4.
Differences within the Community Much has been said on this subject. Our principal concem at present is to gain the agreement of our partners to the proposition that these differences will not disappear by pretending that they do not exist. It is preferable that they be frankly admitted, and methods sought for their reduction and final elimination. Thus, it is undeniable that many market disruption problems in textiles are national, not Community problems, and we oppose all attempts to adopt so- called Community solutions for problems that are confined to individual Member States. The formulation of lists of sensitive
textile products on a Community basis appears to us, while the present lack of a unified market continues, to be essentially
nonsense. We are therefore unwilling to participate in any such exercises. We admit, of course, that there are grave difficulties in the way of uniformisation of import regimes, while industrial, regional and fiscal policies remain unharmonised. But we deplore any attempt to shelter behind these differences as excuses for making no progress towards the goal of a single market.
5. An empirical approach The Community may wish to consider first how its existing cotton textile agreements with certain supplying countries (India, Pakistan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Egypt and Yugoslavia) could be converted from their present state of expressing merely the sum of individual Member States' quota restrictions, based on past performance, to genuine Community agreements based on a. the existence of actual or threatened market disruption b. the recognition of inter-fibre flexibility and c. the concept of the EEC as a potential single market. Secondly, the Community may wish to examine the current situation regarding individual Member States' restrictions of all kinds in relation to other supplying countries. In this case the search for Community solutions may be more extended, and national problems may continue to require national solutions for some time
to come.
2