Britain and Europe Since 1945

Résumé du document

Winston Churchill, the great British leader who had seen Britain through the war, had an incredible charisma. At the end of the Second World War in 1946, he came up with a brilliant idea. He opined that in the European continent, the only way to go forward for the war-torn Europe lay in some sort of union. He explained this in a speech delivered in the Union of Zurich in September 1946. The epitome of this new Union could not have been other than Switzerland. He addressed this particular issue and said that "we must build a kind of United-states of Europe." This never meant that Britain was going to be part of the new Europe. As the British conservatives clarified, "in this urgent work, France and Germany -who had been at each other's throat since World war one, must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of nations, mighty America and Soviet Russia must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe. Therefore I say to you let Europe arise." A few years before, he was adamant that Britain and all the British Commonwealth should not become an integral part of European federation. The role of Britain was to be nothing more than some sort of paternalistic sponsorship.

Extraits

[...] To staunch : endiguer, contenir. Clout : poids. Rempart. [...]

[...] India had already been lost in 1947-48. And many other former colonies actually followed in the 1st steps of India. In other words, the Empire held little promise for the future. A Suez crisis in 1956 which used to be a English protectorate, was the last straw for the British Government. President Nasser of Egypt successfully claimed the complete control of the Suez Canal, which was a very strategic place economically and military speaking. It was the last straw in the sense that by then Britain knew she had become a second class power. [...]

[...] British foreign policy and defence could hardly suffer because securing a majority of his questions would be almost impossible. Basically it's a compromise. Besides it was generally admitted that the Soviet threat and the duty of defending certain Western values for example democracy and justice, were two problems that you could only address by getting together with other countries. And also the fact that Europe could only be reformed from within. The reason why Margaret Thatcher stayed in the Union was that from within she could see to that the EEC would never become a federation. [...]

[...] In terms of exports Europe was the market. The products were not the same: manufactured ones on the one hand and agricultural on the other hand. On the other hand the EEC provided Britain with the possibility of having a more authoritative voice in world affairs than if it had remained isolated. However with Mrs Thatcher, who had defended the notion of being in Europe, renegotiations started again. She had no problem with the fact the market economy would have a greater place within the EEC. [...]

[...] But it was going to be a painful and lengthy process. The nascent community meant putting at risk at least two centuries of two vital constitutional changes and a narrowing down of British horizons (the empire). Some of the founding fathers of the E.E.C knew from the start that they would in the end manage to attract Britain: Henry Spaak but first and foremost J. Monnet who was very much a federalist. It was more about creating a new political system. [...]