Not choosing means just accepting. “The British problem”, the possibility of creating a politically united and autonomous Europe with the participation of the United Kingdom, continues to influence the very nature of the European Union, its ambitions and development (see this section yesterday). I'm not one of those who believe that the differences of attitude and orientations on the two sides of the Channel justify an ethical or political assessment. One position is not superior to the other. The interests, objectives, mentalities and traditions differ, with the result that we do not share the same concept of Europe. The British have the right to defend their concept and their interests. I simply believe that after two decades of cohabitation, it is apparent that the two concepts are irreconcilable and that a choice has to be made. Tony Blair has tried his best to be conciliatory and has failed. In the future, not making a choice means in practice accepting the gradual affirmation of inter-governmental cooperation and renouncing the goal of a politically united Europe represented in the world as an autonomous entity. This observation, I repeat, does not imply any political judgement.
It also has to be recognised that British reservations about conferring Community institutions with common political management has never meant a refusal to participate in European efforts supporting less developed Member States. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is no more restrictive than his colleagues, all finance ministers scrupulously scrutinise the balance of their national coffers and a certain egoism in this point of view is widely shared.
In a more general sense, no-one is arguing against the qualities of Great Britain. The country taught continental countries about freedom, democracy and individual rights. One commentator (a former ambassador), Sergio Romano, summed up the situation thus: British civilisation represents “an extraordinary combination of freedom, fantasy, intelligence and traditions: what a shame that with such a fascinating country we can't create Europe!”
Here are some factors that can contribute to understanding the reasons for this impossibility.
Orientations from the British parliament. Firstly, I'll mention the result of the meetings Pierre Lequiller, the president of the delegation of the French National Assembly for European Affairs, had last week in London with parliamentarians and other British figures on prospects for the draft Constitutional Treaty. His report has been published by the National Assembly.
After having learned that the United Kingdom was “relieved” by the “no” votes on the Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands, Mr Lequiller explains, “The UK considers that the draft constitution is dead; it is illusory to think that a new agreement can be reached on such an ambitious text. However, with the exception of the representative from the Conservative Party, who would not hesitate revising the Community acquis, the other figures met are not opposed to limited institutional amendments that would allow for an enlarged EU to function better. Ways forward were outlined by Mr Charles Grant, director of the think tank 'The Centre for European Reform', who will be proposing a mini-treaty to the Labour Party, which in all likelihood would be ratified in parliament”. The third part of the current constitutional project would be omitted, as well as the second (the Charter of Fundamental Rights) “which poses a number of legal problems and includes social clauses that appear to go too far. The first part would not be accepted in its entirety but might include amendments to the existing treaties, including: the stable presidency of the European Council, rule on double majority (States and people), the European minister for foreign affairs and the European external action service. The European Commission would still consist of one Commissioner per Member State, to respond to the demands of new arrivals. No extension of European competencies or majority decision-making is planned”. Ratification of such a mini-treaty could be swift, even before the departure of Tony Blair.
At the same time, British parliamentarians consider that Europe can move forward according to the orientations agreed on at the informal European summit of Hampton Court, notably the European energy strategy and the fight against terrorism. According to Charles Grant, quoted above, “the British believe that the Franco-German concept of a political Europe has had its day” and that the French and British have to continue to work together “on the energy dossier, research and innovation, defence and Iran”.
There we have it, the British parliament clearly has an inter-governmental cooperation programme in sight. Mr Lequiller also met the Minister-Delegate for European Affairs, Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair's European affairs advisor, Kim Darroch.
An attitude from way back. My second element of reflection is of a rather historic character. I get the impression that over the years, and with the rise of a new political class in Europe, that the foundations of the British attitude to the unity of Europe have been forgotten or deformed. We often quote declarations by Winston Churchill in 1945 and 1946, in The Hague and Zurich, in favour of a “European group that creates the impression of a wider patriotism and a common citizenship of the distraught peoples of this turbulent and powerful continent”. What is forgotten is that that the invitation to unite was addressed to the countries on the continent; the participation of Great Britain was not even taken into consideration by Churchill. In the western world, redesigned in the face of the Soviet block, he believed that there should have been three entities: the Unites States of America, a united continental Europe and the Commonwealth of Great Britain, Canada, India, Australia etc.
General de Gaulle's position, No. 4509/4510 of the “Documentation française”, quotes the following sentences from the May 1967 press conference, when the British were making their second request for EEC accession: “the United Kingdom can never join the Six until it has accomplished a profound economic and political transformation; if Great Britain were one day to achieve this, how France's welcome for such an historic conversion would be so heartfelt!” This passage by de Gaulle is quoted in Pierre Pignot's book “Les Anglais confrontés à la politique agricole commune” (The British Confronted by the Common Agricultural Policy). I'm referring to this book because it is the result of direction collaboration with Sicco Mansholt, father of the CAP and its first reforms, the former vice president and president of the European Commission and because he quotes some texts that are not that easy to access, such as the affirmation made by John Rowlands Stanley at the end of the 19 century, “The plains of North America, Russia, our fields of wheat! Canada, the Baltic countries, our forests. Australia contains our sheep rearing stations, America our herds of cattle etc”. The origins of the foodstuffs quoted have changed a little but the principle remains the same. It is the concept that explains the difficulties (and the occasionally incredible compromises) in the accession negotiations. The current British orientation in favour of demolishing the CAP and opening up the EU's borders to agricultural products of the whole world comes from way back and nothing would appear to suggest that the British can change tack.
The concept of the “Iron Lady”. The arrival of Mrs Thatcher into power consolidated the traditional British orientation and her “memoirs” confirm this at length. Her starting point was opposition to the “creation of blocks of closely linked countries that would oppose a much vaster internationalism”. The thrust of her action consisted in obtaining a rebate on the British contributions to the Community budget and creating obstacles to the projects of Jacques Delors, who aimed to create or consolidate common policies and Community instruments to help tackle the much greater market without borders. Mrs Thatcher summed up her objects as, “a large Europe, stretching perhaps to the Urals and certainly including the new Europe on the other side of the Atlantic with its sense of history and culture. In economic terms, only a genuinely global approach would work”. In keeping with this vision, she supported the American project of reinforcing the economic aspects of NATO, “by suggesting that the Atlantic Alliance that would unite Europe with the North American free-trade zone (USA and Canada) be given a commercial dimension”.
After Mrs Thatcher's departure, the United Kingdom has experienced a number of governments that proved to be more flexible with regard to Europe, up until the generous but unfortunately unproductive attempt made by Tony Blair to bring his country closer to the continent. At the moment, according to the words used by Philippe de Schoutheete, “British public opinion is rather more sceptical about European issues than when Tony Blair got into power”. Gordon Brown (who's been announced as the future prime minister), has returned to exactly the same positions as Mrs Thatcher, by rejecting the hypothesis of a Europe that would constitute an intermediate entity between the nation state and the rest of the world.
Pro-European forces very thin on the ground. It is true that at the same time some British pro-European forces have organised themselves better and are taking action. Three European parliamentarians of British nationality belonging to different political groups, British Liberal Democrat, Andrew Duff, Labour Party member, Richard Corbett and the Conservative, Christopher Beazley, set up a group last spring for taking action in favour of fostering closer ties with their country and the EU (similar to what had been done at Westminster). Other groups are pursuing the same objectives. But for the time being they don't have much influence.
(F.R.)