England and the EC

For many years I have firmly believed in the European idea and considered it as one of the most hopeful and exciting developments of this century. Everyone has his own way of describing the significance of Europe. I see present-day Europe against the background of our common history, which has given so much to mankind in both the field of culture and that of science. Seen in this way, our striving for unity reflects the traditions and efforts of many centuries.

The roots of the common civilisation, which in the course of time has spread itself out over the entire world, go back to Roman times. The splendour of its achievements can still be seen today in the marvellous buildings that are found everywhere in Europe. Even when its unity shattered and single nation states appeared in its place, there remained an impressive spiritual and cultural community.

We live in one continually developing civilisation, for which there is no precedent in world history. Despite more than a thousand years of history, the essential unity of European civilisation has nevertheless been preserved. It has not grown apart. Notwithstanding frightful political conflicts at times, each nation in Europe has adapted in its way to this developing inheritance and contributed its share to the enrichment of the others. This development distinguishes Europe from all other civilisations, where a common culture was usually the expression of the political mastery of a mighty neighbour over weaker states. Europe was also unique in one other regard. Other civilisations made scientific discoveries yet failed to use them. The special characteristic of Europe since the Renaissance is to apply ideas and discoveries to the welfare of humanity the whole world over. With the help of science, mankind was freed from the fetters of nature, and this complemented a deep devotion to human values, which made possible the rise of flourishing, free and [end p1] pluralistic societies.

It is in the nature of European society that this does not come to a standstill. Each generation sees itself confronted by the challenge of interpreting the inheritance anew and adapting it to the circumstances accordingly. Thus wrote Goethe: “What you inherit from your fathers, earn it in order to possess it.” Our spiritual and cultural values only remain alive if they are continually examined and renewed. Then a society can only preserve its free and and pluralistic political system if freedoms are perpetually defended against decay and attack.

Hence the Europe of my conception is a living and energetic community, which is held together by both strong historical bonds and also the experience of partnership during the last twenty years. It will thereby be made clear to the world how free pluralistic societies can together solve the problems which all mankind confronts in the modern world.

The individual countries of Europe can no longer do this for themselves. If they wish to continue their historical task, they must come together and talk and bargain together.

At the start of a great adventure it is perhaps natural to overlook the great and painful difficulties which lie on the road ahead. When they in course of time appear, it is only understandable that a mixture of impatience and disappointment should be the result. So, it seems to me, may be described the present mood in the Community. The civilisation of Europe is geared to the future. Plans and strategies are drafted for its development. Experience teaches, however, that there is always another surprise the next day. I do not believe that we will progress far in Europe if we develop definite plans for the next generation. Our goal is to transform, on the basis of earlier experiences, the political and economic relationships of the present into a lasting and successful partnership.

In order to lead this kind of partnership to success, in my view the main problem of the Community for all of us—citizens and governments alike—lies in developing a suitable form of co-operation. In my opinion, this goal will not be reached by artificial paths. Obviously common institutions are needed to satisfy the requirements. However there are limits to what can be achieved through institutions and bureaucracies. Apprehension [end p2] is growing that the great idea of Europe could get bogged down in the abundance of points at issue over regulations and guidelines. For this reason, in my view it is premature to talk about the possibility of a federal Europe. History knows enough examples of defunct organisations which were supposed to bring the nations together. They were still-born because they tried to do too much too soon without awakening a lasting sense of partnership.

Presently much is spoken in Europe about “Federalism” . During my foreign travels, however, I have remarked that each country understands something different by it. In my lifetime, in my opinion, there will be no central European government accountable to a central European parliament with nation states having only powers comparable to those of the states of the USA. On the basis of our history, even in the future the national governments and national parliaments will play a greater role in Europe.

For some in Europe, this may be less than the founding fathers of the Community dreamt a generation ago. However I do not believe that the “pragmatic” and “visionary” approaches are fundamentally contradictory. Rather I believe that we need both. The challenges and rewards connected with membership of the Community remain as great as before. In order to master these, we must all be firmly determined and realistic, without thereby losing the enthusiasm and vision of the European idea. A vision without objectivity leads to a disappointment. Objectivity without a wealth of ideas comes to a standstill.

The seventies have proved themselves to be a restless and unpleasant decade. The effects of the economic crisis have led to a diminution of political decisiveness within the Community and demonstrated the difficulty of achieving the purposive partnership on which the future depends. The attention of the Community was concentrated on the regular meetings of the European Council and its obvious inability to make a constructive contribution to solving the common economic problems. As a result of this, it is repeatedly asserted that the Community has lost its drive.

When assertions of this kind are made, it is often forgotten that the path to partnership is always stony. It is easy for [end p3] statesmen to come together at the conference table and proclaim a fine-sounding yet empty declaration of principles. But it is not easy to take decisions which have direct effects on the welfare of 250 million people in nine countries. This applies all the more in a period when each Government is concerned with combatting unemployment and inflation its own country.

Nevertheless, it is certainly troubling to witness how the meetings of the European Council turn into a place of unnecessary conflicts. To bring national interests completely into harmony with the interests of Europe is the key to success in Europe. In order to achieve this, a spirit of partnership must arise and bargaining be adapted to it.

Naturally, each country will haggle with emphasis for its vital national interest. Britain, for example, must negotiate fishing rights with the utmost determination. In this, however, neither the vital national interests of the others nor the interests of Europe as a whole should be lost from view.

One of the first tasks of a Conservative Government in Britain will be to try to revive this spirit in dealings with other member governments. It is a disastrous and terrible view to regard the Community as an organisation from which a country can draw extensive financial or other advantages at the expense of the remaining members. The Community and its members can only prosper in the long run if they hold fast to the spirit of partnership.

However, just because the European scene is presently governed by the direct interaction of the national governments which haggle at the conference table, it would be a mistake to believe that this must always be so. There is also a “Europe of citizens” , and one of the most pressing priorities should be the effort to rouse this to life. The process of leading the citizens of Europe closer together over the next generation is already underway on many levels. Business people, employees, trade unionists, officials and teachers are gradually forming ever closer ties with their partners within Europe. The unity of particular European professional groups and political alliances will become yet more clearly visible in the future.

The work of the Commission has partly taken this necessity into account. There still exists the danger of supporting trade [end p4] too much with administrative arrangements, which sometimes are unavoidably seen by the citizens in the street as decrees of a secretive and distant bureaucracy.

Direct elections for a European Parliament are important for precisely this reason. They will help make the citizens of the Community conscious that the institutions are created by them and that they decide about their work.

At the same time, I hope that the new Commission undertakes appropriate steps to come closer to the citizens of Europe and that it learns to come to them with clear language. The role of the Commission is inevitably difficult. As I have already explained, neither is it the nucleus of a future federal government nor can it behave as such. It is also not “a tenth member” of the Community. It is rather the institutionalised expression of our common identity in Europe. Hitherto the Commission has been too distant from the normal citizens of the Community of Nine. I hope the new Commission will make an energetic attempt to diminish this gap.

The coming direct elections are an impetus to new activities to bring Europeans together at the level of political parties. The Conservative Party allows no-one to surpass it in underlining the significance of co-operation between European parties with the same goals. It has been our goal to achieve an effective working community with the European parties of the centre right before, during, and after the first round of direct elections.

The political arithmetic of Europe shows that a solid alliance between the Christian Democrats, the Conservatives, the French majority parties and their allies in the present European Parliament, even without the support of the Liberals, would help to get a majority against the united Socialists and Communists.

This was one of the most noteworthy developments during the past year. Contacts between leading personalities of these centre right parties within the Community give the opportunity to compare opinions on problems of common interest and receive new suggestions. My visit to Hanover in summer 1976 as the guest of Dr Kohl and the CDU is still very clear in my recollection as an especially fruitful example of the form of exchange of views between the parties which will be of still more significance in the future. Our youth movements as well as our student and [end p5] women's organisations are already on this path.

Regarding the general European search for a form of partnership, there is presently no formula for success. We must develop a relationship built upon mutual understanding. But that takes time. The path there leads via a long history and perhaps sometimes even via mutual misunderstanding.

According to my conviction, the progress to be expected will lead however to the conclusion that the multitude of things held in common far exceeds these difficulties.

I believe that the European parties of the centre right can obtain agreement across a wide area; this applies, for example, to a concerted foreign policy. What appears especially important in formulating this policy, is the belief in the free development of human potential, in the significance of the family as a social unit, in high standards in education and public life, which are based upon Christian teaching, and finally in the significance of Europe as a vital and constructive force in the modern world.

The British Conservative Party has dealt with these themes in the philosophical chapter of its recently published policy document The Right Approach. It is presently engaged enthusiastically on consideration of these themes in working out a European policy and will also discuss this with friendly parties at the coming first round of direct elections. In the meantime, I have established with satisfaction that members of our party in the majority of constituencies have already formed notable connections with constituencies in the remainder of Europe. This is especially true of the younger members, with whom a regular exchange takes place.

Even at the beginning of the third decade of the Community, many of its core problems are still unsolved. The search goes on for practical steps towards overcoming the remaining problems. One way—the direct elections—I have already mentioned.

I also hope that effective instruments will be developed for combatting the common economic enemies, namely inflation and unemployment. I am certain that there is no quick route to a rapid monetary and economic union. It has also become clear that the handling of some economic difficulties within the Community must be on the basis of a broader partnership with other leading industrial nations. In this context, however, we should not lose [end p6] sight of the true threat to the future of the Community which lies in the divergence of economic conditions in the individual countries. The activity of the regional and social funds has already made a valuable contribution to the promotion of under-developed areas within the Community. But a simple distribution of money cannot be the final answer. No lasting restructuring of the less favoured would be achieved thereby, and, on the other hand, the wealthy would certainly be penalised and put at a disadvantage, which would produce new and justified ill-feeling.

Ways should rather be sought to help Europe as a whole towards better co-operation, stronger self-confidence, and a greater spirit of enterprise. This includes not only a transfer and exchange of material assistance, but also of commercial spirit, know-how, and entrepreneurial experience. Naturally, this will be promoted by the European parties of the centre right. I believe, however, that this will also be furthered through the increasing number of contacts between Europeans across traditional frontiers.

In addition, there are problems which affect us all, such as the energy question, fisheries, and agriculture. I believe however that, with determination, confidence, and understanding of the needs of others, progress can be achieved. Each success in this area is a step forward on the path to partnership and increases the prospects of overcoming more difficult challenges in other areas.

Besides, there is a large number of points in the foreign relations of the Community which make a common stance necessary. The Community is not a military power. It is therefore essential to maintain the military strength of the European countries in NATO together with the allies. On the basis of its economic and financial strength, the European Community is now a greater civil power. It is the greatest trading power in the world and, to an increasing extent, acts as unit.

For the countries of the EC, there exists an exceptional challenge to make use of their resources and experience and to enter into a constructive dialogue with the rest of the world. I want no passive Europe which merely reacts to menaces from without. The best way to protect our own interests is to spread the special European values of freedom, entrepreneurial spirit, [end p7] and pluralistic tolerance in the rest of the world.

Hitherto, the countries of the EC have only insufficiently brought their negotiating position to a common denominator to promote foreign policy aims. There is a large number of cases of dispute in the world, whose solution is in our interest, yet where we have not hitherto been active.

The problems of the Mediterranean states are at the top of the list of pressing tasks. Whether one takes the Greco-Turkish dispute, Cyprus, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, in each case the Community enjoys a considerable political and economic influence on both sides. It should not hesitate to use this to promote peace and stability. In Cyprus, I would welcome a joint initiative by the Community and the new American administration to bring together the different parties on the island and outside and to make a serious attempt at concluding an agreement that has hitherto proved so difficult.

We should prepare for a time in which the Mediterranean becomes a sea of peace. In one way or another, the EC already maintains relations with all the adjacent states with the exception of Albania. These must be extended further in the interests of common prosperity and stability. The form of the relationship with each individual state will inevitably differ. In respect of the countries of the southern Mediterranean area, there is the goal of developing solid economic and political relations, which will put them in a position to push ahead further with the difficult task of national development. With some of the northern countries, the EC works for closer ties. Greece and Spain are negotiating about entry into the European Community. Portugal could share this desire in the not too distant future. The enlargement of the Community will have many economic and political consequences. It will be confronted with difficult questions in this connection. Because of the course adopted with regard to the present efforts to enlarge the Community, the member states should now enter into an intensive dialogue about the future and the nature of the EC. At the same time, however, new ways for contacts and discussions should be opened even to the possible applicant countries.

I would also like to see a common stance towards the Soviet Union and the eastern European states. For too long the Soviet [end p8] Union has been allowed to play one country against another in the Community—for example, in the guaranteeing of credits. For too long the Soviet Union has been able to close its eyes to the existence of the Community. Only very slowly is a change to be registered here.

The instrument whereby greater agreement can be achieved in foreign policy is the Council of Ministers. Indeed, foreign policy is not covered by the regulations of the treaties; the foreign ministers of the Nine are nevertheless obliged to co-operate closely with the Commission, because they often have to rely on the negotiating skill of the Commission. Whether the Council of Ministers, when acting in the sphere of foreign relations, needs the support of a secretariat of its own or not, is a question about which I am open-minded. There is no point in creating a new machinery for its own sake—on the other hand, there exists a clear need for a new impetus in respect of a common foreign policy.

Considering the European Community in the year 1977, I feel neither great satisfaction nor great despair. If the Community is to grow and flourish and become more than a Community only in name, all initiatives must be unified. For this there is no other way, not even that of special bilateral ties. Both we in Britain and also our friends in Italy must make a serious and consistent attempt to overcome our economic ills, so that in future the same progress can be achieved here as in other countries. Within the Community, all must get used to seeing the existing problems in European terms and to subordinating short-term individual interests to the long-term advantages of the Community. We must learn the art of voluntary agreement.

To achieve this goal, we must always keep before our eyes this perspective of Europe which I sketched at the beginning of my contribution. During the last two thousand years, Europe has achieved a great deal to benefit itself and mankind. There are many practical and direct advantages which the Community safeguards for its members. During the British referendum on entry into the Community in 1975, among other things, I explained: “In a time of uncertainty in the world, Europe gives us a better chance of peace and security, and if we want our children to enjoy the benefits of peace, our best method is to [end p9] stay in Europe.”

Apart from that, in my opinion the European idea is the only way that our civilisation can continue to make a great contribution to the development and welfare of mankind. If we stand divided, if we relapse into individual national interests, we will be isolated and ineffective. Then our inventiveness will diminish and our power to nurture the values of freedom in the modern world will disappear. The challenges which the Community faces are considerable. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Community is the only way forward for a population and a civilisation which should continue to make its contribution to the world.