Couchiching conference; 2
The subject of this year's coaching conference is the new Europe. This is Bob Wilson welcoming you to the second broadcast session from Geneva park in Ontario to be discussed this evening. Isms and attitudes and our chairman will introduce the speaker in a moment. Each year this conference is convened as a cooperative venture by the Canadian Institute on public affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Its setting is that short of about 90 miles north of Toronto. Tonight on the new Europe. Miss you at all. And here to introduce him and the night's commentator is our chairman the president of Encyclopaedia Britannica of Canada Mr. Kurtz when I was with him. Good evening ladies and gentleman and welcome to the second session of the 30 first coaching conference that he catered to the subject of the new Europe. Yesterday you here in the hall and the vast radio audience were exposed to our keynote speaker on this subject. Mr. William
Clark the director of the Overseas Development Institute in London England. He spoke with his inimitable impeccable English accent that captivates anybody when he comes into the room and says Nice morning isn't it. He sounds devastatingly sophisticated and hilariously funny. He exposed us to the interesting spectacle. As an Englishman talking about new Europe and not telling us what new Europe is but telling Europeans what a new Europe should do. He explained to us why for some reason or other the British at one time thought they should stay away from the new er up and he made some remarks that they didn't want to get mixed up with a bunch of people who didn't even speak English. He forgot that some of us who come from Western or central Europe spoke English before we knew what the goal was. There's some grave doubt as to the ability of to communicate via the English language
as you well know I'm Bernard Shaw has said at one time. The only thing that the British and the Americans have in common is a different language. Tonight we will first hear from a real European professor a moral and I would like to introduce both Professor Hall and his commentator together and I beg of you not to applaud in between not because it would take up time but you know the ears of the speakers are acutely and finely tuned. And one of them might detect at the applause for the other one is my new plea stronger or longer. And this would provide him with a feeling of insecurity. I will thus introduce Professor immoral first professor are almost born in Paris in 1905 and even attended or lectured at the following university the University of Cologne University of Aberdeen University of Toulouse during the war he was in the French army and editor in chief of free
finance in London. Then he was at the University of Paris and I might see almost as the pinnacle prior to his present position. He was a research professor at Harvard University which almost qualified him to become a member of the Kennedy administration. He has a number of articles and books to his credit. He's an honorary doctor of half a dozen universities but some of the books require mentioning particularly one he hold a book called the opium of the intellectuals. This is you remember it was absolutely obligatory and required reading it could change. Opium because we all get so excited here we surely need it. And intellectuals we all want to demonstrate the fact that we are real at the present moment. Professor is professor at University of sub on the only university in the same class with University of Oxford Harvard and University of Toronto. Somehow the hunch that this is going to go over somewhat flatly in Montreal in Vancouver.
Commenting on his remarks will be Mr. William The Bold and we are greatly and gravely indebted to Mr. de ball for being here at all. You know there's one thing that unites the English the Europeans and the Canadians. And there is an almost irrepressible urge and desire to tell off the Americans to improve the U.S. Constitution. Their attitude that tariff policy and the conduct of their foreign affairs it is their point stream we lucky that we have a man of Mr. Boyd's character and strength here. Any American would do him and you. But he's that much better. He was born in New York if you pardon the expression graduated at Yale and then attended the London School of Economics which I dare to say is the equivalent to Harvard
University in England. He did some research work for the Rockefeller Foundation and during the war he was the secretary of an economic and financial group to study and prepare for post-war conditions. This is probably one of the reasons why we're now doing so awfully well. In 1945 they decided to make a gamekeeper out of the poacher and put him into the State Department. And then as Foggy Bottom as you well know since 1947 Mr. de boat has been a research officer for the Council on Foreign Affairs Foreign Relations in a very interesting enough in in the British countries we have affairs in American countries we have relations. He was a research officer for the Council on Foreign Relations. Having written numerous books and unleashed them on the unsuspecting and defenseless North American public.
Professor at all is now going to speak on the subject isms and attitudes and wish that the world will comment. Professor I will. Mr. Chairman ladies and gentleman I must confess first that I'm not quite clear what we are to discuss this evening. The title if I'm an attitude is suggestive but slightly equivocal. I tried to find out what it meant. I read dot blog and when I found two different interpretations of the title according to the first one the subject is the attitude of the ordinary European in relation to yours. And at the same time between the individual and the state the two topics are vaguely
related but not quite the same. According to the second interpretation we are to discuss down in county planning conscription and labor union. All very interesting subject for which my competence or incompetence is rather an equal. So I saw that the real intention of the organizers was to leave to us and specially to me the maximum of freedom and I hope that they will not disapprove of the use I will make of this. Let us start with the question what is new in Europe. What is new in the New Year. What I will not start as Mr Clarke did yesterday with the pre-war yob but we know about 1945. What has changed in the last 17 years. What has not change. Two major factors. Two major fact have
remained the same. First the Iron Curtain which is still there it is. Easy to go from Moscow to Paris and back. But greatly more difficult to go from Alexanderplatz to the crucial because Billy now is divided into parts just as Germany just as Europe. The second major fact which has remained the same is the weakness of Western Europe. The security of Western Europe is still dependent on the American detachment with a small addition of the British one. And we may see is that in the next decade this fact will stay France and the British may have a national defense. The Americans made a scented main guarantee of the American of the European security will still be the American determine force but outside of that there has been two or three major changes
in the last period. First one is that Great Britain France Belgium had lost or abandoned or liberated us. And certainly Western Europe has found a new prosperity. In the beginning of a new unity. And I believe it would not be only interesting to think for a few minutes about the relation between these two or three major fact what is the relation between the loss of empire are and the new prosperity of Yog. What is the relation between the new prosperity of Europe and the unity. Of course it would be paradoxical and not even to say is that the loss of empire was a favorable condition of the new European plus bit. It would even be absurd because in the last 10
years we French had all sorts of troubles outside France and certainly if we have to benefit from one disengagement we did not benefit from disengagement in the last 10 years. But in spite of that there is a certain relation between the events in the so-called British of French and past and the new European movement. The first religion is the event. Yup we had a very strong instrument of peace in relation to the ordinary Europeans. I remember quite well after the expedition. Everybody in the French political circles was saying now it's time to fill up. Which means in ordinary English to build European unity. So was disappointment in
possessions outside of the old continent. Was one of the reasons why the idea of European unity became popular and beyond the at the end of impasse. To quote the title of the book of Joan's treachery the end of empire are also the end of the legions. According to which imperial possession is necessary to a high standard of living. We know now that it is in the twenty centuries imperial possessions is more a burden than an asset. And to be liberated from this burden is to a large extent the beginning of the new European unity. Secondly the relation between unity and posted. Certainly a case could be made in the case has been made often that the cause of European
prosperity has not been and is not the unity of the common market because it is a fact that the high rate of growth in continental Europe did start much before the home treaty was signed much before the home treaty went into a precondition. Any good case can be made is that the beginnings of European unity was made easier because of the European prosperity and not the other way around. In seems to me that it would be fair to see first that the European economy was spirit it was one of the conditions of the smooth functioning of the Common Market and B is that the European unity as a common market was a false which did contribute to consolidate to reinforce the European prosperity. But it is also true
to say that the great test of the Common Market will be if by bad luck they should be. For the time being is a common market as well worked but it has well well-versed in economy crime it of very quick expansion and now that we have seen two major fact. Let us come to the direct question. What is the attitude of the ordinary European in relation to Europe. It is certainly necessary to make a clear cut distinctions between the attitude of the continental European and the attitude of the British citizen. I don't believe there is a great enthusiasm in Britain in favor of the Common Market. Last November I went to London to meet a few of the
political men of the British Empire to see what they meant about the Common Market. At the Victoria station I was asked by the immigration officer why I was coming too long at this time of the year. My answer. My answer was that I was going to make an inquiry about the feelings of the British about the common markets looked at me with a friendly smile and he said. All common markets. Nobody knows what a good symbol in a good beginning for my inquiry. Because on the whole I was told that there was no clear meaning in favor against a common market. When it came to the political men it was slightly different and I had a very firm impression. My impression was that they were much more Fed to be excluded from the common market than
pleased to be in or in other terms. There were more hostile to be and much that satisfied to be in. Which is really very reasonable in any rational way of choosing. After all necessity is not so bad for a mariachi But of course a little bit of love would make the thing slightly easier. It is a case of the ordinary Continental citizen. I would say it's fundamentally different. Not that there is today such an enthusiasm about the Common Market. There is something completely different. It is a fact of the daily life. When I am going in my village to buy Dutch cigars I'm getting them but they are called cigar much so even cigars belong to the to the Common Market. So the common market in
continental Europe is a part of reality. It is a task to be dong it is not something vague about which it would be useful to discuss. If it's good or bad to what extent it has advantages of these advantages. A little bit in the way we did it yesterday. But we don't do it in this way in Europe because we start from the premise that we may like it or not eat it. Pact so this fact what I want is the facts. Why is a common market working. After all it's not so easy to explain why. Because if you look at Western Europe the political situation is still extremely complicated. In France we have one of the largest communist parties of the world. Italy has also a very large companies bought it in Germany. The Communist Party is illegal. The Greatest Trade Union Confederation
in France and Italy is communist The minute it. In France we have a Fifth Republic which means that we have already had two republics at the end of the war. Maybe we have a third. On. And in spite of all these troubling uncertainty in the political field there is a complete certainty among the Europeans that with whatever government in farms in western Germany of Italy the common market will go on. So that is I would say the most extraordinary proof of success. It has been in a certain way excluded from partisan politics and it had be that muted almost by every party. Of course not by the Communists but even the communists are extremely restrained in their criticism of the Common Market. So I would say here your help the European IDing is a European movement is one of the
fundamental aspect of the new life of Europe. Why did it function. That is a difficult question to answer. It may be said that you did function because everybody wanted it. It may be said that the idea of European unity was strong. It may be said that after so many absurd and cruel wars we wanted a new peaceful Well all that is true but the reason also a more humble reason namely that it was extremely well done and it was extremely well done in a practical way. And if we are I would not be in Canada. I would say unique completely under the Saxon style. It was it was done in a pragmatic way and I would like to explain in a few words what I mean by that. If we had been still cotillion at the time of the treaty we would have put on paper. Then we would have
did huge consequences and then we would have say that is a way Europe will look like in 10 years. That is more or less what our British friends asked from us today. But we are no more Cartesian. So we did it in a completely different we we put Zulu rules in ways we explain what we are aiming at. We made clear the different steps of the mobilization. But beyond everything we had confidence in the self-perpetuating process. We had confidence in the dynamism of the Common Market. Let me take a very simple example. The Common Agricultural Policy what was put in the home treaty after all it was said in the home treaty. Quite simply there would be a common agricultural policy and an agreement on the Common Agricultural Policy was a condition for going from
one phase to another face. It's a good symbolic example. No details. Fix any pressure is created in favor of agreement because if they had not been in agreement of the common agricultural policy it would have been impossible to go to the second phase. It would have been a failure of the whole enterprise nor government neither the German or Italian. Nor the French was ready to accept the idea of a failure. Let me take another example. It's curious. The French in France we have a so-called plot in Germany there is a free economy. We speak of a concerted economy. The German speak of a market just social market economy and still the two French and
German economies are working very well together. Why it may be the skeptical men would say it's working very well together because neither is the French economy as blunt as it pretends to be. Nor is the German economy a liberal or as a spokesman pretend to be. That's part of the two but it's only a part of the also part of the truth is that when Germans and French begin to go work together first. German EXPRESS So they are in favor of a market economy. Then the French would say that they are in favor of it and then both forget about it. It begin to work together in a practical way. The other day I was in another conference about the future of Europe and the Atlantic Well there was one German who made the ordinary declaration in favor of the market economy. Then the Frenchman made the order need the collaboration in favor of the plan
and then it went on very smoothly. Of course the French plan today has become extremely fashionable and we are flattered. Last year we get the visit of a large delegation of British specialists to study the French plan. This year a few days ago I got a visit from the special representatives of President Kennedy who wanted also to study the French of course we are flattered because we had a mixed reputation in economic affairs. Some years ago and 10 years ago when I try to convince my American friends that the French economy was in full recovery all my American friends looked at me with a polite smile. Which meant you yes your patriotic feelings are excellent but you ability as a observer is rather diminished. But today it's exactly the opposite. We are flat out
slightly embarrassed because of French Blome is a. you're saying we have here one head of the French ploy and I would hesitate to speak about the French plan before him but I would say that the French law is a mixture of foregone objectives and predictions. Very rarely is a prediction comes exactly two. But the plan has a psychological function to make the people conscious of the necessity of working together for the future. It has a political edge has it in economic functioning of giving a goal to the nation. But after that the plan is a practical way of bringing together trade union leaders managers of the private sector and managers of the public sector. In this way by a dubious way I'm coming to a
certain extent to one of the question which was put to us in the dark. What is the relation between the individual and the state in continental Europe. I would say that. For the time being in the Common Market the main actors are the managers the civil servant the big manager of learning who you're making contact buying selling organizing more or less connections between big firms and the ordinary citizen is in favor of all of that. But I would say again without extraordinary enthusiasts because the way is a common market is Don is it practical. It's not an object to be excited about. It's a task it's a go it's a daily effort. Are the people who are in favor of the Common Market
idealist or realist as your question was yesterday. It's not really easy to answer this question because in all human enterprises they are also out of elements which come in. Why have we started the Common Market. Because we are expelled from our colonies because we had suffered so much from the war because we were threatened by the Russians because we wanted to make peace with the Germans because we wanted to become powerful again on the international scene. All these interpretations have in them a part of the TOS because also out of feeling all sort of thought or thought of practical and not so practical conception in when it is a great big IF story enterprise is this biggest historical enterprise is certainly not yet finished and nobody
knows exactly what the new Europe will be like in 10 years time. But I believe that is a provisional conclusion. Should be simple. Any Korean won the Common Market is a revolutionary fact in each easy going concern. It is a growing concern in the sense that it is working and at that it will go on working. It is a revolutionary act and the proof of the Revolutionary Guard of the enterprise has been already been given many times. First the proof of this revolutionary character was the British decision to join. Because it may have been a revolutionary decision for the French to link their destiny with a new
Germany. But it is certainly more revolutionary for the British to John's a carbon market and to become more a part of continental Europe than the center of the Commonwealth. Of course it's not yet done but I admit that it will be done in any case. The decision was taken in Britain to try to join the common market. And this decision is a revolutionary consequence of the revolutionary enterprise. But it's not true. It's not all. Some weeks ago at the beginning of the month of July 1962 President Kennedy on the 4th of July made a great speech on the theme of interdependence. The day of the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence interdependence and its imminent interdependence
with Europe interdependence with a united Europe united Europe having become again one of the great powers on the world scene. In any case a great economic power. So unity. So if that is the case I don't think it would be very useful to disk. Thus if everything is favorable in the consequences of the common market because it cannot be the case you cannot change something so important as a structure of Western Europe without bringing about many changes in the rest of the world. It nobody wants to change and it's often painful to have to change but it is in my view absolutely clear that the rest of the world has to accept the fact that the Common Market is a going concern and has to adapt itself to this new fact. But you maybe
you will ask me but will the beneficial consequences be great. That is a detrimental one. I would answer without intimidation much great on the whole Western Europe will be more powerful more prosperous and I would even think more open to the rest of the world because it is not true that if the small European states had stayed isolated they would have given more attention to the rest of the world and more aid to the developing countries. I'm perfect Besley I'm sure that the best guarantee that Europe will be as what I said yesterday out why are looking at it. Even the fact of unity because united Europe is too big to reach too powerful to remain please another
set united Europe. We look towards the rest of the world. After all industrial civilization started in Western Europe today industrial civilisation have become the common characteristic of all the word. But I believe there is something noble in great in the fact that after so many kinds after so many follies the European peoples in the end are coming together not for war but for peace not for the munition but for prosperity to create a new world in a very old continent. A last point in the programme of the days it was the word conscription. I did not know at first what it meant but in the end I had an idea and that maybe conscription wants to give me my conclusion.
Conscription the British never had it before their victory in 1945. They took it for a few years and then they left. We French we never had conscription so we still have conscription. The Dems lost conscription at the time of defeat and regain it with a powerful assistance of the United States in the Atlantic well. So you see Britain without conscription. France with conscription. Germany with conscription to Germany is a very strong constitution. France in time all. So you see the old nations are still faithful to their soul to their past because of an historical continent. There is no way of changing without Khomeini said. But the professor I don't see mocks we almost come to the conclusion that the
last British and I located in Europe which is a far cry from the slogan during the end of the last war did Britain will fight to the last European. And now ladies and gentlemen we will hear a few exceptionally well chosen remarks by Mr William de bald commenting on Professor out of honest speech. Thank you Mr. Chairman. After a talk that is so rich and stimulating is that I think almost any comment is bound to be an anticlimax. But I would like to make a remark on one or two of the points that ran right through Professor Iran's speech and perhaps a word or two about American attitudes and policies since they are so very much connected with the questions that he touched on and which he brought in at the end in his reference to the president's recent Interdependence Day speech. Of course the American interest in this goes far that we have in our my country some proprietary interest in this word
pragmatism and we can't help but being pleased by degree the progress of this cultural export appears to have made particularly in the homes of systematic thinking and political parties based on ideologies manifestos and doctrines which cause positions to be taken on each point. We're not so surprised to see this said of our British friends although there we do suffer from the language difficulty we had rather thought that the British word for this was muddling through. And it may perhaps be necessary to get the lexicographers to work on questions of synonyms are not synonyms. But as to the relation of this to the fact of Europe and of the fact of reddish application and the consequent fact for the rest of us you know with America and the rest of the world or outside. This is nothing new. It's more than ten years ago that Mr Monday in discussing in the early days of the European
coal and steel community in discussing the question of Britain's relation to that first major enterprise of European integration said it's very clear what we must do. What the British are good at is facing facts. We must give them some facts to face. I think a lot which our own said what Mr. Clarke said last night show that that has been very much a central theme of what's gone on. Now this we must be careful I think not to carry off thought or our talk to the point of thinking that pragmatism is a matter of principle in Europe if that's not a contradiction in terms I think it's clear from what Meszaros said it's been a matter of necessity in order. There are many doctrines of Europe. There are many conflicting interests conflicting motives can play conflicting reasons for European integration. The fact that it has Weyrich that has been successful has been in an important degree the result of the
combination of the of these forces not always in the same combination in changing groupings. And this is where the pragmatism came in. I think this is a mark of great strength. It is a normal social phenomenon. It seems to me that multiple forces and multiple objectives and people with different reasons often conflicting reasons coming together to support something. This this is this is the way politics works. This is the way society gets ahead. The very fact that it is worth someone's while to have a lobby in Brussels or Luxemburg as well as in his national capital this sort of thing which is sometimes looked on as not being very. A very high minded kind of activity this is a symbol of the reality of the of the of the of the process of European integration. Now there are some consequences that follow from from this view if you take
it. One is that this is a process in which changing combinations changing purposes changing balances of power national international supranational private are grouped in different ways at different times. And that means that one must look very skeptically indeed at any simple answers to the popular questions about European integration. Is the community primarily political or economic. One must look carefully at the arguments in this great debate about super nationality versus into governmental integration. One must be. Careful about talk of surrendering sovereignty in order to be sure that what is not just to be sure whether it's a question of giving up the legal form of something where there is no real power in order to create real power and a different legal form. There is another important consequence of this mixed view that Professor
Arles put forward which I think I don't want to saddle him with. My view is this I think that he has touched Iran on the central fact of the of the whole process we're witnessing and that is the one that he mentioned when he spoke of the difficulty of prediction five years ago when the Treaty of Rome was signed. There were many predictions about the what the common market would be like now how many years it would take to do this that the other thing I know of none that was right. Neither the greatest champions nor the greatest critics of the Common Market at that time expected that in this period of five years quite so much progress should have been made. There are many reasons for this which we can go into later if you're interested but the important fact is that many things that was set down then and on no longer highly relevant. And the key there is no way because we are dealing here with a
process that involves will of the country all all of the forces of way of the Western European economy. There is no way that I know to freeze in any agreement that is made now or in any prediction is made now what the future will be what what will the future of the Common Market will be in five years. This does not mean that agreements made now will be violated it is more a matter of their becoming irrelevant as well as problems change and circumstances alter alter the real interests and the real needs not only of the members but also of those of us outside in the rest of the world. I think it is. On that note of the interest and concern of the rest of the world that I might say just a word on American policy. This story American policy with regard to European integration like so many other stories begins with the Marshall Plan the Marshall Plan was
not an effort to unite your up the Marshall Plan was an effort to help European reconstruction. Certain practical things became necessary steps toward the removal of trade barriers to make possible European recovery to make it possible for Europe to use its own resources. This led to a realisation of what could be accomplished by it closer drawing together of the countries of Europe the need for strengthening Europe in all respects the as the pressure from the east became manifest and felt the need to find a way for Western Germany to live better for itself and for its neighbors in Western Europe. All played a part in the early days. The United States was very closely involved in European integration. You know on a technical level in working out such things as European payments Union and very broadly in the policies of governments but that changed
some time between 1950 when Mr Schumann's initiative for the coal and steel community showed how much Father Europe might be prepared to go than any Americans were prepared to think they could urge the Europeans to go between then and 1954 when the French Assembly ended the earth. European defense community and it became clear what the limits of American influence in Europe was. Sometime in there I say the process of European integration became self propelled it became most clearly a European enterprise. It had always been a European enterprise but one in this case that was almost purely European. The United States. Policy became much more one of supporting approving much less one of having any
significant role in shaping the common market or of or for the steps had been taken to to carry it out. There is something of a parallel with regard to our policy toward the United Kingdom in the early days. There was a good bit of feeling that the British ought to be more forthcoming on this that the other point there was some difficult passages. And after some stormy SESSIONS I think American policy altered it became possible to accept the idea that it was up to the British and the Europeans to decide mostly what the relation of Britain and Europe would be. When the British decided as Mr Clarke described the process last night in 1960 that they were going to have to draw nearer the Americans could only approve. I think we've made it very clear that we believe and when I say we I think this is a general view because it is a
that's a foolish thing to say but I'm not about the United States but broadly speaking it is true that American policy toward European integration has received very wide support has been very few. There's been very little overt opposition not even much questioning. I would say Washington's policy on British entry now was to approve to say make it clear that this is regarded as something that is both in British interest and likely in our view to strengthen in the long run the European unity that we said entity that we see emerging. I don't think. It is right to say that we are pushing Britain. I don't think we have the power to do very much. I think I trust we are wise enough to understand that whatever the future relation of Britain and Europe it has to be worked out essentially between the two parties. But the consequences of Britain's entering the
Common Market are such that they raise in a very acute form. All of the issues of the impact of the Common Market the impact of European integration on the rest of the world. This is not new this is not surprising. There are many people naturally who didn't quite realize what these problems might mean for them so far as United States government was concerned it was always understood that there would be problems about our own trade about the trade of the rest of the world. It is true that we didn't expect them to come quite so quickly. The acceleration of the common market plus the fact that our own balance of payments difficulties and our own the sluggishness in our economy all coincided made the made the made the issues a little sharper it would have been easy to postpone action in the circumstances. But. President chose the other cause. So far it appears that at least
in his trade bill which is the first major step in this policy he is receiving substantial support. That's much more than trade involved. There is already a wide range of economic cooperation between United States and Europe which is on the one hand helping us on our balance of payments difficulties. On the other laying the groundwork for a more effective cooperation in bringing the European the new European strength to bear on the reshaping of the free world economy that appears to be needed and may be in process. This is adaptation of the saw to Professor how wrong mentioned if you like but it should be I believe more than adaptation. What has happened in Europe is progress. Historically important it is great progress by any reasonable standards. The problem for the rest of the world is to.
Give direct the momentum to communicate the momentum of the change that has taken place in Europe to the rest of the world to use the new strength of Europe for this reshaping of of the of the free world economy. What this will mean in terms of partnership interdependence things it will have to be explored redolent later. Thank you Mr. Ladies and gentlemen while you collect your thoughts for an extremely provocative question Professor I would like to make a short remark almost a form of a postscript. Yes I would say first that the United States obviously clearly strongly in favor of the entity of Great Britain into the Common Market. It had been received by some circles in France at any case with mixed feelings because it was a little
offended by this thought of too strong intervention of the United States in the question which was after all mean the European question. Personally I believe that the entry of Great Britain in the common market is extremely probable. Whatever the attitude of the United States might be the cinema market would like to make is that it is not excluded that in a certain with a common market should be the victim of its own success. Because as a common market in the present form is the reality with Great Britain it will be something else. And with the Scandinavian countries with the neutral countries as associate it will again be something else. I do not think it will be worse nor would I say it would be better. I just say nobody can predict exactly what sort of animal the Common Market will be. We so many candidates to the end. After so few years. In my last remark would be easy that I have said that the
Common Market is a going concern and I would maintain the proposition but I did not mean that it is already an accomplished fact that there will be a political unity even of the six. Not sure that's one economy. Integration is the way to political unity is inevitable. I would believe you'd say all Marxists too admit that economy going to Gratian implies political solutions and specially if so many counties enter into the Common Market. It is quite possible that the movement towards political unity will stay in the middle of the lot. Ladies and gentlemen the floor is now yours. Gentlemen right here in the midst of August. You spoke about united Iraq. Do you mean by that you would consider Europe united. When Great Britain joins it but
that leaves many countries outside the Scandinavian countries and Austria Switzerland Spain Portugal tactic. It's still a divided Europe. What you are like to comment on what attitude you think sex would take should take on what I would say unifying the whole of Western Europe. Yes. I must first say that when I said the interdependence between the United States and United Europe I was just quoting the president of the United States. So it was not a form of self for satisfaction with the six. It's not a way of being conceited and making the confusion between the six in all Iraq. It's only because it's an ordinary way of speaking to dig. Now to come to to your question there are many different problems. There is the problem of
the so-called neutrals namely Switzerland Sweden Austria as you well know the administration of the United States is not in favor of the entering into the Common Market. The people in Washington believe that there is a contradiction between being miracles and being a part of the Common Market. It's not that the government of the United States wants to make the common market instrument of the Cold War. No they mean that the common market as the six are part of the Atlantic community and that they may be association between united Europe and the neutrals but that the neutral should not be in part asking what I think about it. I believe there are different problems because I believe that the problem of Sweden is different from the problem of Austria. In the case of Austria I would make the most of the greatest possible
concessions to the demands of Austria because Austria is not neutral by free decision but by international necessity it was a prize of the creation of Austria by the Russian troops. And I would say at the same time that it's not possible to have all stria in the Common Market and impossible to refused it. This is necessary economy concessions in the case of Sweden and Switzerland. We have perfectly the right to remain neutral. I would try to negotiate some treaty of association but certainly the reports cannot be raised against a common market that Europe is divided because Sweden and Switzerland are not in because by choosing to to be neutral they choose not to be in the United Europe. We can do nothing about it when it comes to spin it gotta go. I don't want to enter into burning questions but I would suggest that the answer will Kong in due time
and in due course when song changes in the Indian regimes of these two counties happens. Mister just a moment Mr. De bald How do you stand behind. Because I don't like one man and he mocks on the attitude of the US. I stand behind him when he says that the problems are different. I do think it's a little bit we must we must be clear here that first of all it is not just Washington that has a policy on this. It is the policy starts in the capitals of the. I'm talking of the three neutral countries Australia is a special case it has the state treaty taking count and the other two neutrals do not wish to join the common market because they they feel that it has this step would have political implications they could not accept. They have asked for rather special status or appear to have asked for it in which they would like as much. Economic participation is possible without something like full membership.
I don't know exactly what is in the minds of the men in Washington I have noticed that Professor Howe Stein the chairman of the European Economic Commission Mr. Spock have said very similar things. I think there is here a real feeling of worry about dilution and much more there that if every case that is a special case is to be treated the way we spend way Switzerland and Sweden would like to be the extent to which the common market might become the center of a cluster of bilateral preferential arrangements raises serious questions about the structure of the trading relations of the free world. I am rather sorry that the talk as in Europe has run so much in terms of association Association has no specific meaning under the Treaty of Rome that would be much better I think if one looked at what the concrete problems of those countries are in their trade with the Common Market. There I think there should be no serious opposition to measures to deal adequately with them.
Thank you. It may be. Why why why why. As you well will tweet it is an exploration of association without definition. And we need to finish it will be different. Mr. Tucker I'm sure I don't you wear it several times mentioning of France Germany and Italy. You made also a remark about that cigars under a common market name but I thought that the other countries in the six Belgium Luxembourg and the Netherlands have played quite a pioneering role to European unity. Is the situation this. Do they play a real role in the sex at the moment and have a real voice in the Assembly of the Common Market. Yes to the part of the audience which may be are the bell looks not to have mentioned the name of the
countries often enough I feel guilty of a lack of diplomatic skill. Now let's come to the club. Do they play will certainly let me take a very simple example. Come I get a cultural policy plan for this new agricultural policy was drafted by the Dutch member of the European Commission. You asked me if they played a role in the European assembly. As you will know the European assemblies not being a great will in the Common Market. What is the European Commission in Basra and in Brussels. The Dutch members are playing very often an important role because they are necessary for a majority of time being as you know the rule of unanimity is applied. The time has not come when they are majority decisions. So as far as I can judge they have not
been serious. I don't buy Albanian all the Dutch friends are oppressed by just so called Seagate or just the beak knows the openings if a little museum or a mall at all has presented his views on necessary isms and attitudes for the new Europe as yet only as Director of Studies at local Prateik days old it cute entires principal commentator on the evening address was William dbl Jr. was senior research fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. Mr. Kurtz Witten president of Encyclopaedia Britannica of Canada was chairman people living in the general area of Lake which are invited to attend single sessions of this year's conference. Meetings begin at 7:45 and you may purchase tickets at the door. Tomorrow night the topic will shift to an examination of the social and cultural pattern than in Europe. The speaker will be chairman of the commission of the European Atomic Energy community and this year
can be Hish. Eric Peterson will become a debtor. He's with the research department of the Confederation of Swedish trade unions in Stockholm. Chairman for the evening will be George Grant an associate professor in the Department of Religion at McMaster University in Hamilton the thirty first conference will be the basis for a book to be published by the University of Toronto press it will be ready this autumn and may be ordered from the publisher at $2 a copy. I hope you'll be listening to moral in the CBC and the Canadian Institute on public affairs combine to present the third session of coaching Bob Wilson speaking technical operation is by John Skelton. This is CBC Radio the Trans-Canada network.
- Couchiching conference
- Episode Number
- Producing Organization
- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
- Contributing Organization
- University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
- AAPB ID
- Series Description
- The 31st edition of an annual meeting held in Geneva Park, Ontario. Political matters are discussed, with an emphasis on how they relate to Canada. This edition focuses on "The New Europe."
- Media type
Host: Wilson, Bob
Producing Organization: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Producing Organization: Canadian Institute on Public Affairs
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 62-ex2-2 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Couchiching conference; 2,” 1962-07-29, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed December 4, 2023, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-wm13sn1s.
- MLA: “Couchiching conference; 2.” 1962-07-29. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. December 4, 2023. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-wm13sn1s>.
- APA: Couchiching conference; 2. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-wm13sn1s