Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 202; European Unity: Obstacles and Goals

In today's world Great Britain is finding it difficult to maintain that isolation from the continent where the forces for Unity have developed a momentum never before seen in history. Mrs Roosevelt has been in London at the BBC studios to record a discussion of the political and economic consequences of European integration for Britain. The United States and Europe itself. The rise of European industrial power in recent years has been a modern miracle. It has come the desire to break down national barriers which might impede that growth. The European coal and steel community was the first organization with supranational powers. Then in 1958 the Common Market. The Six Nations led by France and Germany came into being. To lower tariffs and coordinate their economies to provide a free flow of better goods cheaper prices for their consumers. This has been done by an unprecedented merging of national sovereignty. The European economic community. The formal name for the common market has already

worked spectacularly well. So well in fact that it poses a dilemma to Britain whether to join the six or to continue in a rival bloc of the so-called outhe's seven the European Free Trade Area which makes no requirements of political unity. After the failure of the summit meeting in Paris. New impetus has been given to discussions among the Western leaders to go McMillon out in order to find a formula for resolving the serious differences between the two rival blocs and thereby bring them European unity. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and author of Europe will not wait. Mark shoeman president of the commission of foreign affairs for the French National Assembly and member of the first and second assemblies of Europe at Strasburg. Denis Healy journalist Labour Member of Parliament and foreign affairs but just as opposition joining Mrs. Roosevelt for her to London programs is Robert MacKenzie a Canadian who teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science

and is a well-known British and Canadian television moderator. Now here is Mrs. Roosevelt. This is our second program from London where people are considering the relations of Britain to the continent in the United States. We have been concerned about the division between England on the one hand and France and Germany who lead the European economic community on the other. Mr. Mori shoeman has come over from Paris especially to join our British guest for this discussion and we're very grateful to you for coming. Mr. Shuman What do you see as the best method for bringing the two European blocks together. Well this is a way for you for asking this question before I give a

practical loans which I think helped give you a good discussion. May I say is a limited state. There has been the ruble largely spread wide spread according to which friends of the six would not welcome him into the company. Well such an assertion is considered friends as slumbrous especially at a time when the head of the state is general to go settled in London 20 years ago before he started in the Gillooly days of June 1940. Here in London that is an obstacle to a free preview of Rome which say that any European country meals to join the common market if referred to are to serve. And if we display the slightest reluctance to have risen at such a time then I think we should be twice as guilty. It guilty do you start

with guilty to all English friends and to whom we owe so much and guilty in the second place to the free world at applause because I think we can fall just regarding a new opportunity or falsifying to Sir Winston Churchill's famous school. You're not. Well I think really Mrs. Roosevelt that everything depends on how the common market is going to develop if it develops as the people who are running into Brussels wanted to develop towards a complete political and economic union then I think it would be difficult for Britain to join our right. But I think the economic conflicts which would then arise could be reduced to an insignificant level if we join the Americans in making sure that the common market had a liberal foreign trade policy and a political conflict which might arise could be eliminated if we strengthen NATO and in particular if we try to get greater military integration inside NATO.

But if on the other hand the common market develops as president to go with Nike to develop and the essential powers in the Common Market stay with a national government then I think it wouldn't be difficult for Britain to join our right although there would be some difficult economic problems which would have to be central to the negotiation. I agree with Denis he said that it depends to some extent on which way the Common Market the six developed logically and economically but one is Schumann was talking a seemed to me that he wasn't quite answering your question rather which was not how Britain could join the six and bridge the gap between Britain and the 6th but how the gap could be bridge between the six and the seven because Britain is not only just on her own she's got the other six of the seven and she's got of course also the Commonwealth to think about customers friends relations and people with whom she is tied by sentiment and tradition. Now it seems to me that the fundamental difficulty here is that the

two sets of of the two groups have such completely different sets of rules regulations institutions that to try and bridge the gap by just pushing them together is not going to work. And to my mind the only successful way in which we may bridge this gap and mend this rift to which you have a right to their effect is to develop a larger framework a wider institution to which we can all belong and that I would like to develop at a later stage. But let me say here very quickly is a merger of the Common Market and the common wealth. Well obviously before we can answer that Roosevelt's question about how this rift is going to be bridged we've got to decide how wide it is and also how it came to be that Europe isn't this way divided. But let's remind ourselves of the countries involved in this split in Europe in western Europe. First of all the six intersects European Economic Community western Germany France Italy Benelux and then

the outer seven the Free Trade Area Britain Scandinavia Austria Switzerland and Portugal. Now this is the line up and I think before we again can approach this question of bridging the rift we've got to decide how wide it is now. Could you tell us what stage the six have reached in their move to integrate their economies and their whole way of life. Well so far as institutions are concerned we have as you know a Committee of Ministers and executive which is being called the committee kind of high authority although also is being called the turn committee called permanent calls and the permanent the same which the executive is responsible and which is composed of delegations from the Parliaments. This is so far as the institution. But how about yeah. I was going to also say that this so far as the economic markets concern we have only reduced our duties so far by about 20 percent

but we are ahead of schedule. We are made of Skittles was in the first place because the industrialists have made special arrangements and for seeing the common market as it will be in a few years from now and in the second place we have decided as you probably know to quicken the pace to speed up the coming market. And that's the reason why I mean it has been a tremendous success because the trade between the six has increased considerably since the beginning of the common market over the same time. The trade between the six and the all to seven as you call them has increased as well which is very important for the future of the free world. Well that seems to be a rather hopeful situation as far as the economic outcome is what exactly is the situation of the

seven. Can any one of you define that. Because I think that would be interesting particularly in the United States where we're not as familiar as you are. Well I think the big difference really between the six and the seven is the outer circle. The country is on the outside of Europe which have joined this free trade area and not at the moment aiming fully to integrate that whole economies in the way that the saw. And in particular although they are trying to eliminate all the barriers in trade between one another they still retain the right individually to have whatever tariffs and quotas they like with countries outside the area. This of course is partly to protect Britain's trade with the Commonwealth countries. But what the seven are trying to do is to see that the elimination of internal tariffs among the seven keeps pace with the elimination of internal tariffs among the six. So that if at any time an attempt is made to join the two together the dislocation involved will be

absolutely minimal. That is ready that a sign that there is thinking going on to bring this about. And then Mr. nothing gave us a suggestion and that it took a wider view. Perhaps you have something to say except I agree that the mere fact that people are thinking about this is of itself encouraging but no one has told us about the expansion of trade between the two blocks. The two groups is encouraging. But when you think in terms of mending the rift by putting the two together don't let's forget the unhappy fate that befell just such a proposal that was made by Britain not long ago and was called the free trade area which was an attempt to create in New York a free trade system

embracing the six. And what are now commonly called the seven plus a few others. Greece and Turkey. Now this was turned down largely by France but also by the rest of the six on the grounds that it didn't offer the six enough trade. It wasn't a big enough area because the six don't do enough trade among the seven to make it worth while to have all the influx of British industrial competition and other industrial competition from the second coming into the six. Before we go over the rhetoric just a minute Mr.. I know that this explanation of why the Free Trade Area talks broke down fits into Mr. nothing's proposal from the Commonwealth you will emerge and that unfortunately it isn't accurate. The it has nothing to do with the volume of trade which would be brought in to the common market countries. If the free trade area was created it was basically the problem that the type of advantages which the seven would get in the six they would get without

paying the full price which the six were paying the one among one another. This was the French argument. I must confess that the Germans didn't go along with you on this but you were capable in any case by disagreeing yourselves. Mr. shoe man in wrecking the talks will be this week before we actually go to the details of that highly complex attempt that failed in the past to bridge this gulf. I'd like to take the two British spokesman back a step here because I think we must do this if we're going to make any sense of the toll. I've just come back from summer in the United States and I found a good deal of impatience with Britain's history in this whole matter. First of all we had Sir Winston Churchill saying Europe unite and Harold Macmillan was very much to the fore in this also while they were in opposition. And then in office a very weak performance in the view of many well-informed Americans earlier than that we'd had aptly saying before he became prime minister. Europe must federate or perish. And yet under Labour Britain stood well outside this move for European integration. Now isn't always going to be the case that Britain is simply

going to break down in its performance every time a new government takes up the task of growing closer to Europe. You are defending the Labour Party as its international secretary for five years after the war. What is the justification for the whole history of standing outside. Well let me say first of all that the countries are always very slow to give up their sovereignty when I think how long it took the United States Senate for example to agree to bring Hawaii and Alaska into the union. I don't feel inclined to take criticism from the United States on this particular school but not a fair analogy. Looking. Looking back on the situation after the war sir I would say that in the immediate post-war years the basic reason why Britain was not prepared to form a union with Europe as America wanted it to was that Britain was absolutely obsessed by the need to create some sort of Atlantic community which would commit the United States and Canada at that time competitively and damaged by the destruction of war to the defense and to the economic

recovery of Western Europe. And we didn't feel that we could afford ever to move much more than half a step further than we could get America to go with us. But I think that the situation in that respect has changed a very great deal since the recovery of Western Europe and the greatest stability in Britain. So is there a sense in which the Atlantic is narrower than the English Channel that Britain always is preoccupied with keeping North America in closest relationship and comparatively indifferent to this much wider body of water that separates it from the cops. Well it isn't isn't it. That is it is giving one aspect but surely we never really want after the war the leadership of Europe which we could have had on a plate in 1945. We didn't want to be tied to these broken down Europeans who've been destroyed by six years of war. We wanted to keep America to ourselves. Then they said we wouldn't go in any further than the United States even more than that we wanted to keep an

exclusive Anglo American alliance. And that was the reason why we never went into Europe. The other reason another reason was that we never understood the movement for European Union. We never really believe that the Europeans were going to make any sense of this movement this great new fault of the United States of Europe. But does that mean that Churchill Macmillan and making their speeches to the European movement weren't serious about it. Yes. May I say that all British friends may have been disappointed but that they have never been unfair. Winston Churchill said you know what he was doing speech but he never said that Britain would actually say Frederick. But he never say that the English. But the Federation at the same time as a European I am very sorry. That Britain took that move. But the fact is that Britain do not. They wrote recently about your friend and

nothing but by far the best and I'm sure these are the failure of British leadership in Europe. Also the end of the war. All of us were taken into the resistance movements against Nazi Germany believe that Britain was going to be the leader of the hub. I'm very sorry that such a great opportunity was missed but France never let us never lead us astray. But just to correct the record I'm sure nothing would agree with me on this. Britain did believe in the years after the war that she was leading in Europe but she wasn't leading your alone. It's absolutely untrue to say that Britain wanted to keep America. So Britain was a major force in getting the Marshall plan set up by which the United States was helping the whole of Europe to recover. Britain was a central played a central role in getting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization set up by which American troops went to the center of Europe to help in the defense of the whole of Europe. But what I think

was true in the years following the war is that Britain never felt that she could buy herself off of your idea of economic assistance or the military security that Europe needed and therefore Britain's first objective throughout these very difficult postwar years of recovery was to get the Americans in the thing which I find more difficult to understand is why after the Americans were committed when Europe had recovered this process was complete by about 1950 NATO was signed in 1949. You still really got no change in the British government's policy right. To this day. Now you were then with the British Foreign Office and 51 on as Minister of State understanding of evil and you must have the best possible vantage point to tell us why at that stage. Be careful. I won't go because if not. I'm sure nobody can Katie. We've got them both here now.

Let's let's really find out without going into too much history what went wrong at that stage if heli's account is acceptable up to there. Well. I think what went wrong at that stage at this stage when the Conservatives took up was that having missed the first two opportunities this one in 1945 and later when the economic and when the European coal and steel plant was put forward. Having missed those two opportunities for leading a third one came up with the European defense community with sort of European army to be a yota piano. Now Winston Churchill had given the Europeans the impression that Britain would join this community and would join this European. And when his government was formed in 1951 he failed to do so. He failed to make good what some Europeans regarded as his promise. And I think the reason why we failed was that we felt that the European army negotiations had already got started among the six that had much better go ahead and produce this European Army.

And that somehow or other will then be able to get European unity but on the cheap that we wouldn't have to join. Well now it seemed to me fairly soon after these negotiations developed after the government was formed in 51 that we would have to join or that we would have to go a lot closer than we were at that time prepared to go. And in the end of course after the European army broke down completely the French Chamber threw out the bill and wouldn't have anything to do with it. And we had to then go and pick up the pieces in Europe and form a Western European Union as a rather poor second alternative rather poor second best. Britain had to give to get France to agree to the west European Union exactly the same veggies and she had to give as she was called upon to give by France to save the European army we had. In other words to pledge for an active participation in the defense of Europe for the rest of this century.

Isn't this a myth. Nothing really. I mean the page we keep in the game is I lived it and I know you live lives it isn't a myth to explain it. I mean you would agree wouldn't you that the pledge we made was engineered and made to get EDC lost in 1954 wasn't it European army one which we apparently reduced on two and a half years later with Mr. Sands Defence white paper under which we decided we would reduce by half our military contribution to Germany. Now if we join see the my people would have been fighting possible because the type of commitment we were expected to make by joining the European army was one which which would not have left us free to reduce our contribution in the way in which in fact we did in 1957. And I don't think really you can ride away from this problem which is really central to our relations with Europe at that time and right to this moment essence of the European idea on the continent was that the countries joining

the union should give up their sovereignty in major aspects of economic policy foreign policy and defense and at no time was Britain prepared know is the essence of the British policy. Right. This movement has been. Britain has not been prepared to do this in a purely European frame. And this I think is the central problem we have to overcome. But is France prepared to do this. The BBC first and certainly from Perth. Does he see it. He was rejected by the French National Assembly because that was nothing. And those would like to rearm Germany were rather reluctant in Germany anyhow. And we didn't like arming Germany within the framework of which Britain remain although I was personally a hundred percent in favor of it. I can understand and appreciate the reasons that was the only reason that I am sure that there would be no objection to burden of national sovereignty to any extent in France if

the same decision was made. But let me let me put a question here and I followed this debate to BBC and in the French Assembly very carefully and the impression which I had and many Frenchmen had was that the decisive factor in producing the rejection of EDC was that it meant the abolition of the French army and putting the French army into a general European set up. And I would I would like to read you if you would to make a comment on Mrs. Roosevelt's question because this is the central one. It still seems to me reading the French press that general gold in fact does not want to abandon French sovereignty. He wants a different sort of European unity from that which Mr. sumon for example who is foreign secretary I think when you were minister of state for wanted that's true he's not facing the new face. And besides I've got no reasons to hide that was again CDC today. What is the position he was against.

There was so today isn't possibly facing the facts and the facts are that in the way of limitation of national sovereignty we can go much further can't we. And if we didn't go much further we should make it more difficult for us all to bridge the gap between the six and seven. And all of this is on the conference to bridge that gap. And therefore you're not the French currently in favor of rushing so far ahead with the six in the way of pulling sovereignty. That would make it more difficult to bring Britain and the other seven into the new association. That's the thing. Well that's an accurate description. But we just want to clear up the record about the past what NATO is. It gives the whole case away against the record that he is trying to defend defend not explaining it or defending or explaining the president to go. Doesn't want to go as far as the extreme Federalists wanted to go. And this is how the European. Group may still

develop it would have developed along these lines but it would have developed even faster and more certainly along these lines. Had Britain given that lead early on in 1945. But the fact is that we never were prepared to go into Europe it wasn't a question of we want to go into Europe exclusively Nobody asked us to. France never asked us to Belgium. Nobody asked us to go into Europe exclusively and give up our Commonwealth give up our American relationship now. We would never go into Europe because any further than America and the Commonwealth. Now is there a change in that respect. No. I mean what is the position of the Conservative Party or the Labor Party with regard to moving into Europe. No but for the moment that all the technical problems involved. But has this been a watershed in the British attitude in the last Eurozone. I think there has been a tremendous change actually in the British attitude in both parties and outside the parties in business and in the trade unions. And I must say too that the change is largely the product of the success of the Common Market

and I think that your money and those who were enslaved so hard as he did and you yourself Mauritian in Europe to to set up the common market as a working community have very much to your credit. Now I think the big change is one of attitude and psychology. What not being said is quite true. I think in the years following the war most English people felt that somehow or other we would be weakening ourselves by tying ourselves to a Europe that was on its back after the war. Now we can see Europe economically developing faster than we are investment proceeding very much faster than it is fear. And now we feel that we have something to get to as well as give if we join Europe and the we no longer have this awful pharisaical attitude which we had towards Europe in the past. And I would say too that there has also been a certain amount of disillusionment in Britain about the Atlantic

community. I myself for example was primarily against Britain joining the European Union because I believed it might be possible to turn nature into a strong union of all the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic but the vacuum and I must say this I'm afraid Mrs. Roosevelt in American policy in this respect over the last eight or nine years has made many people feel that if we cannot really get America to go this far then we must work with those who are prepared to go a little further. And that means your and maybe if we do so that we'll have the same effect on the Americans as the common market has had in Britain. In other words the economic success is the main reason for the change of feeling that I would talk to us because we have talked a good deal about the military aspects of the defense of Europe. How how far forward are all of you thinking

in relation to the question which has to be discussed here by here in the United Nations of disarmament because I have been wondering for some time how the military aspects of this whole question tie in with the bench of disarmament by stages and with all the things you may want to to do but then your interest centres on the economic situation and no longer does the question of military defense. And I think that change is a good deal of the reasoning which for instance meant the rearmament of Germany which meant that you

needed to do certain things which perhaps you will not need to do under the new circumstances and this is tied also to the fact that new weapons have made many military considerations a completely different attitude to so that it seems to me we have an entirely new picture and we still have to keep up the picture as it was some years ago and the realistic part of it is the economic part of it. Mr. Sherman on this point which I think is very interesting one is the sense in any sense military entity or is it likely to emerge as an independent power in some sense militarily or is it still fully lock within the NATO framework to try to lock them into that with the goal and his current thinking won't in some sense this to be an independent

military power. No I can deny that flatly. The goal was was rightly or wrongly to shuffle the organization. You want us to still need to of them for example to Africa but it doesn't concede the possibility of any military defense of your A apart from the military you made that point especially when you referred in his last press conference to the talk of terror it divides the world as we all do. Into two blogs and Fox you will end in tears as you call them. But Mary's of course at the bridge that gap might bridge well. But it doesn't fall to the moon. There's this problem. The girl also says she's against integration of defense in the West which is the basis of the whole of NATO's strategy. Now before we pursue that defense problem because I think the real one we've got come back to let me just take you a step further on this British position. You both agreed. I think the two British

politicians on the panel look there is a change of heart. To some extent in Britain now what are the obstacles that remain if Britain is going to be really associated with Europe in particular the one that came up early in the discussion Britain's desire to have a special relationship with the North Atlantic community and above all with United States. Is Britain really going to go very far to Europe if it means becoming exactly the equivalent of any other European country. With regard to Washington in the end of any special relationship with United States because I don't think it would mean the end of any special relationship with the United States nor do I think it would mean the end of our special relationship with the Commonwealth. I think on the contrary we would carry much more weight in the Commonwealth and with the United States if we were a part of Europe a closer part of Europe than we are today because quite clearly we would be in the lead we would be one of the leading nations of the order and not a leading nation of the world standing on the outside trying desperately to get into Europe but only making ourselves look rather foolish and rather weak by failing to get access to the door.

But here you really are trying to have your cake and eat it. I mean you complained earlier on that one reason Britain wasn't going to use it was she wanted to keep a special relationship with the United States. Now you say she can keep a special relationship and join Europe. I think least Mrs. Schumann would agree with me that certainly General DeGuerin would not favor Britain joining a European Union if it meant Britain retaining some specially favored relationship with United States such as for example she has today in the field of military cooperation. That is the proper answer to your objects as you said before all that will to go against integration. Well the fact is that the present atomic weapons without any sense will force them to films. The Finns are not integrated and general the goal is underlining the necessity for friends of the girls and equal treatment whether it is right or not is a different problem. But to this Roosevelts and two in the Kansas question is that the government can see the defense of our friends on

continental Europe apart from the Atlantic system apart from America and that it considers the continued presence of American troops on the European continent as the most important goal for all computing parts of all of this. Nothing. When you answered a moment ago that there's no incompatibilities for Britain between having a special relationship with United States and being fully into Europe now is this surely just a personal response of yours. I have the strongest feeling that the present government still thinks otherwise and many people in the Labour party too but I didn't feel they'd be forced to make a choice and they're reluctant to make that choice. I'm not here I don't think I was asked to speak as a spokesman of the government I don't know. To clarify that it's not. But I don't know what the government thinking is on this. But in answer to identity. I don't think there's anything incompatible. What I said earlier on and what I said a moment ago I said I don't see any any reason why we shouldn't be part of Europe and have a special relationship with America but not an exclusive relationship with America and what the Labour government

wanted in the 1945 9:31 here it was an exclusive relationship. What we've got now many many months now. He put the question about about defence in atomic weapons. What I would like to see is Britain offering to Europe to pool the atomic weapons supplies of great Britain and France with the European community with the six for one thing. We have a lot more effective atomic weapons. If the six we're paying for them and if Britain is paying for hers and France is paying for that and going through all the madly expensive duplicating research which could be pooled and which could be shelved for another thing I do not believe myself that the United States would be unwilling to continue with this European arrangement. The same the same agreements for sharing atomic information as she has today with great Britain provided the necessary guarantees could be given that this information would not need to the other side.

Sure surely we have now at long last got over in the United States the lesson that it's time we all stopped denying from one another in the western alliance information which the Russians have had for upwards of 10 years. That lesson surely has got across not look good to me then if we've reached this stage in our analysis of the problem return to the very first question Mrs. Roosevelt was the when you began to answer and then we had to get you know what lay behind it. How can Britain be brought into this closer relationship with the continent. How can the rift be bridged Finally how can the bridge between the sixth and the system start with I think also such an important place to start listing the facts. And we have three face to face. The first place my most distinguished friends Selvin log was not sent to send them said on the 25th of July. The House of Commons that England refused once for all the wrong reasons that's the treaty and which set up

next. I can understand reasons why he said that that was a perfectly well considering that British trade deals with other members of the Commonwealth to the extent of 43 percent. I think I'm right including that figure. So how could you in any foreseeable circumstances tax the millions foodstuffs would not come into the United Kingdom Free of duty. Now in the second place in fact on the 7th of September 11 long speeches will be made in this capacity as British ambassador to France stated that the original free trade proposal which has been nothing further for all is dead. And the third fact is that Mr. Reginald Martin said on the 6th of September that are no circumstances what would England Rob free trade for trade and that's like. That's why the European freetrade trade association I mean to set an organization well it being said

what can we do. Kill the common market and tell the world off. It would be sheer madness since our first duty is to Germany to the west of Tripoli and then to us for all the boats all English friends approved of it. Can we then revert to the original free trade proposal everybody now thinks it would be impractical and wrong among other reasons because it would strengthen the feelings of frustration in some underdeveloped countries and justified the kind of discrimination complex in the United States. What then should be obvious to stand by the decision which the big Western for took in December 19th. Fifty five to work out within the framework of God's general agreement and that all the newly born

oh we see. In other words with the United States and Canada mutual tariff concessions between the six England and the other members of the the of these tariff concessions being of course extended according to the most favored nation clause which would in effect therefore bring almost the whole world into this new trading relationship with the whole free world. This sector by sector approach would I think make continental Europe a larger market for British goals and would discourage protectionist tendencies in the United States which you with a sense since protectionist always leads to no later as nations come in on this because I think it's giving us an opposing plan for getting out of this dilemma. Really briefly on this. Well briefly I agree with you that if we can join the common market the right approach is the one which is favored by the common market countries and by the United States

namely to give up for the time being at any rate the attempt to build an all Western European set up and to concentrate on keeping the common markets steady flow keeping its trade policy liberal so that the discrimination between the common market and the outside world as a whole ceases to matter very much. I agree with this would drop entirely any question of Britain giving up any part of its sovereignty except perhaps some control over it. But the point here is that we would have the exact same position as United States Australia or India or any other member of the cat. But I would not write off as lightly as my shoeman did the possibility of Britain joining the common market because when I made that speech he didn't know how firm the general to go was to the political aspects of the common market how firmly he was opposed to complete integration of the six. And this has become clear in August since the meeting between Ardern out in Paris and the meeting between ordinar in Milan in Bonn

and my feeling is that Britain could now start looking seriously at the possibility of joining the Common Market with the other members of the six and possibly with some of the commonwealth countries because I believe myself that a lot of the European countries which would not have wish to alter their own treaty so long as it was going to take them towards Federation would be quite prepared to alter the room treaty in order to get Britain and the Commonwealth in general to go isn't going to let them have their federation in any case. In other words the goal is no more enthusiastic on your reading in Britain is about a really politically integrated set. So he wants a Europe of independent sovereign states. But is it therefore that big objection might be gone in Britain's case but is this really so Shemin that they go to this position in any case it is going to preclude a genuinely politically federated Europe. I don't think so.

I think that the girl's position is that whether it is right or wrong that supranational authority is well in the long run Paul is meaningless because in democratic countries governments are responsible to politicians and government was the last one to envisages a political consideration based upon governments which as Dennis says perfectly acceptable to result in flaws in blah's maintenance of national sovereignty is good as might as well and probably even cook up lead for example to finding the common foreign policy and the common defense policy. You know me look. Yes. Doesn't this I mean I wish I could agree with you that there is a possibility for Britain to join the common lock on the political front. I think he's right in view of what has been said about General the girl's attitude. But what he is ignoring is an argument that he put earlier on against bridging this gap.

Namely is that the essential difference between the six and the seven. Is this because of the external tariff the common external tariffs. How are we going to get over that if we join the common market for many of. Us. But if we join the Rome treaty and we underwrite the realm treaty as it is at present drawn today we would have to accept the common external terror. Now that is why I come to the conclusion that the only way to bridge this gap and to work out an arrangement for the future is to try and throw them that a lot wider. I agree with Mark Schulman that what we've got eventually to do is to have a trading Association a free trade association of the whole free world including the United States Canada Latin America and the law and the Commonwealth and New York. But that is too ambitious too big a proposal to go for for the month and I think you've got to proceed by stating what is the first phase we all agree. I think that the Free Trade Area of Europe is finished.

It's not a big enough organization. Now what about the comment that we have not examined this very carefully but there is in fact a curious coincidence between the export and import situation of the common market in the Commonwealth. The four principal exports of the Commonwealth although four principal imports of the common market Cup and the four principal exports of the common market are the four principal imports of the Commonwealth. So they're only it. You've got some message in it. I don't know what happened. It seems to me that having worked this out and obviously would take an immense conference and great institutions and a lot of collaboration to work it up. That seems to me to be grounds here for a merger of these two systems and working through that stage then onwards to the wider concept of money shoeman envisaged of a great association of the free world. One other seems to be a wide measure of agreement here. There has been a change of attitude in Britain and that two possibilities emerge either that Britain could join directly to the common market

assuming it's not going to have major and immediate transformation in some form of political federation or Secondly nothing suggestion that you can in some sense throw a wider association between the whole Commonwealth and indeed eventually the North that the whole free world and the cover market again without assuming that any political federation would be involved immediately. This is ROSAT I think would be very useful if you would add to our discussion some thought about the American attitude to either these two alternatives or indeed to the whole pattern emerging now in Europe. Well just as you were talking about the American situation with Great Britain I couldn't help thinking that as far back as I can remember there has been in the United States comes play a group thinking that he said to the economic problems of Europe was a type

of Federation I don't think they ever went into any real thinking as to what type of political federation it would be because I think most of us realize that where there have been generations and language barriers and a number of things that takes a very long time. And whereas an economic situation of removing difficulties could build a much better economic situation. And I think that in the United States has been an accepted thing. Now many people I think call being for it have not really thought through what the effect on American economics would be. And as far as the situation between America and Great Great Britain goes I think fundamentally that situation has its root in a sentimental attachment between we fight and we disagree

and we have a terrible time every now and then but fundamentally we know that if anything came out which really meant Great Britain was headed back to the wall or we had close to the war that would come because perhaps of the closeness of Canada with the United States a coming together to meet whatever the threat might be. Much of the economic situation I think could be changed. If we had any idea about it if we would look at a broader field then we are really looking now. I actually think that the future for nearly all developed countries is in new markets and in where we build the power to buy.

It's important for every developed country in Europe as well as for the United States and our feet. That's my cup of of what could hurt us. But I think if we had the broader view that we had to be building and looking on a much bigger scale it would not be impossible for us to face whatever the difficulties might be and accept them. I I think actually too little thought has been given to this but I'm still a little wondering. We have talked to here today say is that we had to go one forever with the type of defense which meant a military balance of power. And I am wondering whether that is literally possible and true if it is actually

true then we really ought not for do so. I have hope that the whites fully realized it had to come very slowly and through a number of stages that ultimately we would face that because I happen to believe that thinking of keeping a balance of military power is nowadays a very dangerous thing to go on just because of the mere fact of exigence every single nation that came to Tommy Nunley is a great danger by accident not by intention by accident. I'm terrified constantly in in my own country that an accident will happen. Not that we will do something intentionally. And I actually

think that this is something all the governments of the world should be thinking seriously about because this is the machinery of the United Nations that has to be strengthened and has to be worked through. And I believe that these are some of the questions when we really try to find solutions to be thought about. I think that it does raise the problem with I wanted to be sure we mentioned that is the argument in this country that I've often heard from the left especially that this integration of Western Europe or the just economic or political as well will more permanently divide Europe because we're talking about Europe as if it existed only in the western part of Europe but the rise of Eastern Europe a communist Europe moment. But he did you see this danger that our kind of integration that we're talking about in Western Europe may more permanently divide the whole continent. Well it depends what sort of integration we're talking about. I'm very glad we got onto this question because we've tended to discuss this problem as if it was a it was a back

door and there was nothing around it at all. I believe much so that certain types of unity in Europe would make the ending of the Iron Curtain very much more difficult. Now I give you one example. I personally believe that knockings proposal that we should spread atomic weapons around the whole of Western Europe under British leadership is a step in exactly the wrong direction. What I would like to see is atomic weapons taken out of the whole of Western Europe and the whole of Eastern Europe by agreement with the Soviet Union. And I'm afraid one of the real problems underlying all these economic and institutional difficulties we've been discussing so far is that in the last year or so there has been a very sharp difference between the thinking of the British government and the British opposition on these matters and the thinking of the German and French governments on these matters we in Britain have tended to feel that it is worthwhile exploring with the Soviet Union the possibility of some agreement on

limiting and reducing arms in Europe where as the French and German governments have tended to take the view that this can only lead to greater insecurity and that it's a step in the wrong direction. I don't want to get too far in this defense because. We know that all we know about it where we never make it any qualification is that I spent as many man hours looking at Mr. Gromyko across the dissolve not as almost that about Iraq. That is he says his plan is to get all atomic weapons out of Europe west of east. But how is he going to get atomic weapons out of Russia. Russia is a part of Eastern Europe. However I don't think there's an instinct for this. This problem of of removing atomic weapons from certain areas is much more difficult than he seems to anticipate and besides what would you do in the days when we can hit the moon. What's the point of removing atomic weapons when you can fire across it with a bow and arrow.

It seems to me that you're not really getting to the root of the problem stop the spread of the weapons. Roosevelt was told the root of the problem is not so much the fact that America and Russia have atomic weapons but the danger of the spread of atomic weapons to countries that are less responsive now the only thing that really makes sense in the world of Islam and the only thing that's really important is to get rid of what we used to call the fourth country problem. France is the fourth country to have atomic weapons it's now known as the fifth country. If we can get rid of that broke if we can deal with that problem then perhaps we will have a safe world. But the interesting thing to do here is there a sense though in which the action of integrating Western Europe postpones quite apart from the defense question that postpones perhaps permanent. Any prospect of drawing Europe as a whole could the communist Europe more closely. Not necessarily is the simple answer because you're simply in a sense in dodging the problem but not necessarily making it more difficult. The communist countries are already very very closely integrated with one another both politically and

economically in Eastern Europe so that you've got that problem already existing probably excludes German unification. No not necessarily because once if you once get the process of growing together of the two parts of your developing then the extent of economic integration or political integration in Western Europe will become a very very minor problem but the important thing is to get the process started and that's where I believe that Mr. McMillan was absolutely right in suggesting last year with Mr. Khrushchev that we should look at the possibility of limiting arms on both sides in Europe. And I very much regret that contrary to what you said. No one ever has been made by the West as a fool to raise this particular problem in discussion with the Russians because no one should have a chance. Really I don't think this is a serious proposition at the time when the Russians are behaving for the world. How can you say that such an exploration

might have led to. I'm just going to ask you one simple question. Do you imagine disarmament without control. It's the endless question. So nothing has been discussing with us. Well recently in the security comes the Russians a veto proposition according to which I think the National Enquirer we would be led by the Red Cross and Red Cross on the question whether the the blade being shot this side of the waters all the time up to but our time has run out. I think this will pass more quickly than any I can remember and I only hope that our audiences in the United States are going to be as interested as I have been and as and like. And now I would like to thank each one of you Mr. McKenzie for

being with us Mr. Healy and Mr. shoeman came such a long way you said has contributed much to the day and to my staff nothing. It's been a great pleasure to be with you and I hope you feel that what you have done to help us in America to understand problems that we are slow to understand will be of value to all of us. And now I want to say good bye to our audience until our next program and we hope you will all be with us again. Our. Guest Dennis Heaney leading Labour Party spokesman for foreign affairs. Marshman. President of the French national and. Foreign Affairs Commission. Antony nutting. Author of Europe will not wait. And Robert McKenzie who teaches at the

London School of Economics. On the prospects of mankind program. This is Rooseveltian I guess to Brandeis University will you discuss. South Africa. To. This program was recorded Monday September 12th at the BBC studios in. London. We know. This is National Educational Television