Council of Europe
Council of Europe
May come up.
This doesn't fit well with N.A.T.O. into which we are more anxious to bring Doms.
Also involves amalgamatg. St. area in Europe.
Hard enough to Comm. Won't work unless fiscal policies of members is centrally controlled. If imposs. in Comm., hopeless in Europe.
V. much concerned. Arguments in Annex B. are conclusive of paras. 3(2) and (3) and (5), all of which is true.
Boothby really aims at includg. U.K. into a federal Europe, wh. wd. break up the Comm.
Needn't go so far. Why shdn't we associate Comm. countries with C/Europe; in a general way.
We are not members of Europ. community, but of an Atl. Comm.
Even if we refer it back to Assembly, it may raise false hopes.
Wd. prefer to say at once we can't accept it or ask Doms. to envisage it. Take a firm line now.
Agree with A.E.'s concln. But don't let us tie ourselves in advance to particular line of comm. policy. Many arguments in Annex B. have no reference to Annex A. I have submd. a memo. on Comm. Policy and we shd. take our line, then consult Comm
Endorse paras 6 and 7. But agree with P.T. I don't accept reasoning in para. 3 of Annex B. Don't quite accept Sal's view. St Laurent, Menzies and Evatt and Holland all support Eur. greater unity and our leadership in that.
Embrace conclns. but can't accept arguments in para. 3. Pol. fedn. isn't inevitable : sterling convertibility is not relevant.
We shd. be with not in any Federal system in Europe.
But Eur. unity has won gt. sympathy in Doms. They wd. like some contact with it. Not imposs. for them too to be with not in.
But do we now still prefer Atlantic Community.
Assocn. with Assembly (not Cttee) isn't objectionable.
But this plan is concerned with economic and financial co-opn.
Not in favour of that – only friendly interest in it by Doms.
Don't encourage rivalry or rigid separation betwn. N.A.T.O. and C/Europe.
Agree Comm. is No. 1. circle : but there are others wh. we can belong to and support.
Comm. lookg. twds. U.S. already : that may be intensified if we try to force them into closer assocn. with Europe. Mght also weaken our ties with Comm.
Gap betw. sterling and dollar world. Can't rule out assocn. of some kind betwn. sterling and non sterling/non dollar world.
i) All U.K. parties at Strasb. have opposed U.K. entry into any fedn.
ii) Stressed our Comm. connn.
iii) This sort of plan is designed to find another way of ensurg. our closer association. V. vague idea. Unwise to suggest (as in para. 6(c) ) reference back; for Assembly can put no precision on this. Wd. prefer to keep it in Cttee of Ministers. Certainly no Eur/Comm. Confn – wh. wd. not be inter-Govt. but quite irresponsible. But much of this comes out of desire to help us, and unwise therefore to turn it down. Why not ask other Eur. Govts. to formulate their ideas more precisely and then U.K.
Cttee may say "not our idea, we have nothg. to say".
Then they shd. reject it. No advantage in getting Assembly to look at it again.
Don't send it back to Assembly. Stall it off as stale.
Even that amount of acceptance wd. be wrong. Don't draw Doms. into C/Eur. Only contact shd. be thro' U.K. Must record my dissent. Fear disintegrating effects on Comm.
Agreed : Get it p'poned w'out refce. back to
Assembly. Point out diffculties.
Taken from C.C. 53(52) - Meeting held on 15 May 1952.