From United Europe to Brexit: Britain’s in and out of the European Union

By: Iqbal Dawari

The institutional architecture of the European Union exists to serve the ambitions of peace, collaboration and economic growth. It can be called a triumph to the extent that there has been no third world war, the economies of member states have grown, and many countries have showed enthusiasm to join, with others seeking to do so. However, as a player on the world stage, it has fallen short of the aspirations of federalists.

Winston Churchill had enthused over the idea of a United States of Europe, envisaging the Great Powers accepting government through a joint council supported by a court and an army. However, the steps to form a Council of Europe exposed a fundamental difference between Britain and its continental neighbours. As developments proceeded, Britain began a kind of square dance with the continent: advancing, pausing before the pledged embrace, only to turn aside to another partner, the USA or the Commonwealth. An early move came in 1948 with the Brussels Treaty, aiming to promote collective defence, and in 1949 a Council of Europe was formed to enable broader collaboration. Perhaps its greatest achievement was the European Convention on Human Rights, intended to outlaw fascistic tendencies. Another key development in 1948 came when sixteen West European countries established an Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) to coordinate post-war recovery and manage the US Marshall Aid Programme. However, hopes that this might develop into an enduring supranational institution were dashed by British and Scandinavian opposition. Even so, the federalist movement gathered pace. A key mover was the French economist and international administrator Jean Monnet. Even as war erupted, he was warning that a post-war reconstruction reflecting nationalistic pride and protectionism would never guarantee peace.

A major event came in 1951 with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Monnet’s thinking was that collaboration in key functional areas of production would return war impossible. This was a functionalist rather than a federalist approach to integration, but the one that could lead to the other through a ‘spillover’ effect if more functions were combined. Yet as Italy, France, West Germany and the Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries joined the dance, the UK again chose to remain a wallflower. Wishing to drive things further, Monnet resigned from the ECSC presidency in November 1954 to help found an Action Committee for a United States of Europe. This led to the creation of a European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and, rather more significantly, the European Community (EC).

Formally, the EC was to be a trading bloc with a common external tariff barrier and no internal barriers, but it could also be an embryonic political union. On the basis of ECSC model, the EEC would be led by a Council of Ministers from member states making decisions based on voting. It would be served by a commission – a bureaucracy of national civil servants and directed by a team of commissioners hired by state governments. In addition, there was to be an assembly with members nominated by governments from national parliaments, leaving each with a dual mandate.

Unsurprisingly, there was to be no British signature on the 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the EEC. This decision to stay out was intriguing. Why did a state that had captained a huge empire, pioneered the development of the world economy, been a devoted worshipper at the altar of free trade, taken a prominent role within NATO, with a seat on the UN Security Council and a credible claim to have ‘won the war’ for the allies, relinquish all claims to a leadership role in this major arena? The reasons may lie in its past success. Despite the consequences of war, Britain believed in its world leadership destiny. The political class looked beyond Europe for status on the world stage: to the special relationship with US brawn and to the Commonwealth, with its echoes of empire. Britain had flexed its diplomatic biceps in 1952 by becoming a nuclear power.

The initial decade was dynamic. But was followed by four years of stagnation beginning with de Gaulle’s first UK veto. His retirement allowed further progress: the goal of advancing political union was affirmed at the 1969 Hague Summit and plans were made to coordinate foreign policy. Britain became a fully-fledged member of EEC on 1 January 1973. This demonstrated controversial at the time. The Labour party initially sought renegotiation of membership. This was toned down to requiring a referendum on whether Britain should stay member EEC. This referendum was duly held in 1975 with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.

Following an agreement reached on 18-19 February, 2016 in the European Council on a new settlement between the EU and the UK, the date for the historic referendum had been set on 23 June 2016 and both sides agreed to allow British citizens to decide on whether Britain should stay or leave the European Union. On Thursday 23 June, 2016 Britain's EU referendum took place and 53.4% of British citizens voted to leave the European Union. David Cameron resigned as UK Prime Minister after the referendum resulted in leave.

In the aftermath of the UK referendum, EU member States have voiced diverging opinions about the EU’s mission and future. European leaders and public expressed disappointment and regret over losing second-largest economy and largest military power, after waking up to what one of them called a “nightmare". In Berlin, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, expressed “great regret” at Britain’s decision, but said the EU should not draw “quick and simple conclusions” that might create new and deeper divisions. The union’s foundation was “the idea of peace”, she said.

It was the legitimate right of the British people to decide for their own future, but it is shocking because it was not based on real motives and British citizens might soon realize the consequences of their vote. Brexit would put 3 million of jobs at risk. Departure would push up unemployment, and some major global business companies may also move to the EU zone to evade interruption to their EU business. It would also have significant impact on the world economy as well as financial and foreign exchange markets. Brexit changes the EU’s fundamental portrait from integration to disintegration and it will embark on the process of leaving as the union struggles with numerous tensions including economic and refugee crisis and political tensions in the Eastern Europe.

* Iqbal Dawari is an independent political analyst and researcher on conflict and security issues with a focus on EU-Iran external relations, migration, Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan.