THE TABLET, June 24th, 1950

THE TABLET A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER AND REVIEW

PRO ECCLESIA DEI, PRO REGE ET PATRIA

VOL. 195, No. 5744

FOUNDED IN 1840

LONDON, JUNE 24th, 1950

SIXPENCE

PUBLISHED AS A NEWSPAPER

THE GREATER SOCIETY What Must Emerge in Europe and Asia UNDER THE VATICAN BASILICA An Illustrated Account of the Excavations: III. By J . M . C. Toynbee

STUDIES IN CATHOLIC ORGANISATION

I : The Middle Class in France. By Michael Derrick I I : The Small Farmers in Belgium. By Paul Crane, S.J. THE BALTIC TRAGEDY THE LAMB AND THE LION

After Ten Years

By Peter Watts

FIRST STEPS IN PARIS O N Tuesday the Schuman plan representatives o f France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg met in Paris at the French Foreign Ministry. The negotiations opened in an atmosphere of cautious expectancy, with all the participants realizing that many obstacles will have to be faced before any plan can come into effect. There may easily arise questions of national jealousies over such questions as who should preside over the “supra-national authority,” and each of the participants will have to prove his “ Europeanism” by deeds, when faced, as they all will be faced, by a request to relinquish a proportion of his own sovereignty and to accept, by doing so, economic discomfort or even temporary economic losses. In the meanwhile, France must assume the leadership of continental Europe, which she so much wanted to share, and still hopes to share, with Britain, and to pursue the long and probably strenuous course by which the Schuman plan, still rather a statement of principles than a definite proposal, will assume a concrete shape. Considering the exceedingly wide scope o f problems which each of the participating countries will be obviously inclined to view, at first, from her own national point of view, M. Schuman’s task, as well as the task of M. Monnet, who succeeds him at the conference table, will not be easy. But, paradoxically, they will get some very valuable help from the continental Socialists : M. Guy Mollet, Secretary-General of the French Socialist Party, made it quite clear in London that his party’s attitude will not be influenced by the Labour Party’s statement, and the unreserved support, pledged by M. Léon Jouhaux at the International Labour Conference which is just taking place in Geneva constitutes another helpful gesture, the meaning of which will not be lost upon the Trade Unionists of Western Europe, including those of Germany.

There remain, however, the unfortunate after-effects of the great shock which the contents of the Labour Party’s pamphlet, coupled with its doctrinaire and intolerant tone, had on the public opinion of Western Europe. For one thing, many continentals are genuinely puzzled by the divergence between Mr. Attlee’s statements and the principles expressed in the booklet. They refuse to believe that there could be a real difference between the Mr. Attlee o f Westminster and the Mr. Attlee of Transport House. I f such a difference really exists, they argue, it only proves that the British follow a policy of double-dealing. “Everybody could notice,” writes La Libre Belgique,

the Dalton manifesto declares exactly the opposite : unless State-ownership is introduced—in other words, unless the industries of Europe are nationalized—it is impossible to achieve jo int European planning. What, then, was it that Mr. Attlee had in mind, when he spoke of co-operating with countries which did not believe in the virtues of industrial nationalization ? The Socialist utopists of Britain argue that it is not possible to achieve a union between a system of State-planned economy, like the one of Britain, and a system o f liberal economies like those of the continent. It is better that Europe should perish than that a principle should perish ! ” The Acerbity of French Comment

As for the French Press, even Le Monde lost some of its usual restraint under the first impression of the unfortunate Labour document. In an article, entitled “ British Commonwealth and European Commonwealth,” M. Maurice Duverger wrote :—

“The myth of the British adherence appears now to be what it always was : just a myth. For, a Europe, which would not imply the relinquishing of national sovereignty and a Europe which would not imply majority decisions would be but a projection of the incapacity o f the League of Nations and the United Nations. The dilemma which we have revealed a short time ago is facing us now : Either we must give up Europe, or we must build Europe without England.” This is a most typical comment, reflecting, as it does, much disappointment, but also a firm resolution of the French to accept the position as it is, and even, to a certain extent, some satisfaction that the period o f waiting is over and that, at last, the Labour Party’s attitude is clear. This does not mean that the French have given up all hope of Britain finally joining in the future steel and coal organization and cooperating in all the other spheres of European unification. M. Schuman made this quite plain in his late comments, and M. Robert Aron, writing in a recent issue of the Figaro, outlines the new aspects of the British European, Commonwealth and Atlantic policies, as they now appear to the disillusioned continentals. But in general the French and their continental neighbours realize—some of them possibly for the first time—something that they could hardly bring themselves to accept : namely, that there exists a really deep difference in their own approach to the question of European unity and the British approach. They hope that some of these differences will disappear when British policy ceases to be influenced by the doctrinaire attitude of the Labour Party, but they suspect that some will remain, as their roots are deeper than in party-politics or party ideologies.

“ the disparity between the Prime Minister’s statements and the manifesto. While the Prime Minister declared that he was willing to co-operate, where European economic integration was concerned, with other Governments, even if those Governments did not share his economic views,

It is interesting to note in this respect the Communist