Some marriages are love matches, others are marriages of convenience. And, in some parts of the world, there are arranged marriages. These are not necessarily any less strong and lasting than the others: divorces are almost as common nowadays as weddings, being to marriages what the waves of refugees are increasingly becoming to the Mediterranean. Break-ups do not generally go smoothly, creating resentment, anger, bitterness, suffering and rancour.
The “marriage” of the United Kingdom to communitarian Europe has not been a love match, far from it. It was a coming together driven, on both sides of the Channel, by interest - in particular, in the minds of the British who, having been approached by Jean Monnet just after the Schuman Declaration, immediately decided to turn their backs on this project, much too supranational to their taste. They stuck with their view as the treaties of Rome were being drafted, forming the European Free Trade Association in 1960 as an alternative to the three Communities. The British, however, are nothing if not pragmatists, never letting their ego get in the way of what is in their interest and they very quickly realised their counter-project would mean that their economic and trade interests would be less-well served than (giving the impression of) a U-turn. After being twice rebuffed by General de Gaulle, they were successful in their third attempt and, in 1973, the six members threw open the doors of the “club”, delighted to be welcoming into their ranks a new power, adding further credibility to the European project. They did not realise it then - and their successors hypocritically still pretend not to see it - that their partner, known to all before as “Perfidious Albion” had only agreed to conform to Europe's requirements with the firm intention of being a Trojan horse!
Ferdinando Riccardi was perfectly correct to open one of his Look Behind the News with a quote from federalist Jean-Guy Giraud, that the historic position of a country must not be confused with the positions of his transient leaders “except, perhaps, in the case of the United Kingdom”. Some will no doubt take the view that, in the context of European construction, the same reticence may be seen in other capitals - Paris, for example, where the shadow of General de Gaulle continues to obscure the heritage of Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet. Be that as it may, reticence can be clearly seen in a country where this statement, made in the Commons, remains true today: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. No, those are not the words of David Cameron. They belong to one of his distant predecessors in Downing Street, Lord Palmerston. The date was 1 March 1848, in the days of the splendour of the Empire long before it had to become the Commonwealth. Yes, it was another time but some interests are unchanging, such as the City on which Cameron negotiated protection with his allies of the moment, meeting within that inner sanctum which bears the name of European Council - presumably because “Congress of Vienna” had already been taken.
It is, of course, perfectly right and proper for each state to defend its interests. Nonetheless, within the context of building Europe, this should be in full acceptance of the fact that individual interest can no longer prevail over common European interest. The British have never really accepted this. Once again, they are not alone: the French, too, having found it very difficult to shed their empire and don the straitjacket of the Europe that some wanted to create. In the East, now, other political leaders struggle to accept an apparent loss of sovereignty, failing to see that, in fact, pooled sovereignty, properly understood and implemented in full, allows sovereignty to flourish. However, none have sought more than the British to curb the constraints of the marriage: at the start, the contract was, for everyone, a community reduced to shared interests; very quickly, they tried to reduce it to the body of Community legislation by trying as far as possible to thwart any progress other than to do with markets. Unable to be successful every time, they loaded opt-out upon opt-out, chipping away at the marriage.
Should this be held against them? No! And the reason is that responsibility for accepting this litany of exemptions falls on their partners who have never really had the will to stand up and firmly oppose the liberties that the United Kingdom was trying to take. That was to forget that, in his Memoires, Jean Monnet issued this warning: “Experience has shown me that it is not good for the English (sic) to be granted special conditions and a special status in their relations with others, or even for them to hope that any such will be granted. However, you can expect a great deal of them if you are unyielding in offering the opportunity to cooperate as equals. If you remain firm in your resolve, the chances are high that, sooner or later, they will come round and will become partners in the full sense of the term”. The heads of state and government of the last forty years bear a heavy responsibility for not taking heed of this advice! Michel Theys