THE CITY OF OXFORD HIGH SCHOOL MAGAZINE Vol LV, iii JULY 1963 No 178
“The Six’, European Coal and Steel Community, Euratom, Council of Europe – new organizations for a New Europe; novel constructions rising high over the ruins of the Second World War, a war expressive of ancestral feuds and political bigotry allied to a nationalism (not Germany’s alone) that was both self-seeking and self-destroying.
Of post-war rebuilders seeking new foundations for a more stable Europe none was more shrewdly practical than M. Robert Schuman who, as French Foreign Minister in 1950, not only urged the integration of French and German coal and steel but laid down the broad pattern for Continental federation:
‘Europe will not be built all at once, or through a single comprehensive plan. It will be built through concrete achievements, which will create a ‘de facto’ solidarity…. These proposals will build the first concrete foundations of the European Federation which is indispensable to the preservation of peace.’
To create some actual solidarity the ECSC, Common Market (i.e. the European Community of the Six) and Euratom were set up, in the belief that fusion of material interests is a sure way to securing diverse peoples’ allegiance to common political pro-grammes.
During the Easter holidays it was my privilege to visit, under the auspices of the ‘European-Atlantic Movement’, these ‘capitals’ of the New Europe and to sense the surge of those forces that seek to recreate the ancestral patterns of economics and society, culture and politics. Brussels (CM and Euratom), Luxembourg (ECSC), Strasbourg (Council of Europe), together with Paris (NATO, SHAPE and OECD) lay on the study itinerary, moving from the comparatively provincial atmosphere of the Six to the hemisphere of trans-Atlantic co-operation that involves over 20 per cent of the World’s population.
And what of this mid-twentieth century Europe? What were my impressions?
In the CM headquarters there is undeniably a sense of purpose, an awareness that a sounder and stronger Europe is in the making. Rising productivity, increasing national prosperity, favourable trade balances-all encourage optimism for the future. Beyond doubt the participants have been fired with a new ideal. Economic co-operation or even integration is not enough; political oneness is the goal! But will this mean a new power-block, a Third Force in this split world? A block capable of dominating Europe without adequately representing the whole of Europe? Official spokesmen of the Community were at pains to deny this intention; but already the Six seem to show an inward-looking tendency, regarding themselves as the New Europe, the Continent’s vital core around which lie the deranged fragments of old-style Europe. ‘We are the pioneers of the new European political culture, we are the pace-setters of the new prosperity, we are the New Europe,’ may fairly represent their unspoken thoughts. The Community’s ‘European Parliament’, having concrete short-term economic and political objectives undertaken by deeply-committed national participants, is showing a vigour far outstripping that of the broader-based less-concerted Council of Europe. What takes years to be achieved in the sixteen-nation Council may be done in only months by the parliament of the ‘lesser Europe’, therefore it will not be surprising if the work of the latter does not impair the prestige and influence of the other.
On the other hand there was evidenced by all but French spokesmen of the Six, Euratom and ECSC a sincere regret that Britain had been kept out of the Community; though most considered the setback only temporary.
Would we benefit by entry? Undecided when I lett for Belgium, I am still uncertain. The Six are nationally more prosperous by their co-operation, but their society in general seems to have a smaller cut of the profits than is the case in Britain. The cost of living in France is astronomical by our standards. ‘France prospers it has been said, but not the French.’ In Luxembourg business is booming but the quality of new houses for steel workers is inferior to our standard-type ‘council houses’. Steel production is up but workers’ welfare, though a concern of the Eus, apparently lags behind our standards.
By its very nature – primarily an economic federation – material concerns have been paramount in the thinking of the Community’s leaders. In the Council of Europe. however, the emphasis is otherwise; for, having no direct responsibility in schemes of economic co-operation, its energies are devoted primarily to man’s social and cultural needs. The Council was set up in 1949 as Europe’s first political institution ‘to achieve a greater unity between its Members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress’ This aim is pursued ‘ by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific and legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms’
The work is slow for not all member states, by virtue of historical development, are equally respectful toward human rights and freedoms, but significant progress is being made-both in establishing sound principles for social progress and in providing practical arrangements for social welfare. To illustrate the latter there is the setting up of a European Blood Bank for lack of which the loss of life in the North Sea floods of January 1953 was all the greater. For the former there is the very important Social Charter which sets out ‘a fundamental basis of standards caretully pre-prescribed and voluntarily adhered to … in which the workers themselves will be represented to watch over their application. In serving the steel worker, the docker and the postman in their everyday lives, it will also reinforce the democratic way of life, that open society which European unity is dedicated to uphold’.
All this is good humanitarian work which recognizes that ‘man does not live by bread alone’. Herein is a slow but sound way of harmonizing the concert of Europe.
Finally, as no study of the Continent is complete without reference to that trans-continental alliance which guarantees the preservation of our Western and Democratic way of life, a word about NATO, an organization thrown up by the most integrative wide range of interests undertaken by what seems at first twas the a military organization. Divergent politics, diverse cultural patterns, economic difficulties and differences within and between each of the fifteen member nations all affect the smooth working of the organization. All therefore must be constantly considered.
Without NATO Western Europe would have no future; and so long as NATO exists the prospect of W. European nations finding ways of co-operation or integration is enhanced, for only behind the military shield do the pioneers of co-operation (Council of Europe) or of integration (the Six) have freedom to work.
What of Britain in the New Europe? Deeply committed to NATO, earnest participant in the Council of Europe as a believer in co-operation rather than integration, but only an associate with the mighty Six (e.g. in atomic research), where do we go from here? Ought we to be more involved, renouncing much of our independence? Or is it by independence that we can best serve both Europe and countries further away? Sometimes I am almost persuaded that President de Gaulle reminded us rightly of our true position when on January 14th of this year he said:
‘England is insular, she is maritime… she has in all her doings very marked and very original habits and traditions… The very nature and structure of Great Britain differ profoundly from those of the Continental countries…’
So he closed the CM door against us. Were we in danger of selling our birthright for a bowl of pottage?
M L Bufton