Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Each Time a crisis looms in the European Community, one hears the question: “Has the European Community passed the point of no return or will this crisis end it?”1 The Community of six states, created in Luxembourg in 1952 and expanded in Brussels in 1958, has survived each of these crises and is now reaching political maturity. The question becomes less “Will the Community survive?” and more “What kind of political and economic entity will the Community become?”
1 The author acknowledges the assistance of the Rockefeller Foundation which provided support for the research carried out in connection with this article. He acknowledges also the assistance of Roberta M. Weil.
2 In the voting, France, Germany and Italy are assigned four votes, Belgium and the Netherlands two, and Luxembourg one. Twelve votes are required to adopt a Commission proposal; the twelve votes must include four member states in those few cases where the Council can make a decision without a Commission proposal.
3 See Haas, Ernst B. “International Integration: The European and Universal Processes” International Organization, XV (1961), 367–368.Google Scholar
4 See, for example, Council debates of December, 1963, on farm policy, November, 1964, on the list of exceptions for Kennedy Round.Google Scholar
5 European Economic Community, Official Spokesman of the Commission, Information Memo P/29(65).
6 The Commission estimated that before 1970 farm policy expenditures would total 1.3 billion dollars and that revenue from farm import levies would only be half as much.Google Scholar
7 The Commission gives legal and political arguments for linking the three proposals in: European Economic Community, Official Spokesman of the Commission, Press Release IP (65) 130.
8 It should be noted that Frenchmen were not absent from the Commission, Court, and Parliament during the crisis.
9 For a historical analysis of the crisis, see: Lambert, John, “The Constitutional Crisis 1965–66,” Journal of Common Market Studies (1966), pp. 195–228.Google Scholar
10 See Press Conference of President Gaulle, De, 09 9, 1965, and statement in the National Assembly by de Murville, Couve, 10, 20 1965.Google Scholar
11 See de France, Ambassade, Service de Presse et d’Information. New York, French Affairs, No. 187, 01 19, 1966.Google Scholar
12 See Europe bulletin (Brussels), 01 28, 1966, and unnumbered Council of Ministers document of 01 29, 1966.Google Scholar
13 Unnumbered Council of Ministers document of 01 29, 1966.Google Scholar
14 During the second stage (1962–1966), there had been 100 cases in which majority voting could have been used, and it was applied in ten of these, none a major political question. The majority vote rule had a valuable influence, for the average time required for decisions on the 100 questions where the rule could be invoked had been from four to six months, while matters of similar importance requiring unanimity took from 12 to 16 months.Google Scholar
15 The only point of the seven that has been applied thus far calls for both the President of the Council and the President of the Commission to receive ambassadors newly accredited to the Community. In the past the President of the Commission alone received these ambassadors in a striped-pants ceremony which has also been dropped.
16 See decisions of Council of Ministers meeting of 05 11, 1966.Google Scholar
17 In 02, 1966, one member of the permanent representatives’ committee was said to have replied to a French request for the adoption of a general statement on a matter under discussion: “In an atmosphere of perfect trust, general statements are possible; in the present state of affairs, we had better have a detailed decision.”Google Scholar
18 See Towards Political Union, report by Emilio Battista of the Political Committee of the European Parliament, 01, 1964.Google Scholar
19 See, for example, Council of Finance Ministers meeting of 12 20, 1966, and in particular discussion of medium-term economic policy.Google Scholar
20 See, for example, “Forbidden Ground,” The Economist, 12 24, 1966, p. 1323.Google Scholar
21 For details of the merger agreement and its effect on the Communities, see, Weil, Gordon L., “The Merger of the Institutions of the European Communities”, American Journal of International Law, 01, 1967.Google Scholar
22 Articles 111, 112, Treaty of Rome.
23 The Kennedy Round is expected to end prior to 06 30, 1967, that date on which legislation enabling the United States to participate in such a broad tariff-cutting exercise expires.Google Scholar
24 In 1964, 47.5 percent of Austrian exports went to the EEC and 18.4 percent went to EFTA. Source: Statistical Office of the European Communities, Basic Statistics of the Community, 1965, Table 76. About one quarter of Austrian trade is carried on with East European states. Austria wishes to safeguard this trade and the Six look upon this trade as offering increased Community access to East European markets.Google Scholar
