Álit: tímarit löggiltra endurskoðenda - 01.01.1993, Blaðsíða 12

that subject as well. I think the greatest danger
about delaying the entry of the EEA agreement into
the statute book is political. That danger is that
member states and powerful forces, within not only
the member states, but within some EFTA countries
as well, will respond: “what is the point, is it worth
going through all this palaver, when five of the
countries have applied for membership. And in any
case, the EEA is like a bad Persil soap powder, it is
only going to have a shelf life of perhaps maximum
two years. And for those countries who are not
interested in membership, like Iceland, then surely,
can’t we just negotiate and dilever a better bilateral
free-trade agreement”?“ I would not underestimate
the voices that are talking in those terms in a
number of countries. From our point of view, that of
the Commission of the Eruopean Communities, that
would be a terrible pity and it would be an awful
shame. Let me suggest to you a few reasons why we
think that. In the first case the EEA will certainly be
seen historically as the most developed example of
a voluntary regional integration and economic
interpenetration that the world has ever seen. We
have had lots of enforced integration, from Genghis
Khan, the Roman Empire, down to nazi Germany.
But in terms of voluntarily agreeing on a whole
range of subject matters, I think, that there is no
example in history of such a degree of integration or
of economic interpenetration. I would say yes, there
is a huge difference in magnitude. The EC has 360
million people, EFTA countries are only a tenth of
that, something like 33 million. But nevertheless,
that regional grouping is the single largest trade
grouping in the world and the relations between the
two organizations are more important than either
the Community’s relations with the US or with
Japan. Secondly, there is absolutely no certainty
that those EFTA countries which have applied for
membership will actually join. That their
governments have put in an application is one thing.
Whether their populations are going to accept that,
in a referenda, is an entirely separate thing. To go
back to Robert Bums, some of you will remember
his words: “There is many a slip between cup and
lip.” There could be a few slips on the road to full
membership as well. And moreover, I think it is
important to point out in an assembly such a this
that the EC has no missionary zeal about
enlargement. The EC does not go out with hands
together or on bended knee, and say to Sweden, or
Iceland or Norway or any country: “Please come
and join us.” Nor will it. It is entirely a question for
the sovereign will of the countries concemed. We
are not missionary, and we have a list of priority
issues that we have to deal with, ranging from the
rehabilitation of the economies of eastem and
central Europe to the conclusion of the Uruguay
round, enhanced performance regarding the Third
World. A whole range of priorities that actually put
the issue of enlargement and increased membership
not very high on the list of priorities.
Thirdly, if the Community is enlarged and some
of the applicant countries do join, the EEA will
have made that membership much much easier,
because of the negotiations that we have entered
into and concluded, because the EEA itself, in my
view, is already more than halfway to full
membership itself. And fourthly, I think that in an
objective examination, and I know after the debate
in Iceland, maybe one should not intervene in
private grief, but at least from the commission's
point of view, it is really quite a remarkable
achievement to have concluded it in such a
comparatively short period of time, compared to
practically any other negotiations that we have
entered into, with either a single country or several.
And covering such a vast area. I know, and have
personal experience of how frustrating some of
these negotiations can be. I sat through not only the
first Luxembourg council, but also the second
Luxembourg council where it was touch and go
right to the last minute, and of course the issue was
fish. I thought it was okay, you had a very good
deal out of the EEA on fish. Negotations are often
very frustrating because you get into minutiae. And
maybe it is because the Community often deals with
the sublime and occasionally the ridiculous, that
this notion of bureaucracy as a bad swear word has
developed in the Community. I am not quite sure
that the bureaucrats have quite as bad a name as do
politicians. However, if you are in a bureaucratic
organization it is something you have got to live
with. Let me make one point, which I was asked to
look at. What is the actual size of the Community?
In terms of the negotiations on EEA, I think
Sweden or Austria had something like 200 civil
servants working full time on the negotiations,
whereas the Commission team consisted of eight. It
will put perhaps into some proportion the numbers
game that some people use badly. If I could then
add that perhaps the total number of employees in
all the institutions of the Community only amounts
to about the same as the Scottish Office in the UK
administration, that the total number we have,
excluding interpreters and translators, with a
university degree or equivalent is about 2300.
Trying to get an agreement between, in the case of
the EEA, 18 independent countries or in daily
business between 12 sovereign govemments, is not
12