Cultural Commentary. *A History of the European Union and Great Britain The Treaty of Rome was signed by 6 European states The European Community was

*A History of the European Union and Great Britain

(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/history_of_the_european_union_.htm)

Calls for the UK to leave the EU, or to gain a special status within it, are usually made by the British euro-sceptic press once a new EU Treaty is agreed. So is it the time for the UK finally to make its mind and choose whether it wants to be in or out? To answer this question, this article will first look at the complex relationship between the UK and the EU, what exactly does Britain want out of its membership, and finally if the idea of a “Core Europe” might not be a solution for the future of the EU as well as the role of the UK within it. The UK and Europe have always had a complex relationship, encompassed by the newspaper headline “Fog over Channel, Continent isolated”. After the Second World War, and despite Winston Churchill’s plea for a united Europe in his 1946 speech in Zurich where he argued for a “kind of United States of Europe”, the UK was always sceptical about European integration. In the 1950s the Labour government of Clement Attlee did not join the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) as the Community’s principles went against its manifesto of nationalisations. The UK did participate in the Messina conference in 1955, but chose not to sign the Treaty of Rome and join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, focusing instead on a looser free trade agreement which would become the European Free Trade Association in 1960. However, a year later, the lack of progress of the organisation would lead Prime Minister MacMillan to ask for membership of the EEC, but he would fall upon a stumbling block called General Charles de Gaulle. The French President wasn’t keen on the British joining the Union as it believed them to be a Trojan horse for US interests, and that too many concessions would have to be given, especially in relation to agriculture; of course it can also be argued that De Gaulle wasn’t keen to see French leadership in Europe challenged. The UK thus failed on both its attempts to join the common market in the 1960s due to de Gaulle’s intransigence. It was only when Georges Pompidou succeeded him that the UK finally had a chance of accession. The new French president believed that the British position on intergovernmentalism – the belief that, put simply, states should drive the EU, not vice versa – was closer to his than the Germans’ more federalist view. In, but uncomfortable, Britain officially became a member of the EEC in 1973. It is worth noting that it was during the 1970s that the British public voted directly on a European issue, voting yes with a two-thirds majority to remain in the Common Market in 1975; it remains the only time to date.1979 marked a new watershed in the British relationship with the EU, with Margaret Thatcher becoming Prime Minister. The ambivalence over being a key or a part-time member of the EU returned. On the one hand, Thatcher asked for her money back in a long debate about the British rebate (which lasted almost 5 years) and also made her famous Bruges speech where she said Britain had not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels. On the other hand, she was more than happy to back the Single European Act as it followed her economically liberal instincts; this ambivalence is still with us now. In the 1990s, Britain ratified the Maastricht Treaty – but stayed out of the Euro, the Schengen agreement, and, at first, the social chapter (until Tony Blair ratified it in 1997). The last stage of this ambivalence is exemplified in debate over the recent Reform Treaty, where the UK has opted out the Charter of Fundamental Rights and articles relating to criminal justice – the UK Government’s ‘red lines’. So we see in the history between the UK and the EU ambivalence over whether or not to support the project, with Britain following its national interests on each occasion. This has meant supporting enlargement and anything to do with economics and the market, but tending to refuse any political or social integration. So what does the UK want from European integration? What the UK wants from its membership Britain has always used its membership to further its national interests. This is why Britain has always been a proponent of enlargement, with the concomitant expansion of the single market, and any strategies putting the market first, such as the Single European Act or the Lisbon Agenda. However, any policies dealing with further political or social integration have always been regarded with some scepticism, the latest obviously being the refusal to sign the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the recent Lisbon Treaty.

Furthermore, two recent speeches by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband have highlighted the divergence in the visions of the long-term future of Europe. In the short-term, both agree on the need for a European defence force and the leading role the EU has to play in the fight against climate change. However, Sarkozy sees the EU as a political project and an ideal that must be given moral values. Miliband, on the other hand, argues for the EU as a “Model Power” based on the four pillars of openness, the power of shared institutions, the EU being the external champion of international law and human rights, and the idea of an Environmental Union, as well (and perhaps more importantly) as the creation of a free trade area at the periphery of the EU admitting Russia, the Middle East and Africa. As the Europe analyst Jolyon Howorth pointed out, it is a battle between a political project and a global technocratic one. Double visions of the European project. However, could it be argued that the emphasis put on economic success means the UK is practical rather than idealistic? It can be argued that the choice of economic primacy is because it has proven to work in the past. As the British can be considered more pragmatic than some of their ideological European counterparts, this may be a proof that a workable political union is what is needed. This is similar to the early years of the EEC when the British government at first dismissed the union, arguing it would never work, before asking to join. The UK is thus seeing the EU as purely economic, to enhance free trade in the world as well as other liberal political values such as human rights. But it doesn’t believe in the need for more politics inside the EU (as seen by the refusal of more Qualified Majority Voting for instance). But as other nations (such as France) explicitly disagree with such a vision, isn’t it time to start seriously talking about the idea of a “Core Europe”, which could be a solution to the two opposite views? Could a “Core Europe” be a solution? The concept of a ‘Core Europe’ has been around for a while, though under some different names like flexible, two-speed, or multi-level. They all represent the same thing, that is that some of the EU members (but not all) would join together in a number of areas, with the others being given the option to join the core at a later date, or to stay out altogether. The new Reform Treaty allows it under the name “enhanced co-operation” with a minimum of nine members needed. Moreover, doesn’t the current EU already show a Core Europe? Not everyone has joined the Euro, not everyone has joined the Schengen agreement, the UK and Poland have both opted out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the latest Reform Treaty (still to be fully ratified), and only four members have so far joined the European Defence Initiative. The EU has always been a core, and is still a core Europe now, so it is time for European nations to move forward and finally accept the current reality, as unanimity with 27 members is going to be remote on a growing number of issues. The UK is a part of the EU, and it has been for almost 35 years. Even though it has sometimes only grudgingly (or even not at all) accepted some of the policies, it remains one of the three biggest members (with France and Germany) with influence over other nations. A core Europe is a solution in my view, but what the UK shouldn’t do is refuse any forward movement, because then it could find itself in a minority of one. (http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue5/Thillien/)