To what extent is it fair to describe Britain as an Awkward Partner in the European Community?

Daniel Evans

To what extent is it fair to describe Britain as an Awkward

Partner in the European Community?

Britain emerged from the war in a relatively favourable position, compared to its European neighbours. In 1946 industrial production was as high as at any time pre-war, and increasing quite fast. By the end of the year exports had regained their pre-war level along with this there was little unemployment and retail prices remained fairly stable. All this contrasted strongly with the situation in France, Germany and Italy. Indeed in the late 1940's and into the early 1950's Britain's economy performed better then it's European counterparts. Churchill suggested that France and West Germany should lead the creation of a new Europe for "justice, mercy and freedom". He implied the Britain was above such an organisation because he didn't think the UK needed to be involved economically. After all, the height of the British Empire was only in 1933 when one quarter of the world's landmass and one quarter of its population was under British control. Many, as well as Churchill assumed Britain's traditional world status was not destined to whither, and Churchill called for the United States, the USSR and Britain to be "friends and sponsors" of a new Europe, underlying the idea that Britain felt superior to Europe.

Initially post war Britain had a Labour government. They saw any European community as a capitalist enterprise that was likely to inhibit any moves towards a more planned economy, and to insist on the rigours of the free market. It was under this government of Clement Attlee that Britain refused to allow the Council of Europe develop as the federalists would have hoped, into a federal European government. Also in this period Britain refused to join the newly European Coal and Steel

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Community only sending an observer to the negotiations. The official line on Britain's non-entry being ,"we are not willing to make prior commitment to a scheme whose terms of membership are unknown." This also underlines the fact that Britain wanted to continue 'as before' and thought it could, at the time Britain was producing about one half of the coal and steel in Europe.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Right from the conception of the European union Britain has stood aloof from the union being very cautious and wary. From as far back as the creation of the European Steel and Coal Community in 1952 Britain has shown its unwillingness and reservations about joining Europe. The ECSC was set up under the Treaty of Paris in 1951 with 6 countries signing. These countries were France, Italy, Luxemburg, Holland and Belgium. Britain was expected to join the ECSC but this was not the case. Britain at the time had a far superior economy in strength than the rest of its European counterparts and felt the union would only inhibit them Economically.

In 1955 a congress was held on the creation of a general customs union, to which Britain did not deem important enough to send more than a civil servant. However even he was recalled from the conference. This demonstrated the arrogance of Britain at the time that felt that these Treaties and agreements did not warrant their involvement. Further adding to their self-exclusion was Britain’s failure to get involved and sign the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which established the EEC (European Economic Community). Britain voiced its opposition to the union and specifically the loss of sovereignty that would be involved and showed no sign of enthusiasm for this union as to which they were invited. This shows that from the conception of the European idea Britain saw themselves as somewhat superior and stood aloof. In these respects Britain can very correctly be described as the ‘awkward partner’.

In response to the creation of the EEC, Britain performed an act of even further arrogance and self-exclusion with there creation of the European Free Trade Association set up to rival the EEC. France rejected the integration of the EEC countries into the EFTA as they felt that it would be weaker than the EEC and as a result no EEC countries could join the association. This meant that only those that were not involved in the EEC could join EFTA. This meant that the countries that joined were even more economically weak compared to Britain than those in the EEC. Those who joined EFTA included Austria, Norway, Sweden, Portugal and Switzerland.

However after not very long it became apparent that EFTA was clearly weaker that the EEC and as a result Britain had declined economically compared to other European countries. Also it had become clear that with their self-exclusion from Europe and the deterioration of the commonwealth, Britain had lost its place in the world and needed to find their role. On turning to their close ally the US, Britain was advised to join Europe and under this advice and application was made in 1961, by Tory PM Harold Macmillan, to join the EEC.

However it was not after vetos from the French Prime Minister, Charles De Gaulle, and many years until Britain finally joined the EEC in 1973 with the signing of the treaty of accession on January 1st 1973. However this was not after many debates in parliament on the terms on the joining.

This was not the end of problems for Britain in Europe by a long way. In 1975 a referendum was held under PM Harold Wilson on whether Britain should remain in the EEC. The referendum came out with a yes vote.

When Thatcher came to power in 1979 further problems ensued and evidence for Britain being an awkward partner further increased. Thatcher accused Europe of being a barrier to her free market policies, which she so strongly believed in.

Thatcher had 3 main grievances with the EEC:-

She opposed the subsidies given to failing industries because they would remain in business and therefore produce inefficiently. Also she opposed the regulation of Britain and the social rights of workers that were introduced e.g. Minimum wage.
She opposed the fact the Britain was a greater NET contributor to the EEC, meaning Britain paid more to the EEC that she got back. Also she opposed the fact that Britain paid more than both France and Germany.
She feared a Euro-super state and far preferred the special relationship enjoyed with the US. This was as it was seen to undermine Britain’s sovereignty.

However after the resignation of Thatcher things did not get any better for further integration in Europe. Under major Britain further provided evidence for being an awkward partner. John Major in 1993 when signing the Maastricht Treaty voiced concerns and on signing it omitted many parts, these included the Social Chapter because of the fear of increasing the costs of employing labour in Britain, and the single currency. Major did not believe it was the right time to sign those parts. Even today under the government the single currency part has been left unsigned and does not look likely to be signed any time soon.

All examples and reasons above back up the view that Britain is an awkward partner within the EU do to economical, political and geographical reasoning. This awkward relationship however is further diminishing with ever piece of further integration by Britain.