Why Is Britain Considered to Be an Awkward Partner in Europe - Term Paper Example

Why Is Britain Considered To Be An "Awkward Partner" In Europe? Owing to the fact that Britain was the first nation to industrialise in the years before the 1st World War, it was perceived as a critical world superpower. When forming its national foreign policy, Britain takes into account the preservation of its position as a major world power. As a superpower, Britain was viewed as being more wealthy and powerful than other European nations. When the United States assisted in winning the World War I, it became evident that another nation had usurped Britain’s position as the world’s most powerful nation. Even though Britain’s days of glory were now in the past, it was still perceived as distinct from the rest of the European nations. This was mainly because though United States was economically stronger than Britain, it had adopted an isolationist position in its foreign policy and thus left Britain in the role of the world’s policeman.1 The European Union was created with the objective of supporting or fostering both the financial as well as political integration of European nations. This union is perceived as a merger of 27 countries located in Europe. Its origins come from the European steel and coal community and the European Economic Community, which first constituted of six nations in the 1950s. Since then, the European Union has experienced genuine development as a result of the contributions of new member states.2 The organisation was also created to allow the free movement of goods, services and individuals within the European continent. During the 1920s, there were respected politicians like Stresemann and Briand, who began to speak about a possible reconciliation in Germany and France, as a base of sustainable European harmony. Few scholars like the German Fritz spoke and wrote about mergers between Germany and France at first. However, with the advent of the Nazis in Germany as well as financial depression, these aspirations were not realised. Following the Second World War, WWII, more European nations felt the need for the creation of a union that would realise benefits for all the nations concerned. The actual move to create the union was started by the European Coal and Steel community in 1951. This proposal generated a common market for steel and coal among the six nations that were already recognised as active members. These nations included Italy, West Germany, Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, and Belgium. The next step was the creation of a custom union in 1957. The main objective of the custom union was the management of tax in many areas. The early members of the European Union believed that if the nations in Europe became economically interdependent, they would be less likely to resort to measures such as conflict. Many European nationals bemoaned the fact that the major world wars all stemmed from Europe and were keen to avoid a repetition of such conflicts.3 Since the 50s, many European nations have clamoured for acceptance into the European Union. Britain, however, has been reluctant to sign up as a member of the Union. This is in spite of the fact that the European Union has been recognised by organisations such as the World Bank in the provision of grants and aids. The European Union has also been accepted by the United States, and has even participated with United States in encouraging stability and peace in various parts of the world. It also worked together with United States in supporting the spread of democracy in Europe after the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989. In spite of such collaborations between the European Union and the United States, Britain’s unique positional still has not lost respect in the world stage. After the Second World War, when European nations were endeavouring to create a union that would unite them, Winston Churchill, who was Britain’s prime minister stated, “We are with Europe but not of it, We are connected, but not comprised. We are interested and associated, but not absorbed”.4 Whether it is because of Britain’s past self-perception of pre-eminence, or simply the result of its geographical position as a separate island, most citizens of the United Kingdom do not view themselves as being “European” citizens. This has resulted in them supporting separationist policies that are favoured by British politicians even though Britain was officially recognised as a belated member of the European Union in 1973. Britain’s position in Europe has been stoutly sceptical of European Union policies since its entry; and thus has always been behind other European nations in accepting rules created by the EU. Britain appears to feel closer to her historic allies such as the United States and the Commonwealth. The wartime prime minister, Winston Churchill was particularly successful in creating a partnership with the United States after the Second World War when he proposed that there should be an “alliance of the English speaking world”.5 This would seem to be a view that supports the notion that European nations should preserve their differences. Following the Second World War, Britain had a developed a deep-seated view that was not undermined by the defeat or invasion of most European countries. Britain did not want to get too concerned with West European unions because this would put restrictions to its global reach. Britain also felt that having created a special relationship with the United States, it was essential that United States not be allowed to retract into an isolationist stance again. Britain's connection with the nations of the Commonwealth, which are basically the nations it had previously colonised, also brought barriers to its participation in the European Community. It was assumed in the United Kingdom that its position as a leader of the Commonwealth meant that it had greater clout than other members of the European Union were ready to give it. The European Union was formed because its founding fathers felt that assimilating the economies of European nations would connect them and ultimately result in political integration. The other aim was to generate a vast European market which would match that of United States in terms of scale and size. Robert Schuman in 1950 suggested the pooling of West German and French supplies of steel and coal, and encouraged the other European nations that wanted to be members of the European Union to apply. At that time, Britain was still a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). There were also members of the Commonwealth community that felt that "British membership in the European Union would work against the collective Commonwealth political as well as economic relationship".6 British politicians stated that their political as well as economic interests were global and that a European common market would oppose the approach of payments and free trade. Membership in the European Union would also mean the removal of protection for the British commercial enterprises from European competitors. In spite of all these reservations, the United Kingdom finally elected to join the European Union. Even from within the Union, Britain continued to oppose the federalist projects of the European Union. For instance, it cancelled the proposed tunnel project that would connect it to mainland Europe in 1974. This project would be restarted by Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. Britain did not want to lose its autonomy for European supranational assimilation and was extremely careful in delaying projects until it could be sure that it would profit from them as a nation. For this reason, Britain opted not to be a part of the European Coal and Steal Community (ECSC) in spite of being subjected to pressure from the Americans on European integration. The imperialist outlook is not the only reason why Britain remains an awkward partner of the European Union. The UK as well as Ireland’s common law and rules are essentially different from those of the legal systems of other European nations. Even though each European nation has laws that are distinct, they are all based on aspects of the Napoleonic legal code and the Roman civil law. There have always been concerns in Britain about decisions made by the European Court of Justice which may potentially undercut the nation’s common law system. The British public has also encouraged the scepticism of its politicians towards the European Union. In a survey conducted some years ago, when sampled British subjects were asked about the advantages of being a member of the European Union and its image, only 39% of the sampled subjects felt that the EU was beneficial for Britain.7 Britain is the only member in which there are more citizens that are suspicious of both the European Parliament and the Commission than those who trust the EU. Though 54 percent of the sampled Europeans believe that their nations have profited from EU membership, merely 36 percent British citizens believe that.8 To date, many British citizens still feel that the EU membership was not instrumental in facilitating cross-border instances of trade and investment and that the EU is merely a "producer of red tapes".9 Most British citizens appear to feel that if their politicians decided to leave the EU, the nation would still be successful in preserving its wealth as an international investment and trade centre. When the British Labour Party which supports its continued membership in the EU defeated the Conservative Party which has always been sceptical of the EU in the 1997 elections, the criticism of the EU within the government momentarily died down. The Labour party's strong support of the EU only served to annoy trade unions, politicians, and the media. Starting from the 80s, Euro-scepticism has always shaped public opinion as well as the political atmosphere in Britain. British politicians who wish to gain the support of the media are not adverse to publicising their views about why Britain should opt out of the EU in the hope of being presented to the public as people who are fighting against Brussels (the EU headquarters) for Britain’s national interests.10 The majority of trade unions in Britain view the EU as an institution with vested interests that may not be to Britain’s advantage. The small and average-sized business owners are particularly hostile to labour as well as social standards instituted in Brussels, and have in the past have even compelled the Labour government to try and change some articles in the Lisbon Treaty in order to make it possible for Britain to opt out of following them. This is not the only issue of concern. For Britain, the financial aspects that are encoded in EU membership have always been more important to consider than the political objectives that were vital for the post-war rulers of Germany and France who saw peace as the main objective. Even though England suffered considerably in the Second World War, it would appear that its confidence in its own abilities was not shaken in the same way as other European nations that were completely dominated by the Nazis. The high point of British EU membership came with the institution of the single market plan in the late 80s, which was an aspect of European assimilation that is still what Britain treasures most. Economic union, on the other hand, was always viewed as being a transfer of proficiency that is too much for the United Kingdom to accept. At present, the British decision not to adopt the euro as its main currency is widely accepted as having been discerning and wise. In fact when politicians or journalists from other nations seek to know when Britain might accept the euro, the reaction is usually an amused one from even the most pro-European of British citizens. In the recent past, the euro area has undergone a sequence of crises. Britain has reacted by calling for better political as well as fiscal integration, political leadership, and more efficient banking unions from the EU but without British involvement. As David Cameron, the current British prime minister stated at a Berlin meeting in June 2012, it is understandable why nations in the EU may wish to revise aspects of the banking union. Cameron categorically stipulated that due to the fact that Britain was not a part of the single currency, it would not be a part of these revisions.11 There are costs, however, to taking such a stance. British advice is likely to exasperate other EU members who feel that it should not air opinions if it is not affected by them. Even Britain’s natural allies such as Poland and Sweden have lost some of their patience and even European leaders such as Angela Merkel have shown their frustration with Britain. A number of recent developments stress the British drift towards separation. The EU government has in the past broached the subject of revisiting the terms of Britain’s EU membership. These developments seem to imply that it will be harder to reunite UK exceptionalism with the wishes of other nations that are members of the EU to integrate more deeply. Britain has in the past been accommodated with various clauses that opt-outs of regulations that the British are against. Long delays have also been adopted to allow Britain to revise its resistance to various policies. Such techniques are usually successfully in resolving immediate problems. However, they are used at the expense of confusing arrangements and creating complex precedents. Even the settlement of the payment in the EU budget that was bargained in 1984 by Mrs Thatcher is an ad hoc contrivance which, though permanent because it remains until Britain decides to relinquish it, has since resulted in an increasingly muddled system for subsidising EU spending. For the Britain, the multiplicity of national opinions on European assimilation has to be viewed with the consideration that there can be diverse levels of achieving union. However, for other nations, it has become increasingly difficult to acknowledge that proposals that are approved by everyone other nation can be delayed or blocked by a single nation. The main issue now concerns whether an EU union of inconsistent geometry will be tolerable or whether Britain is now on an unstoppable route out of the EU. London is the principal financial market in Europe, and British citizens are currently concerned that if they give the EU the power to determine their financial affairs, the EU will utilise new powers to hamper the triumph of British financial establishments.12 Norway and Switzerland, which are not European Union members, have been able to survive and obtain open trade treaties with other states in the European Union. Most of the existing conflict comes from a difference in opinions about what the European Union’s policies should consist of. The nations of the European Union also have individual about the reasons for supporting or not supporting policies. For instance, it has been suggested that there are nations that do not wish for Britain to leave the union because if it does so, its considerable financial contributions will be discontinued. Britain is also viewed as being a counterweight to France, and a champion for liberal markets and free trade. In essence, Britain’s awkwardness about embracing the statutes of the EU is because of domestic constraints, problems encountered in economic integration, as well as European negotiation, and Britain’s prioritisation of its unique association with the Commonwealth nations and the United States. There is also the lack of an efficient method of dealing with issues of concern. The more dominant nations, in this case, Germany and France, are likely to make the main decisions that then have to be accepted by the other nations. Reference List Forster, Anthony. Euro-scepticism in contemporary British politics: London, Routledge, 2002. Geddes, Andrew. The European Union and British politics: London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Giddings, Phillip. Drewry, Gavin. Britain in the European Union: law, policy and parliament: London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. Hill, Christopher. Smith, Michael. International relations and the European Union (new European Union): California, Oxford University Press, 2011. Nelsen, Brent. Stubb, Alexander. The European Union: readings on the theory and practice of European integration (The European Union series): London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. London. Watts, Duncan. Pilkington, Colin. Britain in the European Union today: third edition (politics today): Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2005. Read More