What the European Union Ought to Be Like - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION “We must build a kind of United s of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honor by their contribution to the common cause.’’1 Winston Churchill, 1946 This was part of a speech he gave academic youth at the Zurich University. In this speech, he further expounded on his political vision of what the European Union ought to be like. Unfortunately, half a century later, the EU term does not consist of all European states. The EU is a supranational organisation, this means that it is made up of other countries. Countries that choose to become members make a major sacrifice to forego some of their national sovereignty in order to agree on social, political and economic policies which are of common interest.2 At this juncture it would be prudent to note that the EU is more superior to its member states. This is evidenced by the member states’ laws and national policies which are equally bound by the EU institutions and regulations. Ironically though, the theoretical basis for the EU was provided by the then British Conservative Prime Minister Winston Churchill yet it is them who have lagged behind in actualising European integration3. Due to the country’s historical, traditional and institutional background, it has found it extremely difficult to link both its domestic and European policies. Since time in memorial, Britain was never keen on intergrating with other countries in Europe. It always isolated itself and even in the 1950s while other European countries such as Italy, France and Germany, joined into a single market in coal and steel, which was then termed the Common Market. This is the modern day European Union (EU). Britain however succumbed to the insurmountable pressure and eventually joined, this was in 1973. Their decision to join was however due to being forced by circumstances. Europe seemed to be where the money was and not being a part of it was tantamount to cutting your nose to spite your face. The British are still yet to change their mentality over their inclusion in the EU, they view it as a marriage of convinience, as it helps them in carrying out their transactions. The Thatcher government for instance was opposed to the rapid integration of the European markets. She was also adamantly opposed to the system of monetary union that was being propsed. The systems would have demanded the adoption of the euro by all member states. Statistcis show that most Britons want to hold on to their own currency and are therefore opposed to the intergration. However, through the passing of the years, a lot has changed especially the economic situation in Europe. Statistics show that it is no longer a thriving economic hub. As was the case during the 1950s that compelled Britain to join. The situation has been worsened by the euro-zone crisis which exposed the lack of the much needed dynamism in Europe. 4 A SHORT HISTORY: BRITAIN IN THE EU In order to have a better understanding of the relationship between the Britain and the European Union, it is important to appreciate how different Britain was before it signe the EEC Treaty. This Treaty in a way helped Britain to foster closer ties with other European countries. Britain has always done things in a different manner; its monarchy, in its weights and measures, politically and even its road system. With such differences, it id not come as a surprise that it also developed in a different way from the rest of Europe. As previously stated, Britain joined the EU which by then was referred to as the European Economic Community in 1973. It was Edward Heath’s Conservative Government which led the country to this entry. The entry was however not very popular amongst most politicians in Britain. Many people did not share in Heath’s vision of creating a European superstate. Since Britain was not a member from the onset, she had to abide by a range of policies and regulations as a condition to entry. These conditions led to more outcry as the British felt disadvantaged. The entry into the EEC became a hotly debated issue during the elections in 1974. The elections were won by the Labour government, although with slim majorities. The Labour Party had promised to hold a referendum giving the citizens an opportunity to put an end on this EEC issue. They would have the final word as to whether Britain should remain a member or not. In June 1975 the referendum was held and the British voted two-thirds in favour of remaining as members in the EEC. Margaret Thatcher became Britain’s Prime Minister in 1979 but unlike her predecessor Heath, she was a Euro-sceptic. At the time, she felt that Britain paid way more than her position warranted, as compared to other countries who paid far less than they should. Heated debates and arguments were carried out and this resulted in Britain receiving a rebate5. This incident further maligned Britain, as the rest of the states saw her as ‘negative’ towards the EEC. Over time, politicians, business-men and even the ordinary citizens gained a new appreciation of the economic benefits and opportunities that the EE presented. Despite this, there was little if any support for political integration. It was in 1986 that the Single European Act was enacted and some of its key elements inclued: i. ERM. Britain only joined this in 1990- Developing the Exchange Rate Mechanism. ii. EEC’s control. Increasing EEC’s control on matters concerning the environmental and the national governments. iii. Free market. Developing a free market for goods and also labour and capital. iv. European Parliament. Increasing the role playe by the European Parliament. This was so as to decreas the role played by the individual national parliaments. v. Voting system. The voting system was set to be changed in order to remove the veto power hel by any member state especially over legislation. This provision was mostly targeted towards Britain as it would ensure that its government would not prevent any EEC legislation from being imposed on them. Questions were raised at the time as to why the Thatcher Government supported these radical Act. It was claimed that Thatcher agreed to this Act because it promoted single markets. This meant that there would be greater de-regulation and far less government intervention. These two were principles that she held in high regard and over time had been coined to be Thatcherite principles. It is safe to say that this Act catered for the both the Eurosceptics an the Europhiles for instance, Jacques Delors, the then President of the Commission who saw it as a stepping-stone to political integration.6 The Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1993. It is this Treaty that changed the provisions of the previously used 1957 Treaty of Rome thus paving the way for closer economic and political ties. It is also noteworthy that this was the Treaty that facilitated the change of the EEC’s name to the European Union (EU). The Treaty laid down a timetable for economic and monetary union. This was the inception of the Euro as the currency to be adopted by all of Europe. This came to pass in the year 2002 when the member states officially introduced the notes in their respective countriwes. The main provisions of the Treaty were: i. European citizenship. The concept of European citizenship was introduced. This allowed citizens in the member states to vote in both the European Parliament and local elections despite their state of residency as long as it was a member state. ii. Institutional reform. The European Parliament was granted more powers while in the Council of Ministers there was an extension of the qualified voting majority. iii. Foreign and security policy. There was to be a common adopted foreign and security policy. This helped increase the inter-governmental co-operation especially on issues such as immigration and asylum seekers. iv. Moving towards the economic and monetary intergration. This Treaty was not popular especailly among the Conservatives, this was despite the fact that it was signed by John Major, one of their own. One of the major complaints was that it seemed to increased the path towards federalism. Its supporters however claimed that the federalism was one of the means of decentralising power. Another issue was the monetary union. Maastricht proposed that all the national currencies be replaced by a single European currency. The Social Chapter was another contentious area. This chapter sought to harmonise laws across the EU. These laws were mostly on social issues- workers rights, for instance; minimum wage. John Major upon realising the level of discontentment especailly towards this chapter, he negotiated a deal that would exclude Britain from the Social Chapter after claiming that it would significantly increase business costs. ‘CHANGE IN STEP’ 1997 After 18 years of having the Conservative in power, in 1997, a Labour Government led by Tony Blair, was chosen by the people. Some of the pledges the Labour government had mae before coming into power were; reforming the public services and also forming closer ties with the EU. The Labour government was said to have more European in its outlook as compared to its predecessor.7 There was a significant difference bewteen the constant arguments and debates that were the order of the day in the last 18 years and the co-operative approach adopted by the Labour governement. Tony Blair arrived with an agenda that seemed to put both Europe and Britain at the heart of each other. His party had campaigned on a platform of adopting a positive approach to Europe and he was keen to actualise this. As previously stated, Britain adopted a more co-opertive and friendlier approach than with the previous governments. As an illustration of this, treatie negotiations held in Amsterdam and Nice, were carried out devoid of the turmoil that had been experienced during such occasions. It is important to note that this such an achievement for Britain, yet for other member states it was normal. The Thatcher/Major practice was synomous with a lot of combutive nature but a contrasting approach was adopted by Tony Blair instead of fighting over every comma. Blair placed his focus on the few tough issues that mattered, and for those that were deemed to be secondary, he made deals on them. It was during his administration that he had dropped Britain after they opted-out from the social chapter. The Nice treaty to date, is still ranked as being one of the most awful summits ever held. This was however not due to any commission or ommission by the British. In other words, the unsuccessfulness of the summit could not in any way be blamed on the British. It was the pathetic nature of Nice that convinced Blair that European institutions were in dire of being reformed. Another step change that in some quarters could be described as big yet in others could be seen as small, was "the Lisbon agenda". It was also referred to as The ‘Lisbon Strategy’ which was seen as a way of describing the EU’s immediate priority objectives for the period 2000-2010. It is important to note that the agenda or strategy was thus dubbed because in the year 2000, it was agreed at the Lisbon Council. While here, the EU’s Heads of State and Government agreed to the following vision: “To make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world capable of sustaining more and better jobs and with greater social cohesion”. A significant achievement of the EU that was realized post-1997 was the enlargement. This achieved with a lot of help from Britain. Some politicians in Britain claimed that this was the only major attribute that the EU could provide- the numbers and they therefore adopted an almost ‘the more the merrier’ attitude. The UK has been commended for the role it played at the special summit at Hampton Court. This was where energy was put on the European agenda. Although the effects and success of this will not be obvious for some time, energy is a long-term business. The UK also re-wrote its energy policy in order to make it compatible to the European one. CONCLUSION To sum up, history has shown that the relationship between Britain and the EU has been a difficult one over the years. Their relationship was fractitious due to a numberof reasons. For instance; as a former imperial power, Britain found it extremely difficult to adjust focusing its political interest on Europe only. It also did not work to their advantage that they joined the EU after other countriesand therefore they had to abide by the policies and rules that had already been established, some of which conflicted directly with some of the basic principles on which the British Constitution was premised. Also, the fact that it was viewed that Britain had joined the EU almost solely for economic reasons during financial hardships, did not go down well with other member states. Britain’s role in the EU dramatically changed when the Labour Party came into government and it demonstrated a keen interest in fostering good relations with the member states and both Britain and the EU began pulling in the same direction as they pursued similar goals and denced to the same tune. However, there were some who frowned upon UK’s relationship with America. Many member states saw the Union as a form of counterweight to the USA. Blair swiftly moved to dismiss such suspicions arguing that it could not risk jeopardising the relatioship it had formed with the EU countries.8 Little did Blair know that a time would come when Britain would have to choose between the two: the EU and US. This was after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Britain immediately announced that it would support the USA no matter what. In a bid to show his support, Blair sent British troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. This move was very unpopular in Europe but Blair stuck by it. Blair’s government changed Britain’s approach to Europe and this was met with unrivalled economic, political and social success as compared to the previous years. REFERENCES Churchill, Winston, Winston Churchill’s speech to the academic youth, Zurich, 1946. Civitas- EU Facts. George, Stephen, An awkward Partner: Britain in the European Community, 1998. Smith, Julie, A missed opportunity? New Labour’s European policy, 1997–2005. Pickard, Sarah, Civilisation britannique, Paris, 2003. Seldon, Andrew, How will history judge Blair, BBC News, 10 May 2007. Thatcher, Margaret, The Bruges Speech, 1988. Read More