European Union
"We have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of
it. We
are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated, but
not
absorbed."1 Winston Churchill’s famous quote aptly describes
Britain’s
intentions towards European integration. In this essay I shall
attempt to show
that Britain’s relationship towards European integration has
been one of a
reluctant union, supporting free trade and mutually beneficial
cooperation,
while attempting to distance itself from economic and cultural
‘unity’ with
Europe, and I will finish by describing the effects on
Britain’s sovereignty
since joining the European Union . The term integration
can be understood, in
context of the European Union, as a situation of
unification between
individually sovereign nations into a collective body,
sufficient to make that
body a workable whole. A fully integrated European
Union could be seen to have
two possible outcomes. Either a)A Federalist or
‘stewed’ union, where all
member states give up their individual sovereignty
and form a superstate that
would be an economic world power, or b)A
Confederalist or ‘salad bar’ union,
where each member state has its own place
in a continental alliance, maintaining
national sovereignty and individually
contributing, through trade and
cooperation, to form a greater whole.2
Throughout the 1970’s and 80’s
Britain’s aspiration for a Europe unified
through trade and cooperation arose
from a desire to maintain complete
control and sovereignty over its own affairs.
The history of the British
Empire and its position as leader of the Commonwealth
in addition to its
history of beneficial association with the United States3,
left many in
Britain to believe that it could still maintain its prominent
global role and
historical status of world leader in political and economic
affairs. However,
the fact that Britain had to accept that there was a need for
trade barriers
to fall and new markets to open, coupled with the realisation
that it could
not exist successfully as a separate economically independent
entity. There
was the recognition by some that the only hope to attain these
goals was to
join the EC as "there was little scope for a United Kingdom
outside the
community, especially when the six (Germany, France, Italy,
Belgium,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands) had done so visibly better than
the UK4" Since
‘biting the bullet’ and gaining its membership to the then
called European
Community in 1973, Britain has vocally announced that it
would prefer the
‘salad bar’ version of integration to the ‘stewed’ version.
For example,
Margaret Thatcher spoke in Bruges in September 1988 and she
said she "sought
to lay down a vision of a Europe of sovereign states,
economically considerably
more liberal, deregulated and interdependent, but a
Europe based essentially on
cooperation rather than integration5". Within the
EU, Britain could work with
the other member nations to guarantee its
economic interests and attempt to
maintain its influence and continue to hold
sway in world affairs. Inside the EU
Britain would "be able to mould the
trading systems of Europe to its
advantage. As an outsider, it feared being
on the uninfluential receiving end of
decisions made by the combined power of
the original ‘six’6". The EU has
stated explicitly that its objectives are
"to lay the foundations of an ever
closer union among the peoples of Europe
... the constant improvement of the
living and working conditions of the
people, and the reduction of differences in
wealth between regions7". And so,
Britain has had to temper its view that
Europe could survive as a system
of completely independent yet cooperative
states in order to benefit from the
advantages, such as open markets and free
trade with other members, which is
offered by membership in the EU. Britains
decision to join the EU was a
considered one, to gain economic benefits and
submit to some loss of
individual control over social matters that concern all
members of the Union.
However It appears that they want to ‘have their cake
and eat it too’, by
gaining the economic benefits of union and not submitting
to any social
initiatives proposed by the EU. For Example in 1989 the all the
member states
adopted a Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of
Workers,
all that is except Britain, this charter was supposed to be a
fundamental
building block in the construction of Europe, yet Britain rejected
it saying
that it would disrupt its vision of free and open trade among the
member
states of the European Economic Community. This action is a demonstration
of
Britains attempts at avoiding the creation of the Federalist
European
Superstate. Sovereignty can be defined quite simply as the
supreme authority to
not only declare law but create it, deriving this power
from a populace who have
given up their personal sovereignty and power and
vested it in the sovereign8,
in the case of Britain the sovereign is the
Government, since the King passed
sovereignty to the parliament over time.
Britain’s ability to defend its
sovereignty has been effectively compromised
in the first instance by the very
act of joining the EU. The declared intent
of the EU, to create an ‘ever
closer union’, defines a certain path that the
member states must follow. The
path may be wide to allow a number of
different routes to the intended goal, but
in the end it restricts the
sovereign nations ability to choose its own course
of action both
economically and socially. Three specific instances of the
erosion of
Britains sovereignty are a)The European Communities Act 1972,
which
established a principle that European Law would always prevail over
British law
in the event of a conflict, effectively decreasing the supremacy
of Parliament.
b)The Single European Act 1988 (SEA) withered sovereignty
more by replacing
unanimity rule, that is, any nations power to veto, with
majority voting in
certain areas. therefore the power of the European
Parliament over Britain was
further enhanced. And finally c)The treaty of
Maastricht 1993 further empowered
the European Parliament, it can now block
new legislation but cannot itself
initiate new legislation. The European
court was also given the power to fine
member states9. These examples show
that Britains ability to defend its
sovereignty really relates to its ability
to negotiate within the framework of
the treaties that it signs, and also the
extent to which it can slow the process
of the erosion of its sovereignty
down. Britains actions concerning the Single
European Currency are a good
example of this. Because under a Single European
Currency Parliament
would lose sovereignty over its currency reserves, the
Central Bank
interest rate, and the amount of currency minted, since no Act
of
Parliament could be used to set these things. This sovereignty would
pass to the
European Central Bank10. Britain decided to hold itself out
of the introduction
of the Euro and see what reaction the new currency would
create on the world
market. It currently plans to join the monetary union in
2003. In conclusion,
Britains relationship to European integration since
1973 has been one that sees
this as a pragmatic necessity. Britain would
prefer a ‘salad bar’ Europe,
with sovereign and individual states adding
their own flavour to an economic
Confederate of European states, though
it will concede social integration when
it can not avoid it. The extent to
which Britain can defend its sovereignty, has
been shown to be limited, it
can negotiate to arrange beneficial agreements with
other members and really
delay the effects of union.
Bibliography
1)Almdal, Preben. Aspects
of European Integration Denmark, Odense University
Press, 1986.
2)Edwards, Geoffrey. ‘Britain and Europe’ in Jonathan Story
(ed) The New
Europe:Politics, Government and Economy since 1945. Oxford,
Blackwell
Publishers, 1993. 3)Stuart,N. New Britain Handbook on Europe,
New
Britain, 1996
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/stuart.n2/nbrit/nbhandeu1.html 4)Wise,
Mark.
& Gibb, Richard. Single Market to Social Europe:The European Community
in
the 1990’s . Essex, Longman Scientific and Technical, Longman GroupUK
Ltd.
5) The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations is licensed from Columbia
University
Press. Copyright ©
1993