How Would You Characterize The Uk’s Relationship With The Eu Essay, Research Paper

The essay will attempt to evaluate the UK with regard to Europe and (what has developed into) the European Union (EU) in a political perspective by analyzing their history with each other following the Second World War (WWII), and thus will be limited to up until the UK’s inclusion in the EU in 1972. The viability and relevance of the first sentence will be put to the test as the timeline ends. The UK has in its long history fought countless battles on continental soil for its own benefits and has built up a history as a commanding force in European and later World affairs. But following WWII Europe was devastated and split between the emergent dominant world powers the USA and USSR. In this calamity occurred the birth of what we now call the European Union, and what a revolutionary concept it for Europeans to unite. Few other continents have such an ethnically diverse yet independent population and a long history of conflict.

Conflict is essentially what spawned the idea of a united Europe as it has been tried on numerous occasions through such very means, but following WWII a final enlightenment as to attempt unification through peaceful political means developed. However, the UK still had its Empire (now assembled in a Commonwealth) with which it conducted global affairs and trade that it was completely dependent upon. Then there was the “special” relationship that existed between the UK and the World superpower the USA that developed during WWII. The UK saw it necessary for the USA to be deeply involved in European affairs in order to counter the Soviet threat from the East. The EU was essentially concocted by the Frenchman Monnet and intended to become a “Third Force” in world politics as a mechanism to prevent further war in Europe. The first steps were taken with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with the integration of those industries between France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries following the Treaty of Paris in 1951 (as both are vital to munitions production in war). The official organisation was formed later in August 1952, but the British government opposed the supranational nature of the planned ECSC and decided not to join. Also the UK did not want to disturb its trade with the Commonwealth or its ties with the USA, even though a Federated Europe was fervently supported by the US.

The success of the ECSC brought about further integration with the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 integrating the economies of the Six and creating the European Economic Community (EEC). It was an economic union but essentially for political circumstances. The basic economic features of the EEC treaty were gradually implemented, and the three communities (the EEC, the ECSC, and Euratom) merged in July 1967 under one set of institutions, the European Community (EC). No progress was made on enlargement of the EC or on any other new proposals, however, until after De Gaulle resigned as president of France in May 1969. The next French president, Georges Pompidou, was more open to new initiatives within the EC.

The UK together with Ireland and Denmark were admitted to the community on 1. January 1973. In Great Britain, however, opposition to EC membership continued. After the Labour party regained power in 1974, it carried out its election promise to renegotiate British membership conditions (particularly financial ones); the renegotiation resulted in only marginal changes, but it created a period of uncertainty within the EC. A divided Labour government endorsed continued EC membership and called a national referendum on the issue for June 1975. Despite strong opposition from some groups, the British people voted for continued membership.

In 1979 and 1980, the British government, claiming that the value of its contributions far exceeded the value of benefits received, again attempted to change its terms of membership. The conflict was resolved during the spring of 1980 when several members agreed to pay a greater share of the EC costs. In 1984 it was agreed that Great Britain would receive a partial rebate of its annual net contributions to the EC, beginning with a rebate of $800 million for that year.1

Now that it is clear what occurred it is necessary to examine the pitfalls that resulted in the UK not becoming an original founder and why it did not become a member until after 10 years. The first factor that made Atlee and Eden refuse membership in the ECSC, even though Britain was central to its success, was the Commonwealth relations. Britain early on still maintained its vast Empire of colonies with which it had defense and vital trade interests. The Empire was a source of raw materials for the UK’s industries and also provided a source of captive market with which 40% of its trade occurred. Another key factor was the UK’s strong relationship with the USA, and although this was not viewed on both sides Britain maintained its foreign affairs consistent with the US. This was also the cause for France’s distrust of British intentions to in the event of inclusion as it was believed that the UK would become a conduit for US influence, when it was hoped that France would be a dominant force.

The UK would literally be a “Trojan Horse” in extending US hegemony over France through Britain. The result of non-inclusion was that the EC became structured around the domestic needs of the original members that was and still is centered upon a lenient agricultural policy. This financing agreement meant that there would be subsidies and price control that held the central European farmers in mind as they resisted the market forces that would eventually have led to farming conditions similar to the US. Britain on the other hand had fairly efficient farming in place, which meant that they would be giving more than receiving for agriculture.

A fundamental paradigm shift did, however, occur for the UK in the very same year as the ECSC was being set up. 1956 its “dilutions of grandeur” were hard hit by the Suez Crisis as Egyptian premier Nasser nationalized the canal. The UK and France did not wish to appease this dictator and sent forces to retake the canal, but this was in contradiction with US views who then threatened to remove the value of the Sterling if it was not abandoned. Britain realised its loss of power versus the USA and USSR by backing down and at the same time gaining resentment from the French. The dismembering of the Empire followed shortly and it soon became apparent that economic growth was mostly taking place where trade existed between industrial nations and thus Britain shifted its gaze towards Europe.

The conservative Prime Minister MacMillan therefore conceded ‘defeat’ by applying for ECSC membership in 1961. However, as deGaulle was in power in France the membership request was vetoed as long as he remained in power. The reasoning was that the UK had not yet wholeheartedly accepted the European vocation, but actually feared that France would lose its dominating position.

Another less mentioned factor was that British politicians quite simply did not believe that any supranational organisation in Europe would be a success following the failure of such proposals as the European Defense Force.

Britains relations with the EU have as can be seen above been strained ever since joining the union and at the core it can be explained due to “the British Government had lost the initiative and was reacting to European situations created by others; it was not itself setting the pace”.2 Ever since joining Britain has thus had to continually wrest power and mould the European Union to its liking with strong opposition from the Franco-German alliance. In conclusion therefore it is clear that one can only characterize the UK’s relationship with the EU as one filled with resentment, tensions and also some regret. This is especially clear when analyzing Britain’s current position as remaining outside of the Monetary Union. Current situations bear a lot of resemblance to the UK’s position in the 1950s and 60s, but with the exception that Britain is more than welcome to join Euroland only being blocked by the love for the Sterling. The UK, it seems, is not yet ready to give up its sovereignty.

Bibliography

1 Funk & Wagnall’s Encyclopedia, 1995

2 George, J. ; An Awkward Partner?

Article.