VI UEF European Congress
It is possible to download the documetns regarding this Congress here: LINK.
After hearing the reports of Henri Frenay, President of the Central Committee, and Guglielmo Usellini, Secretary-General:
a) on the situation of the UEF;
b) on the three resolutions discussed during the preceding months within the organisations affiliated with the UEF;
c) on the proposed amendments to the UEF Statutes;
the Congress opened a general debate, which focused mainly on these resolutions.
The debate was brief and businesslike. In essence, it restated the arguments already presented in the Tribune libre and at the Europa-Union General Assembly of 18 February.
The preliminary vote on the resolutions showed that the supporters of Resolution No. 2 were considerably fewer than had generally been expected. The approximate distribution of votes was:
- 45% for Resolution No. 1;
- 30% for Resolution No. 3;
- only 25% for Resolution No. 2.
It proved impossible to carry out the mandate given by several national sections to the representatives of Resolutions Nos. 2 and 3, namely to find a compromise between the two.
The leading representatives of Resolution No. 2 were unwilling to agree on a clear political line with the representatives of Resolution No. 3. The question therefore arose whether the UEF would be able to function on the basis of a majority of only a few votes in favour of a possible new joint resolution drafted by representatives of the former Resolutions Nos. 2 and 3.
The majority of delegates answered this question in the negative. The representatives of Resolution No. 3 therefore concluded that forcing through a majority decision merely for the sake of obtaining a majority would be pointless.
Such a decision could have been achieved only by sacrificing political clarity, without any certainty that it would create an organisation capable of effective action. It was evident that this majority would not have been able to compel the minority supporting Resolution No. 1 to implement the majority resolution.
For these reasons, the representatives of Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 proposed openly acknowledging the existence of two tendencies within the UEF. It should be recognised that both represented genuine European concerns, and both tendencies should be allowed to operate within the movements in which they commanded a majority.
A protocol was drafted and adopted by the Congress by 390 votes to 163. The opposing votes were cast in favour of a proposal by Henri Frenay, which aimed to establish unified political guidelines once again.
The adopted protocol read as follows:
The Sixth Congress of the UEF, meeting in Luxembourg on 2, 3 and 4 March 1956:
- Reaffirms the essential objective of European federalism, recognised by all: the creation of the United States of Europe;
- Notes, however, that two different political conceptions have emerged within the movement regarding the strategy and tactics to be followed;
- Far from wishing to conceal these differences, takes note of these conceptions as formulated in the two attached resolutions;
- Reaffirms its firm determination to preserve the existence of the UEF by giving each of the two tendencies the greatest possible scope for action, so that it may effectively carry out the course of action it proposes;
- Affirms that, in view of the grave situation of our continent and the immense tasks facing them, European federalists must no longer present public opinion with the spectacle of internal disputes;
- Finally, expresses the hope that the two tendencies will continue to coexist within the UEF in good faith and harmony, in a spirit not only of mutual tolerance but also of mutual understanding and, beyond that, agreement, so that the greatest possible number of joint actions may be undertaken in the future.
Both sides recognised that the existence of two theses was in no way contrary to the federalist principle of an international organisation and that loyal cooperation was possible.
The two tendencies underlying the protocol were set out in two resolutions, on which the Congress did not subsequently vote separately.
The first was Spinelli’s well-known Resolution No. 1, amended by the addition of a preamble acknowledging the existence of two tendencies within the UEF.
The other tendency was based on the Brugmans resolution, which had, however, been reformulated and considerably shortened and which included a clear programme of action.
These two resolutions, which also constituted the programmes of action of the two tendencies, were to be published in the next two issues of the newspaper Europa-Union.
Election of the Central Committee
The election result was as follows:
- 261 votes for List No. 1, Spinelli;
- 168 votes for List No. 3, Brugmans;
- 136 votes for List No. 2, Delmas–Frenay.
This produced the following proportional distribution of seats on the Central Committee:
- 15 seats for List No. 1;
- 10 seats for List No. 3;
- 8 seats for List No. 2.
On the basis of the preference-voting system used within each list, the following candidates were elected.
The list was published subject to confirmation because errors had occurred during the count. These could be identified only during the following week through a second count of the ballot papers, which had meanwhile been sealed.
List No. 1
- Usellini, Italy
- Marc, France
- Bernardis, Italy
- Spinelli, Italy
- Giacchero, Italy
- Constantinescu, Romania
- Rifflet, Belgium
- Fontana, Italy
- Derickx, Belgium
- Kollender, Germany
- Demachy, France
- Spaey, Belgium
- Olivetti, Italy
- Schöndube, Germany
- Krause, Saarland
List No. 2
- Frenay, France
- Rollier, Italy
- Calteux, Luxembourg
- Gouzy, France
- Orban, Belgium
- Riou, France
- Delmas, France
- Desboeuf, France
List No. 3
- Hessenauer, Germany
- Brugmans, Netherlands
- Schneider, Germany
- Friedlaender, Germany
- Hytte, France
- Roser, Germany
- Nord, Netherlands
- Bach, Germany
- Thompson, United Kingdom
- Mozer, Netherlands
It followed that the new Central Committee would include five German representatives of the Brugmans tendency and two German representatives of the Spinelli tendency. Four national delegates of Europa-Union, who had yet to be appointed, would be added to them.
Resolutions Adopted
PDF pages 290–301. It was adopted by:
- 393 votes for the text submitted by the Resolutions Committee;
- 163 votes for Henri Frenay’s alternative draft;
- 13 invalid ballots.
The adopted resolution:
- reaffirms the creation of the “United States of Europe” as the essential objective;
- acknowledges the existence within the UEF of two different political and strategic conceptions;
- takes note of the two attached resolutions;
- resolves to preserve the unity of the UEF while allowing both tendencies to pursue their respective courses of action;
- calls upon the two tendencies to foster mutual understanding and undertake as many joint actions as possible.
The two attached political resolutions are:
“Combat pour le Peuple Européen” — Struggle for the European People
PDF pages 291–296. It advocates a more explicitly supranational approach: overcoming the nation-state system, building a European Federation, and convening a permanent Congress of the European People, with the aim of establishing an elected constituent assembly.
“Vers les États-Unis d’Europe” — Towards the United States of Europe
PDF pages 297–301. It advocates a more gradual and flexible strategy: support for the Common Market, Euratom and the ECSC; the creation of supranational institutions; the mobilisation of public opinion; and respect for the autonomy of the national movements.
An internal report specifies that these two attached resolutions were not voted upon separately: the Congress adopted the unified text acknowledging both tendencies. Nevertheless, they are presented in the dossier under the heading “Résolutions adoptées conjointement” (“Resolutions Adopted Jointly”).
2. Resolution on Euratom and Nuclear Energy
PDF page 314; adopted unanimously, according to the report on page 140.
The Congress:
- recognises the fundamental importance of the peaceful use of nuclear energy;
- declares that only genuinely supranational integration can place Europe on an equal footing with the major nuclear powers;
- supports the proposal for a European atomic-energy pool;
- instructs the new Central Committee to examine, as a matter of urgency, the full range of issues relating to nuclear energy, on the basis of the agenda submitted by M. A. Rollier.
Revision of the UEF Statutes
Fortunately, it was possible to reach a unanimous decision on amending the UEF Statutes, since all delegates recognised the necessity of such a revision.
The amendment primarily concerned the composition of the Central Committee. It would now include a considerably larger number of national delegates—31—while the Congress would elect a number of members corresponding to the number of national delegates, plus two, making 33 members.
The three large countries of the Coal and Steel Community would henceforth be entitled to four national delegates each; the smaller countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, to two each; and all other countries to one national delegate.
To prevent electoral manoeuvring, on the eve of the Congress the outgoing Central Committee had decided to apply a system of proportional representation by lists, corresponding to the tendencies represented at the Congress.
Three lists were consequently submitted, all of an international character. List No. 3, composed mainly of representatives of the former Resolution No. 3 but also including other candidates, contained, in addition to Dutch, German and French candidates, one British candidate, one Belgian and three representatives of exile organisations.