The original inhabitants of an area in Europe known as the Saar Basin were believed to have been a Gallic tribe until it was invaded by the Romans.
At that point German and French historians differ, and when different historians from different nations see things differently in terms of who lived where, that usually spells trouble.
It then gets very complicated over the next several thousand years with invasions and marriages.
Countless people are involved like Cardinal Richelieu who was quite set on the area belonging to France.
The important thing to note is that at some point it stops being only about the area, and more about its industrial and strategic importance. It is rich with coal, wood, and factories.
Some post war German writers claimed the problem begins at the start of WWI when France is very quick to try and exercise a claim over the region.
Woodrow Wilson was particularly against France exercising this historic claim, and what is eventually agreed is that the area would be managed by an independent authority.
A solution that isn't necessarily seen as good from a self-determination point of view.
Added to the fact, France is there largely for economic reasons and feel they are owed it because of the damage to the Lens and Pas de Calais coalfields during the First World War.
Inevitably the area is returned to Germany after a referendum.
And inevitably we also go to war, because that’s just something that we used to do.
And again, after Germany loses, France wants control of the area while accepting that the people are German.
The joint resources of France and Germany occupying a triangle that both had a claim over, and both needed to share those resources to benefit.
And this time the US are more sympathetic to France, supporting their claim on the territory.
Meaning Saarland ended up looking a bit like Groundhog Day, only with less groundhogs, more French troops, and it wasn't remotely funny.
France may have felt like they needed industrial control, but fortunately someone who had been part of the previous solution had an idea for a different approach.
Monnet considered that an international solution could be created to solve a national conflict.
This was considered serious. When the European flag is proposed with 15 stars, Germany rejects it because one of the stars represents an independent Saarland. When a flag with 14 stars is produced France rejects it on the basis that an independent Saarland is not represented.
Monnet concluded that If France and Germany could pool their resources between them internationally, the region could be left to self determination.
And so, on this day, they committed to substitute for age old rivalries the merging of essential interests; to create, by establishing an economic community, the basis for a broader and deeper community among peoples long divided by bloody conflicts.
Attached to the treaty is a letter from the Chancellor of West Germany asking for confirmation that their signature does not amount to an acceptance of the current situation.
But with France happy with the pooling of resources, they agreed with Germany on a referendum to allow the people of Saarland a say in their self-determination.
And with the Saar questioned settled: there remains no reasonable ground why two great nations should ever in-future rise in war one against another.
Those aren’t my words, they are the words of Adolph Hitler in 1935. 👇
It’s important, therefore, to note that the European Coal and Steel Community wasn’t just the tying up of the engines of war with some idealistic words around peace.
It was a very real solution to a very real problem that people believed could lead to a very real war.
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Eurosceptics used to be uncommonly honest about Ireland and Brexit being a problem. They didn’t think there would be problems with goods, but also referred to people too.
🧵
Even in the EU some wanted controls because they were really worried about a porous border.
1. Now we’ve seen the defence and foreign policy plans I’m going to comment them through the lens of just this one tweet and the suggestion it all went wrong when it became a political union. (Thread)
2. The main problems with that line is that the EEC officially becomes a political union on May 14th, 1972 when it goes public with its first joint foreign policy position.
3. By 1992, the EEC had developed this concept through a number of mechanisms which are very similar to Maastricht when compared closely.
Maybe it not being ashamed of the British flag, but being proud of the Great British cultural tradition of understatement and being horrified that it is under attack from politicians who want to supplant it with American culture.
This is of course just "talking down Britain" when the government suggests that the UK border force can't conduct a 'couple of check', and a 'few forms' can't be filled out.
"If the EU can process all those goods from China, I certainly think Britain will be OK"
1. If you want to understand the problem with political debate in the UK, then we only have to look at this government report on the European Union from 2010. (Thread)
2. The House of Commons Library is strictly impartial, but sometimes (as we shall see) when including opinions, it’s important to take into account more than someone’s job title or experience.
3. The report in question needed to cover the Factortame ruling that asserted the supremacy of Community law in the UK.
Now the problem here is the source of your quote also said that Heath called it a just a Common Market while saying he claimed no loss of sovereignty.
@987_charles@WarRocketAjaxUK And the problem with that is that Heath doesn't call it a Common Market he uses the term Community, and he believes that the surrender of sovereignty is something that should be recognised and made clear. That it was a cost worth paying.