Lecture 26 Recording

Britain in Europe

I will be talking about Britain's relationship with the European Union before Brexit
and lead up to the Brexit, as well as Brexit campaign, the potential outcomes of
Brexit.

Let's look at Britain's original relationship with Europe. We have talked about the
original integration process, the original six and that original six integration process
was designed to be open to any European country that wanted to join and Britain was
also invited; the option was there for Britain to join the coal and steel community.
Britain didn't engage with these movements, Britain consciously chose that it would
not integrate with these six original member states. There are a number of potential
reasons for this which affect Britain's attitude towards the EU. Even today Britain has
seemed coming out of World War II as being victorious power, they had this idea that
we have won WWII. We are important power, we are world power. This illusion
continued in to this early European integration process. So, Britain thinks why do we
need integration, we are already super power, why do we need to integrate with
Europe, and combine our economies, our coal and steel. There are a number of
incidents that actually helped to shatter (destroy) this illusion. In part, this was the
breaking up ties with Commonwealth, breaking up of the British Empire. An
interesting example would be Suez crisis. Suez crisis took place when Egypt
nationalized the Suez Canal and took control of the Suez Canal. Britain and France in
coordination with their ready forces actually seized the Canal zone to take control of it
from Egypt. The response was not what Britain and France expected. They expected
that nobody really questions them, nobody raises any concern about this, yeah this is
fine, we can invade another state, so it is not a problem. The United States said: No!
Remove your troops, remove them from the Suez Canal zone or we will bankrupt
your economies. This was a real crystallizing moment for British politicians, it
showed that Britain wasn’t the world power it had been considered to be before the
war. Importantly, another reason why the UK didn’t originally join the European
Community was the idea of a special relationship with USA. It is often debated within
the literature the idea that Britain considered itself an alien nation that is in some way
separated from the continental Europe and has less in common with continental
Europe than it has in common with the United States.

However, over time as the other member states of the European Community started to
integrate their economies, move towards free trade, a single market in the future, their
economies improved dramatically. In opposition to the European Community, Britain
actually lone its own free trade association. An this was seen as being counterpoint to
the supranational free trade bloc of the European Economic Community. It would be
an intergovernmental community because Britain at this time and still today is highly
skeptical of supranational control over states and supranational actors taking
sovereignty from states to exercise for collective benefit. However, they quickly
reassessed whether this was a good idea or not and whether it would be good idea to
join the European Economic Community.

Alongside this we also saw a massive weakening of the British economy. In the 60s
and 70s, the British economy took a major downturn and this was indirect comparison
to the member states of the economic community who were seeking strong economic
performances. So, there was a clear economic argument for Britain potentially joining
the Economic Community. So, if these member states are doing well and we are not
doing well outside, we need to be part of this club, we need to join.

There was a general consensus between the British political parties that this was the
right idea and right direction to be going in European membership.

The UK, not being there at the very beginning, did not set out how the union was
structured. It didn’t set out the institutional system, it didn’t set up the policy system,
that was very much decided between the original six member states. And as a result,
Britain has always been somewhat resentful towards the structure and skeptical of the
supranational structures of the European Community. Britain didn’t seemingly gain
benefits as other member states who were already there. For example Common
Agricultural Policy seemingly did not benefit the UK as much as other member states
and this made up a massive amount of the Union’s budget.

A Contested Relationship

The UK has often been called an‘awkward partner’ within the European integration
project. Initially, the majority of political party elites were in favor of the European
Union. Over time Labour party did become more hostile to the European integration
projects since certain members left the party to form the SDP that ultimately joined
pro-liberals to form the Liberal Democrats. In the 1983 election Labour was
committed to withdrawal from the EC holding a referendum on European Community
membership if they won. Over time Labour party has moved back towards becoming
a largely pro EU party while the Conservative becoming increasingly hostile to the
European Integration project. We have also seen anti-EU parties such as UKIP.

Margaret Thatcher

She was elected Britain’s first woman Prime Minister in May 1979. In more than 11
years in power, Margaret Thatcher changed her country’s relationship with Europe.
She cited the problems of Common Agricultural Policy. Her close friends say Lady
Thatcher was suspicious about Europe’s direction. She saw the Single European Act
as a chance to break down boundaries in Europe, so that people could trade more
easily and a lot of needless obstructions could be removed. Over time, her hostility to
Europe and unpopular domestic policies led to the ministerial resignations and
leadership challenges and reluctantly she stepped down (resigned). Her name has
passed into legend, but her views remain entrenched in British political life.

The video very much signifies the transition within British politics. She started off
some would consider as to be reasonably pro-European integration especially when it
came to the integration of markets and liberalization of markets, getting regulations
out of the market. She started to question the European integration and Britain’s role
within that process. Seemingly she had understanding or fear that European regulation
would be simply replacing all the regulations she had stripped away from the British
state. And even today within the Conservative party, there has been an increasing
level of euroscepticism since Margaret Thatcher put down her red lines. He wanted to
push towards intergovernmentalism.
Tony Blair

When Tony Blair came into power, he declared we will end Britain’s isolation within
Europe. “We must end the isolation of the last twenty years and be a leading partner
in Europe”- it was his attitude to some extent to challenge the Franco-German axis.
He didn’t get everything in his own way. There were a lot of disagreements within the
Labour government especially over the euro. Tony Blair was actually enthusiastic and
optimistic about the UK potentially joining the euro. But Gordon Brown was not in
favour of joining the euro, he had concerns over the potential functioning of the euro
(there would be a crisis). Tony Blair, however, did agree to sign up to the Social
Chapter in the Amsterdam Treaty. These positive signs however were largely
undermined by the war in Iraq. He very much set himself against both the French and
German governments who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq and this very much
undermined Tony Blair’s credibility in the UK as well as within the Europe. He was
not seen as being a strong character who could be leading the European Union, he
undermined his own credibility and own standing. But he was enthusiastic pressuring
further participation of the UK in the European project. He had actually considerable
influence over the constitutional convention which attempted to establish a
constitution for Europe. Tony Blair had an active role within that.

British Euroscepticism

Eurosceptic- someone who is opposed to European integration is skeptical about the

EU and its aims. There are varying degrees of euroscepticism. Two broad categories
that potentially describe euroscepticism within the UK:
 Hard Euro-sceptics fundamentally oppose the EU and its direction they
believe that only sensible option for the UK is to leave the EU.
 Soft Euro-sceptics emphasizes engagement with the EU, but there is hostility
to European federalism in the pursuit of a flexible, globalized Europe. They
have special hostility towards European federalism. They believe that the EU
should be reformed and remade into a more flexible union that really
represents, compensates, and works with globalization.

Political Parties and EU

I will just go over different political parties and their different attitudes towards the
European project.

Conservatives were originally in favor of UK membership of the Single Market. The

Conservatives generally, as an ideology, have been (especially Thatcher years) very
pro-free trade, free market, deregulation, getting regulations out of the market. And
they saw potentially that was what the Single Market would be achieving within the
EU. However, they were against and are against the euro. They believed that Britain
needed to have control over its currency to have economic competitiveness, economic
sovereignty (nation states of the UK are in control and have the power over its own
economy, and if you don’t have your own currency you don’t have that sovereignty,
you have given up those sovereignty rights), and national identity. They have in
recent years been against reforming treaties of the European Union especially in the
case of constitutional treaty, the Lisbon Treaty as they see this as a threat to the
parliamentary sovereignty, these treaties essentially gave up the power and
sovereignty from the UK and place it within the supranational realm. They have been
moving from more pro to more growing Eurosceptic.

Labour

Officially they were in favour of the EU, but they very much viewed European
Community as a ‘capitalist club’. A club for capitalists who want to liberalize markets
and undermine the worker. It was only with the shift to New Labour that Labour
really became a pro-EU party. Tony Blair has been in favour of the euro and in favor
of the Single Market to a certain extent as well as having Britain’s leading role within
the European Union. There are still large numbers within the Labour party whoo
oppose EC and see it as a ‘capitalist club’. Jeremy Corbyn voted against British
membership of the European Community.

Liberal Democrats are strongly in favor of EU membership, they are in favor of

joining the Euro when the time is right. They say that when the economic conditions
are right we want to join the euro as well as supporting further reform, further
ratification of the treaties (constitutional treaty, Lisbon treaty).

Greens similarly are in favor of EU membership, but currently against joining the
Euro. They do believe Europe needs more constitution. They don’t consider Lisbon
treaty as being a proper constitution that clearly guides what can happen within
Europe.

Scottish National Party (SNP) was originally anti-European community and they
opposed to European integration, but over time they moved towards a pro-EU
membership and they are now considered pro-EU membership party. The reason for
this is that they see Scotland as being able to establish its identity within Europe
through EU membership, so one of the ways of establishing independent Scottish
state is to emphasize Scotland is a state within the European Community.

UKIP are anti-EU party and they are not in favor of the joining Euro. Withdrawal
from the EU and no to the Euro

Brexit (British Exit from the EU)

Formally on the 23rd of June 2016 the UK held a referendum on EU membership and
that returned in favor of a leave vote; 51.9% voted in favor of leave against 48.1%.
This referendum brought to an end David Cameron’s six years as Prime Minister, and
potentially a new era of British politics. It was generally concentrated within certain
areas; Scotland is very much as a bloc voting for remain as well as London, but more
generally England, North of England, South England, outside of London voted for
leave. There is a clear regional disparity here.

Neither the “Remain” nor the “Leave” campaigns wasted much time in debating the
nature of the European Union itself, what the EU actually was. There is famous
Google search the day after referendum what is the EU; people simply didn’t know
and campaigns didn’t bother engaging with it because they knew people didn’t know
what it was. Rather the campaign focused on the costs and potential benefits and
neither side really focused on a particular positive message despite evidence that
suggested doing so might have been a good strategy, especially for “Remain” side,
there might have been positive claims for EU membership. Both sides very much
focused on the negative sides.

Why have a referendum?

As we talked, there is a growing euroscepticism within the Conservative party. David

Cameron famously said we need to stop banging on about Europe, we need to get rid
of this issue and he made the biggest issue you could possibly imagine in British
politics. Divisions within the Conservative party about the UK’s relationship with the
EU were a powerful contributing factor in the downfall of Margaret Thatcher, and a
serious continuing challenge for her successors. Her fundamental opposition to the
certain elements of the EU undermined her authority within the Cabinet.
David Cameron made successive attempt to try to appease the growing numbers of
Eurosceptic MP’s within his own party and to counter concerns over the rise of the
UK independence party. In the first instances he tried to renegotiate Britain’s position
within the EU by getting some minor concessions in certain areas. David Cameron
promised an in/out referendum as part of the 2015 general election campaign. In part
this was result of the pressure within his own party from Eurosceptic members. Also,
potentially the EU was suffering from a number of crises at this time, there was
potentially undermining its legitimacy the euro crises followed by migration crises
had led to a lack of legitimacy within certain spheres and interest within the UK
towards Europe. In part it might also be case that he never expected actually to have
the referendum, he didn’t expect to win that election with such a large majority to
have to deliver that promise.

The Process of Brexit: How to leave the EU?

Unfortunately, it is not particularly clear within the treaties what should happen in the
scenario that a state wants to leave. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union was
introduced in the Lisbon treaty. Only in the Lisbon treaty there was an
acknowledgement that a member state could leave the Union. The article is not very
clear it only offers very basic starting points for how the process should take place.
Negotiating guidelines were set out by the European Council. So, the European
Council came together and actually set out certain negotiating points and guidelines
and handed those to the Commission who actually dealt with and is dealing with the
day to day negotiations of the Brexit process. Any final deal will have to be agreed
and approved by the European Council as well as the European Parliament alongside
our institutions within the UK to varying degrees. In the European side, all the
member states have to agree, it may go through a voting majority, but they will
probably look for unanimity.

In the UK two new departments “Department for international trade” (responsible for
negotiating future trade agreements) and the “Department for exiting the European
Union have been established to deal with Brexit.
Brexit ‘like, and enlargement in reverse’

There is no rule-book for these negotiations and understanding how this should
happen. Negotiations have been handled ‘like, an enlargement in reverse’ with
chapter-by-chapter negotiations taking place to negotiate an exit of the UK. While
there has been much discussion of the technical deal being on the table, as we speak,
much is still to be processed. We don’t know if this deal is acceptable to the cabinet,
parliament or the EU member states. If cabinet accepts the plan, which is meeting at
2pm (14/11/19), the Commission will publish details of the plan and we will have an
idea of what the future relationship may look like. The cabinet is going to meet to see
whether this is an acceptable deal to the UK. It is possible that cabinet will reject it
and it is possible that they will accept, it is possible we see resignations at some point,
it might even be rejected by the member states themselves within the Council. So, we
don’t really know what is going to happen. There are a lot of discussions about
whether this deal is powerful enough to be accepted within the Parliament. Even if
this ‘technical’ deal is accepted, Britain’s future trading relationship with the EU is
still to be decided in a following deal.

What might Brexit look like?

Since the referendum the early debate surrounded if we will see a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’
Brexit. These terms are somewhat ambiguous what they actually mean. What we can
say is that Britain will involve a series of trade-offs. The UK faces a trade off between
the economic benefits of single market membership, with the ability to trade good and
services with the EU freely and being able to ‘control immigration’ to the UK from
the EU-27, as the UK government has stated it wishes to do and conduct external
trade negotiations. There are a number of answers to the question of why Brexit
happened; because of a concern over immigration by those who voted in favor of
Brexit.

“No deal is better than bad deal”- Theresa May

Soft Brexit Vs Hard Brexit

Theresa May originally made it somewhat clear that the UK would seek to leave both
the EU single market and probably the customs union. Customs union is common
tariff that all member states agree for external goods coming in to the Union. They all
set the same rates, the same tariff, the same price on these goods coming in to the
Union. It seems that the UK will still be the part of the Customs Union.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, this was something that the Conservative
party, Theresa May said that we want to end the jurisdiction, the premise of the EU
law over member state law, the premise of the Court of Justice.

If you are a part of Customs Union, if you are a part of the European Union, you
cannot negotiate external trade deals.

Brexit deal did have an impact on Europe. Europe wasn’t particularly focused on
Brexit, it was a shock to European member states.
It seems unlikely that Brexit will cause a domino effect. When Brexit first happened,
there were a lot of speculation that we would see a number of other states leaving. It
seems that is not gonna happen.

Scotland voted collectively for remaining in the EU. The SNP originally saw this as
an opportunity for a second referendum, they could hold a second referendum on
independence, but the poll was removed claiming that the public didn’t want another
referendum at this time.

There are two options to consider Britain’s role in Europe as being described. In the
first instance, it could be seen as an ‘awkward partner’ as a result of joining the Union
later on, being obstructionist, not being in favor of further supranational integration.
Many have seen Britain as being very successful in uploading its policy agenda to
Europe and influencing European policy process. The UK has been in favour of
liberal economics, resisting social legislation (social distribution of funds) and
moving towards intergovernmentalism over supranationalism. And finally Britain has
been key and will probably remain to be key when it comes to foreign policy. Britain
has a big concern over security policy and wants to continue a strong security
relationship with Europe alongside issues such as climate change and
competitiveness.