"Britain for and against Europe", by David Baker & David Seawright

Résumé du document

This study, by a group of important political thinkers, provides an analysis of the often problematic relationship between Britain and the European Union. The book opens with a general review of the history of this relationship since 1950. This is followed by ten chapters by other researchers, each investigating a particular aspect of the relationship, the view of Britain from Europe, Business, the Civil Service, and the Trade Unions. It also discusses the attitude of the media and different political parties in England, Scotland and Wales. The book is also a scrutiny of the attitude of the media.In the introduction, Baker and Seawright explain the complexity of the relation that Britain entertains with the European Union. This relation was marked by tension mainly because of Britain that the author describes as ‘the reluctant European partner' . After this they provide readers with a brief idea of the ten chapters. All chapters deal with the British European relation but each deal with a specific aspect of it. The first chapter “The European Issue in British Politics” by Andrew Gamble provides a historical review of the integration of Britain in the European Union. The issue of integration in the Union itself is very specific since it raises questions of sovereignty and identity that the British can not answer: “Europe is this kind of issue. It divides parties because it fuses together issues of sovereignty and identity with political economy in a novel and powerful way.” As Gamble explains, the issue is so complex that it raises all sorts of controversies within British politicians. Yet, the complexity of the issue is not the only explanation for the uneasiness that marks the relation between Europe and Britain. In fact, there is the way with which Britain views Europe that affects the relation as well as the influence of the United States of America.

Extraits

[...] This reluctant attitude did not change rapidly and the Labour's unwillingness to fully integrate Europe lasted for years. Change came gradually as a result of the party's exposure to European institutions and its work with socialists from across Europe. But it is Blair's government that diminished the golf between Labour Party and European Socialists. In fact, his reforms and cooperation with other European Socialist Parties put an end to the parties' reluctant attitude towards European integration: only the tune set by the speech, but his whole approach, put Labour's cooperation in Europe on a new plane. [...]

[...] Yet, the European market in its broad sense constitutes a regional block and thus goes against the spirit of liberalism: (Europe) is a regional trading block which the party might have been expected to view with much the same scepticism as it had previously regarded Imperial Preferences.”[8] In the fifth chapter, “Member State or Euro-Region? The SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Europe” James Mitchell discusses the attitude of the Scottish Nationalist Party and the Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales towards European integration. As the writer explains in the introduction to that chapter, all nationalists are opposed to international institutions that they regard as an unnatural phenomenon. [...]

[...] As the writer shows Trade Unions had a word to say on British politics regarding Europe because they had some political weight. The writer summarises the role played by Trade Unions in British debates about Europe since the Second World War but invites his readers to keep in mind two different positions that of the Trade Union Congress and that of different Trade Unions. TUC regarded Europe in relation to the economic benefits it would bring to British industry: TUC's leadership (General Council) tended to frame European question in terms of the economic costs and benefits which might be associated with the EC and with certain developments at the European level.”[10] Trade Union Congress was for Europe while Trade Unions rejected it: TUC's self-consciously ‘pragmatic' stance was challenged by a coalition of unions hostile to British membership of the EC and to a lesser extent by a smaller group which took a dramatically opposed view.”[11] This harsh opposition to European integration existed because these anti- Europe groups saw in it a menace to the sovereignty of Britain: “Concerns for the decision- making autonomy of the British Parliament were developed into elaborate defences of sovereignty”[12] The pro-Europe group saw in it an opportunity to have access to a large market. [...]

[...] In fact, there is the way with which Britain views Europe that affects the relation as well as the influence of the United States of America. First, the British- European coordination arose within a context heavily influenced by the past of the British Empire: “Britain was shaped by its experience as the leading commercial, financial, and industrial power in the global political economy.”[3] British attitude towards the European Union and issues related to it has been influenced the log history of the country. Britain has always posited itself on higher status than the rest of Europe because of its glorious past. [...]

[...] In fact, this latter is positive to Europe: “There is scarcely any doubt that British Business, like its counterparts in the Continent, is positive to Europe.”[13] Here again the most important element that generates this positive attitude is the wish to benefit from the European Common Market. British Business can not be against European integration because its common market is of crucial importance. single market remains at the core of project Europe', with over 350 million customers forming the largest home market in the world and equipping European capital with the means to compete on the global stage.”[14] The eighth chapter -by Jim Buller and Martin J. Smith- deals with civil service attitudes towards the European Union. [...]