The Roots of British Euroskepticism

The UK is unique among the states composing the continent of Europe. Historically, the English Channel has imposed not merely a physical divide, but also a cultural and arguably a psychological divide. Just as the British have in the past differentiated themselves from “continental Europeans,” they have time and again proven hesitant about European integration and their role in the European Union. Judt’s Postwar provides a detailed background of the British tendency toward what Professor King labeled “Europskepticism.” I believe that combining this evidence with what we have ascertained about the British system of government offers another clue regarding the causes of their reluctance to join Europe. Britain’s uniquely powerful parliamentary system, as well as their modern identity crisis, creates an impediment to European integration.

Judt notes that Britain declined membership in the European Coal and Steel Community, often regarded as the first step toward the eventual establishment of the EU. They refused because of the “disutility of joining a European economic project, and because of their longstanding discomfort with continental entanglements” (Judt 164). The British regarded the institution as somewhat authoritarian and feared the gradual loss of national identity. The same motive drove them, six years later, to reject the offer to join the European Economic Community. They subsequently regretted this decision, and, recognizing the economic benefits of forming a customs union with their continental neighbors, the UK became remarkably more predisposed to joining Europe. They signed onto the Maastricht Treaty establishing the European Union without hesitation. At the same time, the UK famously rejected the Euro, fearing that it would constitute what Judt labels “a further step towards a European super state” (715). During the integration of Europe, the British have clung stubbornly to their sovereignty.

Professor King’s lectures, as well as Wright’s essay on British politics, offer key insights into Britain’s reluctance to fully integrate itself with a European identity. In the UK Parliament, the ruling party that forms a government has almost unlimited power. I found a statement by Wright to be particularly striking and relevant to the question of British sovereignty and European integration. He notes that joining the Common Market in 1972 gave European law primacy, and “parliamentary sovereignty was effectively blown out of the water” (Wright 25). In other words, Parliament no longer possessed authoritative power. The Single European Act of 1987 gave a future European state a broader scope, expanding Community powers into many policy areas – environment, employment practices, local research and development initiatives, etc. Areas of public policy once delegated solely to Westminster now found a common European voice at the expense of the national Parliament. I believe that this devolution of powers serves to explain one element of British reservations to European integration. An important subtopic to this discussion concerns the effect of identity crisis in the UK’s hesitance to join Europe. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have acquired increasing levels of local authority within the past decade, creating an upheaval in notions of a common societal identity. As the British struggle to foment their own national character and to answer the question of what it means to be British, why should they relinquish their sovereignty, as well as their “Britishness” to a blended, multicultural European identity?

The British are not alone in their skepticism toward the European Union. Rather, Judt describes a continent-wide growth of antipathy toward the “’faceless’ men and women in Brussels” who seem at the same time to possess too much power while also creating little practical impact (Judt 731). The British, in particular, have shown the greatest reluctance to increase the political power of the organization (Wright 101). Extensive discussions have taken place attempting to explain Britain’s relative aversion to Europe compared to other countries on the continent. Historic independence, cultural differences, and an undeniably unique relationship with the United States no doubt contribute to “Euroskepticism.” At the same time, I would argue that the structural component of the UK’s powerful parliamentary government, as well as recent domestic controversies regarding the question of British identity, plays a significant role in the nation’s attitude toward European integration. Whether the Labour government’s trend toward a moderate “Euroatlanticism” will continue remains to be seen.