Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:00:14.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Aftermath of Brussels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Now that the negotiations on Britain’s application for membership of the European Economic Community have broken down, many people are asking what will happen next. Few are suggesting that the Common Market itself is in danger of disintegration because of the arrogant manner in which General de Gaulle chose to break off the negotiations, with complete disregard for the wishes of France’s fellow members. There can be no doubt that France never wanted Britain to join, for the reasons given by General de Gaulle - if really representing the motives for the French action - should have led France to have rejected the idea of British membership at the very outset. The negotiations were, in fact, a farce, and one can only accept the explanation given by Mr Macmillan in his broadcast to the British people: France brought the negotiations to an abrupt end when they appeared in danger of succeeding, not when they looked like breaking down. What France had hoped for, throughout the eighteen months of negotiations, apparendy, was that agreement would prove impossible, and that Britain would be kept out of the Common Market without France having to incur the odium of exercising her veto.

France’s partners in the Common Market are, no doubt, displeased with the use of the veto, and above all the manner of its exercise. The Common Market will remain, however. The Five may feel that for some time to come, they must assert themselves in the internal discussions of the Common Market. They will show stronger opposition where, as on a number of issues, they do not see eye to eye with France. Far from benefiting the rest of the world, however, this may have serious consequences for countries outside the Common Market.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 This is because G.A.T.T. does not permit new discriminatory arrangements, except where they involve the creation of a customs union or free trade area. (The latter involves free trade between members, whereas the former also requires the establishment of a common tariff against third countries.) Thus, an agreement between E.F.T.A. and the United States to lower tariffs would mean that these same concessions would have to apply to other countries that were making no concession. Whereas both E.F.T.A. and the United States might be willing enough to lower their tariffs if E.E.C. did so too, but not to do so if E.E.C. did not. They might like to make concessions to each other only, but are not allowed to do so.

2 Britain is certainly not one of the lowest tariff countries in the world. On the other hand, her Commonwealth connexions would probably have influenced her attitude as a member of E.E.C. in favour of liberalization.