question everything
THE HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Who knows when the design of the new ‘plastic’ £5 note was formulated but the concept of putting Winston Churchill on the front of it was a stroke of genius. Often vaulted as the greatest ever Briton, he was a complicated man who had enormous vision and foresight. He was also one of the few politicians at that time who championed the idea of a Union of European states.
‘Never have the peoples of Europe done themselves so much harm by quarrels and disunion as have the great nations of Europe during this present century’. Winston Churchill
On this basis whatever decision Britain subsequently makes regarding the referendum we know that his face will either appear as mocking us with disillusionment, if the decision (either way) proves cataclysmic, or looking on with pride if it proves successful. You’ll never be able to get away from it and given that the new fiver is virtually indestructible you won’t be able to tear it up to alleviate your guilt.
​
Churchill’s life also reminds of us something that is fundamentally important regarding our view of democracy. We believe that politicians should be above us all, that they are irreproachable bastions of virtue and common sense: diligent, forthright and honourable, but of course they are not. They are just human beings like the rest of us wracked with insecurities, weaknesses and prejudices. Churchill himself whilst being a proponent of European integration had a shocking Imperialist past and made so many fatal mistakes as the First Lord of the Admiralty in the first world war he was forced to resign.
They’re also a bunch of total piss heads as Ben Wright’s new book, ‘Order, Order! The Rise and Fall of Political Drinking’ reveals; apparently Nigel Farage has a rule that he won’t be interviewed after consuming 5 pints of beer (the book however, doesn’t mention what his limit is for attending the House of Commons…)
This referendum is another example: infighting, lying and misrepresentations abound; if they were monkeys they’d all be trying to scale the highest tree to throw shit at each other by now. And we want to give these people more control?! Anyway, I digress…
​
Understanding the EU can only come from an understanding of history as it puts all the reasons for its creation and necessity in context – and that’s where we immediately hit a problem because many of us have a sense of detachment regarding this.
The younger generation aren’t that concerned by history and will take their view in the most part from social media – and we all know you can’t trust a post on Facearse. The middle generation (that would be me), whilst being able to appreciate the horrors of the two World Wars, didn’t live through them; it’s one thing to be appalled at the flickering images of World War news reports and quite another to fully understand what it would have been like to experience the harrowing nature of it first-hand. And then we have the older generation, some of whom did fight in the War and many of whom experienced it as a child. This is where, in some circles, the feelings run deepest and I’m sure you can imagine how many of this generation would still hold grudges against some of our European neighbours – the them a European Union is a chimera that needs putting up against a wall and shooting. So it’s all a bit of a pickle really.
'17 million people died in the first World War and over 20 million were injured, it was the bloodiest conflict of all time; but it pales into insignificance compared to the second World War which killed over 60 million people, representing 3% of the entire world population at that time'.
We must never forget that the whole drive behind the Union was to create an environment where never again we would see one European country wage war against another and where, as one connected partnership, we could enable an environment for us all to prosper.
17 million people died in the first World War and over 20 million were injured, it was the bloodiest conflict of all time; but it pales into insignificance compared to the second World War which killed over 60 million people, representing 3% of the entire world population at that time. In this respect the EU, in tandem with the UN and NATO, has achieved exactly what it set out to achieve. This is something we should all be enduringly grateful for and something we should also remember whilst thinking about voting in this referendum – but it was, and continues to be, a difficult process.
The background to the creation of the EEC
‘Never have the peoples of Europe done themselves so much harm by quarrels and disunion as have the great nations of Europe during this present century’. You might expect that Winston Churchill would have written this statement after the horrors of the second World War, but it was in fact written in 1930.
​
The Treaty of Versailles established peace after the first World War but it was a monumental balls up; France in particular wanted to wipe the Germans off the face of the Earth. Despite the intervention of Britain and America the Treaty was drafted and the contents sowed the seeds for an inevitable escalation that would drag Europe headlong into another World War. It represented the apotheosis of nationalism and self-determination.
The Germans were crushed and with the unworkable political systems and economic and social problems created by the Treaty, Germany was eventually torn apart by extremist political parties. Churchill was amongst the very first people to recognize the growing threat of Hitler whilst also being the first to voice his concerns; in 1939 his predictions came true and a second World War broke out. As the dust settled and we buried our dead, the US instigated a policy decision to underwrite the security of Western Europe. This helped transform Europe into a pivotal point for global politics and an increasingly important component regarding the new balance of power developing between the US and Soviet Union.
​
Churchill’s foresight
Churchill was Prime Minister throughout the difficult war years but nevertheless lost his premiership after the war. This led to an unfortunate series of events that contributed to Britain’s subsequent dismissal, under Labour’s Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s stewardship, of the growing expression toward unity within Europe at that time.
In 1946 Churchill, now leader of the opposition, called for a ‘United States of Europe’ and was therefore one of the first European politicians to advocate European integration. His view was, that at any cost, we should prevent the atrocities of two world wars from ever happening again.
He called for the creation of a ‘Council of Europe’ as a first step and in 1948, 800 delegates from all over Europe, met with Churchill as honorary president at a grand Congress of Europe. This in turn led to the creation of the Council of Europe on 5th May 1949; the first meeting of which was attended by Churchill himself. His call to action can be seen as propelling further integration as later agreed upon during the Messina Conference in 1955, which led to the Treaty of Rome two years later. It was also Churchill who would first suggest the idea of a ‘European army’ designed to protect the continent and provide European diplomacy with some muscle. This was, in turn, followed by the creation of the European Court of Human Rights in 1959 — a decade after Churchill first championed the idea. (1)
​
The Schuman Plan
During this time in the late 1940’s France, under the guidance of Foreign Minister Robert Schuman echoing Churchill’s own sentiments, instigated a radical development and created a new institution, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This was placed under international control and included the coal and steel industries of Germany, France and several other European countries. He, along with Churchill, was one of the founding fathers of the EU as the concept of integrating the industries necessary for war under one institution helped ensure that no one major European country could ever again wage war against another.
'Many European countries joined in the following years but Britain chose not to and given Churchill’s unquestionable involvement and influence the most obvious question is why?'
Many European countries joined in the following years but Britain chose not to. Why? Two reasons: firstly, Clement Attlee, who in direct opposition to Churchill’s view (and political position), instead believed in Britain’s sovereignty and therefore felt no pressing need to build bridges. As far as he was concerned he was the Prime Minister and no-one was going question the power and sovereignty of Whitehall. He, and his Foreign Secretary Ernest Beavin’s method of diplomacy was appalling, which inevitably led to numerous diplomatic gaffs; their treatment of the French in particular drove a wedge between our two nation’s that still exists today (although to be fair, the memory of France’s surrender to the Nazi’s in 1940 leaving Britain alone in the war wouldn’t have helped the situation much…) Most European leaders understandably saw Attlee’s snub as an act of extreme arrogance.
Secondly, Attlee was too concerned with his own grand plan to bother about Europe, and in any event his planned nationalization of Britian’s coal and steel industries excluded Britain from membership of the ECSC at that time.
And what a grand plan it was; in one fell swoop Attlee introduced the NHS and nationalized our industries, actions that ended up costing the British tax payer £100’s of billions of pounds (at today’s rates) over the following decades.
Britain therefore stood on the sidelines as the new European Economic Community (EEC) was formed during the mid1950’s, with it finally being established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. At that time Britain was asked to join the new Community but again refused entry preferring to stand alone because it did not wish to tie its fortunes too closely to the Continent.
These actions naturally strained Britain’s relationship with Europe and heralded the start of our difficult partnership with what was to become the EU. Fuelled by arrogance and hubris Britain believed that strength lay in sovereignty and control rather than union and partnership. It was a decision that would cost the nation dear for many years to come.
​
Britain’s need
By the 1960’s Britain’s economy was going down the pan. It may have not seemed like that if you were part of the ‘Swinging 60’s’ but if you put the LSD, mini-skirts, The Beatles and free love aside, you’ll see a different picture emerging. Compared to our European counterparts we were struggling as France, Germany and Italy were posting strong post war recoveries. At this time ‘the poor man of Europe’ (as we were known) went cap in hand to the EEC to renegotiate entry and in each case was refused largely because of the opposition of French President Charles De Gaulle. His comment, originally made in 1959, says it all; ‘l'Angleterre, ce n'est plus grand chose’ (‘England is not much anymore’). The French having the last laugh after Attlee's previous indifference and rudeness.
After De Gaulle departed the scene the shift in influence to West Germany allowed Britain to apply for membership again and this time it was granted with Britain finally moving to ascension in 1973 under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath.
The cost was, however, far greater than had we signed at the outset and almost immediately after joining Britain was at odds with the EEC over fees. Our membership came into question just 2 years later after Heath lost power and our first European referendum was held. 67% voted in favour but the result revealed deep splits within the Labour party; most notably between Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his two senior minsters Michael Foot and Tony Benn
'Our membership came into question just 2 years later after Heath lost power and our first European referendum was held'.
The European Union
Throughout the 80’s Britain prospered and Margaret Thatcher, having already secured the now infamous rebate on fees, was also instrumental in creating the Single European Act of 1986. The Act, which promised to construct a true single market in goods, services, people and capital by 1992, naturally appealed to the market-based instincts of the Conservatives. During this time, however, the mood changed and whilst the Labour Party became more moderate on the view of Europe the Conservatives became increasingly divided. Thatcher herself quickly turned against the EEC after the passage of the Single European Act; she wanted no part of an EEC that in her opinion was heading toward a more federal structure and further integration.
The Conservatives deep division over Europe hastened Thatcher’s departure from Number 10 and despite John Major’s more sympathetic view of the EEC it too dogged him for the duration of his premiership; but the issue could not be silenced. In 1992 the Maastricht Treaty gave birth to the EU and despite Britain securing a number of opt outs, including an opt out of the single currency, the Conservatives remained conflicted. As Europe moved towards Union our government became increasingly politically torn on membership.
The years that followed did however, despite the backdrop of political unrest, set a different tone. Under Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown UK-EU relations became stronger with Blair, along with French President Jacques Chirac, launching the European Security and Defence Policy. Labour, in the EU’s later years, have shown themselves to be the major UK political party most firmly committed to the EU; as indeed have the Conservatives with most party leaders continuing to favour Britain’s membership. But after 13 years of government the spectre of the Conservative’s Eurosceptics loomed large and again Britain has found itself on the precipice gazing into the maw of its relationship with the European Union. (2), (3), (4)
'No-one knows what the future holds but what we do know is that the past is set in stone. History teaches us lessons and we can either chose to listen to the whisperings of the past or ignore them and repeat the same mistakes again - that's why the vast majority of Historians are Pro-Europe'.
Summary
No-one knows what the future holds but what we do know is BREXIT would cause uncertainty at a time we can ill afford it. History teaches us lessons and we can either choose to listen to the whisperings of the past or ignore them and repeat the same mistakes again – that’s why the vast majority of historians are Pro-Europe. (5)
By the time the EEC was formed the British Empire had crumbled. Any last vestiges of a belief that Britain was a still a force to be reckoned with were sunk in the Pacific as losses to the Japanese in the Far East made it clear that it no longer possessed the resources to maintain the old order. During the time that the Schuman Plan was proposed in the late 40’s it was clear that Britain had its own agenda. This, along with a catalogue of errors and misrepresentations by Attlee and Bevin, set Britain at odds with many European leaders. The result? Just as Edmund Dell describes in a book I cannot recommend highly enough; Britain abdicated its leadership in Europe. (6)
This set the tone for everything that followed. Britain could have played a pivotal role in the formation of the EU but sheer arrogance forced us to be a bystander, only to then beg for membership when faced with ruin. Thereafter we almost immediately sought exit after joining and then constantly whinged on about fees and policies. Is it any wonder that this referendum is being treated with derision by the other members states?
Let this be a lesson to us all. There is no clearer illustration of British ignorance of continental thinking, or more damning evidence of British imperialist based arrogance, than the events that led to us excluding ourselves from the formation of the European Union. Now, after 43 years of membership, it looks like we may well make the same mistake again.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Sources:
2 - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/13/britain-europe-david-cameron-eu
3 - http://ig.ft.com/sites/2015/eu-referendum-1975-archive/
Copyright: GAG 2016 all right reserved – no part of the content of this website, text or images can be used, duplicated or broadcast without prior authorisation.