UE ANLA501V- Civilisation économique

WAVES OF ENLARGEMENT

1951 (ECSC) AND 1957 (EEC): France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands.

1973: UK, Ireland, Denmark.

1981: Greece.

1986: Spain, Portugal.

1995: Austria, Finland, Sweden. Norway.

2004: Cyprus, Czech Rep., Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lituana, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia.

2007: Rumania, Bulgaria.

2013: Croatia.

2018: Brexit.

UK GOVERNMENTS

1945: Clement Attlee defeats Winston Churchill: independence of India, Pakistan, and more.

1950: Attlee wins a slight majority over Churchill: Attlee followed the three circles theory according
to which Britain had to remain one of the main powers along with Europe and the US.

1951: Churchill defeats Attlee: Britain denies the treaties of Paris (51, 52).

1955 + 59: Conservatives:

- Britain denies the Treaties of Rome (57)

- Britain creates the EFTA (European Free Trade Association) in 1960 for those not accepted
by the EEC or not willing to join it. It was pretty much a failure.
- Britain applies in 1963 to join the EEC, De Gaulle votoed.

1964 + 66: Labour: Britain applies in 1967 to join the EEC, De Gaulle votoed.

CRISIS START: 1970: Edward Heath (conservative): After the death of De Gaulle, in 1973 finally joins
the EEC.

1974: Labour

1979 + 1983 + 1987: Thatcher. She got the economics back from the crisis.

1992: Conservative John Major

1997+2001+2005: Labour Tony Blair: Gordon Brown 2007-2010
2010+2015: Conservative David Cameron: Theresa May 2016-

2017: Conservative Theresa May

INITIAL DRIVING FORCES OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION

1) AFTER WORLD WAR II

After the world war the aim was to reinstaure peace, and not to repeat the mistakes of the Treaty
of Versailles (1919). Germany had been humiliated and impoverished. France blamed Gemany and
imposed them excessive reparations (132 million gold marks = 33 milliards de dollars); German
economy was bled dry. This paid the way to the Nazi Party (predicted by Keynes*).

Britain was particullarly active in limiting French demands. France wanted to absorbe Rhineland and
Soarland (German industrial regions), but Britain opposed it.

 Britains European positioning of the WW2: always support the weaker european nation: to
prevent the emergence of a European Giant.

In 1947, most western European powers adopted the Marshall Plan (1947): The US loaning money
to this countries to restore their economic stability; AND of course establishing a market for
American goods. As well as limiting the Russian communism influence in Europe.

To distribute the money of the Marshall Plan loan, European countries found a way through The
Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) (1948): the earliest OCDE

During the negotiations they were major disagreements between the leaders: France advocated
and independent institution (for the OEEC), willing to separate it from the national governments.
Britain oppossed, advocating for the total dependence on state’s governments.

Two conflicting approaches: intergovernmentalism (a form of international cooperation between

two or more state governements in which participating states do not grant powers to supranational
institutions) vs. supranationalism (participating stakes give up power or influence to an institution
that transcends national boundaries or governments.

 From this debate, the concept of “national soverignity” went at stake.

The wave of idealism (pulling together the European countries)

It emerged to fight united against Nazism. Most of the countries had settle a series of egalitarian
measures, adopting a mixed economy leading to social reforms. A kind of standarization of
economic policies rose in Europe, without loosing their main charcteristics but diminished the gap.
The Foundig Fathers of European integration had lots of ideas in common and certain affinity: they
all subscribed to forms of Christian Democracy. This was the case of Alcide de Gaspei, Jean Monet,
Robert Schuman and Winston Churchill.

2) COLD WAR

After the WW1, the US had opted to isolationism (refuse to intervene in other countries). After the
WW2 he did the exact opposite, full interventionism on external affaires (the Marshall Plan)

Germany was excluded from the League of Nations (intergouvernamental organisation to promote
peace after WW1).

The US withdrew (retracted). *Schuman*. The US intervened for economic reasons but also to cut
the expansion of communism. As the loaner, it planned to establish their market capitalist model,
instead of the Societ block communist one. This also explains why the US sought to create the United
Europe on the military level: Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union and so they advocated for
rearmament. The US wanted a new army to protect Western Europe (the Iron Curtain)

= Europe reconstructed by the US opposition to the Societ Block.

Winston Churchill pro-european advocate:

He was an upper-class conservative, leader of the WW2. He was prime minister in two periods:
1940-1945 and 1951-1955.

He was one of the more enthusiastic of the European integration (anti-communism). He supported
of the United Europe Movement British group to pressure the integration. His name symbolised
struggle and survival but also victory (“hero” of the 2WW).

On October 9th 1948, during a Conservative Mass Meeting, Churchill advocated for United Europe
in cooperation with the two other big forces: his Three Circles theory (pg 21)

On that date he was speaking as the leader of the conservative opposition.

The leader of British Conservatives and Britain wanted unity upon Germany and Europe to create
an effective deffence of Western Europe, facing the Soviet Bloc and for this, a non-socialist United
Europe was needed. (The US Marshall Plan strategy).

 The Berlin blocade took place in June 1948, 3 months before his speech was delivered. The
threat of Natzi Germani had been replaced by the threat of communism. Therefore, his
speech was delivered in a context of the Cold War.

Churchill recalls their Imperial Preference but advocates for the union of the three circles. The
British Commonwealth and Empire, the English-speaking world (Canada, the US and more) and the
United Europe becoming allies will mean the undefeatable feature of the three parties and so, of
capitalism, the defeat of communism.
 3) THE FIRSTS ATTEMPTS

1ST ONE: The Council of Europe

It created 2 institutions:

- Comitee of Ministers: for decisions to be taken, unanimity was needed, so any was
approved.
- Consultative Assembly: could issue recommendations.

Result of the Hague Congress in 1948 (private function). All the pro-European organizations got
together and created the council. The objectives of this congress were very ambitious: it wanted to
create a Consultative Assembly to enact political and economic integration.

Major oppositions between France and Britain on the organization of this consultative assembly:

 Britain wanted delegates to be appointed by national governments (executive)

 France (and the Benelux) wanted delegates to be choosen by national parliaments
(legislative).
 Question of state soverignity. Britain was concerned on the lost of this national soverignity,
it oppossed the appointment by parliament.

Eventually they got to a consensus: every country does what it wants. Because of this, there was
too much disagreement on the Council, which was finally a failure.

The Schuman plan

German Foreign Minister in France from 1948 to 1952. He is considered as one of the Founding
Fathers of the new European Institution.

His Declaration of May 9th, 1950 (Pg 23): made a year before the signature of the first Treaties of
Paris instituting the ECSC and later in 1952 the EDC.

CONTEXT: The situation in Europe was still fragile with the Soviet bloc on the east threatening to
expand west world and France fearing a German attack. Schuman as Foreign Minister intended to
promote long-term peace and Europe's strength.

PROPOSAL: new supranational organization to control the production of coal and steel in Europe.
The long term being securing peace on the European continent a few years after the end of the
WWII. He also insisted on the need of a future common market to ensure growth and economic
stability.

How RS did outlined the first supranational authority in history?

 The reasons : World Peace

 - Tense international environment: begining of the Cold War -> European federation as the
entrusted of world’s preservation of peace.
- Low living standards, difficult economic situation after WW2
- Rivality between France and Germany

 The measures which should be adopted: new supranational power for pooling of coal and
steel from the union members:

- Instauration of a High Authority: delegation of the state’s power to: tasks

o Modernization of production and improvement of its quality: the solidarity of
production will “make any war between France and Germany materially
impossible”
o Supply coal and steal on identical terms
o Promoting better living conditions for workers

 Economic development
 Economic unification: Opening the foundation to all countries interested on taking
part. Even the African continent, considered as a “leaven for a wider community”.
o Equating through compensation of machinery
o Elimination of customs duty

= ensuring expansion of production and the fusion of markets.

RS not only specified the after-war and economic problems and their possible solutions , but also
adds even how the negotiations should be handled, showing his real intention of cooperating
among the countries interested on the matter.

EDWARD HEATH AND THE SCHUMAN PLAN (Speech 1950, pg 26)

Heath was a British conservative member in parliement, he became the conservative leader then
prime minister (1970-1974). He served during the Whitsun Recess (period in wich the British
members did not debate on the parliament so they had the time to prepare other matters =
European community integration)

The UK did no support the Schuman plan nor the supranational aim but still wanted to negociatiate.
In contrast, Heath was a strong supporter of the Schuman Plan and appealed the Labour
government to participate. He was pro-European but not because of ideology but because of
necessity and interest. As well he has this idea of “Britain should enter Europe and lead Europe”

The text is a speech by the then member of parliament (MP) a little after Robert Schuman released
the Schuman Plan. The speech is about EH’s opposition to the then PM’s European policy aiming not
to join the Plan. As a member of the Tories, he though it was better for Britain to participate to the
future ECSC for the shake of securing peace, their influence and to improve their economic situation.
Even though, they would not benefit in economic terms.
This speech can be read as one of his first attempts to get Britain more involved in European matters.
He finally will succeed to join Britain to the EEC in 1973.

The aim of the ECSC was economic and here party politics take a concrete form: the Labour Party
was firstly opposed to the Schuman plan. Heath accuses the Chancellor Exchequer of the Labour
Party (Stafford Crics serving Attlee). Attlee and his governement opposed the Schuman plan for
several reasons: coal was nationalized, steal was about to follow and Britain produced more of both
than France and Germany put together. But in the social landscape, it was paradoxical to see Attlee
opposing to the Schuman Plan while the paper was advocating for the improvement of worker’s
living conditions.

To convince his audiences in the House of Commons, he refers to the three circle theory designed
by Winston Churchill. This way, he proves that the conservative party was still pretty much under
the influence of Churchill. The three circles had somehow shifted the initial fear was that European
integration was incompatible with the imperial preferences. Even though, Heath opposes Churchill’s
neutral position and advocates for taking the risk of joining the organization. What he attends to do
in the speech is to establish that European integration through the Schuman plan was in no way
incompatible with Britain’s three circles of influence, or in other words, with British interests
(economic interests).

Europe not by choice but necessity: He insists too much in the special relation with the US and the
colonies (Africa). Since the the 40’s, Britain was loosing ground on colonial matters, but still wanted
to cling on its imperial glory. The UN was about to start the decolonization movement, and in order
to preserve the British influence, joining Europe could help.

Europe could be a new market for coal and steel, insuring income to their devasted economy of the
time.

His German problem point of view: he believed Germany was determined to correct the harm it did
to other nations by integrating the peaceful project, but besides this, he feared that Germany would
get stronger again economically and technically. Heath’s position shows how Tories wanted to
restablish the dialogue with Germany as a means of control over the country (ensure Germany
would not colonise in Africa). Meanwhile, the Labour government still defended the after-WW1
position: punishment.

Heath advocates Britain to promote peace in Europe and further. As it was one of the dominant
nations, the country had to participate.

a) The Treaties of Paris (ECSC 51 + EDC 57):

Context: Franch-German long-standing opposition: enemies on WW1 and WW2.

After WW1, Germany underwent an economic declive for war reparations. (JM Keynes wrote on
Economic Consequences of the Peace*). This hard moment of his history saw the rise of nationalism,
leading to a horrible dictatorship.
The failure of agreements between the countries was the origin of the Treaties of Paris.

The Treaties:

- ECSC 1951 (European Coal and Steel community) consisted in putting together the main energy
ressources on that moment, the production of coal and steel, in order to help reconstructing the
countries industries after the 2WW. It was the first suprantional body in charge of regulations which
relied on the 6 member’s agreement to delegate part of their economic sovereignity to the new
institution. The objectives were the rationalisation of production of energy and preventing its use
in the military sector (mainly Germany prevention). It was a goal because it kept peace, specially
between France and Germany.

- EDC 1952 (European Defence Community) = THE TREATIES OF PARIS were signed by the 6 ECSC
memebers, the proposal of René Pleven, to face the "German problem".

While the UK and mostly the US advocated for cooperation between France and Germany and
rearmament in order to defend from the east countries (Cold War), France feared the german new
army. Germany offered a sort of “protection zone” in front of Rusia.

As a result, The Pleven Plan first document enormely discriminated the country and it did'nt even
achieve the objective of providing sufficient supranational authority to a European army.
Negociations led to the EDC treaty, where discriminative proposals were rejected and an agreement
was attempt: the creation of a Board of Commissioners in responsability of the military. Even though
the EDC treaty was signed, the European Army never saw the light of day.

What is the "German problem"? The text says: "that post-war Germany would employ its regained
industrial strenghts as a threat to French autonomy, both in economic and security terms". Difficult
to get together past enemies as new allies.

b) The Treaties of Rome (EEC + EUROAATOM 57) (pg 10)

Definitions of the treaties and the member's implications:

On 1957, two treaties were signed: the EEC (European Economic Community) and the Euroatom
(Community in Atomic Energy) afterwards.

The Euroatom promoted the peaceful use of atomic energy and the development of research to
replace fossil fuels on the long term.

The EEC accelarated the post-war trend towards greater economic integration, but not only. The
backstage was the perceived inferiority (particularly french) comparing Europe to the Soviet bloc
and the non-stopping growth of the US industry. Europe wanted to let new member states benefit
from all the advantages of a common system to pursue economic growth and stability as a group.
The Treaty itself standed up for the freedom of movement for persons, services and capital. The
establishment of a common market would promote economic activity but not only, including more
European countries (broader political project) to counter their adversaries.

In practice, they intended to work on tariffs (for the commun market), customs union (¿), freedom
of movement for workers, creation of the CAP (to sustain agricultural production to ensure living
standards, mainly hunger) whish stimulated french agriculture sector.

Why does the author say that "the two Treaties of Rome (...) were not just a simple extension of
their cooperation"? Defining the treaties of Rome just as "a cooperative treaty" would have meant
forgetting the "defense" component. Yes, they were signing up for a closer relation but not only for
free trade or the atomic energy, they were also protecting the 6-member-group from the Soviet
Bloc and the US industrial hegemony. As well they signed up for stability, growth, in short words, a
broader political project which will lead to a consolidated union along the years.

Explain the expression "the treaties made virtue out of necessity" in context. Necessity could make
reference to the "economic defense necessity", meaning that the countries members initially got
together for this reason but finally, the treaties resulted into a much more succesful agreement
which directly influenced what the European Union is now.

What did "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" represent at the time and what
where the means of carrying it out? On a time where the 2WW had recently ended, rivality between
certain European members where still alive and so the risk of a new war. France and Germany
continued to mistrust from each other. The EEC treaty grouped them all up for the very first time to
stablish markets, letting the member states benefit from all the advantages of a common system to
pursue economic growth and stability.

What where the consequences of the EEC Treaty, according to the author?

The CAP giving money ressources so they could improve their agriculture investments (pesticides,
machines), which specially helped the French industry.

As a long term economic advantage, the US investement on the commun territories, when
international institutions finally recognized Europe as a new common unified market.

BRITAIN DID NOT SIGN THE TREATIES OF ROME BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN ON NATIONAL
SOVEREIGNITY.

c) The Single European Act (SEA 1986)

Signed by 9 countries on 1986, including the UK. Adopted on July 1st 1987, because of Irish
complaints. It came as a revision of the Treaties of Rome, which were a failure as it remained
only as words.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: “Eurosclerosis”: 1970’s oil crisis coupled with stagflation. During this
time, the members focused on domestic affaires. It symbolized the relaunch after a decade of
the ill Europe.
 MEASURES:

It made possible the adoption of the single market: the elimination of physical borders, the
opening of public markets, free circulation of workers, a common market for services, freedom
of capital flows, and the elimination of tax barriers. It was also supposed to expand the
competences in the fields of research, environment, and certain aspects of social policies.

Unanimity was replaced by qualified majority voting (QMV). This accelerated the creation of
the single market, as it was a significant shift in the supranational decision-making in the
European Community.

5 new competences:

- Monetary capacity: first time they call for European Monetary system and the European
Currency Unit.
- Social policy: enforcing the working environment.
- Economic and social policy: improving citizen’s living.
- Environmental policy: “preserve, protect and improve” the quality of the environment.

Jacques Delors and the SEA:

He was right-wing (austerity measure on domestic policies) french politician. Minister of finance in
France, member of the European parliament and president of the European Commission (3 terms).
He served during Euroseclerosis time.

Hated by the British because he advocated for further political integration and supranationalism.

His battle: immobilism and nominalism meaning that the Treaties of Rome have remained only
words. The SEA as a means to put an end to inertia on immobilism.

THE NEED OF CHANGING THE INSTITUTIONS: both commission and the parliament, even the council
of ministers. Revoke unanimity, majority instead. The European commission could then vetoe some
decisions.

By 1986 the SEA had been signed. Delors was one of its main advocates, it is precisely
what he was doing when he delivered the speech to European parliament in 1987 (pg
40).

o Why he was so interested in the adoption of the SEA?

The budget crisis that took place a few years before and that strongly affected
Britain’s relationship with European community.
In 1984, Britain refused to vote the budget, on the grounds that Europe was
overexpending. The matter went to the European Court of Justice and an
agreement was found in 1986.
  Birtain’s position which caused the crisis: Thatcher wanted to reduce the
British contributions to the European budget, and she obtained significant
rebates (disminutions).
Britain considered European policies to be structurally imbalanced since
they have been designed before Britain joined in 1973. Germany, an
industrial nation, could export its good for the hole of Europe. France,
reaped most of the benefits of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Britain
had little to gain for further integration.
o France and Germany at that point, though that enough
concessions were made, Britain was no longer the
poorman of Europe, as in the 1970’s, and so it did not
deserve special treatment

 Delors position on the cause of the crisis: the weekness of European

institutions and the lack of authority. Unanimity had allowed Britain to
paralyse Eruope and to slow down European integration. With the SEA, the
majority vote was to replace the unanimity vote, in some particular areas
including the budget.

Britain did not sign the Treaties of Rome in 1957 but it did sign the SEA in 1986.

Margaret Thatcher and the SEA:

Her position was very ambiguous. As a conservative she feared the lost of Britain’s
soverignity but at the same time she subscribed to economic liberalism and welcomed
the deregulations promoted by the SEA.
The reason why she feared collateral consquences was that she was very much aware
that Delors wanted to further the political agenda and that his coneption of the SEA
was in perfect line with the Jean Monet method (economic integration) as a means to
reach political integration.
In 1957 they had little to profit from but in 1986, services (banking, for instance) could
be very profitable if exported.

 It was in this particular context of tension, that the SEA was designed and adopted.
 All in all, Delors was paving the way for the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and provided for the
introduction of the European currency, a treaty that was signed by Britain but had opt-out
option on the euro, which was the whole purpose of the Maastrich treaty.
JACQUES DELORS- EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT in 1987 pg40-41
Context:

Delors presided the European Commission for three terms (1985-1994): the longest serving
president and the most successful Commission at advancing European integration.

1984: Britain blocks the budget.

1986: Britain (Thatcher) signs the SEA.

- Because of the liberal characteristics: benefits of exporting services.

- The SEA enforces what theTreaties of Rome should have enforce. In 1957 the treaties were
a failure, now it had to be promoted.

A further European integration as a permanent challenge

Before it was about preserving peace, now there’s a more economic landscape.

 The must of driving all the economic forces: US expansioning while EU stagnation and
unemployement.
o THE SEA IS NOT ENOUGH: nor technology, nor environment, nor working
conditions.

MAIN POINT OF THE SPEECH: the 1980’s budget crisis in the European community:

- (The budget is voted on uninanimty) Thather’s vetoe in 1984 - the whole budget was
paralized.
o High expenditure, mostly because of the PAC was too much expensive.
o UK opposed the pac, France was highly in favour.

Delors though Britain was slowing down the development: “We need to approve the budget,
change the process in which it is voted the budget so no one can block the development”.

 Further European Commun policies

1988: Delors first package (restructuring, not lowing budget, aim of equilibrating the balance).

- Granting an equilibrated balance

- Granting a new procedure to avoid the buget’s blockade

1992: (End of the Cold War) Delors instaures a second financial reform

- Ensuring the interinstitutional agreement (achieved) and establishing the economic

perspectives for the following 7 years.
- The standardization of tariffs, regulation, taxation system (the added value tax specifically)

 Achieving political integration through economic integration

MARGARET THATCHER’S SPEECH 1988 In front of the College of Europe (PG 63):
The Iron Lady: Conservative-neoliberal, UK’s PM 1979-1990.

The College of Europe: a higher education private institute, founded in 1949 by the founding fathers
of Europe. The aim of the institute was to promote “a spirit of solidarity and mutual understanding
between all the nations of western Europe”

At the time she got into office: Stagflation (stagnation-inflation).

- Impossibility of solving both at the time (can’t solve one of the problems without increasing
the other one). Gov must choose one problem to solve.
- Time of Keynesianism vs neoliberalism: Keynesianism concentrated on unemployement;
Neo-liberals concentrated on inflation.

- Neoliberalism:
o Reducing expenditure on social affaires.
o Deregulation of private enterprises
o Reduce power of the trade unions.
- Monetarism: to target the money supply to reduce inflation.

MAIN POINT OF THE SPEECH: the signature of the SEA: a response and attack to Delors
commission. She promotes a vision of Europe based on economic cooperation rather than political
union. Of course her aim was to fight back the Maastricht Treaty which was in the pipeline (en
projet, en cours).

HER POINT OF VIEW:

 Less integration to preserve soverignity. Especially worries about the CAP: Thatcher wanted
to stop protectionism, liberalization.
 over expenditure: 74% of the European budget
 Overproduction, not enough demand.

 Vocing opposition to federalism: before Thatcher, several of her predecesors had

threatened to leave Europe, while she never threatened to leave.
- Why? Because she expected to impose her views, this is why she was called the iron lady.
Europe was meant to be a free association of sovereign nations.

 Imposing liberal economics, the British model:

o Deregulations: she privatized British Telecom, British Airways and more.
o Opening the markets: eradicate exchange controls, free market in financial services,
minimum regulation
 “We” the British: Thatcher tried to expand the British model through Europe. On that time
European countries were closer to the left-wing ideology. She worries about how many Britain gives
to the community and how less they get out of it.

Relation with the US and EU: expand the free market between both. Thatcher wanted to revive the
special relationship, good relation with Reagan (shared neo-liberalism)

ECU (European Currency Unit), a way to become a reference on the currency value, was in Europe’s
plans. Thatcher refused to adopt it fiercely.

The GATT is enough to promote trade: (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) international
organization founded on 1947 which regulated trade and promoted free trade among all the
countries who signed it.

Thathcher’s speech promoted a form of collaboration/cooperation between European members

based on free trade and liberal economics thus excluding the need for more political and social
integration. For the euroskeptics, she was one of the most inspirational personalities.

For pro-europeans, the consequence of the speech was for many to distrust Thatcher completely
and do everything they could to precipitate her downfall, before the Treaty of Maastrich signed in
1992. Even though Britain did not adopt the Euro, Thatcherite liberal monetarist ideology, provided
decision-making in the EU, this influence was long-lasting and profoundly divided the conservative
party.

JOHN MAJOR 1994 PG 65

Major was a pro-european British politician, leader of the conservatives from 1990 to 1997,
Thatcher’s successor and Tony Blair’s predecessor.

Tatcherism influence: JM enlarged her policies, perpetuated her vision on domestic policy and
liberal economics.

At that time: The party was divided between pro-Europeans and Eurosceptics. A year before the
berlin wall.

1994: application of Hungary and Poland -> Changes are a must: CAP. He welcomed the countries
while willing them to get on the line Europe had settled. Conditions to join: democratic country,
constitutional state, sustainable economy (= the Maastricht criteria): limited public deficit, limitad
debt and inflation under control.

RESUMEN MAASTRITCH

Just like Thatcher before him, Major was here promoting the national interest of Britain.
Britain interest on the enlargement:

- Easterns European were lacking of services and Britain’s favourite sector wasn’t in its best
moment. New trading on services -> more power at the international level: benefits on the
economic level.
- Opportunity for cheap labour.
- Forcing Europe to reconsider the budget allocated to the CAP: not sustainability of the CAP
under 22. At the time 63% of the European budget went to the CAP.
- Control of the decision-making: He wanted to avoid political integration. Enlargement in
order to keep it. The more countries there were, more difficulities soared to reach
unanimity and so integration. More difficult for Germany and France to impose their vision
of integration.
o Meanwhile, the French: The French government, made deepening the union a
priority over enlargement. Why? Because the enlargement of the union would
mechanically make the decision mechanisms less effective.

Avoid political integration = weaken federalist integration = a Europe of nation states:

Britain vs. France and Germany (what came to be known as the “Franco-German axis”)

 “We’re in debt with Eastern countries”: Because of one of the members, Germany, had
massacred their countries. Why insisting on this? Because Germany was at the time the
British opposition in the European Institutions on the integration debate.
o The dutty of liberating Eastern Europe: to rebuild Eastern-European contries on
Western-European economic priciples: enlargement in order to promote the
British economic model.

Founding a middle ground opinion between the two divided visions of his party: no Eurosceptic, but
not that much of a pro-European either.

- For the Euroscepticals: enlargement (keep sovereignty and slow integration) but it never
worked.
- For pro-europeans: he signed the Treaty of Maastrich and pursuied the idea of integration,
but did not sign the monetary Union and the social chapter (?) on the Maastrich Treaty.
TONY BLAIR
UK’s PM since 1997 up to 2007. Labour Party.

Since the beginning of his political career, Tony Blair openly showed how pro-European he was. He
had always aimed to abandon de isolation of Britiain on the European Institutions.

Not afraid of political integration:

- John Major did denie to sign the Social Chapter. Tony Blair on of his first European decisions
was to sign it.
- He signed the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997, an amendment of the Treaty of Maastricht.
- Treaty of Nice 2001

2000- EURO

New Labour and the Third Way: continuation of liberal economics on the Labour Paty. He was a
controversial figure by defending socialism and liberalism at the same time.

DAVID CAMERON 2014

Conservative UK’s PM since 2010-2016. Leader of the remain camp who organized the Brexit
Referendum (as promised in his party’s manifesto)

He advocated for reforming the EU instead of leaving the union.

Euroscepticism growing: problems

- Eurozone bailouts: Br paying their failures

- Consequence of enlargement: Internal European migration: limited number in BR
- Maintining sovereignity

Advantage: Commercial union advantage for Britian

Europe gave more benefit than problems according to him, but believed citizens should have more
participation in the European Institutions.

He will advocate for staying if Brussels agreeded on their terms.

BORIS JOHNSON 2016, SPEECH ON THE EU REFERENDUM
UK’s Conservative politician. In 2016, he became leader of the “leave” campaign and the voice of
the “hard Brexit”.

Problems with EU:

- EU interfereing in British economics and the law of supply and demand: liberal economics
are inevitable while Europe still establishes more regulations
- The idea that Europe was still centered on his 6 founding members
- Britain suffereing from other countrie’s problems.
- Considered a French hater and compared to Donald Trump, he believed the creation of EU
was essentially a matter between the relations between France and Germany. Britain had
nothing to do between both.
- Since 2007 with the signature of the Lisbon Treaty, Britain could not oppose policies, due to
the instauration of QMV in most of the decision-making procedures.
- Keep money at home instead of contributing to the European budget.
- EU legislation was above the national laws -> recover sovereignity power
- The refugiees crisis gave the leave campaign their major argument: migration policies.
o Inmigration policies were part of the delegated power to the EU.
 Britain did not control its frontiers
 = “European laws are above those of our country, let’s get back our
sovereignty”

Britain do not need Europe:

- Either on economic matters: “Britain would not be in deprivation of an external market”,

“Europe even slow down Britain’s economic growth”.
o While, “the single market is okey but we need to establish a different relationship
between us”
 Why? Economically it was interesting for Britian but it striked multilateral
agreements (US)
 British multilateralism vs European bilateralism policies.
The TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership): between Europe and the United
States, promoting multilateral economic growth. The aim was to establish a free trade area,
liberalizing trade between them both. Britain agreed, pretty much in favour but reticent to a potential
privilege of France. It didn’t see the day of light because of Donald Trump’s protectionnisim.

 “Its failure was due to French non-sensical arguments”

- Neither on identity matters: “we have our British identity”, “a common identity between
so many different cultures is just impossible”.
Ejemplo intro:

Speech by the former maiden of London, in representation of the Conservative party, very famous
speech whish is known and rembered as the “Vote Leave Speech”. It was addressed to the
Eurosceptic conservative audience in Britain, and designed also to convince British voters as a hole
that they should vote in favour a Brexit in the “in/out” referendum which took place the 23 June
2016. It was part of the Leave Camp. Since Thatcher, the leave and remain camps division was
created. The Leave camp was leedered by Boris Johnson which at the same time was divided
between the hard and soft leave (Theresa May).

Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk triggering Article 50 pg 23

Donald Task: President of the European Council at the time band former PM of Poland

Theresa May as PM at the time: When Cameron resigned after the Brexit Referendum, then the
Conservatives had choosen Theresa May, she took office in July 5th as a majority of MPs voted her
in. Initially she went with the Remain camp (David Cameron), when she was Home Secretary (2010-
2016). Her biggest concern during her political career was immigration and Brexit.

8th June 2017 snap election: General Election in the UK. May’s idea was to obtain a clear majority
and make sure she was supported by the British population. The letter is written during the
campaign period. The GE was a failure, because the Conservative Party, even it won, it losts 13 seats.

Soft-brexit camp: from membership to partnership

- “Partnership and cooperation”: same approach as Thatcher and Winston Churchill (with
Europe but not in).

Argument of the Democratic aspect of the decisison: it has to be respected.

Article 50: introduced on the Lisbon Treaty (signed 2007, took effect in 2009)
- It is compulsory for a member state to negotiate their leaving if that is the countrie’s will
o The letter is an opening to this negotiations.

Support to the GATT: same approach as Margaret Thatcher

“Think abour our mutual interest” = the stick and the carrot strategy
o Security and business, inseparables, encore une menace.

 Conciling the soft and hard Brexit: menaces et conciliations

TM’s wills:
- A “simple” restriction: Aim of keeping the freedoms enacted by the Treaty of Maastricht,
except the free circulation of people.
o A favour: Reach an agreement for the British resident on Europe and viceversa
 An agreement was reached as a consensus.
- Imposing a new condition (key issue): UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland:
Ireland was a member of the EU, the Brexit implied border controls again between UK and
Ireland. Their relation were particulary tense, especially vivid in the 70’s, then peace was
seaked and the Belfast agreement was signed.The establishement of a new border, is likely
to revive the tensions between the proper island and the factions.