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

74Mikael af MalmborgWhat was it, then, more precisely that made neutrality and EEC membership soincompatible? The three neutrals Sweden, Switzerland and Austria agreed that neutralitydid not curb participation in economic integration in Europe in the form ofassociation, but neutrality required the following restrictions. Firstly, they could notdelegate sovereignty. This would affect their participation in the common commercialpolicy and their acceptance of institutional control without a veto. Secondly, asa consequence of the above, they must have the right to withdraw. Such a right, sothey hoped, might even be welcomed by the Six with an eye to its usefulness if theCommunity found that its development was hampered by the neutrals. Thirdly, theymust be allowed to take special measures to safeguard essential supplies in case ofwar. In view of the obligations which international law laid on neutral states in wartime,they must frame their policies in times of peace with a view to being as economicallyself-sufficient as possible in time of war. Such measures should not,however, prejudice conditions of competition in the Common Market for productsnot intended for specific military purposes. 34 As regarded the common commercialpolicy, the neutrals could not allow the Community to control their treaty-makingpower nor their relations with third countries, since either might expose them to thepossibility of action incompatible with neutrality and would certainly expose themto the charge of not being able to prevent such actions.The applications of the three neutrals on December 15 all referred to Article 238of the Treaty of Rome as providing a basis for a solution and the need for any suchsolution to be compatible with their neutrality, as well as with the integrity of theEEC. The Swedish government also referred to a speech in the European Parliamentby the President of the Commission, Professor Walter Hallstein, who hadexplained that association was a more flexible solution, open to countries whichcould not for some reason accept the political obligations of full membership.“Association allows the associated country a structural link with the Communitywith retained sovereignty on the political level.” It was wrong, he had said, to dismissassociation as inferior to full membership. 35Little Enthusiasm for Associating NeutralsIn spite of this speech there was little enthusiasm among the Six for the prospect ofassociating neutrals with the Community. There seems to have been a particularlack of sympathy for the Swedish case. The French and the Belgians had gravedoubts about neutrality and the Italians also were reluctant to discuss the issue,devoted as they were to the idea of a united, federal Europe. It was feared that theneutrals could hinder the future development of the Community towards “an evercloser union”. There also was widespread worry that association would turn out to34. Documents ... 1961, pp. 127-137; PRO, FO 371, vol. 164700 (615/46), The EFTA Neutrals and theEEC, Memorandum from the Cabinet Office, February 15, 1962.35. Documents (...) 1961, pp. 128-137, and I. HÄGGLÖF, pp. 248-249.