Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-659
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Flexible Exchange Rate ◽  
German Government ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
Exchange Value ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Tariff Reductions

Council The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), meeting in Paris on June 29, 1956, decided to maintain the European Payments Union (EPU) for another year beginning on July 1, 1956, without any modifications in its rules. The Council also approved bilateral agreements on repayment and liquidation concluded by some EPU members. The Council met again in Paris from July 17 to 19, under the chairmanship of Mr. Harold Macmillan (United Kingdom); among the major questions discussed were nuclear energy and trade liberalization. Prior to the meeting, press reports indicated that the United Kingdom had refused an invitation from the west German government to discuss a flexible exchange rate for sterling, stating that the United Kingdom government saw no useful purpose to be served in an international discussion of the exchange value of sterling. During the Council session the ministers had before them a report and proposal dealing with 1) the need for the OEEC countries to achieve a degree of free trade abolishing quantitative restrictions to the extent of 90 percent or more; 2) the possibility of consolidating that degree of liberalization; and 3) the desire of the low tariff countries in Europe to see this quantitative liberalization accompanied by tariff reductions.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 566-568
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Balance Of Payments ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Bilateral Agreements ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Payments System ◽  
European Trade

The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, composed of cabinet members of the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands, held a series of secret meetings during May and June in an attempt to solve the problem of intra-European trade and the intra-European payments system which was scheduled to end June 30, 1949. The principal objections to the existing payments system were that it was originally formed in a series of bilateral agreements between each of the countries, that the original agreements were based on estimates of the expected balance of payments which had in some cases been erroneous, and that existing quotas had stifled trade.

Organization For European Economic Cooperation

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 520-528
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
Foreign Minister ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
New Members ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Consultative Group

Council of OEECOn April 4, 1950, the Council of OEEC held its annual election. Dr. Dirk U. Stikker, Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and political conciliator of OEEC, was elected chairman of the Council, thus combining the functions of those two OEEC offices. Representatives of Austria and Switzerland were elected as vicechairmen of the Council, while new members of the executive committee of OEEC were Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the United Kingdom; the United Kingdom retained the presidency of this committee and France the vice-presidency and Turkey replaced Switzerland as rapporteur géndral. The Council also decided to do away with the consultative group of eleven which had proved to be unwieldy and to eliminate the practice by which the chairman and vice-chairmen had been expected to spend two days of every week in Paris. It was decided that: 1) the full Council should meet at the ministerial level on the first Friday of every second month; 2) whenever circumstances demanded, the executive committee could be convened at the ministerial level, with the participation of the chairman of the Council and possibly at his call; 3) the chairman was empowered to ask the vice-chairmen to meet with him in Paris at any time to review progress or to discuss action. In response to a request from the Council of Europe, the Council of OEEC appointed a subcommittee of three members to meet with a similar subcommittee from the Council of Europe to discuss closer cooperation. Sweden and Italy were named to the OEEC subcommittee with a third member to be announced later.

Relief and Rehabilitation Organizations: Committee of European Economic Cooperation

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Joint Conference ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Soviet Union

On June 5, 1947, the Secretary of State of the United States, George C. Marshall, stated that the United States could not proceed much further with its plans to assist European recovery unless the countries themselves reached some agreement as to their requirements and to their own contribution to European recovery. Immediately following this speech at Harvard University, representatives of the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union met in Paris to discuss the possibility of a joint conference on the problem. After the Soviet representative (Molotov) withdrew, sixteen nations, upon the invitation of France and the United Kingdom, met in Paris from July 12 to September 22, 1947, to draw up a joint program for European reconstruction. Participating countries were: United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation

1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 304-305
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Trade Liberalization ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
German Federal Republic ◽  
Special Position ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future

Council: The Council of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) met on May 5 and 6, 1954, and agreed on the basis of a compromise settlement of the extreme creditor and debtor problem in the European Payments Union (EPU). The settlement provided that 1) accumulated debts should be paid over a period of time; 2) debtors should in the future limit to a minimum their resort to EPU resources; 3) the rules of payment should remain unaltered; 4) if the German Federal Republic or other creditors increased their surpluses in EPU, they should extend further credit, but receive some compensation from the EPU dollar reserve; and 5) the special position of Germany should be dealt with. According to press reports, the settlement had averted the danger that the United Kingdom and Germany would withdraw from EPU. The Council, which also decided that EPU should be renewed for another year after June 30, 1954, referred the matter of further details of the settlement to the managing board of EPU. Other actions taken by the Council during its May meeting included the following: 1) recommendations to France that it abolish the compensatory taxes on imports which it had introduced along with certain measures of trade liberalization, and increase trade liberalization to 75 percent by November 1, 1954, instead of to the 65 percent which it had promised; 2) recommendations to the steering board that it submit, as soon as possible, “concrete proposals” for the abolition of artificial measures designed to aid exporters; and 3) the establishment of a ministerial group to examine the problems which would arise if a “number of countries” re-established convertibility.

Convention for European Economic Cooperation, Signed at Paris, April 16, 1948

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 420-426 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom

The Governments of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey and the Commanders in Chief of the French, United Kingdom and United States Zones of Occupation of Germany

Organization for European Economic Cooperation: European Payments Union

1956 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 659-659
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
German Federal Republic ◽  
European Economic ◽  
The United Kingdom

Settlements in EPU for the period May through July 1956 showed the German Federal Republic retaining the strongest creditor position. Austria, which showed a small surplus in June, had a larger one in July, while Italy moved from a substantial deficit in June to a surplus in July. France continued to have the largest monthly deficit; second was the United Kingdom, which showed a surplus in May, a deficit in June and a significantly larger deficit in July. Since December 1955, France had covered its deficits fully in gold payments, but in July 1956 it resorted to the 25 percent EPU credit to which it was entitled. Belgium and Luxembourg retained strong creditor positions.

Disposing of John Lindley's library and herbarium: the offer to Australia

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. LUCAS
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Botanic Gardens ◽  
Final Disposal ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Royal Horticultural Society ◽  
Royal Botanic Gardens ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
The University ◽  
Joseph Hooker

Shortly before he died, John Lindley decided to dispose of his herbarium and botanical library. He sold his orchid herbarium to the United Kingdom government for deposit at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and then offered his library and the remainder of his herbarium to Ferdinand Mueller in Melbourne. On his behalf, Joseph Hooker had earlier unsuccessfully offered the library and remnant herbarium to the University of Sydney, using the good offices of Sir Charles Nicholson. Although neither the University of Sydney nor Mueller was able to raise the necessary funds to purchase either collection, the correspondence allows a reconstruction of a catalogue of Lindley's library, and poses some questions about Joseph Hooker's motives in attempting to dispose of Lindley's material outside the United Kingdom. The final disposal of the herbarium to Cambridge and previous analyses of the purchase of his Library for the Royal Horticultural Society are discussed. A list of the works from Lindley's library offered for sale to Australia is appended.

Trusteeship Council

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-328 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Northern Region ◽  
Special Session ◽  
Adverse Conditions ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
The People ◽  
History Of ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Duty To Inform

The Trusteeship Council held its tenth special session at UN Headquarters on December 4 and 16, 1959. Following the adoption of its agenda, the Council entered into consideration of the report of the UN Plebiscite Commissioner on the plebiscite in the northern part of the trust territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom administration. In introducing the first part of the report, Mr. Abdoh, UN Plebiscite Commissioner, reviewed the history of his consultations with the United Kingdom government on arrangements for the organization of the plebiscite. He observed that, as a result of being administered for many years as an integral part of the northern region of Nigeria, the Northern Cameroons had previously had very little reality as a separate administrative entity; in fact, boundaries with the northern region of Nigeria had little significance, and tribal groups extended from that region into the trust territory and even beyond, to the Cameroons under French administration. Communications in the Northern Cameroons were poor, but, despite adverse conditions, the UN plebiscite staff had travelled extensively and had been able to meet both the people and their leaders. Mr. Abdoh added that he wished to stress the peaceful and orderly way in which polling had been conducted throughout the territory, and mentioned the results of the plebiscite, viz.: out of the 113,859 votes cast, 70,546 had been in favor of deciding the future of the Cameroons at a later date (alternative b), while 42,788 had indicated a preference for the Northern Cameroons' becoming a part of the northern region of Nigeria when Nigeria became independent (alternative a); 525 votes had been rejected. Approximately 80 percent of the estimated number of potential electors, and nearly 88 percent of the voters actually registered, had participated in the balloting; thus the greater part of the eligible population had taken part in the consultation, freely expressing their wishes in regard to the alternatives offered in the plebiscite. Mr. Abdoh had, however, felt it his duty to inform the Council of the view, which seemed to be prevalent among those who had voted for the second alternative, that the plebiscite had offered the people an opportunity of registering what was in effect a protest against the system of local adminstration, the introduction of reforms into which was apparently long overdue.

scholarly journals Brexit as a Factor behind the Evolution of ASEAN’s Trade in Services with the United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
pp. 310-326
Author(s):  
E.A. Galchenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Foreign Trade ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Trade Liberalization ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Economic Cooperation ◽  
Southeast Asian ◽  
Trade In Services ◽  
The United Kingdom

The article examines the current transformation of ASEAN−UK foreign economic cooperation pattern in the context of digitalization of the global economy. Brexit as a manifestation of the European integration crisis has catalyzed diversification of Britain’s foreign trade in services. Southeast Asian nations are becoming the UK’s priority partner in this area. In these circumstances, parties have to choose the model of their future trade agreement and the degree of trade liberalization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document