Skip to main content Skip to navigation


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>EMU and EU</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="01:01:36" n="9284">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>



<person id="nm1172" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1172, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm1173" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm1173, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="nm1174" role="participant" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1174, participant, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm1175" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm1175, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf1176" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1176, participant, student, female</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="l"><p>ss, audience, large group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="l"><p>sl, all, large group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="7"><p>number of speakers: 7</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Politics and International Studies</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ss</item>

<item n="partlevel">Pre-sessional</item>

<item n="module">unknown</item>





<u who="nm1172"> # <pause dur="0.8"/> i'm going to talk about European politics but more particularly i'm going to talk about the European Union <pause dur="1.2"/> that's the E-U <pause dur="0.2"/> and the changing character of the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> and # the reason for choosing this topic <pause dur="0.5"/> the reason for <gap reason="name" extent="1 word"/> suggesting that we might tackle this topic <pause dur="0.5"/> is that we are <pause dur="0.5"/> # on the eve of a very important change <pause dur="0.2"/> in the European Union because of the <pause dur="0.5"/> imminence <pause dur="0.4"/> of the Economic and Monetary Union <pause dur="0.3"/> EMU <pause dur="0.5"/> E-M-U <pause dur="0.5"/> and the creation in Europe of a single currency that will be coming within the next year or two and preparations for doing that are already well advanced <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> not only will that mean that <pause dur="0.2"/> a new <pause dur="0.4"/> unit of currency the euro will be created for use <pause dur="0.3"/> throughout those members of the European Union who decide to join the # E-M-U <pause dur="1.0"/> # but it will also mean a considerable increase in the powers <pause dur="0.5"/> of the <pause dur="0.5"/> central institutions of the European Union and in particular it will mean the creation of a central European bank <pause dur="0.5"/> which will have quite important

powers <pause dur="0.3"/> in relation to money and taxation <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> with respect to all those <pause dur="0.4"/> member states who have joined <pause dur="0.4"/> the union <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> # # because of its topicality and because of its importance this seems to be a <pause dur="0.3"/> topic <pause dur="0.3"/> to which <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> i can talk and which you might be interested in <pause dur="0.9"/> a a further element in the interest <pause dur="0.7"/> of the <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the European Union is more long term that is to say that <pause dur="0.8"/> in a great many <pause dur="0.4"/> areas of the country <pause dur="0.3"/> of the world i should say <pause dur="0.5"/> both <pause dur="0.2"/> in North America <pause dur="0.3"/> and in East Asia <pause dur="0.5"/> there is a certain amount of experimentation <pause dur="0.4"/> with <pause dur="0.5"/> # entities new regional entities <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> are <pause dur="0.3"/> more or less <pause dur="0.7"/> # # modelled on or inspired by <pause dur="0.4"/> the European Union <pause dur="0.5"/> # not that these <pause dur="0.2"/> other <pause dur="0.3"/> # organizations in other parts of the world <pause dur="0.3"/> have copied <pause dur="0.5"/> # strictly <pause dur="0.2"/> the formulae which had been reasonably successful in a European context that obviously wouldn't have been appropriate <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> # success <pause dur="0.3"/> in quotes of the European Union as a regional economic and political organization <pause dur="0.4"/> has inspired countries in some

other regions to come together <pause dur="0.4"/> # in order to do something rather similar <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.3"/> when we're talking about the European Union we're talking about something which is of <pause dur="0.3"/> worldwide and of global interest <pause dur="0.5"/> and of course <pause dur="1.0"/> finally underlining the importance of our topic <pause dur="0.8"/> # <trunc>an</trunc> and thirdly <pause dur="0.4"/> we are <pause dur="0.2"/> living in a period in which <pause dur="0.6"/> we are more and more conscious <pause dur="0.3"/> of the <pause dur="0.7"/> global <pause dur="0.5"/> operation of the economy especially with regard to <pause dur="0.4"/> currency stability <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> potential currency devaluations <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> in a world of that kind the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/> will <pause dur="0.2"/> once it has its own currency <pause dur="0.4"/> be a major player <pause dur="0.4"/> alongside the United States <pause dur="0.3"/> # and Japan <pause dur="0.6"/> and therefore any <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of understanding of the way in which <pause dur="0.4"/> world <pause dur="0.2"/> politics and especially the economic aspects of world politics operates <pause dur="0.3"/> requires us to understand what sort of an animal <pause dur="0.3"/> the European Union is </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> i've tried to organize the lecture <pause dur="1.1"/> around three broad questions <pause dur="0.6"/> which i thought <pause dur="0.8"/> # might be of interest <pause dur="1.2"/> the first question <pause dur="0.4"/> is why was

the European Union created in the first place <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="1.1"/> implicit in that <pause dur="0.2"/> question is also another question <pause dur="0.6"/> not only why was it created but why has it persisted why has it grown why has it prospered relatively speaking <pause dur="0.5"/> in the period since its creation in nineteen-fifty-eight <pause dur="1.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> it's it's a it's a forty year old institution now so clearly we need to know something if we're going to understand it about the forces that were at work at its birth <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> even more importantly since its nature has changed over time <pause dur="0.4"/> those forces that have had an impact on it subsequently <pause dur="0.3"/> and have allowed it to persist and to grow <pause dur="1.6"/> the second <pause dur="0.2"/> question <pause dur="0.3"/> # i want to <pause dur="0.3"/> ask <pause dur="0.8"/> is what kind of an entity <pause dur="0.8"/> is this <pause dur="0.5"/> union <pause dur="0.2"/> is this European Union which exists <pause dur="0.8"/> we are accustomed to think of the world as divided into <pause dur="0.8"/> however many it is a hundred-and-fifty two-hundred <pause dur="0.4"/> nation states all of which enjoy a degree <pause dur="1.0"/> of independence from one another sometimes described as national sovereignty <pause dur="1.1"/> # and clearly when

regional organizations <pause dur="0.3"/> are created and when they begin to acquire <pause dur="0.5"/> at least some degree of power <pause dur="0.2"/> over their <pause dur="0.2"/> member states <pause dur="0.5"/> then some new kind of entity which is not a national state <pause dur="0.9"/> and perhaps is not a even a supranational state <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>i</trunc> is being created and therefore i want to in my second question <pause dur="0.4"/> reflect a little on what sort of entity <pause dur="0.6"/> # is being created here <pause dur="0.3"/> is it a new national state <pause dur="0.4"/> on a larger scale <pause dur="0.5"/> or is it something rather different from that which i i think is <pause dur="0.6"/> more likely to be the the answer that we're going to reach <pause dur="0.5"/> involved also in that second question <pause dur="0.3"/> of what kind of an entity is the the E-U <pause dur="0.5"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> an answer in terms of <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # beneficiaries if you like <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>i</trunc> in politics we're always keen to know who who <pause dur="0.3"/> who's winning and who's losing <pause dur="0.6"/> and therefore it's important for us <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> to as as students of politics to ask <pause dur="0.6"/> who does the creation of the E-U benefit <pause dur="0.5"/> who is it likely to <pause dur="0.3"/> to to assist and who is it likely not to assist <pause dur="0.3"/> or even perhaps positively <pause dur="0.4"/>

damage or handicap in certain ways <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words in terms of power <pause dur="0.4"/> who is going to benefit from this <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> this initiative this innovation <pause dur="0.5"/> in the organization of international relations <pause dur="0.2"/> and who is going to suffer <pause dur="1.9"/> and the third question i <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to <pause dur="0.3"/> ask which i think is probably less <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> less <pause dur="0.2"/> less crucial less fundamental in some ways but no no no <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.5"/> nevertheless of interest to you i'm sure <pause dur="0.4"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> more specifically <trunc>relit</trunc> regarding the U-K <pause dur="0.9"/> and that is <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> what is the U-K's particular position vis-à-vis Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> and has that position been altered <pause dur="0.4"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> the election of a Labour government last year <pause dur="0.2"/> led by Tony Blair <pause dur="0.2"/> in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> has that <pause dur="0.3"/> political change in the U-K which is no doubt significant in certain respects <pause dur="0.3"/> had any <pause dur="0.6"/> # major significance for the relationship between Britain <pause dur="0.4"/> and the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> which many of you know <pause dur="0.3"/> has often in the past been a rather difficult relationship <pause dur="0.6"/> but my conclusion on that third question will be <pause dur="0.3"/> that it hasn't changed <pause dur="0.4"/> things <pause dur="0.3"/> very

much </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> right <pause dur="0.7"/> let's begin with our first question then why was the <pause dur="0.2"/> # European Union created <pause dur="0.5"/> and i want to begin by giving you two <pause dur="0.3"/> wrong answers if you like because part of the way of course of answering the question is to is to is to <pause dur="0.4"/> suggest <pause dur="0.3"/> possible answers that you need to reject before you get to the correct answer <pause dur="1.3"/> and a popular <pause dur="0.6"/> well i think it's a popular myth anyway a popular myth that surrounds <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> motives underlying the creation of # the European Union <pause dur="0.7"/> in the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.7"/> was that <pause dur="0.3"/> it was <pause dur="0.5"/> a reaction <pause dur="0.7"/> to the danger of war and the <pause dur="0.5"/> those member states <pause dur="0.2"/> in particular France Germany and Italy who had been most directly affected <pause dur="0.4"/> by the ravages of a second world war <pause dur="0.3"/> decided to create the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to prevent <pause dur="0.4"/> future wars amongst themselves <pause dur="0.6"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> the argument here which i'm going to suggest is a mistaken argument <pause dur="0.4"/> is that the European Union was conceived of <pause dur="0.3"/> as a solution to <pause dur="0.2"/> security problems <pause dur="0.3"/> as a solution to <pause dur="0.5"/> the problems

of war and peace <pause dur="0.3"/> and how to secure for <pause dur="1.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Europeans <pause dur="0.5"/> a more stable <pause dur="0.2"/> and a more secure <pause dur="0.2"/> future <pause dur="0.6"/> i think that wasn't in fact the intention <pause dur="0.6"/> # and it wasn't the purpose which the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> was # designed to serve <pause dur="0.4"/> although <pause dur="0.2"/> subsequently many politicians in order to win support <pause dur="0.6"/> for the European Union <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> have tried to play <pause dur="0.2"/> on people's fear of insecurity <pause dur="0.4"/> as a way of justifying <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # the existence of the union and and of and of justifying its expanded role <pause dur="1.1"/> the reason why i reject this argument is that <pause dur="0.7"/> the real threat <pause dur="1.5"/> to security <pause dur="0.7"/> as understood by Europeans in the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.5"/> came <pause dur="0.3"/> from the Soviet Union <pause dur="0.5"/> and the solution which was adopted <pause dur="0.6"/> to that threat <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> what was seen in the nineteen-fifties as a solution to Europe <pause dur="0.2"/> Europe's <pause dur="0.7"/> # security problems <pause dur="0.2"/> was not the European Union but a <trunc>qu</trunc> a quite different sort of organization <pause dur="0.4"/> called <pause dur="0.2"/> NATO the North Atlantic Treaty Organization <pause dur="0.2"/> which was created much earlier <pause dur="0.6"/> # and was <pause dur="0.2"/> explicitly American led <pause dur="0.3"/> as opposed to the

European Union of course <pause dur="0.2"/> of which America is not a member <pause dur="0.3"/> and which even has some <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> some some anti-American or some some independent of American <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> elements in it <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it seems to me that <pause dur="0.3"/> NATO was the answer to security difficulties <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> the answer which <trunc>u</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> Western European countries sought <pause dur="0.4"/> to the security problem in the immediate post-war period <pause dur="0.3"/> was <pause dur="0.3"/> collective security <pause dur="0.3"/> under American leadership <pause dur="0.7"/> and the E-U <pause dur="0.3"/> wasn't concerned with that <pause dur="1.4"/> second wrong answer <pause dur="1.5"/> is to suggest that <pause dur="1.3"/> in some way with advancing prosperity <pause dur="0.7"/> with more international travel <pause dur="0.2"/> with easier and freer communication <pause dur="0.9"/> # between peoples <pause dur="2.0"/> the sense of <pause dur="0.3"/> national identity <pause dur="0.3"/> which Europeans felt <pause dur="0.8"/> was tending to decline <pause dur="1.0"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> a greater sense of <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like cosmopolitan loyalty <pause dur="0.3"/> or of European loyalty <pause dur="0.4"/> or of loyalty to some broader entity <pause dur="0.4"/> beyond one's own country <pause dur="0.6"/> was growing <pause dur="1.4"/> so there's a there's a kind of an optimistic myth <pause dur="0.2"/> underlying <pause dur="0.4"/> much talk about the E-U that says <pause dur="0.4"/> well of course we live in an age <pause dur="0.2"/> when people <pause dur="0.5"/> #

are no longer as obsessed as they once were <pause dur="0.4"/> by their own particular national identities <pause dur="0.2"/> they travel more they have more foreign friends <pause dur="0.3"/> and they have freed themselves <pause dur="0.2"/> of these <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> national <pause dur="0.4"/> and limiting <pause dur="0.2"/> perspectives and as a consequence <pause dur="0.3"/> forms of international organization and forms of regional organization <pause dur="0.4"/> which were once impossible <pause dur="0.7"/> # now become <pause dur="0.3"/> not only possible but <trunc>a</trunc> also perhaps desirable <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>th</trunc> that doesn't seem to me to be <pause dur="0.3"/> # in any sense part of <pause dur="0.2"/> the real story <pause dur="0.3"/> of how the European Union was created <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.6"/> # the European Union has always acknowledged <pause dur="0.8"/> and worked within <pause dur="0.4"/> the constraints established <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> national loyalties <pause dur="0.2"/> in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> it's not a club <pause dur="0.5"/> which has ever set its face <pause dur="0.3"/> against <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> national identity <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> it has always been a club <pause dur="0.4"/> whose members are the national states themselves <pause dur="0.5"/> not <pause dur="0.4"/> the individual <pause dur="0.3"/> European citizens and so <pause dur="0.3"/> in a sense it has from the first been an organization <pause dur="0.4"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> accepts and works within <pause dur="0.4"/> the notion of national identities <pause dur="0.3"/> and

national states </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> well i've given you two wrong answers <pause dur="0.4"/> so it's about time i gave you at least one <pause dur="0.3"/> correct answer and this correct answer <pause dur="0.6"/> comes in <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>i</trunc> in three parts <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> broadly speaking the correct answer seems to me to be that <pause dur="0.8"/> the true understanding <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> origins of the European Union arises <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.7"/> or can be best understood by looking at the attitudes of individual European states <pause dur="0.7"/> in other words you have to ask <pause dur="0.4"/> why did the French <pause dur="0.4"/> want the European Union why did the Germans want the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> why did the Italians why did the Belgians why did the Dutch <pause dur="0.3"/> why did the <pause dur="0.6"/> # Luxembourgers now we we can't go through all of those six cases <pause dur="0.3"/> in detail here <pause dur="0.3"/> but my contention is <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> it's in doing that sort of thing <pause dur="0.2"/> in other words in looking at it from specifically national perspectives <pause dur="0.7"/> that you gain a real understanding <pause dur="0.2"/> of how this <pause dur="0.6"/> # international organization this regional organization was actually created <pause dur="0.3"/> now since we haven't got time to do all six <pause dur="0.3"/> we shall do <pause dur="0.6"/> three things we shall say a word about France <pause dur="0.2"/> we shall say a word about

Germany because those are the two most important powers <pause dur="0.3"/> in the process of creation <pause dur="0.2"/> and then we shall say a brief word about all the others lumped in together </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the first word about France is to say <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="1.6"/> the French <pause dur="1.1"/> in the immediate post-war period <pause dur="1.7"/> had <pause dur="1.8"/> international ambitions <pause dur="0.6"/> above their station <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like <pause dur="0.2"/> they wanted to exert more power in the world <pause dur="1.3"/> than <pause dur="0.4"/> their <pause dur="0.2"/> military and economic position <pause dur="0.5"/> really permitted them to do <pause dur="0.9"/> so they were ambitious in some sense <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> they saw <pause dur="0.3"/> the creation of the European Union as the first step <pause dur="0.6"/> towards their being able to do that <pause dur="0.5"/> because they were reasonably confident <pause dur="0.7"/> that in the conditions of the nineteen-fifties when the European Union was created <pause dur="0.3"/> they were likely to be <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the leading if not the leading power within the European Union <pause dur="0.5"/> so that for them to create a European <pause dur="0.5"/> # entity <pause dur="0.5"/> which involved some degree of economic and even possibly political integration <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.4"/> understood <pause dur="0.2"/> as an extension of their

own power <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than placing limitations upon it <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words they had an optimistic interpretation <pause dur="0.3"/> of the degree of power which they could eventually wield within this new <pause dur="0.6"/> regional association <pause dur="0.2"/> and as a consequence <pause dur="0.3"/> they saw <pause dur="0.2"/> the creation of it <pause dur="0.2"/> as an opportunity <pause dur="0.2"/> rather than a threat <pause dur="0.8"/> and we can't give <pause dur="0.7"/> too much of the background to that <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> that gives you some notion <pause dur="0.4"/> of the ways in which <pause dur="0.2"/> the French saw the creation <pause dur="0.4"/> of an organization which they sought to dominate <pause dur="0.3"/> and to some degree at least <pause dur="0.4"/> did succeed in dominating <pause dur="0.5"/> as an extension of their own national power <pause dur="0.4"/> you can see how this contrasts with <pause dur="0.3"/> the rather different picture that i was painting in my two <pause dur="0.6"/> false answers <pause dur="0.6"/> now the second <pause dur="0.8"/> the second element i suggested <pause dur="0.6"/> we need to say something about Germany <pause dur="0.2"/> and here the picture is more complicated because clearly <pause dur="0.5"/> Germany had the potential to be as powerful if not more powerful <pause dur="0.4"/> a member of the regional association <pause dur="0.4"/> than the French did and therefore you

would have thought that if the French expected to create an organization which they would dominate <pause dur="0.4"/> then the Germans would have opposed <pause dur="0.3"/> such a development and that would have prevented it from taking place <pause dur="0.4"/> but what made <pause dur="0.2"/> this development possible of course was that Germany had just been defeated <pause dur="0.5"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the Second World War <pause dur="0.9"/> and those Germans who had <pause dur="0.2"/> held political power <pause dur="0.6"/> in in Germany in the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.2"/> felt a profound sense of responsibility and guilt <pause dur="1.0"/> surrounding the circumstances that had led to the Second World War <pause dur="0.6"/> and they sought in a sense therefore <pause dur="0.3"/> somehow to pay the price <pause dur="0.7"/> which they felt as a nation they ought to pay <pause dur="0.5"/> for <pause dur="0.5"/> the damage <pause dur="0.3"/> and the difficulties <pause dur="0.7"/> which <pause dur="0.4"/> Hitler's Germany in the past <pause dur="0.2"/> had caused <pause dur="0.6"/> in a sense therefore they were seeking international rehabilitation <pause dur="0.5"/> they wanted to be readmitted to the club of internationally respectable states <pause dur="0.5"/> and in order to be readmitted <pause dur="0.3"/> they were willing to pay a high price <pause dur="0.6"/> and that was why they were willing <pause dur="0.4"/>

to join an association which they knew from the start <pause dur="0.4"/> would limit their national independence <pause dur="0.2"/> and would be likely to be dominated <pause dur="0.3"/> by the French <pause dur="2.2"/> third i said there were three parts to my <pause dur="0.2"/> my story and here i'm <pause dur="0.2"/> simplifying very drastically <pause dur="0.4"/> but if you take the other <pause dur="0.9"/> initial members the four other members of the <pause dur="1.7"/> the European Union as it was first created by its initially six <pause dur="0.3"/> members there are of course many more than six members now but the others are all <pause dur="0.3"/> latecomers <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> you could generalize by saying that <pause dur="0.2"/> the citizens and the politicians who managed these other four European states Italy Belgium <pause dur="0.5"/> Holland <pause dur="0.5"/> and Luxembourg <pause dur="0.7"/> felt either that their own regimes were so <pause dur="0.2"/> inadequate <pause dur="0.2"/> so corrupt or so weak <pause dur="0.2"/> in various ways <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> to join a newly created European <pause dur="0.2"/> organization <pause dur="0.2"/> would be a healthy step for them <pause dur="0.3"/> it would be a sort of <pause dur="0.3"/> an answer to some of their domestic political difficulties <pause dur="0.4"/> or <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>a</trunc> as in the case of the smaller countries <pause dur="0.3"/> they felt that # that they were

handicapped as a very small very powerless <pause dur="0.4"/> state <pause dur="0.3"/> and could only benefit by join <pause dur="0.5"/> by joining some kind of larger association that of course <pause dur="0.3"/> would be an argument more applicable to the three very small countries <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.6"/> they <pause dur="0.2"/> in some sense were radically dissatisfied with their own <pause dur="0.5"/> domestic political arrangements <pause dur="0.3"/> or their own position in the international world <pause dur="0.3"/> and could see the creation of a regional organization <pause dur="0.3"/> of which they could be at least a part <pause dur="0.6"/> as <pause dur="0.3"/> # providing them with a more satisfactory <pause dur="0.5"/> # solution to some of their domestic <pause dur="0.3"/> political problems and <pause dur="0.3"/> with regard to their international position </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> i said that the first question had an element of <pause dur="1.0"/> of creation <pause dur="0.3"/> and i also said <pause dur="0.2"/> how has the organization persisted <pause dur="0.3"/> now <pause dur="1.0"/> clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> Germany cannot go on <pause dur="0.5"/> paying the price for a war which is more and more distant and more and more remote <pause dur="0.3"/> for <pause dur="0.4"/> # for ever <pause dur="0.2"/> the French cannot expect in the same way to dominate an organization <pause dur="0.2"/> which now has a great many

more members in it <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> and as the circumstances of the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.2"/> faded away <pause dur="0.3"/> clearly new motives new mechanisms <pause dur="0.3"/> had to be <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> established in order to continue to make a regional association <pause dur="0.3"/> as attractive in new circumstances <pause dur="0.3"/> as it had been <pause dur="0.4"/> # in the <pause dur="0.2"/> circumstances of its birth in the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.9"/> and therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> # i turn our attention now to the nineteen-nineties and i say look <pause dur="0.7"/> what we've seen in the in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="0.3"/> has been an acceleration of European integration <pause dur="0.6"/> the European Union ticked along <pause dur="0.6"/> in the nineteen-seventies and nineteen-eighties without changing in any very radical ways <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.6"/> the integration which had been achieved <pause dur="0.4"/> remained largely in the economic sphere <pause dur="1.1"/> and consisted <pause dur="0.3"/> very much of the promotion of free trade <pause dur="0.4"/> the free movement of capital and the free movement of labour <pause dur="0.3"/> within <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> boundaries of the newly created European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> but in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="0.8"/> the political aspects of <pause dur="0.2"/> the the <pause dur="0.7"/> # union <pause dur="0.4"/> have become more prominent and <pause dur="0.3"/>

a <pause dur="0.2"/> significant move <pause dur="0.5"/> towards greater political integration <pause dur="1.2"/> # has occurred <pause dur="0.2"/> first of all with the Treaty of Maastricht <pause dur="0.3"/> and following on that <pause dur="0.4"/> with the <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> so far successful <pause dur="0.3"/> establishment of <pause dur="0.2"/> a single currency <pause dur="0.4"/> area <pause dur="0.6"/> so you might say <pause dur="0.3"/> okay are the same kind of mechanisms operating surely circumstances have changed a lot <pause dur="0.7"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> # we're no longer in the nineteen-fifties we no longer have the shadow of a recent devastating war <pause dur="0.5"/> # hanging over us <pause dur="0.2"/> and therefore if we're going to expand this organization <pause dur="0.3"/> we're going to have to find new ways of doing it <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> what i would like to contend however is that it seems to me <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> although there are some new elements in the mechanisms which underlie <pause dur="0.4"/> the persistence and expansion of the European Union in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="0.2"/> some of the old mechanisms <pause dur="0.3"/> which are now <pause dur="0.4"/> # have now been working for forty or fifty years <pause dur="0.2"/> are surprisingly <pause dur="0.4"/> lively and surprisingly relevant under modern conditions </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> let me <pause dur="0.3"/> briefly relate the

story of <pause dur="0.3"/> the origins of the Treaty of Maastricht which which <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the most significant <pause dur="0.5"/> further steps towards greater political integration which the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/> has undergone in recent years <pause dur="0.7"/> the seams of Maastricht really lie in nineteen-eighty-nine <pause dur="0.8"/> with the collapse <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> communist rule in Eastern Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> and in particular <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> # breaching <pause dur="0.5"/> # of the <pause dur="0.2"/> Berlin Wall <pause dur="0.5"/> and the recognition <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> in the very near future <pause dur="0.3"/> a unified <pause dur="0.2"/> Germany <pause dur="0.9"/> # which would bring together what had been the old federal republic of West Germany <pause dur="0.4"/> and the <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> pro-Soviet and communist ruled <pause dur="0.6"/> East Germany <pause dur="0.5"/> would be coming together to form a single much larger and much more potentially <pause dur="0.4"/> politically and economically powerful <pause dur="0.4"/> German state <pause dur="0.7"/> and # the reaction to this <pause dur="0.8"/> development <pause dur="0.5"/> in both France and Britain <pause dur="0.3"/> members <pause dur="0.4"/> of the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> was considerable alarm and fear <pause dur="0.8"/> because it seemed to the British and to the French <pause dur="0.8"/> to <pause dur="0.6"/> signal <pause dur="0.2"/> the sort of danger <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> which they <pause dur="0.7"/> felt <pause dur="0.7"/> # in periods <pause dur="0.9"/> # in

the nineteen-thirties when Germany was growing in power and influence <pause dur="0.3"/> and in the period before nineteen-fourteen and there were <pause dur="0.3"/> faint but nevertheless <pause dur="0.9"/> definite echoes <pause dur="0.4"/> in the reactions of many <pause dur="0.7"/> French and British politicians <pause dur="0.8"/> mostly in private but occasionally in public <pause dur="0.7"/> # to <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to this <pause dur="0.5"/> reunification <pause dur="0.5"/> and therefore enlargement <pause dur="0.3"/> of the German state <pause dur="0.3"/> so what was the solution to be <pause dur="0.3"/> under those circumstances <pause dur="0.7"/> well <pause dur="0.2"/> the the French thought first of all about trying to prevent it from happening <pause dur="0.6"/> and so did the British <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> # they couldn't <pause dur="0.8"/> and therefore they decided well we'll have to make the best of it <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the best of it seemed <pause dur="0.5"/> # particularly to the French to be well <pause dur="0.5"/> if we're going to <pause dur="0.6"/> # if we're going to harness <pause dur="0.7"/> German power and German ambition in a constructive way and to avoid the problems of rivalry between Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> and other European powers <pause dur="0.2"/> what we need to do is to integrate Germany more tightly <pause dur="0.4"/> into the European Union <pause dur="0.6"/> and as a consequence of that the French <pause dur="0.3"/>

developed a project which they put to the Germans and which eventually led to the Maastricht Treaty <pause dur="0.3"/> which said okay <pause dur="0.4"/> under these new circumstances <pause dur="0.2"/> we move forward quickly <pause dur="0.9"/> we want <pause dur="0.2"/> national states to be more tightly integrated <pause dur="0.3"/> into this regional association <pause dur="0.2"/> now what do you see there you see exactly the same mechanisms <pause dur="1.0"/> # French ambition <pause dur="0.7"/> French fear of <pause dur="0.2"/> # Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> and a willingness on the part of the Germans <pause dur="0.2"/> to make sacrifices <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in order <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> create a new form <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> regional association <pause dur="0.3"/> because they themselves <pause dur="0.3"/> are fearful <pause dur="0.4"/> of the possible consequences <pause dur="0.3"/> of German nationalism and they like the French <pause dur="0.2"/> want to see Germany tied into <pause dur="0.4"/> a stable <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> international order </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> now <pause dur="0.9"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> is not exactly the same as the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.2"/> but it's a little bit similar to the story that i told you about the creation <pause dur="0.4"/> of the European Union <pause dur="0.7"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> when i posed the question <pause dur="0.2"/> are things the same now in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="0.3"/> are the mechanisms of persistence very much the same as the

mechanisms of creation <pause dur="1.1"/> i said yes i thought they surprisingly were quite similar <pause dur="0.3"/> but i did concede that there are some new elements <pause dur="0.4"/> and one important new element which is present in the nineteen-nineties <pause dur="0.2"/> which wasn't present in the nineteen-fifties <pause dur="0.4"/> and which has spurred the further integration <pause dur="0.4"/> of the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> world <pause dur="0.2"/> currency instability <pause dur="0.8"/> now we can't <pause dur="0.4"/> tell the whole story here some of you are economists <pause dur="0.2"/> and will know more about it than me no doubt <pause dur="0.3"/> but in broad terms <pause dur="0.2"/> we had relatively <pause dur="0.2"/> stable relationships between the major world currencies <pause dur="0.3"/> in the period <pause dur="0.3"/> between the late nineteen-forties <pause dur="0.2"/> and nineteen-seventy-one <pause dur="0.6"/> and since nineteen-seventy-one <pause dur="0.3"/> we have had a period <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's varied over time <pause dur="0.3"/> of very considerable instability <pause dur="1.4"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> that instability is thought to cause economic <pause dur="0.3"/> and also sometimes <pause dur="0.2"/> serious political difficulties <pause dur="0.3"/> and therefore in an ideal world <pause dur="0.4"/> many political leaders especially European leaders <pause dur="0.2"/> would like to dispense with this instability if they

could find a way of doing it <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> they <pause dur="0.2"/> they can't find a way of doing it for the time being <pause dur="0.3"/> but they can find a way of doing it partially <pause dur="0.5"/> of creating some degree of stability <pause dur="0.3"/> and that's what the European Monetary Union is partly about <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> to some degree <pause dur="0.6"/> the spur to more recent European <pause dur="1.1"/> integration <pause dur="0.2"/> has been the search <pause dur="0.2"/> for a mechanism <pause dur="0.3"/> which will allow Europe to enjoy greater currency stability <pause dur="0.8"/> and that is new <pause dur="0.3"/> because the currency stability problem <pause dur="0.2"/> was not a problem <pause dur="0.4"/> at the outset </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> i said that my second question was what sort of an entity <pause dur="0.3"/> is the European Union is it a new state some kind of a superstate with a much extended role <pause dur="4.1"/> and <pause dur="0.7"/> # again i want to begin by <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> # by <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> giving you some <pause dur="0.3"/> some wrong answers if you like the first wrong <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> well <pause dur="0.9"/> let's let let's just say that the simple answer to this question is no <pause dur="0.7"/> the European Union is a new sort of <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> political organization <pause dur="0.3"/> it's a one-off organization it's not a repeat version <pause dur="0.4"/> of or a replica <pause dur="0.4"/> of

forms of political organization which have already existed <pause dur="0.3"/> it's an attempt to create something new <pause dur="0.4"/> which is neither a confederation or a federation <pause dur="0.4"/> or an extended national state or a supranational state or an empire <pause dur="0.2"/> or any of the other sorts of political animals <pause dur="0.4"/> # that we're familiar with <pause dur="0.2"/> from earlier history <pause dur="0.8"/> and what makes me say then that it's not <pause dur="1.2"/> it's not a state <pause dur="0.4"/> or even a nascent <pause dur="0.4"/> # national state in any sense <pause dur="0.7"/> the first reason for rejecting the notion of the E-U as a state <pause dur="0.3"/> is that it has no <pause dur="0.5"/> not as yet anyway <pause dur="0.3"/> no significant <pause dur="0.5"/> diplomatic <pause dur="0.5"/> or <pause dur="0.4"/> defence <pause dur="0.3"/> responsibilities <pause dur="0.6"/> as far as the use of <pause dur="0.2"/> force is concerned <pause dur="1.0"/> and as far as the use of international diplomacy as as it were a preliminary to the use of force <pause dur="1.6"/> the form of organization which remains most relevant for the modern world <pause dur="0.5"/> is still <pause dur="0.2"/> the nation state <pause dur="0.7"/> and the E-U <pause dur="0.6"/> the European Union although it has acquired centrally in Brussels <pause dur="1.0"/> powers in a range of policy areas <pause dur="0.2"/> has not yet significantly <pause dur="0.3"/> made any moves <pause dur="0.4"/>

to acquire <pause dur="0.3"/> genuine authority <pause dur="0.7"/> in matters of diplomacy <pause dur="0.7"/> # and in matter of defence <pause dur="0.3"/> and these are <pause dur="0.5"/> extraordinarily important areas <pause dur="0.3"/> not that there haven't been attempts to do so <pause dur="0.8"/> and occasional very minor successes <pause dur="0.3"/> where concerted action between European powers <pause dur="0.3"/> has emerged <pause dur="0.2"/> but on the whole it's fair <pause dur="0.4"/> as a statement to say <pause dur="0.3"/> that this organization <pause dur="0.4"/> is irrelevant <pause dur="0.5"/> to <pause dur="0.8"/> defence and almost entirely irrelevant <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> diplomacy <pause dur="1.5"/> the second thing that we need to <trunc>s</trunc> to understand in order to <pause dur="0.8"/> be clear that the E-U is not a state <pause dur="0.6"/> is to say <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> in most areas it still makes decisions <pause dur="0.2"/> according to what we <pause dur="0.3"/> in politics call the unanimity rule <pause dur="1.0"/> in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> it does not possess <pause dur="0.5"/> any kind of <pause dur="1.0"/> majority <pause dur="0.9"/> or collegial <pause dur="0.2"/> form of decision making <pause dur="0.4"/> the the fundamental form of decision making that operates within the <trunc>u</trunc> E-U <pause dur="0.3"/> in <pause dur="0.2"/> most areas although not admittedly all but in most areas and certainly the most crucial ones <pause dur="0.4"/> is the unanimity rule which is to say <pause dur="0.3"/> that until everybody that is

to say until all the nation state members of the E-U <pause dur="0.3"/> are agreed <pause dur="0.2"/> on a new initiative <pause dur="0.5"/> that initiative cannot take place <pause dur="0.9"/> this is an extraordinarily <pause dur="0.3"/> cumbersome <pause dur="0.5"/> an extraordinarily conservative principle on which to operate <pause dur="0.5"/> it limits the freedom of manoeuvre of the European Union enormously <pause dur="0.4"/> and of course it is intended to <pause dur="1.0"/> # # and what it means is that <pause dur="0.4"/> the dynamics of the European Union the speed with which it can act <pause dur="0.4"/> the vigour with which it can act are enormously <pause dur="0.4"/> below <pause dur="0.4"/> what is possible <pause dur="0.3"/> within national states <pause dur="0.3"/> where this kind of unanimity principle <pause dur="0.3"/> generally speaking does not apply <pause dur="1.9"/> the third reason <pause dur="0.9"/> for not treating the European Union either as a state or as some kind of state <pause dur="0.4"/> in the process of becoming a state <pause dur="0.5"/> is to point to the question of <pause dur="0.3"/> individual attitudes which i touched on earlier <pause dur="0.5"/> here <pause dur="0.7"/> i think we can say without much doubt that in almost all the member states of the European Union <pause dur="0.8"/> individual citizens look to their own national governments <pause dur="0.2"/>

principally <pause dur="0.5"/> for the supply of services <pause dur="0.4"/> for the provision of security <pause dur="0.3"/> for all the things that we as individuals look to our political leaders for <pause dur="0.8"/> and in so far as they are aware of the the European Union which they are of course in most cases <pause dur="0.3"/> they understand <pause dur="0.3"/> that it has <pause dur="0.2"/> contact with them <pause dur="0.3"/> which is largely indirect <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words it passes through <pause dur="0.4"/> their national governments <pause dur="0.3"/> the direct contact between the E-U and individual European citizens <pause dur="0.2"/> or citizens of European states <pause dur="0.5"/> is relatively unimportant <pause dur="0.6"/> we don't pay any for example we don't pay any direct taxes <pause dur="0.5"/> to the E-U and the E-U has no mechanisms of its own <pause dur="0.2"/> for collecting taxation <pause dur="0.4"/> all the taxation which the E-U receives <pause dur="0.3"/> is merely passed on to it <pause dur="0.4"/> as a consequence of agreements reached <pause dur="0.3"/> with member states <pause dur="0.3"/> and that makes an enormous difference if you were to say for example <pause dur="0.3"/> to to the American federal government okay <pause dur="0.3"/> you <trunc>d</trunc> you have no longer any power to tax American citizens directly <pause dur="0.2"/> the only revenue which you had

is revenue which comes to you <pause dur="0.3"/> through agreements that you can reach with the member states <pause dur="0.4"/> New York Texas California whatever <pause dur="0.5"/> you would radically change and radically weaken <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> American federal government <pause dur="0.4"/> and that's the sort of position in which <pause dur="0.5"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> E-U has to operate </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> now i said that this second question about what sort of an animal the E-U is would be answered in two parts firstly by <pause dur="0.9"/> asking is it a state <pause dur="0.2"/> and i've answered that by saying no it's not a state <pause dur="0.9"/> # and and certainly not a national state <pause dur="0.7"/> and secondly i said well we want to know who benefits from this <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words <pause dur="0.5"/> in terms of power <pause dur="0.5"/> who has gained and who has lost as a consequence of the <pause dur="2.0"/> creation of a European Union <pause dur="0.9"/> and there are three points that i want to make <pause dur="0.9"/> in answering that question <pause dur="1.7"/> the first is that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> today <pause dur="0.2"/> strangely in many European countries <pause dur="0.9"/> a lot of the support for the European Union <pause dur="1.5"/> comes from <pause dur="0.2"/> those who are <pause dur="0.4"/> in the centre of politics or even a bit to the left of centre <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in

France <pause dur="0.2"/> the French Socialist Party led by Jospin is a strongly European party <pause dur="0.6"/> in the U-K <pause dur="2.0"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> # Labour Party led by Blair is clearly more sympathetic although <pause dur="0.8"/> we don't know exactly how much more sympathetic <pause dur="0.4"/> but it's clearly more sympathetic to the European Union and British involvement in it <pause dur="0.4"/> than the Conservative Party led by <pause dur="0.2"/> William Hague <pause dur="1.3"/> and therefore in a sense there seems to be <pause dur="0.6"/> # in facts of that sort a suggestion <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> # <trunc>th</trunc> there is something <trunc>s</trunc> if you like progressive there is something left of centre there is something socially <pause dur="0.4"/> desirable <pause dur="0.3"/> in the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/> and the European Union itself <pause dur="0.4"/> tries through a range of programmes to promote itself <pause dur="0.6"/> in terms of <pause dur="0.6"/> # human rights <pause dur="0.6"/> it it it tries in a sense to sell itself to <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a left of centre public <pause dur="0.4"/> as a socially progressive entity <pause dur="0.6"/> and some people <pause dur="0.8"/> both in Britain and in France and other European countries <pause dur="0.3"/> on the left <pause dur="0.4"/> who have despaired <pause dur="0.2"/> at the conservative character <pause dur="0.6"/> and the right wing domination of their

own national politics <pause dur="0.2"/> have looked to the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> where they think perhaps <pause dur="0.2"/> the centre of gravity in political terms <pause dur="0.3"/> lies a little bit further to the left <pause dur="0.9"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> my feeling is that this is entirely misguided <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> # that <pause dur="0.2"/> if they think that or pretend to think that then they are profoundly mistaken <pause dur="0.8"/> because it seems to me that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> anybody with left of centre <pause dur="1.8"/> ambitions of any kind <pause dur="0.5"/> must be concerned <pause dur="0.6"/> with the power of the state to act collectively <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to realize collectively agreed goals <pause dur="0.6"/> if you have <pause dur="0.2"/> as you have in the case of the E-U as i've just pointed out <pause dur="0.4"/> a rather weak state <pause dur="0.6"/> which doesn't have the capacity to tax <pause dur="0.2"/> which doesn't have the capacity to spend <pause dur="0.3"/> which doesn't have the capacity to organize new public services <pause dur="0.3"/> directed at particular groups <pause dur="0.6"/> then you don't have the instrument <pause dur="0.4"/> for increased social justice at your disposal <pause dur="0.5"/> and therefore to my mind <pause dur="0.5"/> the first thing that we can say about who benefits and who loses in regard to the European

Union is <pause dur="0.2"/> that the European Union is not <pause dur="0.3"/> going to be and cannot be in its present form <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the tool <pause dur="0.3"/> for the realization of greater social justice <pause dur="0.5"/> it's not some kind of <pause dur="0.4"/> substitute <pause dur="0.3"/> for national states that have drifted in a right wing or a conservative direction <pause dur="0.4"/> that's what people would like you <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>tho</trunc> those of a pro-European disposition <pause dur="0.3"/> would like you to believe it's what the commissioners <pause dur="0.4"/> # and the members of the European Parliament would like us to believe <pause dur="0.3"/> but it seems to me to be <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to be to be wrong <pause dur="0.3"/> because the European Union <pause dur="0.2"/> as an administrative as a political instrument <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't possess the the authority or the power <pause dur="0.4"/> or the competence <pause dur="0.2"/> to do that sort of thing <pause dur="0.5"/> my second point of the three that i want to make here <pause dur="3.3"/> is that <pause dur="0.2"/> the E-U <pause dur="0.4"/> presents itself <pause dur="1.9"/> in wishing to appeal to a more right of centre <pause dur="0.3"/> public <pause dur="0.7"/> as an entity capable <pause dur="0.8"/> of enlarging the sphere of market exchange in other words it <pause dur="0.2"/> it presents itself <pause dur="0.5"/> as an entity capable <pause dur="0.4"/> of creating more free trade <pause dur="0.4"/> more free movement of

labour more free movement of capital <pause dur="0.4"/> and through that <pause dur="0.4"/> creating increased prosperity <pause dur="1.2"/> and this seems to me to be a valid claim <pause dur="1.4"/> in other words if you believe <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> what Europe needs <pause dur="0.5"/> are larger <pause dur="0.4"/> and freer markets and that there are important advantages to be gained <pause dur="0.3"/> from breaking down existing barriers <pause dur="0.6"/> to the operation <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.4"/> large and competitive markets <pause dur="0.8"/> and if you believe that you or the groups with whom <trunc>wi</trunc> with whom you identify are going to benefit from a process of that kind <pause dur="0.3"/> then the E-U is on your side <pause dur="1.0"/> now of course <pause dur="1.0"/> there are all sorts of controversies about who benefits and how much <pause dur="0.5"/> from the growth <pause dur="0.3"/> in the operation of free markets <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and and i don't want to enter into those <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> what i will say is that <pause dur="0.4"/> if you <pause dur="0.2"/> are <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> as it were generally pro-market <pause dur="0.2"/> in your dispositions <pause dur="0.3"/> then the E-U is for you <pause dur="0.5"/> and if you fear markets and wish to see them regulated <pause dur="0.2"/> and controlled <pause dur="0.2"/> and believe that only social <pause dur="0.2"/> that social justice can in certain important respects <pause dur="0.4"/> only

be realized <pause dur="0.5"/> # through the use of regulatory powers of various sorts and in the use of taxation for redistributive purposes <pause dur="0.3"/> then the E-U is not going to help <pause dur="0.2"/> it might not necessarily stand in your way <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's not actually going to help you very much <pause dur="0.4"/> in in that particular <pause dur="1.1"/> battle <pause dur="0.4"/> the third point that i want to make about the E-U is that the E-U is on the whole bad news <pause dur="0.2"/> for the Third World <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> what the E-U has done above all things <pause dur="0.3"/> during its long period of operation is to subsidize <pause dur="0.3"/> the creation of an excessive amount of food in Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> for which it pays <pause dur="0.7"/> farmers <pause dur="0.3"/> well above market prices <pause dur="0.4"/> having bought this food from farmers it doesn't know what to do with it <pause dur="0.7"/> and what it then generally does is to dump it at way below market prices <pause dur="0.2"/> in the Third World <pause dur="0.3"/> where it disrupts <pause dur="0.7"/> the the domestic markets of those Third World producers <pause dur="0.3"/> and has very bad consequences <pause dur="0.3"/> on Third World food production <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>i</trunc> it looks to me <pause dur="0.7"/> like a relatively conservative organization <pause dur="0.2"/> let's put it

that way </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> the third question that i said i would i would # <pause dur="2.2"/> i would <trunc>an</trunc> answer <pause dur="0.2"/> or or ask or both both ask and answer i hope <pause dur="0.9"/> is to say something about the British position and <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> to raise the question of whether <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="2.1"/> the coming to power of a Labour government in Britain has really changed the position <pause dur="1.3"/> very much # <pause dur="4.2"/> i think that the first point we need to make by way of historical introduction is that Britain was a late joiner she wasn't one of the <trunc>in</trunc> initial members of the European Union and only became a full member <pause dur="0.3"/> in i think it was nineteen-seventy-three <pause dur="2.2"/> and that in itself <pause dur="0.8"/> is a significant evidence for the fact that <pause dur="0.8"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> the relationship between Britain and the European Union <pause dur="0.5"/> is not likely ever to be quite the same <pause dur="0.5"/> as the relationship of its founding members to the union <pause dur="1.1"/> it's always going to be regarded as a latecomer <pause dur="0.7"/> # and <pause dur="0.4"/> the reasons that led to it being a latecomer are likely to continue to operate <pause dur="0.4"/> to create a certain

distance between E-U purposes <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> British purposes <pause dur="1.3"/> the second point i want to make <pause dur="0.2"/> is # more specifically about the Labour Party <pause dur="0.3"/> and that is that for most of the history of the E-U <pause dur="0.4"/> that is to say during the period between <pause dur="0.8"/> nineteen-fifty-eight <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> i suppose about the mid-nineteen-eighties <pause dur="0.3"/> the British Labour Party was quite strongly opposed <pause dur="1.0"/> or many elements in it <pause dur="0.2"/> the party was often divided but there were significant elements within the Labour Party <pause dur="0.3"/> that were quite strongly opposed <pause dur="0.4"/> to Britain's joining the European Union and to any further integration of the British <pause dur="0.6"/> state within that <pause dur="0.2"/> union <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="1.7"/> # for much of that time one could have quite fairly said that the Conservative Party was the pro-European party <pause dur="0.4"/> and the Labour Party or <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> a large part of it <pause dur="0.3"/> was <trunc>s</trunc> was significantly anti-European <pause dur="0.8"/> the position is now the opposite of that <pause dur="0.3"/> the Labour Party pretends to be <pause dur="0.2"/> pro-European <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the Conservative Party is probably genuinely <pause dur="0.4"/> # anti-European <pause dur="0.5"/> but this

conversion of the Labour Party is quite recent <pause dur="0.4"/> and to a very large degree opportunistic <pause dur="1.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> when i say opportunistic what i mean by that is <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> having <pause dur="0.4"/> suffered <pause dur="0.5"/> a succession of very serious <pause dur="0.5"/> electoral defeats within the U-K <pause dur="0.4"/> the Labour Party felt <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # there was advantage for the left advantage for the trade union movement advantage <pause dur="0.4"/> # for left of centre causes <pause dur="0.3"/> in trying to associate Britain <pause dur="0.5"/> with an entity where <pause dur="0.3"/> at least the centre of gravity politically seemed a little further to the left <pause dur="0.3"/> than it was <pause dur="0.3"/> in a Britain dominated by Mrs Thatcher and her Conservative Party <pause dur="0.6"/> so in a sense <pause dur="1.0"/> the attachment of the Labour Party to the European ideal seems to me to be very largely built <pause dur="0.3"/> on this opportunistic <pause dur="0.3"/> response <pause dur="0.3"/> to their weakness and their difficulties <pause dur="0.2"/> within a <pause dur="0.2"/> domestic <pause dur="0.5"/> arena <pause dur="4.5"/> you might say <pause dur="0.2"/> well okay but <pause dur="0.2"/> you know opportunism is <pause dur="0.8"/> not to be discounted <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's the basis for many important political initiatives and # if the Labour Party is European for <pause dur="0.3"/> what are <pause dur="0.3"/>

perhaps opportunistic <pause dur="0.4"/> and fairly recently discovered reasons <pause dur="0.2"/> nevertheless it is a bit more <pause dur="0.4"/> pro-European <pause dur="0.4"/> than <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> its Conservative # opponents <pause dur="0.5"/> and perhaps therefore <pause dur="1.3"/> the coming to power of a party led by Mr Blair <pause dur="0.3"/> is going to lead to closer relations <pause dur="0.3"/> in the long term between the British <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> the European Union <pause dur="1.4"/> now the answer that you give to to that question <trunc>ar</trunc> is there really going to be much of a change <pause dur="1.1"/> # depends upon whether you think there are long-standing <pause dur="3.0"/> # long-standing causes of tension or potential conflicts of interest between the British and their European partners <pause dur="0.8"/> # <trunc>a</trunc> and the answer that i would give to that is yes there are <pause dur="0.5"/> in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> whichever party is in power <pause dur="0.7"/> in Britain be it Conservative <pause dur="0.3"/> or be it Labour <pause dur="0.3"/> there are certain fundamentals <pause dur="0.2"/> which will continue to affect <pause dur="0.5"/> the relationship between Britain and Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> and will continue to create a more difficult and a more distant relationship <pause dur="0.5"/> between us and the Europeans <pause dur="0.2"/> than <pause dur="0.3"/> between many other

European powers and the European Union </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> to conclude <pause dur="0.4"/> my lecture a little earlier than i had planned but i'm sure that won't <pause dur="0.4"/> that won't matter because you'll have more time for questions <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to make three points about what those <pause dur="1.6"/> persisting <pause dur="0.6"/> national peculiarities which explain this <pause dur="0.3"/> more difficult relationship are <pause dur="0.9"/> they're not very difficult to identify i don't think <pause dur="0.6"/> the first one is clearly that <pause dur="0.5"/> # as a nation <pause dur="1.4"/> both <pause dur="0.2"/> at the popular level and at the political level <pause dur="0.3"/> we are more closely linked with <pause dur="0.3"/> and more sympathetic <pause dur="0.3"/> to America <pause dur="0.4"/> than many of our continental <pause dur="0.2"/> partners <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="2.8"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> in a sense almost goes without saying <pause dur="0.3"/> but it's it's a state of affairs <pause dur="0.2"/> which certainly goes back <pause dur="0.2"/> as far as the close relationship between Britain and America during the Second World War <pause dur="0.4"/> the collaboration of those two powers <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> on the exchange of <trunc>nu</trunc> of sensitive <pause dur="0.2"/> nuclear information <pause dur="0.3"/> which the Americans wouldn't exchange <pause dur="0.4"/> with <pause dur="0.7"/> other members of the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/>

the purchase by Britain of nuclear weapons <pause dur="0.2"/> from America <pause dur="0.3"/> close personal relationships <pause dur="0.2"/> between a whole series <pause dur="0.3"/> of British Prime Ministers and American Presidents <pause dur="0.3"/> a common language <pause dur="0.3"/> a to some degree common history et cetera et cetera there are all kinds of reasons <pause dur="0.4"/> for <pause dur="0.4"/> it being very likely that the British will continue to see the world <pause dur="0.4"/> in terms that are marked rather more close <pause dur="0.4"/> to the ways in which the Americans see the world <pause dur="0.4"/> # and to that degree to some degree distinct from the ways in which <pause dur="0.4"/> Germans <pause dur="0.2"/> French <pause dur="0.2"/> Italians <pause dur="0.6"/> tend to see the world <pause dur="0.5"/> the second persisting <pause dur="0.5"/> # peculiarity <pause dur="0.6"/> # which will continue to create <pause dur="1.2"/> the kind of distance that i've talked about <pause dur="0.3"/> is that the British <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> and this is more a <pause dur="0.2"/> political than a popular factor <pause dur="0.4"/> are much less dirigiste <pause dur="0.4"/> than many of their European partners that is to say <pause dur="0.3"/> they tend <pause dur="0.5"/> in terms of state philosophy <pause dur="0.3"/> to be more reluctant to use the power of the state <pause dur="0.3"/> and especially more reluctant to use the power of the state <pause dur="0.4"/> to control and to intervene in economic matters <pause dur="0.4"/> we as a nation <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> both historically and even more in the last <pause dur="0.3"/> fifteen

or twenty years <pause dur="0.3"/> have become <pause dur="0.5"/> a nation <pause dur="1.4"/> much more strongly convinced of the advantages to be obtained <pause dur="0.3"/> from the operation of free markets <pause dur="0.3"/> and most of our European <pause dur="0.3"/> partners especially those a little bit to the left of centre <pause dur="0.4"/> whilst they believe in a mixed economy <pause dur="0.4"/> and see great virtues in the operation of free markets <pause dur="0.3"/> also have certain reservations about <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> social consequences <pause dur="0.3"/> of markets <pause dur="0.2"/> and are therefore more willing than we are <pause dur="0.3"/> and will remain and continue to be more willing than we are <pause dur="0.3"/> to intervene in markets to control markets <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to achieve certain social or environmental objectives <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> that will continue to create a distance between us <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> final <pause dur="1.3"/> the final <pause dur="0.5"/> peculiarity <pause dur="0.4"/> seems to me to be that <pause dur="0.5"/> on the whole <pause dur="1.7"/> the British are relatively <pause dur="1.0"/> certainly the English not so much the Scots and the Welsh but the English at least <pause dur="1.0"/> let's let's change from British to English here the English are relatively <pause dur="0.9"/> content <pause dur="0.5"/> with their constitution and the mechanisms of their government <pause dur="0.2"/>

they might be disappointed with the performance of government <pause dur="0.5"/> but they don't put down <pause dur="1.2"/> those <pause dur="0.5"/> # those <pause dur="0.8"/> # weaknesses in the performance of government <pause dur="0.3"/> to weaknesses in the system by which they are governed they believe that the system can be made to work <pause dur="0.5"/> # properly <pause dur="0.4"/> and therefore they are less inclined <pause dur="0.3"/> to seek new forms of political organization <pause dur="0.4"/> in other words we as a as a country the English <pause dur="0.4"/> are fundamentally <pause dur="0.2"/> relatively satisfied <pause dur="0.3"/> with the nation state principle with the principle that one nation one state <pause dur="0.4"/> and a high degree of concentration of power at that level <pause dur="0.3"/> is okay for us <pause dur="0.3"/> we're not too bothered about local or regional power within England <pause dur="0.2"/> we don't see the great necessity for developing that <pause dur="0.3"/> nor are we that bothered about trying to limit <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> # the power of the nation state by shifting power upwards to some larger entity <pause dur="0.4"/> we might be willing pragmatically <pause dur="0.3"/> to do that for certain purposes <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> from time to time <pause dur="0.3"/> but we don't see a general political or

constitutional problem <pause dur="0.5"/> which can be resolved <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.5"/> organizing politics <pause dur="0.2"/> in a regional as opposed to a national manner <pause dur="0.4"/> and i think that does create a difference <pause dur="0.3"/> because many European nations and this this argument would apply much more strongly in some cases than others <pause dur="0.5"/> are to some <pause dur="0.3"/> very considerable degree dissatisfied <pause dur="0.6"/> with the operation of their own political systems <pause dur="0.3"/> and see the creation of a stronger European entity <pause dur="0.3"/> as at least to some degree <pause dur="0.3"/> a possible answer <pause dur="0.5"/> to their domestic difficulties <pause dur="0.6"/> and we don't have that impetus <pause dur="0.2"/> to greater European integration and therefore we're bound to be slower to move <pause dur="0.4"/> in the direction of Europeanization <pause dur="0.4"/> # than many of our European partners are <pause dur="0.9"/> and all of those factors it seems to me those three points <pause dur="0.3"/> the American point the dirigiste point <pause dur="0.4"/> and the <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> point about <pause dur="0.4"/> what you might call constitutional complacency <pause dur="0.4"/> all of those things apply <pause dur="0.3"/> pretty much as strongly under Labour auspices <pause dur="0.3"/> as they would do under Conservative

auspices <pause dur="0.7"/> so my conclusion is <pause dur="0.9"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> the coming to power of the Blair government <pause dur="0.3"/> is not going to and hasn't so far made any great difference <pause dur="0.4"/> in the kind of relationships which Britain <pause dur="0.3"/> Britain maintains with <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.7"/> # European Union and that <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>th</trunc> that position is <trunc>i</trunc> is is demonstrated or there is evidence for that being the case <pause dur="0.3"/> in the fact that the British <pause dur="0.4"/> # so far the British government certainly <pause dur="0.2"/> don't seem to be able to make up their mind as to whether they want to join the E-M-U or not for the moment they have said that they won't join it <pause dur="0.3"/> and they won't be joining it when it's first set up <pause dur="0.3"/> as to whether they want to join or <pause dur="0.3"/> intend to join at some later point <pause dur="0.3"/> # we are left <pause dur="0.6"/> # we are left waiting <pause dur="0.5"/> # the the words of of Gordon Brown or or Tony Blair <pause dur="1.3"/> thank you very much </u><kinesic desc="applause" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="6"/><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/>

<u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> i think the gentleman at the back is asking <pause dur="0.5"/> whether it's possible <pause dur="1.1"/> to make monetary union <pause dur="0.6"/> work <pause dur="0.7"/> without political union <pause dur="1.2"/> let let me <pause dur="0.2"/> let me first <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>d</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> explain to other members of the audience <pause dur="0.6"/> why there is a problem of the sort which <pause dur="0.4"/> the questioner quite rightly points to <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="1.6"/> when the European Monetary Union is created there will be a single currency called the euro <pause dur="1.2"/> and in order that that currency should be of any value <pause dur="1.6"/> it has to <pause dur="1.1"/> to to speak in very simple terms <pause dur="0.3"/> it has to maintain a certain rarity <pause dur="1.2"/> if <pause dur="1.4"/> if euro are created by all <pause dur="0.2"/> the national banks <pause dur="0.7"/> that are members of the <pause dur="0.5"/> newly created unity in large numbers if in <trunc>broa</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> crude terms <pause dur="0.7"/> the member nations print euros in large numbers simply in order to be able to spend them <pause dur="0.5"/> then <pause dur="0.5"/> inflation will ensue <pause dur="0.3"/> and the value of the euro <pause dur="0.3"/> will decline very rapidly <pause dur="0.4"/> and people will think that this is that the creation of the new <pause dur="0.3"/> # monetary union <pause dur="0.3"/> has been a very bad idea <pause dur="0.6"/> and in order to prevent that from happening <pause dur="1.0"/> the members of

the <trunc>eur</trunc> European Union have set up a system <pause dur="0.3"/> which prevents national governments <pause dur="0.3"/> from doing <pause dur="0.2"/> the sorts of things <pause dur="0.2"/> which might be likely <pause dur="0.7"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> cause a devaluation in the <trunc>u</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> E-U <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words the newly created European central bank <pause dur="0.3"/> has been given powers <pause dur="0.5"/> to prevent <pause dur="0.4"/> states from doing certain sorts of things <pause dur="0.2"/> that will undermine <pause dur="0.8"/> the value of the newly created European currency and everyone recognizes <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> the this central bank has got to have that sort of power <pause dur="0.3"/> in order that the new currency <pause dur="0.2"/> should be a value currency <pause dur="0.3"/> and a respected currency <pause dur="0.9"/> now <pause dur="1.2"/> what the questioner is suggesting is that if <pause dur="0.5"/> the currency is to be appropriately protected <pause dur="0.9"/> the things that need to be done at the centre <pause dur="0.8"/> in order to do that will grow <pause dur="0.6"/> as time <pause dur="0.6"/> occurs that all sorts of problems in the operation of the EMU would arise <pause dur="0.9"/> which <pause dur="0.3"/> can only be solved by <pause dur="0.3"/> adopting more powers at the centre <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to regulate at the European level <pause dur="0.2"/> some of the difficulties and some of the problems <pause dur="0.3"/> which have been

created <pause dur="0.4"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> the creation of a new currency <pause dur="0.5"/> for example it's often suggested that when the new currency comes into existence <pause dur="0.3"/> it may initially be of enormous benefit to some parts of Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> but cause enormous problems for others <pause dur="0.5"/> if that happens <pause dur="0.5"/> then clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> those people who have suffered <pause dur="0.3"/> will come knocking on the door <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.4"/> European institutions asking for some kind of corrective action to be taken <pause dur="0.4"/> in order to help them out <pause dur="0.4"/> and that corrective action can only be taken at a central level <pause dur="0.3"/> it won't be easy to take it <pause dur="0.4"/> at a national level and as a consequence <pause dur="0.7"/> the powers that <pause dur="0.3"/> are exercised at the centre may grow <pause dur="0.3"/> in order to protect the value of the newly created <pause dur="0.4"/> single European <pause dur="0.3"/> currency <pause dur="0.4"/> the euro <pause dur="0.6"/> and what my <pause dur="0.3"/> questioner is suggesting is <pause dur="0.3"/> that those powers will have to grow to a point where we can speak of a political union <pause dur="1.3"/> of some kind <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> and that would imply the exercise at the centre of a great deal more power than is being presently exercised <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> i i'm not

dogmatic about that <pause dur="0.3"/> my feeling is <pause dur="0.2"/> that it's quite possible <pause dur="0.5"/> to run an organization such as the E-U <pause dur="0.4"/> with a single currency <pause dur="0.8"/> and inevitably <pause dur="0.5"/> having a single currency will require the exercise of some additional power at the centre <pause dur="0.3"/> but i would have thought <pause dur="0.3"/> that there are a whole range of matters <pause dur="0.6"/> # over which it is still possible <pause dur="0.3"/> for nation states to go their own way <pause dur="0.3"/> without endangering <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> single market and without endangering the single currency <pause dur="0.3"/> just to give one example <pause dur="0.8"/> it's important <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="2.1"/> # for the value and the stability of the newly created <pause dur="0.6"/> European currency <pause dur="0.5"/> that <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> the member states <pause dur="0.8"/> keep their public deficits within certain limits that's to say <pause dur="0.6"/> they can spend a little bit more than they earn like most of us <pause dur="0.2"/> but they can't spend and ought not to be allowed and will not be allowed to spend <pause dur="0.4"/> too much more than <pause dur="0.3"/> they earn <pause dur="0.5"/> because that would allow <pause dur="0.3"/> would require them to borrow heavily <pause dur="0.3"/> and very heavy state borrowing <pause dur="0.2"/> has <pause dur="0.6"/> certain undesirable economic consequences <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/>

it's important <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> to limit <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> borrowing power <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> the member states <pause dur="0.3"/> but what does that mean for example <pause dur="0.3"/> for a state <pause dur="1.1"/> which is intent on spending more <pause dur="0.3"/> what it means is that that state has got to face up to the fact that if it wants to spend more <pause dur="0.5"/> it has got to tax more <pause dur="0.6"/> and i don't think <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>m</trunc> speaking as a non-economist at least <pause dur="0.3"/> i don't think there is any reason why <pause dur="0.4"/> there shouldn't remain very large <pause dur="0.4"/> disparities <pause dur="0.2"/> between the levels of taxation <pause dur="0.5"/> in the different members of the European country <pause dur="0.3"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> must be standardized within limits is the extent to which these states <pause dur="0.3"/> borrow and run important public deficits <pause dur="0.3"/> but there's no reason why <pause dur="0.2"/> some states <pause dur="0.2"/> shouldn't be high taxing high spending states <pause dur="0.8"/> typically for example <pause dur="0.2"/> countries like # the Netherlands <pause dur="0.4"/> or or Sweden <pause dur="0.8"/> and other states should be much <pause dur="0.2"/> # much more inclined towards lower levels of taxation and lower levels of spending <pause dur="0.3"/> provided that their divergent policies don't threaten the value of the single currency <pause dur="0.3"/>

then those divergencies can persist <pause dur="0.3"/> and it seems to me therefore that the basic answer is <pause dur="0.3"/> yes it is possible to have a monetary union <pause dur="0.3"/> without having a political union there seem to me to be a wide range of policies <pause dur="0.3"/> that can still be pursued <pause dur="0.3"/> distinctively at the national level <pause dur="0.4"/> whilst <pause dur="0.3"/> everyone agrees that <pause dur="0.3"/> everything that is necessary to protect the value of the newly created currency <pause dur="0.3"/> is done </u> <pause dur="3.2"/> <u who="nm1174" trans="pause"> one more question </u><u who="nm1172" trans="overlap"> that's a difficult question </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="sm1173" trans="pause"> how do you see the future of the European Union </u><pause dur="0.9"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> <trunc>h</trunc> how do i see the future of the European </u><u who="sm1173" trans="overlap"> # i mean in terms of joining <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> remaining countries after in Europe </u><pause dur="1.3"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> <trunc>cou</trunc> could you <unclear>just repeat</unclear> the <trunc>la</trunc> the last bit <pause dur="0.2"/> i got the future but <trunc>wha</trunc> in terms of what did you say </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="sm1173" trans="pause"> the remaining countries after Europe # # to get joining in the European Union <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> did you get </u><u who="nm1174" trans="overlap"> expansion </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> expansion </u><u who="nm1174" trans="latching"> yeah </u> <u who="nm1172" trans="latching"> ah expansion expansion eastward <pause dur="0.7"/> ah okay <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> i'm not sure

that i can say anything about that that's not <pause dur="0.3"/> more or less common knowledge <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="1.2"/> # <trunc>th</trunc> there seems to be a consensus <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> within the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> # in principle <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> quite a large number of those states in Eastern Europe <pause dur="2.0"/> which were previously governed by # <pause dur="1.0"/> single communist parties and were closely associated with the with the Soviet Union <pause dur="0.2"/> that those states should be admitted <pause dur="0.5"/> to <pause dur="0.7"/> # membership to full membership at some point in time <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> but that <pause dur="0.2"/> the process of their economies adjusting <pause dur="0.3"/> to the requirements <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.5"/> competition <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.7"/> the process of harmonizing some of their arrangements so that <pause dur="0.2"/> the single currency and the single market can operate <pause dur="0.2"/> for for them as well as for countries in Western Europe <pause dur="0.4"/> is probably quite a slow process <pause dur="0.8"/> and therefore i would have thought that <pause dur="0.2"/> in the long term a great many of those countries <pause dur="0.3"/> will join <pause dur="0.4"/> the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> but that <pause dur="0.2"/> before they join there will be very long <pause dur="0.3"/> very protracted <pause dur="0.3"/> and quite difficult negotiations <pause dur="0.2"/> and

some people will get through those negotiated stages more quickly <pause dur="0.3"/> than others and others <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <trunc>w</trunc> will will find some of the conditions that are imposed <pause dur="0.3"/> difficult to meet or unacceptable <pause dur="0.3"/> and that therefore <pause dur="0.4"/> # more time will be needed before <pause dur="0.5"/> their membership <pause dur="0.4"/> can # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>c</trunc> can be agreed to <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> there does seem to be a very <pause dur="0.7"/> a very <pause dur="0.4"/> broad consensus <pause dur="0.3"/> that it would be desirable to enlarge and extend the # community towards the east <pause dur="2.4"/> sorry not to be more specific about that </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="sm1175" trans="pause"> what do you think about the relationship between European Union and the <pause dur="0.2"/> <unclear>mondial</unclear> organization of commerce <pause dur="0.2"/> <unclear>or</unclear> this <pause dur="0.2"/> O-M-C <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> G-A-T-T <pause dur="0.2"/> or </u><pause dur="1.8"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> and # and W-T-O and things like that </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm1175" trans="pause"> yeah <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="2"/> and then the <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> organization </u><pause dur="4.0"/> <u who="nm1172" trans="pause"> do you do you do you have a more specific version of that question # <pause dur="0.9"/> i i <trunc>fe</trunc> </u><u who="sm1175" trans="overlap"> # </u><u who="nm1172" trans="overlap"> i feel myself </u><u who="sm1175" trans="overlap"> just </u><u who="nm1172" trans="latching"> i feel myself being drawn more and more out of <trunc>m</trunc> out of my depth <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> but but but <trunc>tr</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> see

whether you can </u><u who="sm1175" trans="latching"> just just </u><u who="nm1172" trans="overlap"> <trunc>pic</trunc> pin me down a bit more </u><u who="sm1175" trans="overlap"> can you talk about the problem with the Third World <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> with with the the European Union </u><u who="nm1172" trans="overlap"> yes </u><u who="sm1175" trans="overlap"> and <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> <pause dur="0.2"/> with # with <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/> products and <pause dur="0.8"/> so what <pause dur="0.2"/> so what i'd like to know if <pause dur="0.4"/> the European Union <pause dur="0.2"/> will be <pause dur="0.2"/> will have problems <pause dur="0.5"/> with this agreement <pause dur="0.6"/> with trade agreements </u><u who="nm1172" trans="latching"> trade agreements </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm1175" trans="pause"> yeah with </u><pause dur="0.5"/> <u who="sf1176" trans="pause"> yeah </u><u who="sm1175" trans="latching"> with the the <pause dur="0.7"/> the Uruguay <pause dur="0.2"/> rounds </u><u who="nm1172" trans="latching"> yeah </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sm1175" trans="pause"> please </u><u who="nm1172" trans="overlap"> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>o</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> okay <pause dur="0.5"/> you wouldn't be by any chance <pause dur="0.3"/> beginning the M-A in <pause dur="0.3"/> International Political Economy would you <pause dur="0.8"/> <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="sl" dur="2"/><pause dur="0.3"/> because that's the sort of question which people will be spending # <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>l</trunc> a large amount of time discussing <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" n="ss" dur="1"/> i i i i confess to being not very well informed <pause dur="0.4"/> on <pause dur="0.2"/> the <trunc>mo</trunc> on on the on the details <pause dur="0.5"/> and they are very important matters <pause dur="0.2"/> of the relationship between <pause dur="0.2"/> the European Union <pause dur="0.3"/> and the World Trade Organization <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>wi</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> previously <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> the General Agreement on

Tariffs and Trade GATT <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> what we're talking about for for for the for the for the non-initiated here <pause dur="0.7"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> are negotiations between major world players <pause dur="0.3"/> about the terms on which trade is permitted between <pause dur="0.2"/> themselves <pause dur="0.6"/> and we're talking about negotiations <pause dur="0.3"/> which affect in very fundamental ways the well-being of all sorts of people around the world <pause dur="0.5"/> the danger of <trunc>c</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> that economists constantly point to <pause dur="0.3"/> is that <pause dur="0.2"/> politically powerful groups <pause dur="0.2"/> will use their power <pause dur="0.2"/> in order to create protective arrangements which allow them to make money <pause dur="0.3"/> at the expense of others <pause dur="0.2"/> who would be willing <pause dur="0.3"/> to sell or would be willing to do work at at lower cost which would be # as it were globally advantageous <pause dur="0.3"/> but which are prevented from doing so because of their lack of <pause dur="0.2"/> of political power <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.9"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> i'm i'm i'm thinking and and i'm hedging a little bit <pause dur="0.5"/> # my <pause dur="0.6"/> my my feeling is this that on the whole <pause dur="0.5"/> the differences <pause dur="0.8"/> which exist <pause dur="1.3"/> between <pause dur="1.5"/> the free trade <pause dur="1.2"/> # mission <pause dur="0.2"/> of the World Trade

Organization the the mission of that organization to promote freer trade <pause dur="0.3"/> in the interests of global welfare <pause dur="0.4"/> the conflicts between that ambition <pause dur="0.5"/> and the ambition of the European Union which of course is to protect <pause dur="0.2"/> the interests of its national members <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> is a reconcilable <pause dur="0.8"/> divide in other words <pause dur="0.2"/> whilst there will be occasions on which the Europeans will take action <pause dur="0.4"/> which is good for them but bad for the rest of the world <pause dur="0.4"/> and which involves protecting certain European interests <pause dur="0.3"/> and in that way damaging certain <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>out</trunc> interests outside Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> although that will occur <pause dur="0.4"/> from time to time undoubtedly <pause dur="0.3"/> and certainly has occurred <pause dur="0.3"/> in a very serious way <pause dur="0.2"/> with regard to agriculture <pause dur="0.3"/>

that in many other areas <pause dur="0.5"/> there was there is a sufficient recognition <pause dur="0.5"/> on <pause dur="0.4"/> both <pause dur="0.7"/> the part of the W-T-O and on the part of the U-S and on the part of the European Union <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> # in a sense there is some long term general interest <pause dur="0.3"/> to be maximized by making a progressive move towards freer and freer <pause dur="0.4"/> forms of trade <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.9"/> the the pattern whereby that can occur <pause dur="0.6"/> would be if you were to take an optimistic view <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> for example freer trade can develop <pause dur="0.7"/> # between Mexico and the U-S and Canada <pause dur="0.3"/> through the North American Free Trade Agreement <pause dur="0.4"/> and then <pause dur="0.6"/> a a <pause dur="0.6"/> a <pause dur="0.2"/> a growing understanding between members of NAFTA and members that the E-U can # can occur so that the advantages of free trade <pause dur="0.3"/> which have so far been realized within <pause dur="0.5"/> limited <pause dur="0.5"/> regional settings <pause dur="0.4"/> can be expanded