Why Europe remains a dilemma
Few would have thought, back in 2010, that Europe would re-emerge as one of the central issues in British politics. But historically the European question has always had the capacity to surprise.
Britain’s relationship with the European Union remains a dilemma for three main reasons. First, the process of European integration since 1950 has been both messy and noble, at one and the same time. Messy because, far from being a federalist plot, most of Europe’s proud member states are reluctant to surrender national sovereignty – even when the logic is very strong. In Brussels every member state strongly defends its national interest; at times they fight like cats and dogs. But the nobility of the integration process is that they now do this in Brussels conference rooms, not across the bloody battlefields of the Somme and Passchendaele. Yet there is idealism as well: our continental partners recognise that somehow they have to solve problems together. They often complain about the EU’s supranational institutions, but accept them as guardians of the common European interest. Too much of the British polity finds patient compromise and sovereignty-pooling just too difficult.
Second, powerfully held myths stand in the way of Britain accepting the idea of a united Europe. In the immediate postwar world, the ‘price of victory’ was the mindset that asked why Britain should work with ‘Europe’, when ‘standing alone’ we defeated Hitler. On the political left, the ‘Attlee’ myth of nation-state social democracy, achieved through Westminster majorities, retains a powerful hold, bolstered by a lingering belief in Britain’s unique capacity for moral leadership in the world. This is despite growing economic interdependence, Britain’s declining relative power, and the clear American view that London will only count in Washington if we count in Europe too. On the right, the Thatcherite myth of ‘offshore Britain’, a deregulated paradise freed from the EU’s social rules, consumer protections and environmental ambitions exerts its dangerous sway.
Third, the European question has divided parties with baleful consequences for Labour in the 1970s and the Tories in the 1990s. As I describe in my new book, The Europe Dilemma: Britain and the Drama of EU Integration, it is fertile ground for intra-party manoeuvring which explains what I call ‘Blair’s failure’ in his ambition once and for all to end British semi-detachedness, and ‘Cameron’s gamble’ on a risky referendum which he has not the faintest idea how he intends to win.
Yet the only meaningful progressive project for Britain must have Europe as one of its core commitments: more than support for jobs in a single market – rather, a full recognition that only through our membership of the EU, and the global clout it potentially offers, can politics regain the sovereignty it has lost to anonymous global forces. The progressive British left needs to wake up to this reality. In my book I attempt to sketch out a progressive programme of EU reform that can make social democrats credible reshapers of capitalism and better protect our interests and values in a world where otherwise we face steady marginalisation.
———————————————————
Roger Liddle is a member of the House of Lords and chair of Policy Network
———————————————————
Mr Liddle’s hard back book [@55quid] is said to be ‘essential reading for anyone interested in the future of British and European politics’ – I am interested in the politics of Europe but I shall have to wait for the soft back [@£15] when its available at my local community Library. Whoops! That’s no good, they just closed my Library. Does the [well-advertised in this article above] book give any hard facts on how many Brits’ are currently employed ‘abroad’ in Europe? Is it 3 million or 4 million British passport holders working in the European Community States? These facts are hard to come by from your local DWP and ONS on-line help page.
I am inclined to agree with Andrew Mitchell of Plebgate fame when he compares the UN with the EU. In the New Statesman he said that every time he goes to the UN he emerges full of enthusiasm whereas when he goes to the EU he emerges full of annoyance. I can believe him because 80% of the members of the EU joined in order to get subsidies for their own country whereas there are no subsidies from the UN. It is a question of self interest and until it stops, or is stopped by Germany and the EU Commission, it will stymie any sensible progress. I doubt if any progress will be made in the next 10 years so we should just sit back and wait for the likes of Poland and Romania and their like to get used to getting back only as much as they put in.