Journal of European Integration History – Revue d'histoire de l'

72Mikael af Malmborglimited at the same time to a group of industrial states with a higher commondenominator than the heterogeneous GATT group. Based as it was on the principleof inter-governmental decision making, and not being of Atlantic dimension, it didnot enter into conflict with the policy of neutrality. For reasons of neutrality Swedenstressed the necessity of not giving the new organisation too much of an Atlanticdimension. In this context the Finland argument was raised again; it might beworth considering an organisation which, rather than repelling, attracted the countriesbordering Eastern Europe, such as Finland. 27The British Volte-FaceSo far Sweden could seek shelter behind Britain’s rejection of European integrationand delegation of sovereignty, but the British and the subsequent Danish and Norwegianapplications for EEC membership dealt a serious blow to Sweden’s Norden-oriented policy.Sweden clearly was the EFTA country most concerned by the British manoeuvre.When Maudling brought up the idea that EFTA should be associated with the EEC,Gunnar Lange took the opposite stand; the EEC should rather, as one unit, adhere toEFTA. The main problem for Sweden was sovereignty, Lange explained. Commonagricultural policy and partly raised customs barriers were of secondary importancecompared with the supranational tendencies of the EEC. 28 Together with the otherneutrals Sweden obtained a decision of the EFTA Council that EFTA would be maintained“at least until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out in negotiationsto meet the various legitimate interests of all members of EFTA, and thus enablethem all to participate from the same date in an integrated European market.” Thisagreement was confirmed in a statement by the EFTA Council on July 31, whenMacmillan announced the British intention to apply for EEC membership. 29The previous unanimous support for the government’s European policy nowwas broken. Apart from the small Communist Party, which was as opposed as everto any kind of European integration, two camps formed: on the one hand the Conservativeand the Liberal parties, who wanted Sweden to follow and apply formembership, on the other hand the Social Democratic Government and the CentreParty who regarded full membership as incompatible with neutrality and thereforeadvocated association.27. PRO, FO 371, vol. 150084 (551/152), Memorandum on the Future of OEEC submitted by Sweden,Stockholm, March 4, 1960.28. I. HÄGGLÖF, Drömmen, p. 228-229; EFTA, Arch 20/00 II, Memorandum circulated by the Swedishdelegation at the meeting of Heads of delegations, May 16, 1961, and Records, Heads of Delegation,Twenty-third meeting, Geneva, May 16-17, 1961.29. Documents on Swedish Foreign Policy 1961, Stockholm 1962, pp. 106-109.