A perspective on UKEU relations

'Britain's relationship with the European Community can be summed up as follows. The government lacks any sense of purpose about Britain's role in Europe, and consequently its policies are riddled with contradiction and ambiguity. ny initiative that might result in Britain becoming more deeply involved in European institutions brings these inconsistencies to the surface, with the government then moving into a state of disarray accompanied by bitter party conflict and occasional resignations. There are those who put their Europeanism above party loyalty whilst others, including the !rime "inister, seem prepared to sacrifice Europe for any short#term party political advantage. The !rime "inister's position on the EC issue has invited challenges from political rivals for the key to $o. %&. 'or many, fundamental hostility towards the EC masquerades as arguments about the sovereignty of !arliament, about alien ideologies being thrust upon Britain by the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels or about the undesirable national characteristics of our partners, particularly the 'rench and (ermans ) This state of affairs, of course, refers to the last days of the *ilson government )'% and the E+, as well as what sometimes appears to be deliberate attempts to damage the relationship. The approach taken in this book will be, firstly, to e,amine the historical development of the European +nion. This will be followed by an evaluation of the institutions and the common policies of the E+. Thereafter, the focus moves specifically to the relationship between Britain and the +nion - how each influences the other. !rior to this, some theoretical concepts are assessed. Terms, such as supranationalism and integration, are defined, and then the British position on each is evaluated. Thus, concluding, it will be possible to assess the e,tent to which Britain is still a reluctant European. The history and development of the European +nion, which are e,amined in chapter ., saw a lack of British involvement until the %/0&s, and this contributed to Britain earning the label 'reluctant European'. 1et this lack of participation in the European Coal and 2teel Community 3EC2C4 and in the European Economic Community 3EEC4 did not mean that Britain failed to influence their development. British actions outside both these organisations - particularly in the formation of the European 'ree Trade ssociation 3E'T 4 - had an impact upon them. dded to this, Britain participated in other European ventures such as the European 5efence Community. *hile such an organisation was outside the ambit of the EC2C, British willingness to participate highlighted a degree of commitment towards Europe that has really gone unreported. Thus the label 'reluctant European' may actually have been applicable to certain aspects of Britain's relationship with Europe. 1et, even after 6oining the then European Economic Community the label 'reluctant European' did not go away. This was despite full participation in all the institutions of the EEC. There was no empty chair presidency from the British - as the 'rench had in the mid#%/7&s. The label did seem to be warranted over some of the common policies of the EEC and E+, however. 2uccessive British governments have been anything but enthusiastic about the Common gricultural !olicy 3C !4, as well as some of the other common policies and the development of the

single currency the euro. Britain has long argued for reform of the C ! and other policies. British governments have also negotiated opt#outs of particular policies, such as the euro and the social charter. *hile the British are castigated for doing so, it should be noted that other member states, such as 2weden and 5enmark, have also negotiated opt#outs over 6oining the euro. nd when it comes to reform of common policies, Britain is often to the forefront in the fight against the more reactionary, conservative member states. 1et the fight for reform is often presented as Britain attempting to change long#established policies, to make Europe operate in a manner closer to that of the +nited 2tates particularly with regard to issues such as employment law. Thus, Britain is presented as not being committed to the European social, democratic, economic model but rather to the merican free market, laissez-faire model where the rights and freedoms of the individual are crushed beneath the corporate animal of big business. 2o, while some Europeans are not enthusiastic about British membership, and many Britons appear unenthusiastic about E+ membership, what is interesting is the e,tent to which each has had a positive impact upon the other. Britain's role in trying to modernise the European +nion has already been noted above. 1et the E+ has had a huge impact - and more often than not an unreported impact - upon Britain. *hile this impact is important to note here that the impact of the European +nion in Britain has both positive and negative aspects. $egative aspects include the increase in bureaucracy or 'red tape' that has resulted through membership. 1et much of the reason for this is the more legalistic approach of other E+ member states towards issues such as regulation. 8n Britain in the past, much regulation was done through a 'hands off approach where one simply trusted some one's word. 8f you could not trust a chap's word, what could you trust9 s a result of this approach, much regulation in Britain was carried out ineffectively. The more legalistic approach, adopted by the other E+ member states, provided far greater information and protection for people. Britain has been compelled to step into line in areas such as health and safety. s a result of this approach, much regulation in Britain was carried out ineffectively. The more legalistic approach, adopted by the other E+ member states, provided far greater information and protection for people. Britain has been compelled to step into line in areas such as health and safety. s a result, the regulation seems to be more effective. The downside of this is that it is a slow, bureaucratic process. *here Europe has had an important impact upon Britain is at the level of subnational government. lthough Britain is still considered to be a unitary and heavily centralised state, with all power focused upon its parliament, membership of the European +nion has enabled regional and local government to develop some roles without having e,cessive interference from the centre. The current Blair government has pushed this along by holding successful referendums in 2cotland, *ales, $orthern 8reland and :ondon for forms of devolution. These devolved bodies are able to participate within the E+ through such bodies as the Committee of ;egions. !re#%//0, such participation would have been considered to be a pipe dream. Britain also has a key role to play in the future development of the European +nion. 8ssues such as the e,tent to which the E+ moves further down a supranationalist or integrationist route, Britain's role here can be pivotal. s one of the four largest member states, Britain has the opportunity to influence the integrationist agenda. *hich other powers, if any, could 3or should4 be ceded to Brussels9 lternatively, via subsidiarity, which powers could 3or should4 be returned to member states9 2imilarly, with e,pansion of the +nion, Britain will play an important role in any future enlargement of it. *hile a unanimous decision is required to support any enlargement, Britain

has played a key role in brokering deals. "ost recently, the Turkish application for membership was kept on track by British action. 2maller countries 3such as !ortugal4, which carry less weight or influence in the Council of "inisters, are often happy to see Britain stand up and fight for a particular issue. 8f it were left to the smaller countries, there would be a high probability that their opinions would be crushed under the 6uggernaut of the larger member states. 1et all of this seems to presuppose that there is a consistent British position within the European +nion. This is not the case. Even within individual political parties in Britain, there is no uniform position. s will be seen in each of the ma6or British political parties is divided over the issue of Europe. The Conservative, :abour and the :iberal 5emocratic parties each has representatives who are enthusiastic about the European +nion, but also those who are more likely to desire British withdrawal from it. "ost "!s seem willing to toe the line of their party leadership, but even the leaders change their opinions about Europe. Thus, it becomes very difficult for the public to get any sort of prompt from the political parties on the issue of Europe. The British public is often presented as being ill#informed or even uninformed on E+ issues, but the reality is that it is not the only one. 8t has been suggested that the '$o' votes for the E+ constitution returned in referendums in 'rance and the $etherlands have been, in part, attributed to a lack of knowledge as to what the +nion is all about< 8t is about the e,tent to which Britain may still be considered worthy of such a label. s noted earlier, the problem is over the definition. *ith a clear definition, it would be easy to assess the e,tent to which Britain is still the 'reluctant European'. The problem is that there is more than one definition, and utilising different definitions gives different results. 2itting on the fence and saying '"aybe' does not address the issue either. 1et, wariness in casting the label may be the way forward. Britain might be a 'reluctant European' in certain policy areas, but not so in others. !ossibly the label ought to be the 'cautious European'. Because Britain did not 6oin the euro, it could be argued that it is a 'reluctant European'. 1et 6oining the euro has not been ruled out. (ordon Brown, the Chancellor of the E,chequer, has laid out specific criteria that have to be met before he feels that Britain could 6oin the euro. =is five economic tests have been laid out so as to make sure that the British economy can cope with the changes involved - but also so that the European economy can cope with the impact of British membership. Clearly, this is the sign of a 'cautious European'. *hat is also disheartening about these attitudes is that very few people appear willing to stand up and contest them. 8t is possible to refute the importance of the 'special relationship' and of the role of the Commonwealth. 'or e,ample, the so#called 'special relationship' is not e,actly a two# way one. 8t seems to be far more a case of Britain standing up to e,press support for whatever +2 policies are being condemned by other countries. Caricatures of Tony Blair have presented him as (eorge *. Bush's poodle. *hen turning to the Commonwealth, Britain is merely one member of the organisation. There is no longer a British dominance of the Commonwealth - if there ever was since its formation. !olitically and economically Britain is now a regional power, and the region to which Britain belongs is Europe. The problem is to convince people that this is the case. $one of this really

presents the case as to why the European +nion is so important for Britain or why British membership is so important to the +nion. t best, it highlights that the other options are flawed, but then so is the European option. The case for Europe needs to be presented, but presented even# handedly !ortraying the relationship through rose#tinted spectacles is likely to do more harm than good. The intention within this book is to try to raise the profile of the European +nion in the +nited >ingdom and vice versa. There are many benefits - and problems - resulting from British membership of the E+ ?nly the negative aspects appear to gain publicity, however. 2imilarly, the European +nion has benefited from British membership, but all that tends to be bandied around is that Britain is a reluctant European and that the British are not committed to the European pro6ect. The reasons for such negativity include the fact that people are ill#informed about the relationship between Britain.

Europe does not have a centralized tax system to coincide wit the Euro so it may not be so well suited for a single currency union. Maybe in the future as Europe becomes increasingly integrated will with its economies will it become the new currency standard of the globe. Many see the Euro as a positive development for Europe the United States and world economy. The European Economic Union will be the most ambitious economic projects undertaken in this century.
8n conclusion the European Union is the name of the organi@ation for the countries that have to decide to co#operate on a great number of areas, ranging from a single market economy, foreign policy's, same sets of environmental laws, mutual recognition of school diplomas, to e,change of criminal records are among the few. E+ has noted that the current eleven official working languages will be unworkableA an e,pansion to si,teen or more will be impossible. A History of the European Union and Great Britain

1957 19%7

he reaty of !o"e #as signed $y % European states he European &o""unity #as esta$lished Britain (oined the European &o""unity) ory *ri"e +inister Ed#ard Heath too, Britain in) -a$our *ri"e +inister Harold .ilson had a referendu" on Britain/s "e"$ership the last national referendu" this country has had) %%0 voted yes to stay in the European &o""unity he 2ingle European Act #as signed) his #as to create an internal "ar,et3 4an area #ithout frontiers in #hich the free "ove"ent of goods and persons5 services and capital is ensured)4

197'

1975

1917

1991

he +aastrict reaty #as signed) he heart of this #as to create a single European currency so that Europe as an entity had a currency to challenge the international supre"acy of the dollar) Britain5 lead $y ory *ri"e +inister 6ohn +a(or5 pushed for and got an 4opt out4 clause for Britain) his "eant that #e #ere part of the European &o""unity and #anted to $e a part of it5 $ut not to participate in a single currency5 therefore5 "aintaining the pound should #e decide to do so)

199'

he European Union #as for"ed

7887

he Euro #as introduced on 6anuary 1st) Britain has it 9ive ests if these are ans#ered successfully5 then Britain #ill (oin the Euro) British pu$lic opinion does not appear to support the Euro as the first "onth of its life dra#s to an end)