to settle,
interests to discuss, certainly disputes to solve, but do you know
what you will have in place of men on foot and horseback, in place
of guns, falconets, spears, pikes, and swords? You will have a small
box made of wood, which you will call a ballot box. And do you know
what this box will bring forth? An assembly, an assembly in which
you will all feel you live, an assembly which will be like your own
soul, a supreme and popular council which will decide, judge, and
solve everything in law, which will cause the sword to fall from every
hand and justice to rise in every heart. And this event will say to
you, 'There ends your right, here begins your duty. Lay down your
arms! Live in peace!"
On that day you will be conscious of a common thought, common interests,
and a common destiny. You will clasp each other's hands and you will
acknowledge that you are sons of the same blood and the same race.
On that day you will no longer be hostile tribes, but a nation. You
will no longer be Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Provence, you will
be France. On that day your name will no longer be war, but civilization.
Well, you say today - and I am one of those who say it with you -
all of us here, we say to France, to England, to Prussia, to Austria,
to Spain, to Italy, to Russia, we say to them, 'A day will come when
your weapons will fall from your hands, a day when war will seem absurd
and be as impossible between Paris and London, St. Petersburg and
Berlin, Vienna and Turin, as today it would seem impossible between
Rouen and Amiens, Boston and Philadelphia.
A day will come when there will be no battlefields, but markets opening
to commerce and minds opening to ideas. A day will come when the bullets
and bombs are replaced by votes, by universal suffrage, by the venerable
arbitration of a great supreme senate which will be to Europe what
Parliament is to England, the Diet to Germany, and the Legislative
Assembly to France.
A day will come when a cannon will be a museum-piece, as instruments
of torture are today. And we will be amazed to think that these things
once existed! A day will come when a cannon will be a museum-piece,
as instruments of torture are today. And we will be amazed to think
that these things once existed!
A day will come when we shall see those two immense groups, the United
States of America and the United States of Europe, stretching out
their hands across the sea, exchanging their products, their arts,
their works of genius, clearing up the globe, making deserts fruitful,
ameliorating creation under the eyes of the Creator, and joining together
to reap the well-being of all.
Henceforth the goal of great politics, of true politics, is this:
the recognition of all nationalities, the restoration of the historical
unity of nations and the uniting of the latter to civilization by
peace, the relentless enlargement of the civilized group, the setting
of an example to the still-savage nations; in short, and this recapitulates
all I have said, the assurance that justice will have the last word,
spoken in the past by might.
(2)
Giovanni Agnelli, European Federation
or League of Nations (1918)
Without
hesitation we believe that, if we really want to make war in Europe
a phenomenon which cannot be repeated, there is only way to do so
and we must be outspoken enough to consider it: a federation of European
states under a central power which governs them. Any other milder
version is but a delusion.
The typical example which shows how one community, for its very survival,
has had to change from a league of sovereign and independent states
to a more complex form of a union of states ruled by a central power,
is given with unsurpassable clarity by the history of the United States
of America. As is well known, they went through two constitutions:
the first, drawn up by a Congress of 13 states in 1776 and approved
by these same states in February 1781; the second, approved by the
national Convention of September 17th 1787 and which came into force
in 1788.
A comparison between the two documents explains why the first failed,
threatening the independence and freedom itself of the young Union,
while the second has created a Republic, which we now all admire.
In
Europe we had reached this level of absurdity, that every factory
that arose in one state was a thorn in the side for every other state:
that while the superb inventions of steam applied to land and sea
transport, of electricity as motive power, of the telegraph and telephone
had by then cancelled distance and made the world one single large
centre and international market, little men strove with all their
might to cancel the immense benefits of the big discoveries, artificially
creating isolated markets and small production and consumption centres.
. .
Only a federal Europe will be able to give us a more economic realization
of the division of labour, with the elimination of all customs barriers.
(3)
Leon Trotsky, Perspectives of World
Development (1924)
For what does America need? She needs to secure her profits at
the expense of the European toiling masses and thus render stable
the privileged position of the upper crust of the American working
class.
The further this development unfolds along this road, all the more
difficult will it be for the European Social Democracy to uphold the
evangel of Americanism in the eyes of the European working masses.
All the more centralised will become the resistance of European labour
against the master of masters, against American capitalism. All the
more urgent, all the more practical and warlike will the slogan of
the all-European revolution and its state form - the Soviet United
States of Europe - become for the European workers.
What is the Social Democracy using to benumb and poison the consciousness
of the European workers? It tells them that we - the whole of Europe,
dismembered and sliced-up by the Versailles Peace - cannot get along
without America, but the European Communist Party will say: You lie,
we could if we wanted to. Nothing compels us to remain in an atomised
Europe. It is precisely the revolutionary proletariat that can unify
Europe, by transforming it into the proletarian United States of Europe.
(4)
Aristide
Briand, speech (7th September, 1929)
Among peoples who are geographically grouped together like the peoples
of Europe there must exist a sort of federal link. It is this link
which I wish to endeavour to establish. Evidently the association
will act mainly in the economic sphere. That is the most pressing
question. But I am sure also that from a political point of view,
and from a social point of view the federal link, without infringing
the sovereignty of any of the nations which might take part in such
as association, could be beneficial.
(5)
Aristide
Briand, Memorandum on the Organisation of a Regime of European
Federal Union (17th May, 1930)
No one doubts today that the lack of cohesion in the grouping of the
material and moral forces of Europe constitutes, practically, the
most serious obstacle to the development and efficiency of all political
and Juridical institutions on which it is the tendency to base the
first attempts for a universal organisation of peace. The very action
of the League of Nations, the responsibilities of which are the greater
because it is universal might be exposed in Europe to serious obstacles
if such breaking-up of territory were not offset, as soon as possible,
by a bond of solidarity permitting European nations to at last become
conscious of European geographical unity and to effect, within the
framework of the League one of those regional understandings which
the covenant formally recommended.
This
means that the search for a formula of European cooperation in connection
with the League of Nations, far from weakening the authority of this
latter must and can only tend to strengthen it, for it is closely
connected with its aims.
The European organisation contemplated could not oppose any ethnic
group, on other continents or in Europe itself, outside of the League
of Nations, any more than it could oppose the League of Nations.
The
policy of European union to which the search for a first bond of solidarity
between European Governments ought to tend, implies in fact a conception
absolutely contrary to that which may have determined formerly, in
Europe, the formation of customs unions tending to abolish internal
customs houses in order to erect on the boundaries of the community
a more rigorous barrier against States situated outside of those unions.
(6)
Konrad Adenauer,
Memoirs 1945-53 (12th July, 1952)
In 1929 the French statesman
Aristide Briand had advocated a federal union of Europe, but unfortunately
his proposals and arguments had found no political realization. They
were taken up again after the Second World War, by General de Gaulle
among others. But it was not until Winston Churchill made a speech
on the United States of Europe at Zurich on 19 September 1946 that
the world once more began to take a real interest in the question.
This interest in creating a united Europe has never died down since
then although the
idea has still not found concrete political embodiment.
(7)
Edouard Herriot, The United States of
Europe (1930)
(1) A European understanding can be achieved only within the framework
of the League of Nations, as a part of the League, and marking a stage
in its development.
(2) Since the League Covenant permits regional agreements within a
comment it follows 'a fortiori' that it cannot oppose the agreement
of a whole continent.
(3) A European understanding must take account both of international
and of national alignments.
(4) It must be open to all the nations of Europe which are willing
to enter.
(5) It is rendered necessary by the laws of economic evolution by
industrial amalgamations, and by the necessity of defending the European
market.
(6) It must be sufficiently comprehensive to admit nations like Great
Britain, which have both European and world-wide interests
(7) The nations must be represented on absolutely equal terms.
(8)
It might very well seek inspiration from the form taken by the Pan-American
Union, its method of procedure would be the holding of periodical
conferences with a permanent secretariat.
(9) It must be flexible, prudent and patient.
(10)
It must regard the suppression of tariff barriers as the end, not
the beginning, of an economic organisation of Europe
(11) It can achieve stability only by a European organisation of credit
(12)
Its durability will depend upon a fixed system of arbitration, disarmament,
and security.
(8)
Jean Monnet, memorandum to Robert
Schuman and Georges Bidault (4th
May, 1950)
Wherever we look in the present world situation we see nothing but
deadlock - whether it be the increasing acceptance of a war that is
thought to be inevitable, the problem of Germany, the continuation
of French recovery, the organisation of Europe, the very place of
France in Europe and in the world.
From such a situation there is only one way of escape: concrete action
on a limited but decisive point, bringing about on this point a fundamental
change and gradually modifying the very terms of all the problems.
The
continuation of France's recovery will be halted if the question of
German industrial production and its competitive capacity is not rapidly
solved.
Already Germany is asking to increase her production from 11 to 14
million tons. We shall refuse, but the Americans will insist. Finally,
we shall state our reservations but we shall give in. At the same
time, French production is levelling off or even falling.
Merely to state these facts makes it unnecessary to describe in great
detail what the consequences will be: Germany expanding, German dumping
on export markets; a call for the protection of French industries;
the halting or camouflage of trade liberalisation; the reestablishment
of prewar cartels; perhaps an orientation of German expansion towards
the East, a prelude to political agreements; France fallen back into
the rut of limited, protected production.
The USA do not want things to take this course. They will accept an
alternative solution if it is dynamic and constructive, especially
if it is proposed by France.
At
the present moment, Europe can be brought to birth only by France.
Only France can speak and act.
But if France does not speak and act now, what will happen? A group
will form around the United States, but in order to wage the Cold
War with greater force. The obvious reason is that the countries of
Europe are afraid and are seeking help. Britain will draw closer and
closer to the United States; Germany will develop rapidly, and we
shall not be able to prevent her being rearmed. France will be trapped
again in her former Malthusianism, and this will lead inevitably to
her being effaced.
(9)
Robert Schuman, declaration (9th May,
1950)
World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts
proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.
The contribution which an organised and living Europe can bring to
civilisation is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations.
In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion
of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the
service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.
Europe will not be made all at once or according to a single plan.
It will be built through concrete achievements which first create
a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe
requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany.
Any action which must be taken in the first place must concern these
two countries.
With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action
be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point. It proposes
that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed
under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organisation
open to the participation of the other countries of Europe.
The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide
for the setting up of common foundations for economic development
as a first step in the federation of Europe, and will change the destinies
of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of
munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.
The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that
any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable,
but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive
unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately
to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial
production
on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification.
(10)
Konrad
Adenauer
was interviewed by Joseph Kingsbury-Smith (21st March, 1950)
A union such as I am suggesting
is already coming into effect in the Benelux countries. The Scandinavian
countries, as well as France and Italy, are contemplating similar
measures. I therefore believe that these countries will welcome the
union between France and Germany that I am proposing. They will surely
be prepared to join such a union. If Great Britain really sees herself
as a European power, she could occupy the place inside the framework
of the United Nations of Europe that corresponds to her position and
strength.
The union I am proposing
would also provide an incentive to the Marshall Plan. France and Germany
would be the first countries to reach the goals envisaged by the fathers
of the Marshall Plan and would smooth a path for the other participants.
In this way the American people would see some real returns for the
billions of dollars they have given to Europe,
because there would be a genuine and significant contribution from
within to the reconstruction and unification of Europe.
The Council of Europe
would likewise benefit from a union between France
and Germany. The Council's effectiveness has been limited by the absence
of a real understanding between France and Germany. It seems to
me that no sensible person can fail to recognize that the union here
proposed will give
new strength and new life to the idea of European unification.
I am firmly convinced
that the union of the two nations will considerably raise the standard
of living of both parts. The bigger an economic area is, the
better it can be developed. The United States of America proves that.
As I see it, this
union could save the civilization of the West from decline. The
cross-fertilization between France and Germany would undoubtedly give
an extraordinary impetus to the cultural achievements of the two peoples.
It would be another respect in which a Franco-German union would
prove a signpost of our epoch.
(11)
Konrad Adenauer, speech (12th July,
1952)
It is my opinion and belief that the parliaments of the six European
countries which will have to deal with this European Coal and Steel
Community realise exactly what it is all about and that in particular
they realise that the political goal, the political meaning of the
European Coal and Steel Community, is infinitely larger than its economic
purpose.
Something further has resulted during the negotiations, I believe
that for the first time in history, certainly in the history of the
last centuries, countries want to renounce part of their sovereignty,
voluntarily and without compulsion, in order to transfer the sovereignty
to a supranational structure.
(12)
Konrad Adenauer, speech (12th July,
1952)
It
is my opinion and belief that the parliaments of the six European
countries which will have to deal with this European Coal and Steel
Community realise exactly what it is all about and that in particular
they realise that the political goal, the political meaning of the
European Coal and Steel Community, is infinitely larger than its economic
purpose.
Something further has resulted during the negotiations, I believe
that for the first time in history, certainly in the history of the
last centuries, countries want to renounce part of their sovereignty,
voluntarily and without compulsion, in order to transfer the sovereignty
to a supranational structure.
(13)
The Treaty of Paris (18th April, 1951)
Article 1:
By
this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves
a European Coal and Steel Community, founded upon a common market,
common objectives and common institutions.
Article
2:
The
European Coal and Steel Community shall have as its task to contribute,
in harmony with the general economy of Member States and through the
establishment of a common market as provided in Article 4, to economic
expansion, growth of employment and a rising standard of living in
the Member States. . .
Article
4:
The
following are recognised as incompatible with the common market for
coal and steel and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited within
the Community, as provided in this Treaty:
(a)
import and export duties, or charges having equivalent effect, and
quantitative restrictions on the movement of products;
(b)
measures or practices which discriminate between producers, between
purchasers or between consumers, especially in prices and delivery
terms or transport or transport rates and conditions, and measures
or practices which interfere with the purchaser's free choice of supplier;
(c)
subsidies or aids granted by States, or special charges imposed by
States, in any form whatever;
(d)
restrictive practices which tend towards the sharing or exploiting
of markets.
(14)
Resolution adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the Member States of
the European Coal and Steel Community at the Messina Conference (1st
June 1955)
The Governments of the Federal German Republic, Belgium, France, Italy,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands believe that the time has come to make
a fresh advance towards the building of Europe. They are of the opinion
that this must be achieved, first of all, in the economic field.
They consider that it is necessary to work for the establishment of
a united Europe by the development of common institutions, the progressive
fusion of national economies, the. creation of a common market and
the progressive harmonisation of their social policies.
Such a policy seems to them indispensable if Europe is to maintain
her position in the world, regain her influence and prestige and achieve
a continuing increase in the standard of living of her population.
(15)
Konrad Adenauer, Memoirs 1945-1953
(1966)
In my opinion the European nation states had a past but no future.
This applied in the political and economic as well as in the social
sphere. No single European country could guarantee a secure future
to its people by its own strength. I regarded the Schuman Plan and
the European Defence Community as preliminary steps to a political
unification of Europe. In the EDO Treaty there was a specific provision
for a controlling body, the so-called Parliamentary Assembly - incidentally
the same assembly that exercised the parliamentary controlling function
in the Coal and Steel Community - to examine the questions arising
from the parallelism of diverse existing or future organisations for
European cooperation, with a view to securing their coordination in
the framework of a federal or confederate structure.
The military aspect was only one dimension of a nascent Europe, or,
more rightly at first, Western Europe. If a perfect partnership was
to be achieved within Western Europe, one could not stop with defence.
After twelve years of National Socialism there simply were no perfect
solutions for Germany and certainly none for a divided Germany. There
was very often only the policy of the lesser evil.
We were a small and very exposed country. By our own strength we could
achieve nothing. We must not be a no-man's-land between East and West
for then we would have friends nowhere and a dangerous neighbour in
the East. Any refusal by the Federal Republic to make common cause
with Europe would have been German isolationism, a dangerous escape
into inactivity. There was a cherished political illusion in the Federal
Republic in those years: many people believed that America was in
any case tied to Europe or even to the Elbe. American patience, however,
had its limits. My motto was 'Help yourself and the United States
will help you'. . .
There were those in Germany who thought that for us the choice was
either a policy for Europe or a policy for German unity. I considered
this 'either/or' a fatal error. Nobody could explain how German unity
in freedom was to be achieved without a strong and united Europe.
When I say 'in freedom' I mean freedom before, during and above all
after all- German elections. No policy is made with wishes alone and
even less from weakness. Only when the West was strong might there
be a genuine point of departure for peace negotiations to free not
only the Soviet zone but all of enslaved Europe east of the iron curtain,
and free it peacefully. To take the road that led into the European
Community appeared to me the best service we could render the Germans
in the Soviet zone.
(16)
Treaty of Rome (25th March 1957)
Article 1: By the present Treaty, the High Contracting Parties (Belgium,
West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands) establish
among themselves a European Economic Community.
Article 2: It shall be the aim of the Community, by establishing a
Common Market and progressively approximating the economic policies
of Member States to promote throughout the Community a harmonious
development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion,
an increased stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of
living and closer relations between its Member States.
Article
3: For the purposes set out in the preceding Article, the activities
of the Community shall include, under the conditions and with the
timing provided for in this Treaty:
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and
of quantitative restrictions in regard to the importation and exportation
of goods, as well as of all other measures with equivalent effect;
(b) the establishment of a common customs tariff and a common commercial
policy towards third countries;
(c) the abolition, as between Member States, of the obstacles to the
free movement of persons, services and capital;
(d) the inauguration of a common agricultural policy;
(e) the inauguration of a common transport policy;
(f) the establishment of a system ensuring that competition shall
not be distorted in the Common Market;
(g) the application of procedures which shall make it possible to
coordinate the economic policies of Member States and to remedy disequilibrium
in their balances of payments;
(h) the approximation of their respective municipal law to the extent
necessary for the functioning of the Common Market;
(i) the creation of a European Social Fund in order to improve the
possibilities of employment for workers and to contribute to the raising
of their standard of living;
(j)
the establishment of European Investment Bank intended to facilitate
the economic expansion of the Community through the creation of new
resources; and
(k)
the association of overseas countries and territories with the Community
with a view to increasing trade and to pursuing jointly their effort
towards economic and social development.
(17)
Bela Balassa, The Theory of Economic Integration (1962)
Economic integration can take several forms that represent varying
degrees of integration. These are a free-trade area, a customs union,
a common market, an economic union, and complete economic integration.
In a free trade area, tariffs (and quantitative restrictions) between
the participating countries are abolished, but each country retains
its own tariffs against non-members. Establishing a customs union
involves, besides the suppression of discrimination in the field of
commodity movements within the union, the equalisation of tariffs
in trade with non-member countries. A higher form of economic integration
is attained in a common market, where not only trade restrictions
but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished. An economic
union, as distinct from a common market, combines the suppression
of restrictions on commodity and factor movements with some degree
of harmonisation of national economic policies, in order to remove
discrimination that was due to disparities in these policies. Finally,
total economic integration presupposes the unification of monetary,
fiscal, social, and countercyclical policies and requires the setting-up
of a supranational authority whose decisions are binding for the Member
States.
Adopting the definition given above, the theory of economic integration
will be concerned with the economic effects of integration in its
various forms and with problems that arise from divergences in national
monetary, fiscal, and other policies. The theory of economic integration
can be regarded as a part of international economics, but it also
enlarges the field of international trade theory by exploring the
impact of a fusion of national market on growth and examining the
need for the coordination of economic policies in a union. Finally,
the theory of economic integration should, incorporate elements of
location theory, too. The integration of adjacent countries amounts
to the removal of artificial barriers that
obstruct continuous economic activity through national frontiers,
and the ensuing relocation of production and regional agglomerative
and deglomerative tendencies cannot be adequately discussed without
making use of the tools of locational analysis.
(18)
Jean Monnet, Prospect for a
New Europe (1959)
The Community's institutions consist of a Council of Ministers, a
European Economic Commission, an Assembly, which is a kind of Parliament,
and a Court of Justice, which is an embryo Supreme Court. What we
have is a system of checks and balances similar to that in most constitutions.
The Council of Ministers is designed to bring together national views,
the views of the six governments. It meets at intervals. Each government
is represented in the Council by its Foreign Minister or by one or
more other Ministers, such as the Finance, Transport or Agricultural
Ministers, as the subject matter requires.
The
continuing, day-to-day executive work of the Community is handled
by the nine-member European Economic commission. The Commission is
responsible to the Assembly of the Community. It defends the common
interests of the Community and represents the Community viewpoint,
rather than national views. It acts by majority vote in all things.
The Commission has numerous real powers, specified in the Treaty,
which it exercises on its own authority. Where general rules have
to be set, the Council of Ministers makes the decisions. But it must
do so on the proposals of the Commission. It cannot amend the Commission's
proposals except by unanimous vote.
(19)
Walter Hallstein, A New
Path to Peaceful Union (1962)
What sort of government is the government which we see in embryo in
the European Economic Community? It is not, as I said, a further development
of normal diplomatic methods of consultation and co-operation as seen
in traditional international organisations. Instead, the fusion of
interests in the European Community is being achieved through a new
mechanism of institutions which it is only a slight exaggeration to
call a constitutional framework.
Of course, the European Community is not just a new power-bloc or
a new coalition, although it has its pride, it is not a swollen version
of 19th century nationalism, taking a continent rather than a country
as its basis. In fact, it is the concrete embodiment of a new approach
to the relations between states. It is not merely international: it
is not yet fully federal. But
it is an attempt to build on the federal pattern a democratically
constituted Europe - what I have called elsewhere a federation in
the making.
No practical statesman would I think be prepared to endorse unreservedly
the doctrine of the separation of powers: but classical democratic
theory, with its division of the organs of government into executive,
legislative and judiciary, certainly underlines the constitutional
structure of the European Economic Community. The Executive is the
Commission - nine men, many of them former ministers in national governments,
who are now no longer national, but European, responsible to the Community
as a whole. They are not permitted to take national instructions,
and once appointed for their term of office by common agreement of
the member governments, they can only be removed by a vote of no confidence
from the Community Parliament, of which I shall speak in a moment.
The Commission has broadly three main tasks. First, it draws up proposals
to be decided by the Council of Ministers. Secondly, it watches over
the execution of the Treaty and may call firms and governments to
account. Thirdly, it mediates between the governments and seeks to
reconcile national interests with the Community interests; and a fourth
task, whose importance is growing, is that of executing those decisions
of detail which for the sake of rapid and impartial treatment it is
empowered to take itself.
(20)
Harold Macmillan, speech in the House
of Commons (31st July 1961)
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.
(21)
Charles De Gaulle, speech (4th January
1963)
The
Treaty of Rome was concluded between six continental States - States
which are, economically speaking, one may say, of the same nature.
Indeed, whether it be a matter of their industrial or agricultural
production, their external exchanges, their habits or their commercial
clientele, their living or working conditions, there is between them
much more resemblance than difference. Moreover, they are adjacent,
they inter-penetrate, they prolong each other through their communications.
It is therefore a fact to group them and to link them in such a way
that what they have to produce, to buy, to sell, to consume - well,
they do produce, buy, sell, consume, in preference in their own ensemble.
Doing that is conforming to realities.
Moreover, it must be added that from the point of view of their economic
development, their social progress, their technical capacity, they
are, in short, keeping pace. They are marching in similar fashion.
It so happens, too, that there is between them no kind of political
grievance, no frontier question, no rivalry in domination or power.
On the contrary, they are joined in solidarity, especially and primarily,
from the aspect of the consciousness they have, of defining together
an important part of the sources of our civilisation; and also as
concerns their security, because they are continentals and have before
them one and the same menace from one extremity to the other of their
territories; finally, they are in solidarity through the fact that
not one among them is bound abroad by any particular political or
military accord.
Thus,
it was psychologically and materially possible to make an economic
community of the Six, though not without difficulties. When the Treaty
of Rome was signed in 1957, it was after long discussions; and when
it was concluded, it was necessary in order to achieve something that
we French put in order our economic, financial, and monetary affairs
and that was done in 1959.
Thereupon
Great Britain posed her candidature to the Common Market. She did
it after having earlier refused to participate in the communities
we are now building, as well as after creating a free trade area with
six other States, and, finally, after having - I may well say it,
the negotiations held at such length on this subject will be recalled
- after having put some pressure on the Six to prevent a real beginning
being made in the application of the Common Market. If England asks
in turn to enter, but on her own conditions, this poses without doubt
to each of the six States, and poses to England, problems of a very
great dimension.
England in effect is insular, she is maritime, she is linked through
her exchanges, her markets, her supply lines to the most diverse and
often the most distant countries; she pursues essentially industrial
and commercial activities, and only slight agricultural ones. She
has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions.
(22)
Paul-Henri Spaak, The Continuing Battle: Memories of an European
(1971)
A
new political event of extreme importance was in the making: General
de Gaulle had torpedoed our negotiations without having warned either
his partners or the British. He had acted with a lack of consideration
unexampled in the history of the EEC, showing utter contempt for his
negotiating partners, allies and opponents alike. He had brought to
a halt negotiations which he himself put in train in full agreement
with his partners, and had done so on the flimsiest of pretexts.
What had happened? There is every reason to believe that it was the
attitude adopted by Macmillan at his meeting with Kennedy in Bermuda
which so upset the President of the French Republic. Macmillan's crime
was to have reached agreement with the President of the United States
on Britain's nuclear, weaponry. He had in fact arranged for the purchase
of Polaris missiles from the United States. In General de Gaulle's
eyes the cooperation with the Americans was tantamount to treason
against Europe's interests and justified his refusal to allow Britain
into the Common Market. The General's resentment was all the greater
because a few days before the Bermuda meeting he had received Macmillan
at Rambouillet. The British Prime Minister, he claimed, had told him
nothing of his nuclear plans. On the other hand, de Gaulle gave Macmillan
no warning that he was about to torpedo the negotiations in Brussels.
I think the full truth about these events still remains to be told.
The French and British versions which have been circulating in the
chancelleries differ, but what is certain is that France, without
consulting her partners, unilaterally withdrew from negotiations to
which she had earlier agreed and that she did so, moreover, after
first insisting that the Six must present a united front.
We were faced with a complete volte-face. Stunned and angry, our first
reaction was to ignore what had been said in Paris and to continue
the negotiation as if nothing had happened. The British showed extraordinary
sang-froid. Though, deep down, they were greatly shocked, they gave
no outward sign of this and continued to present their arguments at
the negotiating table with imperturbable calm.
(23)
Charles De Gaulle, speech (4th January
1963)
I
should like to speak particularly about the objection to integration.
People counter this by saying: "Why not merge the six states
together into a single supranational entity? That would be very simple
and practical". But such an entity is impossible to achieve in
the absence in Europe today of a federator who has the necessary power,
reputation and ability. Thus one has to fall back on a sort of hybrid
arrangement under which the six states agree to submit to the decisions
of a qualified majority. At the same time, although there are already
six national Parliaments as well as the
European Parliament and, in addition the Consultative Assembly of
the Council of Europe ... it would be necessary to elect over and
above this, yet a further Parliament, described as European, which
would lay down the law to the six states.
These are ideas that might appeal to certain minds but I entirely
fail to see how they could be put into practice, even with six signatures
at the foot of a document. Can we imagine France, Germany, Italy,
the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg being prepared on a matter of
importance to them in the national or international sphere, to do
something that appeared wrong to them, merely because others had ordered
them to do so? Would the peoples of France, of Germany, of Italy,
of the Netherlands, of Belgium or of Luxembourg ever dream of submitting
to laws passed by foreign parliamentarians if such laws ran counter
to their deepest convictions? Clearly not. It is impossible nowadays
for a foreign majority to impose their will on reluctant nations.
It is true, perhaps, that in this 'integrated' Europe as it is called
there might be no policy at all. This would simplify a great many
things. Indeed, once there was no France, no Europe; once there was
no policy - since one could not be imposed on each of the six states,
attempts to formulate a policy would cease. But then, perhaps, these
peoples would follow in the wake of some outsider who had a policy.
There would, perhaps, be a federator, but he would not be European.
And Europe would not be an integrated Europe but something vaster
by far and, I repeat, with a federator. Perhaps to some extent it
is this that at times inspires the utterances of certain advocates
of European integration. If so, then it would be better to say so.
(24)
Pierre
Werner Report on Economic and Monetary
Union (11th October 1970)
(A)
Economic and monetary union is an objective realisable in the course
of the present decade provided only that the political will of the
Member States to realise this objective, as solemnly declared at the
Conference at the Hague, is present. The union will make it possible
to ensure growth and stability within the Community and reinforce
the contribution it can make to economic and monetary equilibrium
in the world and make it a pillar of stability.
(B)
Economic and monetary union means that the principal decisions of
economic policy will be taken at Community level and therefore that
the necessary powers will be transferred from the national plane to
the Community plane. These transfers of responsibility and the creation
of the corresponding Community institutions represent a process of
fundamental political significance which entails the progressive development
of political cooperation. The economic and monetary union thus appears
as a leaven for the development of political union which in the long
run it will be unable to do without.
(C)
A monetary union implies, internally, the total and irreversible convertibility
of currencies, the elimination of margins of fluctuation in rates
of exchange, the irrevocable fixing of parity ratios and the total
liberation of movements of capital. It may be accompanied by the maintenance
of national monetary symbols, but considerations of a psychological
and political order militate in favour of the adoption of a single
currency which would guarantee the irreversibility of the undertaking.
(D)
On the institutional plane, in the final stage, two Community organs
are indispensable: a centre of decision for economic policy and a
Community system for the central banks. These institutions, while
safeguarding their own responsibilities, must be furnished with effective
powers of decision and must work together for the realisation of the
same objectives. The centre of economic decision will be politically
responsible to a European Parliament.
(E)
Throughout the process, as progress is achieved Community instruments
will be created to carry out or complete the action of the national
instruments. In all fields the steps to be taken will be interdependent
and will reinforce one another; in particular the development of monetary
unification will have to be combined with parallel progress towards
the harmonization and finally the unification of economic policies.
(25)
Labour Party Conference (October 1972)
This
Conference declares its opposition to entry to the Common Market on
the terms negotiated by the Tories and calls on a future Labour Government
to reverse any decision for Britain to join unless new terms have
been negotiated including the abandonment of the Common Agricultural
Policy and the Value Added Tax, no limitations on the freedom of a
Labour Government to carry out economic plans, regional development,
extension of the Public Sector, control of Capital Movements, and
the preservation of the power of the British Parliament over its legislation
and taxation, and, meanwhile to halt immediately the entry arrangements,
including all payments to the European Communities, and participation
in their Institutions, in particular the European Parliament, until
such terms have been negotiated and the assent of the British electorate
has been given.
(26)
Campaign leaflet published during the referendum on British membership,
Why You Should Vote Yes (May, 1975)
It
makes good sense for our jobs and prosperity. It makes good sense
for world peace. It makes good sense for the Commonwealth. It makes
good sense for our children's future. Being in does not in itself
solve our problems. No one pretends it could. It doesn't guarantee
us a prosperous future. Only our own efforts will do that. But it
offers the best framework for success, the best protection for our
standard of living, the best foundation for greater prosperity. All
the original six members have found that. They have done well - much
better than we have - over the past 15 years. . .
Our
friends want us to stay in. If we left we would not go back to the
world as it was when we joined, still less to the old world of Britain's
imperial heyday. The world has been changing fast. And the changes
have made things more difficult and more dangerous for this country.
It is a time when we need friends. What do our friends think? The
old Commonwealth wants us to stay in, Australia does, Canada does.
New Zealand does. The new Commonwealth wants us to stay in. Not a
single one of their 34 governments wants us to leave. The United States
wants us to stay in. They want a close Atlantic relationship (upon
which our whole security depends) with a Europe of which we are part;
but not with us alone. The other members of the European Community
want us to stay in. That is why they have been flexible in the recent
re-negotiations and so made possible the improved terms which have
converted many former doubters. Outside, we should be alone in a harsh,
cold world, with none of our friends offering to revive old partnerships.
Why
can't we go it alone? To some this sounds attractive,.Mind our own
business. Make our own decisions. Pull up the drawbridge. In the modern
world it just is not practicable. It wasn't so even 40 or 60 years
ago. The world's troubles, the world's wars inevitably dragged us
in. Much better to work together to prevent them happening. Today
we are even more dependent on what happens outside. Our trade, our
jobs, our food, our defence cannot be wholly within our own control.
That is why so much of the argument about sovereignty is a false one.
It's not a matter of dry legal theory. The real test is how we can
protect our own interests and exercise British influence in the world.
The best way is to work with our friends and neighbours. If we came
out, the Community would go on taking decisions which affect us vitally
- but we should have no say in them. We would be clinging to the shadow
of British sovereignty while its substance flies out of the window.
The European Community does not pretend that each member nation is
not different. It strikes a balance between the wish to express our
own national personalities and the need for common action. All decisions
of any importance must be agreed by every member. Our traditions are
safe. We can work together and still stay British. The Community does
not mean dull uniformity. It hasn't made the French eat German food
or the Dutch drink Italian beer. Nor will it damage our British traditions
and way of life. The position of the Queen is not affected. She will
remain Sovereign of the United Kingdom and Head of the Commonwealth.
Four of the other Community countries have monarchies of their own.
English
Common Law is not affected. For a few commercial and industrial purposes
there is need for Community Law. But our criminal law, trial by jury,
presumption of innocence remain unaltered. So do our civil rights.
Scotland, after 250 years of much closer union with England, still
keeps its own legal system.
(27)
Campaign leaflet published during the referendum on British membership,
Why You Should Vote No (May, 1975)
Re-negotiation.
The present Government, though it tried, has on its own admission
failed to achieve the 'fundamental re-negotiation' it promised at
the last two General Elections. All it has gained are a few concessions
for Britain, some of them only temporary. The real choice before the
British peoples has been scarcely altered by re-negotiation.
What
did the pro-Marketers say? Before we joined the Common Market the
Government forecast that we should enjoy - A rapid rise in our living
standards; A trade surplus with the Common Market; Better productivity;
Higher investment; More employment; Faster industrial growth. In every
case the opposite is now happening, according to the Government's
figures.
Our
legal right to come out. It was agreed during the debates which took
us into the Common Market that the British Parliament had the absolute
right to repeal the European Communities Act and take us out. There
is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which says a country cannot come
out.
The
right to rule ourselves. The fundamental question is whether or not
we remain free to rule ourselves in our own way. For the British people,
membership of the Common Market has already been a bad bargain. What
is worse, it sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany,
Italy and other countries into a single nation. This will take away
from us the right to rule ourselves which we have enjoyed for centuries.
Your
food, your jobs, our trade. We cannot afford to remain in the Common
Market because: it must mean still higher food prices. Before we joined,
we could buy our food at the lowest cost from the most efficient producers
in the world. Since we joined, we are no longer allowed to buy all
our food where it suits us best.
Your
jobs at risk. If we stay in the Common Market, a British Government
can no longer prevent the drift of industry southwards and increasingly
to the Continent. This is already happening.
If
it went on, it would be particularly damaging to Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland and much of the North and West of England, which
have suffered so much from unemployment already.
If we stay in the Common Market, our Government must increasingly
abandon to them control over this drift of industry and employment.
Far reaching powers of interference in the control of British industry,
particularly iron and steel, are possessed by the Market authorities.
Interference with the oil around our shores has already been threatened
by the Brussels Commission.
Huge
trade deficit with Common Market. The Common Market pattern of trade
was never designed to suit Britain. Taxes to keep prices up. The Common
Market's dear food policy is designed to prop up inefficient farmers
on the Continent by keeping food prices high.
Agriculture.
It would be far better for us if we had our own national agricultural
policy suited to our own country, as we had before we joined.
Commonwealth
links. Our Commonwealth links are bound to be weakened much further
if we stay in the Common Market. We are being forced to tax imported
Commonwealth goods. And as we lose our national independence, we shall
cease, in practice, to be a member of the Commonwealth.
Britain
a mere province of the Common Market? The real aim of the Market is,
of course, to become one single country in which Britain would be
reduced to a mere province. The plan is to have a Common Market Parliament
by 1978 or shortly thereafter.
What
is the alternative? A far better course is open to us. If we withdraw
from the Market, we could and should remain members of the wider Free
Trade Area which now exists between the Common Market and the countries
of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - Norway, Sweden, Finland,
Austria, Switzerland, Portugal and Iceland. These countries are now
to enjoy free entry for their industrial exports into the Common Market
without having to carry the burden of the Market's dear food policy
or suffer rule from Brussels. Britain already enjoys industrial free
trade with these countries. If we withdrew from the Common Market,
we should remain members of the wider group and enjoy, as the EFTA
countries do, free or low-tariff entry into the Common Market countries
without the burden of dear food or the loss of the British people's
democratic rights.
(28)
Alfred Gomolka, a former member of the German
Democratic Republic, speech as President of the Bundesrat (15th
November, 1991)
Through
its unification Germany became the bearer of hope for East Europe,
and precisely for this reason we must be conscious of our responsibility
in connection with the integration of the East European states. That
applies above all to our Polish neighbours. After a year of unity
we have proved that we can live as good neighbours, that we Germans
are Europeans. European Germans.
Thereby, the question arises: how, in a climate of uncertainty about
the new European order, can the collapse of the compulsory associations
in the East and the emergence of European Union in the West be brought
into harmony. The answer lies in federalism, regionalism and in the
principle of subsidiarity.
German federalism can be a very useful model for cooperation within
the European Community and for the progressive integration of the
European states. It has proved itself as a dynamic system, open to
development and varied changes.
The 'Yes' to a federal Europe also means incorporating the Lander
and regions as a 'third level' in the shaping of a political union.
Crossborder cooperation between all the regions of Europe, especially
in the political, economic, cultural and environmental fields is therefore
a presupposition (of union). Failure to incorporate the Lander and
regions into the process of European integration would mean automatically
increasing centralisation of decision making and legal norms for ever
more men.
The long repressed aspirations for autonomy in Central and Eastern
Europe must not flow into a persistent nationalism. I see there, rather,
the, perhaps necessary, first step on the way to a new European order,
the first step under a common European roof.
(29)
Jiri Dienstbier, Priorities of Czechoslovak Foreign Policy
(1991)
What
can Czechoslovakia do to ensure its security? Proceeding from our
historical experiences, from our geographical situation, our vulnerability
caused by a shortage of raw materials and energy and from the moral
profile of our foreign policy. We have two possibilities to choose
from. Either Central Europe will be fully included in conceptual considerations
developing today at the most representative levels in connection with
the shaping of a new European defence and security identity, or at
least three Central European countries will have to start considering
a closer cohesion of their security interests.
In the first case, the fact that advanced Europe includes in its defence
and security identity the Central European area should be expressed
by at least a minimum degree of concrete guarantees given to the states
existing in this area. If we had to choose the other possibility as
a result of lack of understanding of our position, i.e. the linking
of our security interests with some of our former allies in the Warsaw
Pact, which a certain part of the political forces in my country is
in favour of, then such a solution could rather contribute to suspicion
and tension in the former Soviet bloc. Quite logically the question
would arise not 'why' such a solution but 'against whom' such a solution.
We are naturally aware that all our efforts to fully integrate in
the European integration processes lead above all through the economic
sphere.
This is why after our very first foreign political step, which was
the starting of negotiations with the Soviet government on the speedy
withdrawal of Soviet occupation troops from Czechoslovakia, we immediately
made the second one which was the message the Czechoslovak Prime Minister
sent to Brussels expressing our decision to become as soon as possibles
full-fledged member of the European Communities.
I would like you to understand that the system which existed for more
than forty years in my country was a system that was functioning,
functioning badly but functioning. Only when we manage to build again
an administrative and economic structure compatible with advanced
Europe, only then shall we have the right to say - we are again back
in Europe. And for this we need the broadest possible collaboration
on the part of this advanced Europe.
It seems to me that it is easier to speak in big declarations about
the need for cooperation with the states of the former Soviet bloc
than to start concrete negotiations on details. We negotiated our
association agreements with the EC for more than eight months. When
the talks reached the final stage we suddenly realised how many conditions
and restrictions were put before us. We suddenly realised that the
tough rules of the market and competition were being applied everywhere
where solidarity should rule in the first place. And when we eventually
reached compromises on our exports of textiles, steel and meat, the
extent of which absolutely cannot threaten the EC markets, we had
to face another condition - either you will allow the transit across
your territory of a quite unbearable number of tractor trailers or
one of the twelve participants will not sign the association agreement.
Within the economic renaissance of the Central European area we have
decided to follow the path of even partial projects for the implementation
of which regional groupings can be set up. These are projects exceeding
the boundaries of individual states and aiming at a speedier modernisation
of transport, the telecommunication network and power supplies, and
improvement of the environment, and created a grouping, which we call
the Hexagonal and which may be renamed the Central European Initiative.
To some degree we are thus creating another axis of cooperation, that
of North-South, but not a new bloc.
In
conceptualising our new Czechoslovak foreign policy, we clearly set
out on the path leading to European integration, to those European
institutions which are currently preparing and forming the basis of
this integration. We have made this
choice because we regard it as the only one which can save the nations
of Europe from becoming bogged down in old disputes and intolerances.
Available
from Amazon Books (order below)
