Europe - Britain at the Crossroads

EUROPE - BRITAIN AT THE CROSSROADS

This was originally written as a discussion piece while I was studying EU law during my Open University studies

The UK has always had a love-hate relationship with Europe and the European Union (EU). This discussion piece will look at the history of the UK’s entry and membership of the EU, the relationships between the UK and the constituent countries of the EU including the differences and similarities with other countries in Europe and the nature of the EU itself. It will also examine the advantages and disadvantages of the EU becoming in effect the United States of Europe and consider whether this is an inevitable outcome of the process of closer European integration. Finally it will consider the effect Europe is likely to have on domestic politics.

The EU started as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with the aim of French and German steel and coal being controlled by a single body and although Winston Churchill, who was the Prime Minister of the UK at the time, supported the creation of the ECSC, the Conservative government at the time declined to be a founding member of the community, preferring the existing links to the Commonwealth countries and the United States of America. The ECSC then led to the formation of the Common Market and the  signing of the Treaty of Rome which was, in effect, creating the basis of a constitution for any future European single political union alongside the European Commission to act as the means of enacting the necessary European legislation and the European Court of Justice. At this point there was no democratically elected European legislature. After the initial reluctance to join the Common Market, the UK did apply to accede, but was refused entry on more than one occasion, largely due to France exercising the veto of a country joining the Community which is provided for in Article 49 of the Treaty of Rome. It was felt at the time that the UK would not be fully committed to the closer integration of European countries. The events of the last 40 years have proved these reservations about the UK’s commitment to be fully justified as the UK has been, at best, semi-detached where Europe is concerned.

The UK did, however, accede to the Common Market following the passing of the European Communities Act in 1972. It could be argued that this Act had the effect of binding future Parliaments and it has been argued that it conceded sovereignty of the UK as EU law took preference over the UK law on matters which the Common Market and its successors have jurisdiction on. The UK became a full member on January 1^st 1973.

The issue of whether the UK should remain a member was then the subject of a referendum in 1975 which decisively supported the UK continuing with membership of the Common Market. This is, however, the only chance the UK electorate have had to vote on Europe as all treaties and legislation have since been ratified by Parliament rather than a popular vote, as has occurred in many EU countries.

One of the most important aspects of the UK’s relationship to Europe which needs to be considered is the differences and similarities with other member states. Whilst all of the other member states, apart from the Republic of Ireland, have a civil law tradition which is based on Roman law and uses civil codes with judges interpreting the spirit of these (the purposive approach), the UK has developed the Common Law tradition with judges making laws, although in recent history legislation has become more prevalent.

Another historical aspect which needs to be considered is religious differences. The UK had the Reformation under Henry VIII and is predominantly a protestant country, whereas most of the rest of Europe looks to Rome and the Catholic tradition for religious teachings. Alongside this is the fact that the UK has fought wars with most European countries over several centuries and it is only in the last 70 years there has been real peace in Europe (with the notable exception of the Balkans following the breakup of Yugoslavia). There remains within the populace of the UK a deep-seated distrust of Europeans much of which is based on these wars and the fact that at various times the UK has been threatened with invasion by France and Germany.

Another difference between the UK and our “partners” in the EU is the fact that the UK is a post-industrial economy with a mainly service-based economy, whereas the southern European states are predominantly agricultural and France and Germany are a mix of heavy industry and agriculture. It is possible to argue that on this basis alone to join the Common Market was sheer folly but it needs to be remembered that at the time the UK joined the Common Market there was still a large industrial sector within the UK.

Whilst there are significant differences between the UK and the southern European states and the Franco/German alliance, it is possible to argue that the UK has a lot in common with the Nordic countries of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. It should be noted that all of these countries have remained outside of the Eurozone since the launch of the Euro in 2002, with Norway remaining outside the EU, although Norway is a member of the European Free Trade Area. The ties with these nations are not just in outlook but economically with fishing and oil, and of course the shared history courtesy of the Viking invasions of pre-Norman conquest England and Scotland. We also have the ties with Ireland courtesy of the historic occupation of Ireland.

The nature of the EU itself is a logical progression from industrial union through economic union (Common Market) to monetary and fiscal union. The next logical step is political union and it is possible to argue that monetary and fiscal union cannot work without political union. It is also possible to argue that the diversity of the various constituent countries would lead to the failure of any political union as the culture and economies could not realistically converge as one. An example of this is the ongoing issues with Greece and Cyprus, with the necessity of continuing financial bailouts and the distinct possibility that Greece will be the first country within the EU to leave the Union according to Article 50 of the consolidated Treaties of Rome and Lisbon. However, it is also possible to argue that closer integration leads to more trade and greater freedom for Europe’s citizens although freedom is, of course, subjective with some citizens being freer than others. A major benefit of the EU is the extra protection it has given employees with rules regarding discrimination and important health and safety rules being implemented.

It is important to note that if political union should come about many of the necessary ingredients for this union are already in place such as a federal (European) court, a federal legislature and of course the monetary union. There are, however, obstacles other than economic ones to be overcome before political union can be accomplished.

One major issue to consider is the fact that of the 27 constituent countries there are currently 7 constitutional monarchies (including the UK) and 20 republics. Effective political union requires a single Head of State. It is difficult to see any of the monarchies agreeing to a European President being the Executive instead of their reigning monarch and the French and Irish would certainly not consider allowing a monarch to rule over them following their struggles to be republics in the not-too-distant past. Then there is the issue of would the countries occupied by the Nazis during World War 2 countenance the idea of a German President if that should happen? History divides Europe more than it unites Europe.   

Then there is the issue of social policy. There are wide differences in approaches to social issues within Europe with some countries being more socially liberal than others. An example of this is the liberal attitude to recreational drugs of Spain and the Netherlands compared to the “war on drugs” attitude of the UK and various other EU countries and the influence of religion on social policies can still be felt in some countries, such as Italy and Ireland although religious influence is waning in the latter following various scandals. Could a single political entity with a single constitution based on the European Convention on Human Rights allow for a ban on divorce and abortion? These kind of issues need to be considered when creating a single unified state.

It should also be borne in mind that there are realistically 4 Europes not one. The Nordic states plus the UK is one grouping, the southern states of Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus and Malta is another, then there are the Benelux countries, France and Germany and finally the Eastern European states. Are these groupings able to be one grouping? The evidence so far is that they are too disparate for union economically, politically and socially. It has been said before that those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, and history has plenty of examples of artificial political unions which have ended with economic chaos, political chaos and even bloodshed – including the recent examples of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and even Belgium, which was without a government for a substantial period recently due to problems between the Flemish and Walloon populations.

Having considered the issue of political union it is necessary to consider the impact the EU and the progression towards political union has on domestic politics within the UK. There has been a strong Euro-sceptic tradition in UK politics on both the left and right, although the social benefits of the EU has led to the left being generally in favour of the EU in recent years. The Conservative Party attitude towards Europe has swung from them being the party which took the UK into Europe and signed the Single European Act 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty to the party of what one of the current Prime Minister David Cameron’s aides calls “Swivel-eyed loons” with a substantial number of their MPs supporting a total withdrawal from the EU. Labour was for several years committed to withdrawal but is now officially in favour of staying within the EU. The Lib Democrats in various guises (let’s not forget that Europe was the reason the Social Democrats left the Labour Party) have always been pro-EU. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) is a recent creation and could be described as the halfway house between the Conservatives and the fascists of the British National Party and has at various times been called “The BNP in blazers”.

So, having looked at the history of the various domestic parties, it is necessary to consider the future of domestic politics with reference to Europe and another important factor to consider is the issue of Scottish independence with the referendum on independence being held in 2014. The current electoral system makes it very hard for UKIP to gain parliamentary seats but they have been polling consistently high recently at the same time as the Lib-Dems have been on the wane. Although they may not make significant gains in seats a strong showing in the 2015 election for UKIP could take enough votes from the Conservatives to lose the Conservatives several marginal seats which would lead to a Labour majority and there being a pro-EU government instead of the current mixed signals of the coalition with the current Government’s EU policy being the political equivalent of the Pushmi-Pullyu within Dr Dolittle.

On a longer-term basis, if Scotland secedes from the UK there would be several Labour seats out of the Parliamentary equation. This could lead to a more Euro-sceptic government on a long-term basis and if UKIP makes gains over the long-term the prospect of a Conservative/UKIP coalition which could withdraw from the ECHR and European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights and there is no prospect of any government of any shade joining the Euro in the short or medium term and the long-term viability of the Euro itself remains to be determined.

With the English mainstream parties (Conservative/Labour/Lib-Dem) all seeming to be virtually identical on many issues (especially economically), it is worth considering whether the traditional class-based politics of the UK will be replaced with alliances on the basis of pro and anti-European groupings. The pro-Europe section of the Labour Party and the Lib-Dems seem natural allies as do UKIP and the Eurosceptic faction within the Conservatives. It is thus possible to argue that the basis for the new alliances are already in place although whether they become distinct parties or merely marriages of convenience remains to be determined.

One thing is clear though, and that is that the UK needs to decide whether it should be a part of Europe and, if so, which Europe it wishes to be part of. Should the UK be like Norway and be bound by the regulations of the EU without having a say in how the policies are decided or should the UK be a part of closer integration and have a say in issues and have social and economic benefits? Or should the UK work with Denmark and Sweden to establish a halfway house with a two-track Europe? The only way to end the domestic uncertainty is to have a referendum to determine once more whether the UK should remain in the EU and it should be borne in mind that the EU in its current state is vastly different to the Common Market which was voted on in 1975. However, before the referendum can take place it is important that the true facts on both sides are laid before the electorate and at the moment it is possible to argue that only the sceptic voice is being heard with the media largely being hostile to the EU.

In conclusion, although the UK has been a part of the EU for 40 years now it has not been a happy relationship and there are significant differences between the various parts of Europe itself which are based legal, historical and social differences. There are benefits to closer integration but there are also significant problems to be overcome before the logical progression from industrial union to political union within Europe can be completed, especially regarding the issue of the Head of State for any future political union. The success of the economic union is in significant doubt and domestic politics is becoming increasingly a case of differences in stance over Europe rather then the traditional political differences. It is clear that the uncertainty needs to be ended by a referendum to determine whether the UK should remain a part of Europe and, if it does remain in the EU, what kind of EU it wishes to be a part of.