13.04.2015 Views

journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

50<br />

Lasse Michael Boehm<br />

Wilson and Brown’s visit to Paris in January 1967, the Foreign secretary did not<br />

want the Paris embassy to influence his strategy – and or<strong>de</strong>red Reilly not to meet <strong>de</strong><br />

Gaulle in the run-up to the summit. 31<br />

Reilly realised that he was increasingly marginalised within the Foreign Office<br />

in London:<br />

“If I had said to them then, ‘It’s no good, don’t bother to come to Paris. We know the<br />

answer here already’, I think it would probably have been the case that my tenure in<br />

<strong>of</strong>fice here would have been even shorter than it has been”. 32<br />

Brown, Reilly wrote in his memoirs, „hated to be told that the cause for which<br />

he had fought so hard and so successfully on the home front, was doomed to <strong>de</strong>feat<br />

in France”. The Foreign secretary’s greatest mistake, Reilly claims, was that he<br />

„refused to the end to accept that the general could prevent the opening <strong>of</strong><br />

negotiations”. 33 In his valedictory dispatch <strong>of</strong> September 1968, Reilly severely<br />

criticised Brown’s strategy to enter the EEC as quickly as possible:<br />

“One hope I would venture to express, with the utmost respect; and this is that Ministers<br />

will <strong>de</strong>ci<strong>de</strong> on the timing <strong>of</strong> the next major effort not with reference to any<br />

electoral calculations, but on the merits <strong>of</strong> its chances <strong>of</strong> success”. 34<br />

In<strong>de</strong>ed, with hindsight Brown’s strategy that Germany, Italy and the Benelux<br />

countries would apply enough pressure on France for <strong>de</strong> Gaulle to refrain from<br />

using a veto seems naïve. Not only had he already once vetoed a British application<br />

in 1963, there were also abundant signals from other Foreign Office posts that an<br />

application in 1967 was unlikely to succeed. The ambassador to the EEC, Sir James<br />

Marjoribanks, wrote in his Annual Review for 1966, circulated wi<strong>de</strong>ly in Whitehall<br />

in January 1967:<br />

“The Community lives un<strong>de</strong>r the shadow <strong>of</strong> General <strong>de</strong> Gaulle. […] Every step taken<br />

here is taken in the knowledge <strong>of</strong> a Head <strong>of</strong> State who cannot be pushed far with<br />

impunity. There is a clear <strong>de</strong>sire to avoid provoking him unnecessarily”. 35<br />

On 20 January 1967 the British ambassador in Bonn told the Foreign Office that the<br />

German chancellor, on whose support Wilson and Brown placed high hopes, wanted to<br />

„avoid getting drawn at this stage into an argument with General <strong>de</strong> Gaulle”. 36<br />

31. PRP.<br />

32. Ibid.<br />

33. Ibid.<br />

34. UKNA: FCO33/53, Reilly to Michael Stewart, 11 September 1968.<br />

35. UKNA: PREM13/1475, Sir James Marjoribanks: Annual Review for 1966, 10 January 1967.<br />

36. UKNA: PREM13/1475, Roberts to FO, 20 January 1967. For the German attitu<strong>de</strong> see also K.<br />

BÖHMER, ‘We Too Mean Business’: Germany and the Second British Application to the EEC,<br />

1966-67, in: O. DADDOW (ed.), op.cit., pp.211-226.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!