• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Britain is said to have "missed the boat" when considering European Affairs in 1970. To what extent is this the case?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Britain is said to have "missed the boat" when considering European Affairs in 1970. To what extent is this the case? Britain can definitely be said to have "missed the boat" in European affairs because when it eventually did join the EC the situation was far from perfect. There was a mounting oil crisis, which had increased the price of oil by 400%, producing a recession and slowing down economic growth. Britain thought that by joining they would share in the economic growth they had seen in the 1960s, only to find in the 1970s that growth had slumped. Without the economic growth the less attractive aspects of EC membership, such as The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), began to rear their head and arguments in favour of British membership was harder to withhold. Britain found that if joined straight away it would be one of the leading powers of the EC and therefore be able to be key in important decisions and be able to benefit them. ...read more.

Middle

However it was in 1965 the EEC, the ECSC and Euratom were brought together when the members signed the Merger Treaty, which established a single Commission and a single Council for the three communities. In the early 1960s the French president, Charles de Gaulle, sought to establish a French hegemony over the institutions of the Communities by fully exploiting the Council of Ministers. Britain signed an agreement setting up the European Free Trade Area in Stockholm during November 1959, and it came into force in April 1960. This was the competitor to the EEC. Britain claimed to admire the "economic and commercial freedom" of EFTA as against the "political straitjacket" of the EEC. Within a year the PM was to change his mind and apply for British membership of the EEC. Reasons for this were ones such as the Suez affair in 1956. It changed the attitude of the British government and led them to realise that her days as a world power were over. ...read more.

Conclusion

In December 1962 de Gaulle told Macmillan that he intended to veto Britain's application unless Britain broke with the American alliance. Macmillan did the opposite by having a meeting with President Kennedy, which resulted in the Nassau Agreement where Britain's stake in NATO's nuclear programme was increased. Instead of adopting the position of humble supplicant in applying to join the Communities, Britain gave the impression of doing Europe a favour by the application. It is a classic act of British arrogance, striking through the community even today. However in 1969 de Gaulle resigned due to members of the EC not liking the way he did things without consultation. Within the year, the new French president, George Pompidou, had met the new British PM, Ted Heath, and dropped the hint that France would no longer oppose British membership. Britain finally signed the Treaty of Accession in Brussels in 1972. The EEC finally conceded to Britain joining it, but at what cost, what had Britain missed out on. By "missing the European Community boat" it had firmly established itself as a lesser influence; forever? Well to date! ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level European Union section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level European Union essays

  1. Why did Britain join the EEC in 1973 and not in 1957?

    The failure to join at this point was because Britain was accused of not being European enough. By insisting on conditions on Britain's membership proved that Britain did not have the compatibility needed to join without changing the Community already formed.

  2. Why was the accession of the UK to the EEC in 1972 so politically ...

    Indeed, modern eurosceptic's would point to the Single European Act 1986 (when the EEC became the European Union or EU) as the first attempt to create a European super-state. Margaret Thatcher signed the Act believing it was a means for a freer and less bureaucratic market, but other European leaders

  1. The Institution of the European Union and Theories.

    Training and development Training and development are vitally important for the overall efficiency and competitiveness of an organisation. There are several types of training and development programmes designed to fulfil a variety of company needs: * coaching * apprenticeship

  2. The French Revolution

    The improved steam engine allowed the creation of semi-automated factories and the transport of goods. Coke was finally used in the iron process instead of charcoal, improving the quality of the iron and so the goods made from it. These represent three 'leading sectors', in which there were key innovations,

  1. Disneyland Resort Paris, Case Study

    and to the tram tour narrations (now offered in 8 European languages), more has to be done so that the park reaches cultural equilibrium. In order to achieve this, the following courses of action are recommended: I. Make further physical adjustments to overcome the climatic differences.

  2. Free essay

    Has British Politics been Europeanised

    The negative effect of being part of the EU is that citizens of other member states are able to enter Britain for work purposes. Additionally, identical entitlements are given to British citizens entering other European countries. However, on a positive not, the improved working conditions have been the result of the European Union's jurisdiction.

  1. The EU's CFSP and the Iraq Crisis: A Catalyst for Change?

    When it comes to the military, member states also have totally separate armed forces, each with its unique set of capabilities, processes, traditions and skill sets. This is not to downplay the efforts of organizations like NATO, which over the years has proven its ability to effectively coordinate multi-national force deployments.

  2. Transformation of the U.S. Hegemony in Europe through NATO after the Cold War

    This belief was confirmed by the European states through the separation of Germany and later on with the developments in Central Europe such as 1956 Soviet intervention to Hungary. Worn-torn European states including Britain was lacking in the economic and political depth to resist this challenge alone.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work