During the 2015 general election, Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that voters would have a say on Britain’s future relationship with the European Union by the end of 2017. This relationship, fraught with misunderstandings and disagreements, has been tumultuous and divisive at the best of times.
On one hand, successive British governments have criticised the EU’s modus operandi; its institutional set up, its democratic deficit and its complex decision making process. On the other hand, various European governments are exasperated at Britain’s perceived intransigence and insularity. Some suggest that this is best exemplified in the apocryphal newspaper headline: “Fog in the channel, continent cut off.”
The European Economic Community, the precursor of the modern-day European Union, came into being in post-war Europe. This political project seemed to be the best guarantee against future open conflict. As the British Government began re-evaluating its international role, it turned towards Europe. Right from the start, consensus was hard to achieve.
The Labour Party was initially sceptical over membership in the EEC. In the 1962 Labour Party conference, the then-leader, Hugh Gaitskell, had made an impassioned appeal to conference delegates. He warned that EEC membership would turn Britain into a “province of Europe” which, he said, would mark the end of a “thousand years of history”.
The Conservative Party warmed up to the idea of membership. In 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan assigned the task of negotiating future EEC membership to Edward Heath. Membership was delayed by President de Gaulle’s persistent veto.
As Prime Minister, Heath would successfully oversee Britain’s accession into the European Economic Community in 1973 – perhaps the only significant achievement in an otherwise pitiful political career marked by repeated failures.
However, the electorate remained divided. The Labour Party, in its manifesto for the February 1974 election, pledged that it would renegotiate Britain’s terms of membership and subsequently hold a referendum. It reiterated this in its manifesto for the October 1974 election.
In the event, the changes to the terms were merely cosmetic and senior figures from both parties supported continued EU membership. In the 1975 referendum the “yes” side won with 67 per cent of the vote.
Some principles, such as the free movement of people, are non-negotiable
One of the key supporters of the ‘yes’ vote was Margaret Thatcher whose later attitude to the European project would divide the Conservative Party into two camps. While Mr Heath adopted a moderate pro-European approach which favoured further integration with Europe, Thatcher would later come to view this as anathema.
Both leaders increasingly relied on their perception of Europe borne out of their own personal wartime memories.
Mr Heath experienced the horrors of war while serving in the British Army in the North-West Europe Campaign. He viewed this European project as a necessary prerequisite to peace.
Thatcher was more sceptical. In a speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, she argued that “the Community is not an end in itself” and expressed suspicion at it being “ossified by endless regulation” or modified “according to the dictates of some abstract intellectual concept”.
The Conservative Party has since been dogged with infighting over the question of Europe. It was one of the issues which led to Thatcher’s untimely resignation, it was a constant thorn-in-the-side of the Major government and it haunted the party in its post-Major years.
David Cameron is the first Conservative Prime Minister who seems willing to address the question head-on through a referendum. Although he pledged to support continued EU membership within a reformed Union, the road ahead may be just as problematic and the upcoming referendum and its aftermath is likely to seal his political legacy.
His proposed reforms have yet to be quantified and agreed upon by all the 27 EU member states. Doing so will require a skilful balancing act for they must be palatable to the other EU partners and significant enough to be taken seriously by voters. Some principles, such as the free movement of people, are non-negotiable and Cameron is likely to find it hard to reach a settlement on some issues.
There are still a number of conflicting reports over the short-term and the long-term effects of a potential Brexit.
Some outcomes are difficult to predict because no concrete proposals have been tabled so far.
The proposed referendum might be the catalyst for other similar electoral exercises around Europe. As disenchantment with some aspects of the European project increases, a number of political actors within EU member states might view such referenda as a viable option.
These developments may lead to a re-orienting of the EU.
In an interview with CNBC, the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon explained that a Brexit does not necessarily tally with the political aspirations of Scotland and other constituent-nations of the United Kingdom. This could trigger off another referendum on Scottish independence. The result might alter the constitutional makeup of the UK.
The international reaction to the proposed referendum was mixed. Several countries have expressed their wish for Britain to remain a member of the EU. Others have been blunter, with President François Hollande warning that an “a la carte Europe” is not an option.
Cooperation from Britain’s counterparts in Europe is just as crucial as support from voters at home. Polls indicate that support for Britain’s continued membership has a narrow advantage over support for Brexit.
However, all this may change as Cameron attempts to get some backing for his proposals.
andre.deb@gmail.com