Yesterday I wrote that the big mistake unionists made was BREXIT.
Before looking at BREXIT it is necessary to look at the evolution of the Common Market thru various manifestations to the the European Union.
It was born in the post World War Two years, initially as a co-operation between Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands. and forming the Common Market with France, Italy and Germany…the original Six.
What did those Six have in common? …western European nations that were devastated by the War. And all members of NATO.
Britain, Ireland and Denmark spent most of the 1960s applying to join. French President de Gaulle had a healthy animosity towards the British. Famously he said “Non!” The feeling at the time articulated by my late father was that Britain would never join a club that it could not rule.
Britainnia may have ruled the waves…But Britain waives the rules.
And this is a genuine point. Britain, Denmark …and Belgium, Netherlands, France, Italy and Germany had all lost their empires and needed new markets. Luxembourg and Ireland had no empires to lose. Britain had a self image of defending Europe from barbarism when Europe was divided between fascist Germany and Italy and “impotence” in face of fascism.
Of course Britain’s self image has no place for Americans and Russians, especially that those countries won the war.
A key part of the European project was the re-distribution of wealth which British conservatives could tolerate as long as wealth was also created. In any case the re-distribution meant seven countries giving wealth to Ireland and Italy to bring them up a common European standard.
But then…there were Ten…Greece. Hardly an empire in modern terms but on the southern fringe of Europe and no land border with any other member. Why Greece? Well it was perceived that Greece had just emerged from a fascist military junta and needed the backing of mainstream Europe to foster Democracy and of course Greece replaced Ireland as the poorest country in the Bloc and needed economic help.
And then…there were Twelve. Spain and Portugal. Why? Well they also were also emerging from the fascism of Franco and Salazar. And former imperial powers. More “poor countries”. And more attempts to level up Europe.
And then… there was Fifteen. Enter Austria, Finland and Sweden. All three prosperous and all three neutral, meaning that there was new dimension as Europe expanded.
Essentially there was a two tier Europe. Most countries could be said to be contributors to the Budget and four were beneficiaries…Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal.
In 2004…Europe really over-reached itself. I said so at the time. Emboldened by the collapse of the Soviet Bloc. Ten more countries….Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania had been part of the USSR. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary had all been part of the Soviet Bloc, Slovenia part of the old Yugoslavia and Cyprus and Malta both former British colonies.
Re-distribution….well Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal had all benefitted enough for years to become net contributors to the Budget rather than beneficiaries. It is a bit like the Monty Python sketch where the masked highwayman “Dennis Moore” (John Cleese) robbed from the rich and gave to the poor…but then had to rob from the poor to give to the rich.
But I still think the expansion from 15 to 25 countries made Europe difficult to co-ordinate. We should not think of the newcomers as a single entity. Estonia and Latvia might have been Russian but easily fitted the Scandanavian model, Lithuania slightly more difficult. Czech Republic had good democratic tendencies but Poland, Slovakia and certainly Hungary were a mixed bag. Hungary is still the bad boy with a dictator not really signed up to the great project and still an ally of Russia.
Slovenia escaped easily from Yugoslavia and is democratic and Malta and Cyprus seem semi detached from mainland Europe.
Two tier….economically and politically and made worse by Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia joining.
The original Six/Nine were mainstream western Europe, democracies, economically viable, and Christian or post-Christian (Catholic and Protestant). The accession of three countries newly democratic and in one case (Greece) Orthodox moved the dial and three neutral countries moved the dial again.
A key part of the European project is Freedom of Movement.
There was always free movement between Britain and Ireland. Ireland was after all part of the United Kingdom until independence. But Freedom of Movement from Ireland to Britain included “nice” people like doctors and nurses and “not so nice people” like labourers and navvies.
And just how much is Freedom of Movement real if North London rental properties excluded “Blacks, Irish and Dogs”. In European terms, the only people from mainland Europe looking for work in England were the Irish.
And no real problem with western European nations from Finland to Greece and from Sweden to Portugal. At worst the occasional Europeans from France, Spain and Italy brought out xenophobia. Any animosity to foreigners was not actually racist….and besides, not many Europeans wanted or needed to work in Britain.
Exceptionalism?
It is a word we only associate with United States. But maybe it is appropriate here in the context of Britain as a more polite word than “Imperialism”. It is a “legacy” word…born of isolation and a history of military victories. In this context, Britain sees itself as superior to those nations who were so weak that they allowed themselves to be colonised and also superior to those empires (France and Spain for example) who were defeated by their former subjects.
Nations who consider themselves exceptional do not feel bound by rules. Well…..maybe that is unfair. Britain (in this case…England) is actually divided between people who carry a certain guilt and shame about its imperial past and people who have a defiant pride in it all.
But Britain entered the Common Market with only economic motives. There was no mission to unite Europe politically and Britain was constantly divided between economic interest and the (admittedly) sneaky project to form a single European entity.
Euro-sceptics…a hard core of mostly Conservative politicians resented “Europe”. Aided and abetted by powerful media interests, it hopped on a bandwagon of anti European rhetoric. The good British “pint” (of beer) would be replaced by a litre. Good old fashioned pounds, ounces would be replaced by kilograms. Miles replaced by kilometres. And so on. Not a lot really happened.
The possibility of a joint European currency…the Euro eventually introduced in 2002 was maybe the defining moment.
The British attitude to foreigners is interesting and the changing nature of Europe saw Britain move from lazy stereotyping thru xenophobia to downright racism.
The British could tolerate the Irish…and happy enough that the Dutch, Germans, Danes and Swedes did not want to move to Britain to take advantage of Freedom of Movement, the right of every European citizen to live in any other European nation. Just like someone from Illinois has a right to live in Texas or someone from Ohio has the right to live in Georgia.
The problem arose when folks from Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia…and especially Romania and Bulgaria used their new freedoms to exercise their right to live and work in Britain.
At a pinch, Dutch, Germans, Danes, Swedes and even the Irish LOOK like the British. Maybe even SOUND like the British…but the migrants from southern and eastern Europe…not so much.
Freedom of Movement within Europe works pretty well until people actually decide to exercise their freedom to move.
Conservative Party leaders always had malcontent Euro sceptic backbenchers. David Cameron first elected Prime Minister in 2010 sought re-election in 2015 needed to find a way to deal with the toxic euro-scepticism in his own party.
If elected in 2015, Cameron promised to re-negotiate the relationship with Brussels. He would make a great show of wringing concessions and then have a one-off Referendum …a decision to stay in or leave the European Union.
What could possibly go wrong?
TO BE CONTINUED
Keeping An Eye On the Czar of Russia 