Is Britain part of the old or new EU

200271351

Is the UK part of the old or new EU?

Hypotheses

Conceptualizing Europe has been at the vanguard of academic literature. US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld (2003), famously used the term old Europe when referring to the European countries not offering support for the US invasion of Iraq. This project considers which bracket Britain falls within. The connotations of Rumsfeld’s speech suggest Britain is part of the new EU but having become a member over three decades ago this is disputable. This project looks beyond what Rumsfeld implied. The concept of strategic culture is applied.

‘Strategic Culture is that set of shared beliefs, assumptions, and modes of behaviour, derived from common experiences and accepted narratives that shape collective identity and relationships to other groups, and which determine appropriate ends and means for achieving security objectives.’ (Johnson, J.L. & Larsen, J.A. 2002 p.3)

Taking the definition, this project will question the theoretical elements of strategic culture and develop a hypothesis. Examining episodes of the European venture this project aims to categorize the UK of old or new Europe. First an assessment of old and new Europe will be considered at the European level of analysis. Second, in an attempt to overcome analysis problems the concept of strategic culture will be used to categorize old and new Europe and the UK’s strategic culture will be studied.

Drawing a Line

The socio-economic benefits that the EU provides need considering. This is a good starting point as the EU is a political entity created by states of old and new and they need to benefit from membership.

Ferriera, A. 1978. p.122

Table 1 details trade which provides economic benefits for the member states. Three years after accession the UK is behind France, Germany and Italy in exports. A characteristic of a newer state is that lags behind the big three in receiving the greatest benefits from further enlargement. Upon recent enlargement Western Europe benefited from the highly skilled, cheap workforces of Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, recent accession states benefit as well which means that analysis is challenged. For the formerly socialist east European countries that joined in the 21st Century, its felt that ‘benefits of EU integration are strongest in economic development’ (Gallup. 2003. p.3). Therefore looking at which states receive the greatest benefits doesn’t provide too distinct categories. However, can the line between old and new Europe be drawn by deciding which states lead the European project?

The affect that a member state has on the trajectory of the EU helps to identify those states at the forefront of European integration. Germany’s ‘status as a founding member’ (Lankowski, C. 2006. p.35) means that they are a leader in Europe. French grandeur has lead to France’s ‘insistence on great-power status in any deliberations of European nations’ (Lankowski, C. 2006. p.62) placing it within old Europe. Belonging to the original six and noted for ‘selfless contribution’ (Lankowski, C. 2006. p.85) towards the European project Italy can be considered of old Europe. Britain is a different case however. Post-1945 ‘Pro-community figures saw supranational institutions as the best insurance against German dominance...confederalist peers saw Franco–British leadership as better able to supervise the Germans’ (Parsons, C. 2000. p.54). The former was pursued and it didn’t represent a British exposé. This has had a lasting affect on British leadership within Europe. However, intergovernmental leadership still exists regardless of supranational institutions.

Two factors affecting Intergovernmental leadership are political circumstances and the institutional arrangements. Considering political circumstances and leadership in the Union pre-Maastricht provides evidence of the most influential states shaping the European project. Those states still retain that authority particularly at the intergovernmental level (e.g. Summit meetings). The Cold War and American support for European Integration are two political circumstances which defined the leadership of the Union. Such circumstances ‘served as an extra incentive to rally together and implement high levels of cooperation among Western Europe’s nation-states’ (Vogt, C.R. 2007. p.6). Although the US influenced the project which acted as a catalyst to European integration it can be noted that European leaders ‘had a surprisingly high degree of autonomy when it came to designing the contours of the Community’ (Vogt, C.R. 2007. p.6). However, the political circumstances did not aid the UK in taking a leading role. This is particularly because of the UK’s relationship with American. The UK has always maintained an independent relationship with the US and this meant that they didn’t unite in developing the European project. ‘Hardly anything seemed to happen to’ the transatlantic relationship between Europe and the US ‘once the institutions had been formed and the rules written’ (Cox, M. 2003 p.524). The static nature of the Union pre-Maastricht meant that the UK was positioned until further notice.. However, further notice has come as the institutional arrangements post-Maastricht suggests that the UK takes an increasingly leading role. When QMV is required for Council decisions the UK shares an equal amount of votes with France, Germany and Italy, all members of the original six states. 9/11 has also redefined transatlantic relations and Britain has secured a stronger voice in Europe in an attempt to represent the US who are increasingly excluded by member states such as France. The UK and the US are no longer isolated in relation to European integration and Britain’s institutional powers suggest that the UK is in the club. However, does that mean the old club?

This is a preview of the whole essay

A line can be drawn at Maastricht and the states that acceded since 1992 are part of new Europe. They were not party to substantial developments and the Maastricht treaty, a significant development in the European project redefined the political landscape. In becoming more supranational the EU has not allowed the recent members to establish intergovernmental powers on the same level as older states. Such states don’t have the level of opt-outs that the UK and Denmark boast thus creating a more supranational rather than à la carte Europe. The EU is no longer solely intergovernmental as spillover has meant that the supranational institutions, namely the Commission and EP, have expanded their competences. Historical Institutionalism (Pierson, P 1996) provides a comprehensive theory of how such competences expand in-between the grand bargains as a functioning union requires certain actors to maintain sovereign powers. Coupled with the size of the Union, this means that new member states are limited in taking leading roles. Looking at states approaches towards European integration may provide a more precise classification of what is old and new Europe.

Beyond Rumsfeld

The term ‘old Europe’ was popularized by US secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld in 2003. The words ‘now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't. I think that's old Europe’ (Rumsfeld, D. 2003) notoriously sparked a diplomatic mêlée. The concept arose as of certain European states reluctance to participate in the invasion of Iraq. In Rumsfeld’s terms the UK would belong to the new Europe as of Blair’s absolute support for Bush and the Iraqi war. However, this understanding is too specific. It is considered in the context of transatlantic relations and more precisely relating to the Middle East. This project will look beyond Rumsfeld’s words to determine which states belong to old Europe and which belong to new Europe.

What can be taken from Rumsfeld is that each state pursues state strategies or has a strategic culture to achieve security objectives. One could presume that states of old Europe would naturally concentrate their resources on one political entity to achieve an identity on the international stage. Regional cooperation is a modern phenomenon that was born out of WW2. Notably the states of Western Europe were diplomatically cautious as they understood the crippling affects that the Treaty of Versailles had had on Germany. International relations have dramatically changed since the outset of the European project but it is important to understand that the states responsible for creation of the European Community are still au fait with their work. This can be seen through their hegemony. France for example can really identify with Europe and the often anti-US stance that French presidents take represents a 50 year old commitment to the European project. The formerly socialist east European countries that became members in 2004 and 2007 can not boast such a position. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of Germany complicated international relations and particularly the transatlantic relationship with Eastern Europe. From the outset Poland has had the reputation of being ‘difficult or obstinate’ and was labeled ‘America’s Trojan horse’ (Lankowski, C. 2006. p.293) by French and German press. The Czech Republic’s enthusiasm for the European project has faded and their Eurosceptic president, Vaclav Klaus, is of particular concern as he takes over the rotating presidency. Hungary is considered one of the more successful states to recently join the EU ‘taking a position of prominence in the New Europe’ (Lankowski, C. 2006. p.315). The integration of the twelve member states to accede in the 21st century varies. Importantly, those states were faced with an international arena which differed from that witnessed immediately after WW2 thus a difference in strategic culture can be noted. This has lead different state strategies amongst continental neighbors. After being released from the Soviet stranglehold some Eastern European states are reluctant to re-erect limits on state sovereignty in anyway similar to those they just escaped. Klaus is refusing to fly the EU flag over public buildings ‘saying it reminds him of the days when his country was made to fly the Soviet flag’ (Cendrowicz, R. Tue, Dec 30th 2008 p.14). So what can be said for the UK sitting aside mainland Europe and arguably even more complex than the Eastern European states? What is British state strategy and in those terms where does Britain belong, in the old or the new Europe?

A Clear-cut Understanding

Looking at Britain’s strategic culture can help identify an identity. It helps to point out what makes Britain tick within Europe and on the international stage. Qualifying old and new Europe does not individually involve the European level of analysis. This project considers how state-centric policy interprets Europe. There is also a further dimension. How Britain’s national security policies are shaped to accommodate international relations outside Europe is equally important. British ties to America and historical commitments to the Commonwealth can’t go unmentioned. History plays an important role as scholars argue that it has lead to the unique way that states construe their strategic culture.

The shared beliefs and common experiences provide a set which the member states relate to. In the aftermath of WW2 achieving political and economic harmony across Europe was necessary. Those states also shared a belief that democratic economies were essential, however contrasting their views were on the specifics. This project will consider to what extent those strategic cultures are interrelated. If a common thread can be identified between the earlier members then old Europe may become an exhaustive, definite list.

Determining Strategic Culture

Carnes Lord (1985 p.272) argues that there are certain operative factors which determine strategic culture.

The geopolitical setting
International relationships
Political culture and ideology
Military culture—military history, traditions, and education
Civil military relationships and bureaucratic organization
Weaponry and military technology

Certain scholars who advocated theories of strategic culture were criticised for stereotyping nations or regions. I understand the notion to be transitory especially when one considers how European politics has evolved so dramatically over the last 50 years. This is not to say that state strategies aren’t long term but rather that they can change and that the stereotypical illustrations are not absolute. This means that a valid assessment can be made. Nicholas Sarkozy’s transatlantic stance is notably different from his predecessors as an Atlanticist saying ‘France is the friend of the United States of America’ (Baldwin, T & Brenner, C. 2007 p.5). This illustrates that one cannot immediately suppose that all French Presidents are anti-American. However, when similarities can be identified between past national governments then the assessment of a more permanent state strategy becomes evident.

Strategic Culture and Britain

I will discuss the geopolitical setting of the UK, individuality concerning International relations and the UK’s political culture and ideology. Being situated off mainland Europe has had a notable affect on the autonomous nature in which the British perceive themselves and this has been brought about by a maritime rather than continental devotion. During the 15th Century Britain behaved in a similar manner to other European countries, notably France, Spain and the Netherlands. Building colonial superpowers those states played a part in depicting a pre-20th Century Europe that was still remembered post-1945. Maybe Britain can be considered in the most contemporary classification of old Europe. The transitory nature of strategic culture makes this classification irrelevant within the EU political forum however. Post-1945 the colonial similarities between the UK and the likes of France faded. Two factors can be identified. First, such a level of international cooperation was unheard of and the UK was weary of such a development in European international relations. Second, the UK was reluctant to participate in the European project being wary of rebuilding Germany as a continental superpower regardless of the concept of monitoring German strategic culture. This was partly down to the UK’s geopolitical setting. Furthermore, the fact that the UK did not join until later has had a significant impact on state strategy towards Europe. Why Britain joined later is partly down to her international relations.

Britain’s international relations differ considerably from her continental partners. The close alliance with America, still evident today, requires a balancing act. The Bush/Blair relationship illustrated this alliance. Britain is also closely allied to the commonwealth. From Marlborough House to the Commonwealth games, there are many symbolic aspects to this historic alliance. Such symbols bring life to the alliance, something which is questionable in relation to the EU. Remaining loyal to those states and participating in Europe requires another balancing act not so dissimilar to the Anglo-American act. Significantly, British commitments can be distinguished from the other member states commitments. The commonwealth alliance is independent of Europe whereas the monarchical alliance between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) is not. The Benelux countries are all members of the EU and therefore share a common strategic culture. If the US and Commonwealth countries were members of the EU then Britain’s strategic culture would be notably different.

The individuality of British politics has also had an affect on British strategic culture. The adversarial political system in Britain means that the opposition will nearly always oppose the European project. The unpopular nature of the EU means that the opposition can capitalise on taking an anti-European stance. In turn the government will protect themselves acting unenthusiastically to integration. Public support in the original six is generally high and the political systems allow for the process of Europeanization.

In terms of Strategic culture Britain is closer to Europe than to America or the Commonwealth however. Foreign policy helps illustrate strategic culture. The Blair government took a leading role in the European integration particularly because Blair held the rotating presidency. Blair openly supported the European project, something that his predecessors often avoided, stating, ‘I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension’ (Rennie, D. & Carlin, B. 2005 p.14). British strategic culture changed during Blair’s tenure. International relations were strengthened both within Europe and with America. Trying to maintain such commitment to both may be part of the reason why Blair’s premiership was considered unfulfilled (Riddell, P. 2005). Britain has taken a leading role in European foreign and security policy over the past decade. The government believed in their own expertise. A similar stance can be seen presently with Brown taking a leading role as of his economic expertise. Taking this role required the British government to take a more pro-European stance. Before her Bruges speech Thatcher took a similar leading role in European integration being an advocate of single market. Blair’s state strategy towards Europe poses certain similarities and he is considered a ‘neo-Thatcherite’ by some (BBC News/Politics 2004). What I argue is that the British government is of old Europe both at the level of regional integration and in relation to everyday policy making.

Government and Opposition

State strategy experiences the greatest change when a different political party takes office. There is a limit on the degree of change however and this is particularly so in relation to European integration. Political parties display an inconsistency towards Europe when moving in or out of government. One thing that highlights the inconsistency of the political parties towards Europe is the press. The Press, particularly tabloids, take a consistent stance as to the European Project. For example, ‘the daily express conducted a long and intense campaign against British entry into the EEC, and throughout the 1960’s was more consistent and outspoken in its condemnation of the Market than were the parties represented at Westminster’ (Punnett, R.M. 1973 p. 21). However, inconsistency regarding the European project seems likely when one considers three factors that create an exclusive link between the government and the EU. The opposition do not benefit in the same way and therefore campaigning against European integration is a powerful electoral tactic. First, resource based theory suggests that ‘domestic actors benefit when international cooperation generates net transfers of four domestic political resources to them’ (Dinan, D. 2000 p.286). Participating in Europe may be loss-making for some but not the government who are the first to benefit from European activities which strengthen the state (Moravcsik, A. 1994). Second, a new government does have to accept that British membership is a reality. In 1971 Labour energetically campaigned against the way in which the Conservatives were joining the EEC but equally ‘had to acknowledge that…a future Labour Government would almost certainly have to face a situation in which Britain was an EEC member’ (Punnett, R.M. 1973 p.32). Accepting membership is mandatory as withdrawing from the community is completely unfeasible. Not only would it test most parts of society and the economy, such an action by a government would ironically threaten their holding of office. I believe that the negative affects of withdrawing from the community would outweigh the approval from the anti-European British electorate. Third, the role of the head of state concerns state craft. It is argued that the main role of a head of state is to maintain diplomatic relations with other nations. The EU provides a suitable forum to do so and transaction costs are significantly reduced. Blair showed more consistency in office than his predecessors thorough his commitment to European relations ‘Thatcher by the end was barely on speaking terms with most of her counterparts. Major was the object of pity and scorn. Blair has learned the lesson and made friends’ (Stephens, P. 2001 p.70). Blair realised that the political forum should be approached diplomatically and this helped him take a consistent stance and still keep the electorate on his side. This is a further reason why a government would not reject the community upon taking office.

Conclusion

Departing from Rumsfeld’s depiction was required to fully assess the concept of old and new Europe. Identifying leadership suggested that the UK would be part of old Europe but such an understanding was ambiguous. Political circumstances left Britain out of the loop in comparison to France, Germany and Italy. Post-Thatcher and during Blair’s premiership a change can be noted but the modernity of that change may place the UK in new Europe. This would have to be weighed against the political might that Britain has within the Council. Examining strategic culture meant a valid assessment of the categories could be made. The conclusion reached argued that British government is of old Europe. The nature of EU law and policy means that the rest of Britain should follow suit and belong to old Europe. However, certain parts of society challenge the concept of European integration and feel that they are still part of a sovereign UK.

References:

Cendrowicz, R. 2008 TIME Tue, Dec 30th 2008

Cox, M. 2003 ‘Commentary: Martians and Venutians in the new world order’, International Affairs Vol.79 Issue.3 p.523-532

Baldwin, T & Brenner, C. 2007 ‘Je t’aime, Nicolas Sarkozy tells America as he aims to be the ‘ally-in-chief’’ The Times Nov 8th 2007

Dinan, D. 2000. ‘Encyclopaedia of the European Union’, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Ferriera, A. 1978. ‘The Economics of Enlargement: Trade Effects on the Applicant Countries’, JCMS Vol.17 No.2 p.120-142

Gallup 2003. ‘Candidate Countries EU Enlargement Poll Monitor’ Carried out by Gallup on behalf of the European Commission. DG Press/ B1-Public Opinion.

Johnson, J.L. & Larsen, J.A. 2002. ‘Comparative Strategic Culture’. Comparative Strategic Cultures Curriculum revised 20 Nov 2006

Lankowski, C. 2006. p.229-253 in ‘The European Union and the member states’ 2nd Ed. edited by Zeff, E.E and Pirro, E.B. 2006. Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner.

Lord, C. 1985. ‘American Strategic Culture’. Comparative Strategy Vol.5 Issue.3 p.269-293

Moravcsik, A. 1994. ‘Why the European Community Strengthens the State: International Cooperation and Domestic Politics’, Centre for European Studies Working Paper Series, no.52 Cambridge: Harvard University.

Parsons, C. 2000. ‘Domestic Interests, Ideas and Integration: Lessons From the French Case’, JCMS Vol.38 No.1 p.45-70

Pierson P. 1996. ‘The Path to European Integration. A Historical Institutional Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, Vol 29 No2 p.123-63.

Punnett, R.M. (1973) ‘Front-Bench Opposition: The Role of the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Cabinet and the Shadow Government in British Politics’ Great Britain, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd

Rennie, D. & Carlin, B. 2005. ‘Blair does a Thatcher to the EU, only ruder’. Daily Telegraph Jun 24th 2005. Telegraph Media Group.

Riddell, P. 2005. ‘The Unfulfilled Prime Minister’. Great Britain. St Edmudsbury Press.

Stephens, P. 2001. ‘The Blair Government and Europe’, The Political Quarterly. Vol.72 Issue.1 p.67-75

Vogt, C.R. 2007. ‘Political Leadership and European Summit Diplomacy’ 2007 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Chicago, IL. February 28th – March 3rd 2007.

BBC News/Politics 2004. ‘Evaluating Thatcher’s Legacy’. Tue 4th May 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3681973.stm

Rumsfeld, D. 2003. US Secretary of Defence Donald H. Rumsfeld spoke of the French and German unwillingness to support the US invasion of Iraq.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1330

Bibliography:

‘An awkward partner : Britain in the European Community’ 3rd Ed. George, S. (1998) Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press

Encyclopaedia of the European Union, Dinan, D. 2000, London, Macmillan Press Ltd.

‘Front-Bench Opposition: The Role of the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Cabinet and the Shadow Government in British Politics’, Punnett, R.M. (1973).Great Britain, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd

‘Politics and governance in the UK’ Moran, M 2005. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan,.

‘The European Union and the member states’ 2nd Ed. edited by Zeff, E.E and Pirro, E.B. 2006. Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner.

‘The political system of the European Union’ 2nd Ed. Hix, S. 2005. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan

‘The Unfulfilled Prime Minister’. Riddell, P. 2005. Great Britain. St Edmudsbury Press.

Journals:

Is Britain part of the old or new EU

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Deepening and widening in the EU

Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism...

How far do we in Britain live in a democracy?

Which is more democratic, the American or the British Constitution?