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 ...
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.