Basic HTML Version
1973
Critica/
Year
for
the
New
Europe
Now there are nine nations in the
Common
Mar–
ket. lmportant steps are under way to advance
the world's largest trading bloc toward ultimate
O
N JANUARY
1 of this year, the
European Common Market
took another big step for–
ward. The fifteen-year-old, six–
nation trade group expanded to
nine, with the addition of Great
Britain, Ireland and Denmark.
The new union, of course, is still
far from complete. But another
milestone along the arduous road to
unity among the nations of free Eu–
rope has been reached. Historian
Arnold Toynbee describes it in col–
orful historical tones: "Western Eu–
rope has at last been united on a
Napoleonic scale, not through con–
quest this time, but voluntarily."
NINE FLAGS
of the European Commu–
nity
fly
in Paris during last autumn's
summit conference.
Hennig - Ploin
T
ruth Photo
PlAIN TRUTH Februory 1973
política/ unity.
by
Gene H. Hogberg
Norway's Jolt
The new European Community–
as
it
is now properly called - was
not achieved without a severe
trauma. In late September 1972,
Norway, which was scheduled to
join the other three applicants for
membership, opted out. In a nation–
wide referendum, opponents of
Norway's link with the EC were
able to muster enough ' 'no" votes to
upset the earl ier affirmative decision
to join on the part of the Oslo gov–
ernment.
The Norwegian decision had a
profound impact upon the leaders
of the remaining nine, as well as
upon the Community Commission
directorate in Brussels. Suddenly, it
dawned upon al! alike that the fires
of the "United Europe" ideal had
all but burned out. Young people
especially, not only in Norway, but
also in other Western European
countries, were no longer enamored
of the concept. Tnstead, impercep–
tible to their elders, they had begun
to view the Common Market , fore–
runner of a hoped-for United
Europe, as nothing but a huge mer–
cantile monster, serving only the
purpose of big business with its
growth-for-growth's-sake philoso–
phy. l n their view, the Common
Market was ecologically irrespon–
sible, unconcerned with developing
third world nations and unaccoun–
table to any real democratic con–
trols.
One British journalist, summing
up the meaning of Norway's "no,"
said that it "demonstrated that the
Community, in the 14 years of its