Minister President EHARD (Bavaria) then asked to be heard.
He stated that it was not the intention of the Minister Presidents to end the present discussion in this manner. The Minister Presidents had felt obliged to set forth the reason for their attitude; they would have liked to know whether these reasons were acceptable in principle or not, and whether the appreciation by the Military Governors of these reasons would not permit them, within the framework of the London agreements, and their own instructions, to take into account the proposals of the Ministers President. If the Military Governors could affirm that on certain points they had no freedom of action, the Minister Presidents would find themselves in a new situation. In this case the Minister Presidents should be given a fresh opportunity for consultation in order that the discussion might be continued, but first he wished to be allowed to discuss quickly the points of divergence.
As regards the name to be given to the Basic Law, the Minister Presidents saw no real difficulty in this question of terminology. In their opinion it was simply a bad translation and an addition or explanation should be sufficient to clear up this point. They suggested that the Military Governors should make a proposal on this point compatible with their instructions.
The second point was that of co-ordination in the time of modification of the Land boundaries and of the convening of the Constituent Assembly. There again Dr. EHARD saw no real divergence and considered that this difficulty could easily be resolved.
Therefore, the only question on which there was serious difficulty was that of the referendum. The Minister Presidents would have acted in contradiction to their duty if they had not explained to the Military Governors their objections to the principle of the referendum. If the Military Governors could not accept these reasons the Minister Presidents would like them to say so clearly. They would also like to know why the Military Governors were unable to accept these reasons. Perhaps they were bound, on this point, by the very specific provisions of the London Agreement. This point was very important for the Ministers President. If, finally, the question of the referendum was the only divergence which made it necessary for the case to be referred to the three Governments this created a new situation and in such a case the Minister Presidents wished to consult, amongst themselves, once more in order to modify, if necessary, their attitude.
Dr. EHARD stressed once again that the Minister Presidents would be very glad if the discussion could continue today on this basis.
Finally, Dr. EHARD asked the Military Governors to state precisely the points of divergence and their demands on those points.
On the proposal of General KOENIG the meeting adjourned for ten minutes, it being understood that the Military Governors would reply to Dr. EHARD’s questions when the meeting resumed.
The meeting resumed at 17.15 hours.
print version
return to list
previous document