CHAPTER 2: BRITAIN RELATIONSHIP WITH EUROPE AND THE US

A/ GREAT BRITAIN AND EUROPE

Even if Britain has been a member of the European Union since January the 1st, 1973 she has
always been skeptical about her role in the community and also about the nature of the
Cooperation. However in June 1975 a referendum was given and the question was whether or
not within the EEC (economic European community) 67.2% voted in favor of membership

It was hoped that this positive result, would put an end to the initial doubt and Harold Wilson
said that the result created a new situation and he said that Britain membership was now
committed and total. Just after in the following decades there were dramatic changes like the
collapse of the Soviet bloc. More eastern joined the E.U and the EEC was called the E.U in
1990. This push toward further integration meaning that the nature of the union was different,
was changing and once again Britain was having doubt about the union , was worried about
the E.U integration because more political , economic organization about this new union.

1/ Major stages in the EU construction

In the year following WW2 there was a common wish for more unity among western
European country, there are different ideas about this unity, about what kind unity best. Some
simply wanted the country to cooperate more closely, mostly economically.

Others wanted a politically united Europe. With a federal system. Whatever their preference,
the idea was that Europe could recover from the damages of the war only by a cooperative
effort. (A pooling of resources)= especially because the each country was too small to be
economically, military capable separately. Especially in a world dominated by a superpower
(USA, USSR).

This cooperation would be the best way to preserve peace between the nations, especially
away to reconcile France and Germany and finally it was believe that the threat of
communism at the time would be best met by joined action. W. Churchill (conserve Prime
Minister) was one of the strongest advocates, supporters of the European unity, even before
the end of the war.

In 1943 (March) he mentioned the need for a council of Europe could be necessary. Three
years later in 1946 during a speech in Zurich he suggests that France and Germany should
take the lead a kind of “US of Europe”.

The creation of OEEC (Organization for European Economic cooperation) was the first step
toward more unity. It was created in 1948 as a response to the Marshall plan and the foreign
minister (Bevin –labor government) drew up a plan for the best use of the American aid
among the European countries. This plan established that Trade would be one of main
measures.
Another was the creation of a council of Europe in 1949 = the first try at more political unity.
It was based in Strasbourg and it consisted of the Foreign Minister of the different members
and also an assembly of representatives chosen by the government of the states.

However there’s no real power , only symbolic organization since several states including
Britain refused to join any organization that would threatened that its national sovereignty. It
could only debates on pressing issues, make recommendation and only support human right
agreements. For the federalist this council of Europe was a huge disappointment.

Another step is the setting up of the EEC (European Economic Community) in 1957. But there
are different stages in the creation of the EEC:

- 1st was the Benelux in 1944 (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), was at first a
customs union, duties or tariff were removed, free trade among the Benelux. A
commercial and trade organization.

- 2nd the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 with Britain and France joining the Benelux, to
achieve a military and economic, a social and a cultural collaboration.

- 3rd step, 1951 the European Coal and steel cooperation (ECSC) and this was the
project of the brain child of Robert Schuman who was French foreign minister at the
time and the idea of the ECSC was to include west Germany in this community and he
hoped it would improve relationship between France And Germany especially peace
and also to reinforce the power of the French industry or of the European industry.
This system meant that duties were abolished for member of this community. Britain
refuses to join this ECSC because it would mean that her own industry would be
control by a European entity. The idea of “Supra-national power”. Also the British
people refuse to take part in this cooperation because the industry of iron and steel has
just been nationalized and it would be pointless to let these industries become ruled by
Europe. However this ECSC is quite successful, steel production rose, increased by
50% during the first 5 year.

- 4th The Treaty of Rome leading to the creation of EEC, in 1957 set up created the EEC,
also called “the common market” with 6 founder members France, West Germany,
Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. The idea was to remove customs
duties, limitation, quotas also. = commercial alliance. The treaty also mentions a more
social idea, improving, living and working conditions. The idea also was to preserve
peace and liberties and also work for a closer union of the peoples. Jean Monnet the
French chair man of the ECSC set up a committee, an action committee and he wanted
to work for a “united states of Europe”, once again Britain refuse to join. For us this
action committee was too federalist.
2/ Reasons why Britain refused to join

Churchill was quite enthusiastic of this union, was one of the first to speak of the united states
of Europe. When he came to power again in 1951 he was quite reticent, reluctant about the
EEC. His Successors Eden and Macmillan (conservative P.minister) were very chilly. The
main objections were that Britain could no longer control her own economy. Britain feared
that it would be submitted /at the mercy of the European Commissions.

The British government contrary to the other was not ready to make sacrifices even if it was
to improve the global efficiency. Another objection was that Britain relationship with the
commonwealth might be damaged ruined. She feared that she would no longer be able to give
preference to commonwealth goods. Britain still has a strong link with the commonwealth
(ex: New Zealand meat).

At the time, around 40% of Britain’s global trade was with the Commonwealth and also, the
Commonwealth was very populated. It was much more promising market than the EEC. Third
reason was the special relationship between GB and USA. Very strong link. They feared that
other EEC members could be an obstacle to this link. Other reason and most importantly
British politicians were suspicious that economic unity would lead eventually to a political
unity and we known that Britain is against because would mean a federal union .their national
sovereignty would be damaged.

On the other hand Britain and other member of the EEC were worried that if Britain refused
to join the EEC she might be excluded commercially. Consequently in 1959 Britain with other
member organize a rival group to try to compete with the EEC. At least was called “the
European free trade Association “ (EFTA) , different states joined ( Denmark , Norway ,
Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Portugal ) this EFTA and among themselves they abolish
custom duties and Britain was ready to join this organization because they were no question
of a common economic policy and no commission involved, no superior entity .

Yet, by 1961 Britain changed her main completely and the P.minister (Macmillan) announced
that Britain was ready to join the EEC.

3/ Reasons why British people changed their mind and decided to join the EEC

In the first place in 1961, he was clear that the EEC was a great success, for example since
1953 the production of France has risen by 75%. In comparison the British economy was less
successful , other the same period of time the British economy had only risen by about 30%
.even if it was quite powerful it had nothing to do in comparison to the EEC. The
Commonwealth in spite of his huge population has not the same purchasing power; he could
not compete with the EEC.

As opposed to the EEC he has nothing, no power. Also another fear that was the
commonwealth was becoming independent, so Britain feared that these independent countries
would stop trading with Britain. Another argument in favor joining the EEC was that the
other member of the EEC, Britain would be in competition, it would stimulate her own
industry. This would enable her to keep up the other EEC member and the P.minister at the
time had the idea of building a more military community, especially at the time of superpower
of the USSR, to try and defend the union against communism.

The idea was to be closer than the USA especially at the time of the Cold War, even if it
didn’t say it as such. Meanwhile the labor party was against Britain entry in the EEC. Harold
Wilson who will then become P.minister said that this would mean a sacrifice; he said that
economic unity could not be achieved at the expense of cultural and political sacrifices. At the
time the conservative government was in charge of negotiations, he was chosen because he
was the most active supporter of the EEC. The Talks started in 1961 there was difficulty but it
came as a shock when French President (De Gaulle) broke off the negotiations and put is veto
on Britain entry.

4/ Reasons why France opposed Britain’s entry

Some country like the Netherlands and Belgium were quite favorable to Britain’s application.
They thought that it could be a counter-balance. France and Germany were dominated the
EEC. Britain was highly populated and West Germany believed that Britain was a promising
market. France was against because according to De Gaulle she has too many economic
problems, and he thought that it could weaken the EEC.

Yet at the same time the EEC has just given some help, money to France’s former colonies in
Africa. The British believed that De Gaulle real motive was that he wanted France to
dominate the community. If Britain joined it could be a sort of competition between the 2
countries. Another reason, De Gaulle was also distrustful (= méfiant) especially about the
special relation of Britain with the USA. He thought that if Britain joined this would mean an
American impact on the EEC. He complained that Britain was insular and maritime and as a
result the country was less connected to the continent and closer to the USA.

De Gaulle fear might come from Kennedy offering missiles to Britain during the Cold War,
anger because the same offer hadn’t made for France. The idea is that De Gaulle is opposed to
the American influence. Finally there was the problem of the French agriculture. At the time
the EEC protected farmers in subsidizing taxes, money was invested in farmer. In France
agriculture was less successful, farms was smaller, the production as not high successful as
oppose to Britain. British agriculture was much more efficient. France was afraid that Great
Britain entry provoked harsh competition, would damaged the French farmers.

5/ Britain Enters the Community (1973)

Britain entry in January 1973, the major reason was that De Gaulle was no longer president
in France and his successor Pompidou was much more opened toward Britain’s entry. Also,
the French were beginning to feel worried to power of the West Germany, so they thought that
Britain could act like a counter-balance. In Britain in comparison, public opinion was divided,
many people were concerned about the notion of national sovereignty, and many thought that
national sovereignty will no longer exist. The labor party was also divided on the issue. The
turn out to this referendum about whether or not in the EEC, not many people voted which not
really reflected the national opinion.

6/ Britain and the Community Since 1973

6.1/ the Lomé Convention

The EEC had been criticized. They said it was too exclusive too self-centered, and in response
to it new decision were made and members agreed that it was good .Benefit from the abolition
of custom duties; importation and exportation were goods too. The idea was goods coming
from the European colonies wouldn’t have to be under taxes. This agreement also guarantees
economic help, trying to be less centered.

6.2/ Direct Elections to the European Parliament (1979)

Even though it had been existence for 20 years, the EEC was still distant / remote from
ordinary people. The idea of introducing elections was to stimulate interest among the
population: to bring the “people in the street” into closer contact with the affairs of the
community = to choose their Euro MPs (Members of Parliament)
The first European elections took place in June 1979: 410 Euro-MP (or MEP = Members of
the European Parliament). The 4 main countries: Britain, France, Italy and West Germany
were given 81 seats each.

• In GB, the European elections came just after the victory of Margaret Thatcher in the
general elections so, unsurprisingly, the Conservatives also won the European
elections (60 seats out of 81). Globally, the right-wing and centre parties had a
majority over the left.

• The turnout (= taux de participation) was disappointingly low: less than one third of
the population bothered to vote.

Elections were to be held every 5 years and during the next elections, as far as British MEP
were concerned, the Conservatives lost ground (= perdre du terrain): they won 45 seats and
Labour won 32. Overall, the centre and the right kept a small majority.

In July 1997, the New Labour government introduced a new voting system for the 1999
European Elections = a proportional representation system as was the case for the other
members, instead of the old system: “first-past-the-post” system.

• Before, with the first-past-the-post system: the party with the highest number of votes
in each constituency (= circonscription) won the election in that area

 But this first-past-the-post system could create anomalies: very often, the candidate
won with a minority vote (no absolute majority), which meant that a party with the
 most votes in the country may not be the party winning the elections (with the most
MPs).

Ex: in a constituency, the Conservatives could win with only one vote making the difference
with Labour; and in another constituency, Labour could win with a majority of 200 votes but
the number of MPs would still be the same = one for each party!

Another criticism of this system is that it didn’t really reflect the opinion of the voters creating
a “democratic deficit”

Ex: the Liberal Democrats often obtained 25% or more of the votes but only gained 1 or 2
seats in Parliament. With the new proportional system in the European elections, the vote
reflected the opinion more truly.

6.3/ The introduction of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) 1979

This was introduced to link the currencies of the member states in order to limit the impact of
the change in value for individual currencies. The currency of a country could change
depending on how well its domestic economy was doing: a strong economy usually meant a
strong currency.
• With this ERM system, the idea of linking the currencies of the different states was
that it could help control inflation and eventually lead to a single currency for the
whole community = it was the beginning of the idea of the Euro as a single
currency.

But Britain didn’t want to take part in this: Margaret Thatcher refused even if the pound was
strong. Joining would mean that the exchange rate would be more stable and the inflation
could be kept low. Nevertheless, Thatcher rejected this system, fearing that her government
would no longer be able to control its economic policy (and also refusing the idea that it
would mean, in the long run, the adoption of a single European currency.)

Britain eventually had to join in October 1990 (John Major persuaded Thatcher; there had
been strong pressure within the Conservative party) but, at that time, the economy was in bad
shape, the exchange rate was quite high and the pound lost its value = devaluation.
As a result, Britain was forced to withdraw (= retirer) the pound from the ERM and John
Major’s government suffered a humiliation.

6.4/Britain and the EEC budget

During the first years of Britain’s membership, people were disappointed because the country
didn’t seem to gain any benefit from the European Community. As a comparison, the
Republic of Ireland, which joined at the same time, immediately enjoyed prosperity thanks to
the EEC (especially because her agricultural produce found a new market in the community).
Britain’s economy, on the other end, was stagnating in the 1970s and although her exports to
the community increased, the imports from the community grew even more (because Britain
was not producing enough goods for export at the right prices.)

• According to statistics: Britain was one of the least efficient nations in the EEC at the
time.

• A major crisis emerged in the 1980s when Britain discovered that her budget
contribution for that year was to be much higher than that of France or West Germany
(GB had to pay more than 1000 million pounds / West Germany: 700 million pounds /
France: only 13 million pounds)

The amount to be paid depended on the amount of duties received by each country and as
Britain imported more goods from outside the EEC (ex: from the Commonwealth) than from
members of the EEC, she had to contribute more to the budget of the EEC.

 Thatcher was determined to get this contribution reduced: negotiations were

difficult but a compromise was reached and Britain’s contribution was cut down.

 Doing so, Britain had offended the other European leaders.

6.5/ The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

It was one of the most controversial issues: the bone of contention (= la pomme de discorde)
between Britain and the EEC.

• CAP: subsidies were given to farmers in the EEC to help them produce as
much within the community and keep prices low for the consumers. This was a
good deal for farmers (especially French farmers were now able to compete
with British agriculture) and as a result they produced more than could be sold.

• In 1984, in order to find a solution, maximum quotas were introduced under

the pressure of Britain and West Germany = to limit the production. But the
problem was still not solved. There were still too many goods to get rid of!

• This created a budget crisis in 1987: too many debts were generated by the
CAP and in 1997, despite the cuts; the CAP was still absorbing half the budget
of the EEC.
 • The situation was even more difficult between Britain and the rest of the union
during the “beef crisis” in 1996: because of the “mad cow disease” (also called
“BSE” according to its scientific name); the European Union banned all
exports of British beef. John Major, PM at the time, reacted very strongly
against the institutions of the union and when the crisis was finally resolved,
Britain was criticized by the other members because it refused to play by the
rules.

6.6/ Greater integration: The Maastricht Treaty (1991)

The summit of Maastricht set up an agreement aiming at “a new stage in the process of
creating an even closer union among the peoples of Europe”. Members agreed on:

• More powers for the European Parliament

• Greater economic and monetary union: leading to the adoption of a common
currency (the euro)
• A common foreign and security policy
• The community was to be known as “the European Union” = the EU

 Britain strongly objected to the idea of a federal Europe and monetary union.
That’s why the treaty didn’t mention that the EU would be a “federal union” and it
was agreed that Britain (and Denmark) could opt out of a single currency.

 And yet, most British businessmen were in favour of a single currency as they
thought it could eliminate fluctuating exchange rates between national currencies,
and thus be an asset (= an advantage) for trade.

 Britain also objected to a whole section of the treaty = the Social Chapter (as was
also the case for the Treaty of Rome in 1957): a list of regulations protecting
people from exploitation at work, rules about safe and healthy working conditions,
equality at work between men and women, consultation and protection of workers.

 Britain argued that these measures would increase costs and lead to
unemployment.

 Other members thought that social protection of workers was more important
But, in the end, because of British objections, the Social Chapter was removed
from the Maastricht Treaty and the decision to carry out (= to implement = mettre
en place) these measures was left to individual governments.

 This refusal caused protests among European businessmen who said that it would
give Britain an unfair advantage as GB wouldn’t have to follow the same rules on
working conditions as the rest of the EU (due to deregulations).
  The rejection of the Social Chapter was considered as a victory by John Major, the
Conservative PM at the time.

 The Maastricht treaty was not submitted to a referendum in Britain (the

government didn’t allow it) and the Conservatives were split about the EU: the
Treaty was only approved by a small majority in Parliament. Many conservatives
were anti-European (= Eurosceptics), which threatened John Major’s mandate.

New Labour’s victory in 1997 gave way to a different approach toward Europe. Even though
the Labour Party was still doubtful about a federal Europe, their approach, under Tony Blair’s
leadership, was in remarkable contrast with that of the Conservatives.

 New Labour was more “Euro-friendly” and Tony Blair said that he wanted Britain’s
attitude toward Europe to be positive and constructive.

 In June 1997, during the Amsterdam Summit, the Social Chapter was put back in the
Maastricht Treaty after Britain indicated that she accepted its terms, which was in
keeping with her more positive approach.

6.7 Conclusion

Despite some constructive progress in terms of European integration, Britain’s attitude

towards Europe from the beginning of the year 2000 has remained quite ambivalent (=
hesitant, undecided, ambiguous). Even though the successive Labour governments have been
more euro-friendly than the Conservatives, the economic policy and the euro have activated
much debate and hesitation.

• Britain’s refusal to accept the euro is guided by her fear of losing freedom to
determine her own economic policy. Moreover, sentimental attachment to the
pound is still very strong among the British people, as it has always
symbolized British imperial and economic power. (In 2001, 58% of the
population said that they would vote against joining the euro if they were to be
asked in a referendum).

• Britain also stated that her economy was not ready to join the euro: Gordon
Brown (who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer = Minister of the Economy,
at the time) had established the “five economic tests” to evaluate Britain’s
capacity to join and, according to this test, the economic and financial
conditions were not met by Britain. (The country is still marked by the failure
of the exchange rate mechanism (ERM) as Tony Blair mentioned in The
Economist in 2000 and wants all the economic conditions to be favourable for
Britain to join).
 • Moreover, in 2001, Britain launched a policy aiming at improving public
services, which led to a high increase of her budget. This stood in contradiction
with the European Central Bank’s claim that the budget deficits of the member
states should be controlled and restricted.

• Britain’s European vision still diverges from that of France or Germany: she
sees the European Union as a free-trading area where political integration is
kept to a minimum whereas France and Germany both aim at more political
integration. This gap has recently been reinforced by Britain’s foreign policy,
especially her intervention in Iraq (showing the predominance of the “special
relationship” with the US), on which France and Germany strongly disagreed.

• In 2004, the European elections attracted much more voters than five years
earlier (15 % more) but the majority of them were anti-Europeans or Euro-
sceptics. The newly-formed anti-European party (Ukip: United Kingdom
Independence Party) made an impression and arrived in third position (won 12
seats out of 78).

- Finally, the current situation with the euro crisis only seems to reinforce Britain’s
reticence to adopt the single European currency. And yet, this crisis also
symbolizes Britain’s ambivalence towards Europe as it highlights her isolation
(she is not allowed to take part in the negotiations taking place this month because
Britain is not part of the Euro-zone) which outraged David Cameron, the Prime
Minister, even though the decisions taken without her support may affect Britain’s
economic future in Europe.

B/ GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES

Introduction

Britain and the United States have a lot in common, for historical as well as linguistic reasons,
and they share a special relationship on the international scene. There are, however, many
differences between them, essentially cultural and sociological and coming from the fact that
Britain somewhat feels “colonized” by her former colony. Hence a form of resentment
towards the “new continent” that Britain is careful not to show in her diplomatic position.

1/ A privileged relationship

Since 1776 and America’s Declaration of Independence from the British Empire, the two
countries have remained to maintain a very good relationship, especially because the majority
of the Americans who rebelled against the Monarchy (King George III at the time) were
themselves British or from British descent. This is often the case, even today.

The fact that the two countries share a common language has, of course, contributed to
maintain the already strong links existing between them, making communication easier.

Throughout the twentieth century, there were proofs that the relationship between Britain and
the United States was to be preserved.

- During the first and the second world wars, America’s intervention in 1917 and in
1941 determined the outcome of the conflicts and guaranteed the Allies’ victory, even
though the US had been quite reluctant to intervene as far as economic reasons were
concerned (they were saving a lot of money by not taking part in the war and making
money by providing Britain and France with food and materials)

- Moreover, Britain (represented by Churchill) and the United States (represented by

F.D Roosevelt) played a crucial role in deciding the fate of half the world at the Yalta
summit in 1945.

- During the Cold War (1945-1989), the British and the American constantly teamed up
against the Communist superpowers.

- In the economic war now raging in the Western world, they often join forces against
other countries (in the GATT negotiations at the end of the 1990s, for instance).
Britain’s reluctance to adopt the euro may also be explained by her strong transatlantic
economic links since Britain’s entrepreneurs still invest as much in the US as they do
in Europe.

More generally, the two countries always try to appear friendly and to be seen on the same
diplomatic wavelength. Even if there have been a few disagreements (for example on the US
invasion of Grenada in 1983, and on the Irish question) they remain exceptions. The “special
relationship” even became the “splendid friendship” between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan from 1980 until 1988 and was reinforced by the Falklands War in 1982 and the Gulf
war in 1991 (in which Britain acted as a military partner).

- The most recent example of this close link can be found in the Iraq War (2003) in
which Britain played a prominent role. In order to sustain US president Bush’s policy
of “pre-emptive war” against the “Axis of Evil” aimed at ensuring the security of the
United States, Colin Powell, the Secretary of State adopted a more pragmatic and
diplomatic approach and decided that the US needed a bridge-builder to rally the
support of other nations in Europe. This intermediary came in the form of British
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who thought he could obtain a majority on the UN Security
Council in favour of war (the agreed motive for war being that Iraq owned illegal
 weapons of mass destruction). Tony Blair’s public position was that if Saddam
Hussein was given an ultimatum to give up his weapons and failed to accept, then
Britain would support a war. Doing so, he hoped to bring the international community
into line with the American policy.

- He had many detractors who nicknamed him “Bush’s poodle” or “the Foreign
Secretary of the USA”. The British public opinion was strongly anti-war and Blair’s
attitude was at odds with (= in conflict with) New Labour’s pragmatic centralism
(many members of cabinet resigned as a sign of disapproval), even though some saw
him as a go-between between the USA and Europe. (In the end, the British
government was discredited by the failure to find any lethal weapon in Iraq and was
accused of having exaggerated the information given by the intelligence services
regarding the Iraq issue in the months preceding the war.)

This example shows that the special relationship is still privileged by Britain even if it means
disconnecting herself from her European partners. The country finds it difficult to reach the
right equilibrium or compromise between her commitment to the European Union and her
historic links with the United States.

Yet, we also have to bear in mind that the official position often hides what the British really
think about the Americans and vice versa.

2/ A world of differences

The ambiguous nature of the Anglo-American relationship rests in the fact that America was
the first British colony to gain its independence. She gradually replaced Britain as the world’s
leading power. As a result, the US came to consider the old motherland as a strategic base in
Europe, another market to control or a tourist destination.

This reversal of situation has generated some resentment from the British who feel somewhat
despised by the Americans. According to Britain, the Americans fail to acknowledge their
linguistic, historical and cultural debt. Britons are offended by the smugness of some
American tourists who visit Britain and find everything “cute” and by the fact that they are
considered as a small spot on the map for some US multinational firms.

Most importantly, they fear that the current geopolitical situation may lead them to relinquish
(= to abandon, to give up, to part with) their national sovereignty.

Britain, quite ironically, is being culturally, economically and also, to some extent, politically
“colonized” by a former colony.

That’s why Britain is cautious towards ideas imported from the USA which are diffused quite
rapidly because of the common language and are thus difficult to control, but which are at
variance (= in conflict) with the grain of British cultural identity.
 - “Political correctness” is a good example of this transatlantic invasion. The movement
started in American universities in the late 1980’s and is a way of altering language in
order to make it non discriminatory and preserve the sensitivities of the numerous
minority groups in the American society. For instance, calling a Black person “Black”
was considered as offensive and was replaced with the term “African American” even
if this person had never set foot in Africa.

This American-born movement was quite prolific among certain British groups who were
attracted by its apparent equity and liberalism. But even though it corresponds to a tendency
in the British mentality, it goes far beyond what the British are ready to accept because of its
philosophical, human, social and political implications.

Conclusion

The special relationship between Britain and US is, publicly, based on economic and
diplomatic cooperation, especially because since the Declaration of Independence, it is in
Britain’s interest to maintain good relationship with her former colony now among the most
powerful countries of the world, even if it implies living in its shadow.

!!! CHAPITRE 1 ET 2 A CONNAITRE POUR L’EXAMEN DU

7/11/2011, 2 OU 3 QUESTIONS DE COURS A REDIGER !!!