E
2
G
European market to the closed Japanese market (para III 3).
The Netherlands and the UK detected a note of reciprocity in
para III 6 of the recommendations and the UK and the Commission
stressed that the GSP was not negotiable as para 5.2 of the
recommendations seemed to suggest. Spain, Italy and to a lesser
extent France remained concerned that the paper did not adequately
address the different interests of the EC countries. The UK
questioned the general theme of needing to integrate the Asian NIES
into the international trading system: they already were. It was
difficult to make general recommendations for so disparate a set of
countries, who have no common grouping and the references to Hong
Kong, although better, were still inaccurate. The paper raised
detailed questions (eg GSP) beyond the ken of the Group. The
Presidency endorsed this last point and the FRG then suggested the
paper be sent to the Political Committee as a national paper, which
incorporated some of the suggestions of the other members of the
Policy Planning Group. After some tooth sucking (by the Greeks)
this proposal was agreed. (Final version of the paper attached.)
Europe and the Integration Progress in the Maghreb
4. Spain circulated an only slightly revised version of the paper
distributed on 26 April. A number of delegations repeated their
concern that the EC should not rush into developing links with a
very new and untried organisation and particularly one which
contained a notoriously unreliable partner: Libya. Italy and France
thought it inappropriate to devote too much comment to the internal
affairs of the Maghreb countries, particularly with regard to the
spread of fundamentalism. The Commission made a few points of
detail. Spain agreed to circulate a further revised draft before
the next meeting of the Group.
European Architecture
5.
France circulated a paper on points for discussion in the
working group with a view to drafting a short paper to provoke
discussion in the Political Committee.
ני
F
AK3AAA