SECTIONED & CERTIFIED

Click on any image for a larger version

I just came across this documentation from 1967/8 and thought it worth including in my reflections on my year in the College.

If there is any message to be got out of the above cert it is of a consistent mediocrity across the range of courses.

The first total refers to the initial six week module on General European Studies which covered (i) the history of the European project from Charlemagne on, (ii) EEC institutions, and (iii) non-EEC institutions such as the Council of Europe and NATO.

The second total is the main one covering the eight months of study in my chosen Section (faculty) which in my case was European Economics. The other sections were European (EEC) Law and Political Science. I think the law faculty had the highest status as it was an area which was developing and graduates would have been in high demand at the time.

The third total is for the optional course where I had chosen Social Policy and Trade Union Problems in the Common Market.

Although some of the lectures were in French rather than English, as were the corresponding exam papers, we had the option to answer in English, which I did with the exception of the optional course where the exam was oral. I took that in French having weighed up the egos and linguistic competence of my interlocutors.

Within the General European Studies module, Rector Brugmans took us through his book L'IDÉE EUROPÉENNE which recorded the development of the European concept from Charlemagne to the EEC.

The book was in French and the exam included a question which was unfair and stumped us all.

I'd like to dwell on that for a moment as it illustrates a few aspects of the situation we were faced with.

First the question which stumped us. This asked for the name of the author of a book on De Gaulle and Europe quoted in the Rector's book. Had we been studying the book alone for some ten years or so this might not have been an unfair question. But we had only six weeks to cover this 315 page book, along with all the other introductory courses on European and international institutions and European history, referred to below.

I don't think anyone answered the question correctly. Some of us were mystified as we had studied the Rector's book very carefully and had gone through previous exam papers (me and the Brits) to get the flavour of the exam.

So off we went (me and the Brits) to the Office to complain. We were informed that the answer was in footnote 2 on page 206 (above). "How in God's name" we asked "were we supposed to absorb that level of detail in the time available?". The answer was to read the book again, and again, and again, until we had absorbed it fully.

What a load of crap, but there you are.

None of us were sent home so I'm sure we should have been grateful for small mercies.

M. Lory taught European history in general, again in French.

Émile Noel, who was then Secretary General of the EEC Commission, dealt with the EEC (in French) while Gordon Weil gave us one very stimulating three hour session on NATO (in very American English). Weil's session was split into two equal segments and during the break we discovered that most of the francophones hadn't a clue what he was talking about until we mentioned l'OTAN to them.

Robertson and Wiebringhaus did the rest of the institutions between them, as far as I remember.

On to the real business, the Economics Section. Rudolf Régul was the Professor and he lectured us on the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in which he had previously held high office and about which he had many publications to his name. I don't seem to have any exam paper from him but he did supervise my thesis over which we had many an argument.

The paper above covers economic policy (short, medium and long term) from the module by Van den Bempt and Molitor. The module's title is Harmonisation of Short and Medium Term Policies (short term economic and growth policy).

The first question posits a large EEC Member State running into balance of payments difficulties. It asks what the consequences for other Member States would be if the Member State in difficulties (i) cut back on domestic demand, or (ii) devalued its currency. It also asks what means would be available to the BOP deficit state to seek assistance from the other Member States before it would consider a devaluation? What role might the different EEC institutions play here? How might they avail of the possibility of coordination through the economic budgetary forecasts?

The second question goes into the medium and long term, asking what is the need for and the conditions required for the effective coordination of Member States' structural policies.

It is interesting that these questions are as live today as they were then.

This module is entitled Practice and Problems of the (Common) Agricultural Policy in the EEC. Krohn was Director, Agricultural Economics, EEC Commission.

The first question asks about the main supports of the agricultural market in the Commmon Agricultural Policy (CAP) on the one hand, and the Deficiency Payments System on the other.

There are a few things to note as backgound to this question. It is clearly contrasting the European model with that of the UK.

The UK directly subsidised its farmers' incomes thereby allowing them to stay in business without interfering with market prices. The UK imported the bulk of its food requirements so this policy was not overly expensive. From the point of view of Ireland, which supplied much of the imported food, it was a disaster as it kept prices and hence Irish farmers' incomes low.

The CAP by contrast supported farmers' incomes by directly supporting market prices with the burden falling mainly on the consumers who had to pay them. This system also involved a web of artificial, bureaucratically determined, "green" exchange rates and the whole thing led to horrendous complications and eventually things like beef and butter mountains and wine lakes. But from an EEC viewpoint the CAP was iconic because, apart from the common external tariff of the customs union, it was the one and only "common policy" achieved at that point.

The second question asks if market and price policies alone are sufficient to achieve the aims of agricultural policy or do they need to be supplemented by structural measures in the EEC?

Tinbergen's module was entitled Targets and Instruments of Integration Policy and you were not to write more than two pages in the two hours. Clearly a lot of the time would be spent thinking about the answers and then paring them down. No messer this man.

One of Tinbergen's pre-occupations was determining at which level in the hierarchy decisions were best taken. In his first question he cites the levels of enterprise, the nation, and higher, and asks for examples? In his second question he asks for the rationale behind the allocation of decisions across the hierarchy, how this might be defended and for an example from economic policy.

You can see the relevance of this to the EEC/EU looking upwards but, of course, it also has downward implications in terms of regional policy within the Member States. This is still a matter of contention. Just by the way Tinbergen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics the following year.

In any event, all of the above may give you an idea of what was pre-occupying the College and the EEC in the economic area in 1967/8.

Click on image for a readable version

The final official document - certified at last.

And the signatures caught my eye. Needless to say, Rector BRUGMANS. Then left from top, heads of faculties: Political Science - LUKASZEWSKI ; Law - DE VREESE ; Economics - REGUL.

In mid-page - LORY (History)

Bottom left - TINBERGEN.

So I have two Rectors - Brugmans (current) and Lukaszwski (1972-90) and Tinbergen (before he won the Nobel Prize). In fact I have two Tinbergen autographs as the whole thing is repeated in English on the other side.