A Looming International Disaster? Can further integration be ignored from within the EU?
The cries can be heard all around us. No, I’m afraid I am not referring to the lamentable “En-ger-land” chants at a football game (on a side note, somewhat ironically, this years European Championship is another example of British non-participation in multi-European nation event). The cries to which we are referring to here are those which evoke a sense of trepidation when it comes to Europe as a whole. “Those bureaucrats in Brussels”, “Stealing our way of life” and so on and so forth; the jingoistic jingles of those opposed to EU membership within the UK. There are fears of a shift in the status quo; from the loss of the pound to the unquestionable, unspeakable torment that is the move from an imperial measurement system to that of the malevolent metric! (This, of course, would necessitate the repeal of the beloved ‘British’ pint) There are fears of a loss of British nature, British values and a British lifestyle. I fear, however, that this discourse of a decline in nationalistic tendencies cannot carry much weight if the focal point is an apparent haunting thought of an alteration in the monetary system (Anyone remember shillings and halfpennies? Me neither) or an influx of freely transferable foreign labour (a prerequisite for if any trans-national unity is to be established). No, associating the menial with the massive, the petty with the poignant is merely a way of avoiding the truths surrounding the European Community as a whole.
Let us take a stroll down memory lane. The fifties; teddy boys, James Dean and Bill Haley and his Comets Rocking around the proverbial clock, but let us not become enveloped in nostalgia here, let us remember that on 18th April, 1951, in France’s capital, the Treaty of Paris was signed, establishing a hitherto unheard of means of geo-political unity that was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Largely experimental by nature, perhaps only finding precedence via the League of Nations (however, without US involvement this can hardly be considered a successful scheme) during the war years, the ECSC established a firm foundation for further trans-national governmental and economic integration and cooperation. Set up to help not hinder the economic situations of the six member states in the fall out of the most financially damning war in history, the ECSC was a means of protecting the financial interests of those involved, not to radically and fundamentally oppose the ways of life of the member states people. So what is missing in this tale of a United States of Europe, a posthumous adage linked with Britain’s supposed greatest ever Prime Minister? Why did Britain not become a member of the ECSC in 1951? Why did it take until the Heath government in 1972 to finally realise that, in a world where trans-national corporations crack the financial whip, intra-governmental mutual aid is a vital necessity to avoid economic meltdown?
This last question, however, poses the most intriguing and pressing matters. Ever since the world war, the US has led the way in economic superiority with little or no opposition by the way of a European nation. Only in the past decade has this lead been challenged, not by resurgence in European financial strength, but by the Eastern powerhouses of India and, particularly China. In financial terms, single EU member states are becoming increasingly unwelcome at the big boys table. With China on a seemingly inexorable march to becoming the worlds leading economic power, taking over production one resource at a time, the picture being painted is pretty grim for singular, miniscule European nation-states. This may appear to be straying from the aforementioned question at hand, but, what I aim to highlight, is, with Britain, France, Germany and so on slipping further and further down the metaphoric economic league table, how can a European country justify remaining outside what can only be seen as the one chance we Europeans have at not dwindling outside the limelight in the global economic world in which we live?
The European Community has grown in its fifty-seven year lifespan from a meagre six nations to twenty-seven. Growing not only in numbers; the establishment of a common currency, a common policy towards agriculture and a common goal of cementing Europe’s place on the world map has shown the EU’s commitment to ALL of the nations involved.
The Euro is NOT an attack on nationalistic traditions. The Common Agricultural Policy is NOT a detriment to all those involved, asides from France. The metric system is NOT an invasion of foreign customs par excellence. And free movement of labour is NOT a case of ‘pesky immigrants stealing our jobs’. Time and time again we here that Britain requires ‘special circumstances’ within the European Union, calls for a ‘looser relationship’ and calls for a ‘weakening of ties’ with the remainder of Europe. This is not the way forward; this is a petulant 180 degrees turn in the wrong direction. The EU’s economic policies negate a haphazard, one-foot-in one-foot-out approach to economic integration; it is not possible to succeed in the omnipresent world market without unequivocal cooperation.
Does this now sound like “those bureaucrats in Brussels” trying to make life ever more difficult for the EU member states? Does this now sound like a challenge to the respective traditions and identities of the countries involved? Even if, some traditions were being challenged, how red will the faces of those individuals who call for the pound, the pint and the pennies to remain when we become shunned by those who looked forward, and not backwards, in an ever increasingly competitive global market?
Can future respective member states afford to remain excluded from this organisation focussed on progress and protection? Will Europe remain united in a quest not to be overshadowed by the ever growing huge single markets of the US, the Chinese and the Indians?
By Wayne Bright
