By Alexander Borg

Few in history have had as influential a mark on the bond between the British Isles and the European Continent as the illustrious Winston Churchill;

“If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and glory which its three or four hundred million people would enjoy […] We must build a kind of United States of Europe.”

These words sealed Churchill’s symbolic role in founding the European family of nations. This being very different from the powerful forty-two years on when another wartime Conservative premier once again contributed towards a paradigm shift in the European political landscape:

“We have not successfully rolled back on the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”

Margret Thatcher’s notorious Bruges Speech of 1988 arguably set the U.K. on the road to Brexit. By establishing Euroscepticism as a serious movement in British and European politics, a movement that ultimately culminated in the monumental referendum of 2016.

Today, Britain has yet another Conservative premier in a tug-of-war with the European question; Boris Johnson, a relatively recent convert to Euroscepticism. This government’s actions with regards to Europe will undoubtedly be under scrutiny for years to come. One comes to understand the present, and even the future of Anglo-European relations, by analysing its past.

Decline of the Age of Imperialism

In 1957, the colonial empires of Britain and France were quelled with a single, bloody strike by an emboldened Egypt. Egypt was being led by the Pan-Arab Nationalist Gamal Abdel Nasser. The defeat of Paris and London at the hands of Nasser’s Egypt uprooted decades of Franco-British control over North Africa and the Middle East. It effectively terminated the imperial powers’ era of colonial hegemony over the region.

Between 1958 and 1969, the French Republic was effectively governed by one man: Charles de Gaulle. The wartime leader of Free France turned the first President of the Fifth Republic. He is who controversially wielded emergency powers in Paris as a consequence of the Algerian War, while concurrently taking advantage of his newfound strength to assert French leadership in Europe.

French Leadership and British Stagnation

De Gaulle employed France’s effective leadership of the European Economic Community (EEC) to explicitly block British accession requests from the Labour government under Harold Wilson on two grounds. Firstly, that Britain would not be as committed to European unity and integration as France or any of the other EEC members at that stage. Secondly, that Britain would serve as a lobby for US influence over Western Europe. For these reasons, de Gaulle was passionate about his opposition to British accession.

In 1969, de Gaulle was succeeded by his former Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, who finally lifted the French veto to allow Britain. It is now under Edward Heath’s pro-European Conservative government, to accede to the EEC in 1973. In the following years, the Elysée was inherited by Giscard-d’Estaing and Mitterrand. They are both loyal pro-European presidents who worked to ally the French political consensus with European integration and close cooperation with the West. They later also re-unified, Germany.

On the other side of the English Channel, Britain’s relationship with Europe was still undecided and would face countless bumps on the road to the present. The 1975 referendum being one example. Wilson’s second premiership in 1974 and succession by James Callaghan in 1976 saw a period of stagnation in the British economy, infamously epitomised by the ‘Winter of Discontent’.

From Neo-Liberal Thatcherism to New Labour to Now

In 1979, came what was meant to be the Tory Spring to Labour’s Winter as Margaret Thatcher was swept to power with a landslide victory for the Conservatives. Thatcher’s optimistic views towards Europe soured as economic and political integration hastened, standing in direct contrast to Thatcher’s laissez-faire capitalist views at home. The usurpation of Thatcher by John Major in 1990 as Conservative leader and Prime Minister signalled a significant change in the Conservative government’s view of Europe; in 1992, Major avidly signed the Treaty of Maastricht which established the EU as the more politically integrated successor to the EEC.

In 1997, the Conservatives were replaced by Tony Blair, who led the Labour Party to its first ever major landslide in recent years, having re-branded the socialist movement into ‘New Labour’, a socially progressive and broadly pro-European party that went as far as to even adopt a lot of the Conservatives’ economic policies.

With the onset of deepening public disapproval of New Labour, Tony Blair resigned in 2007, handing over the Labour leadership to Gordon Brown. In spite of his efforts in grappling with the fallout of crises inherited under Blair, Brown was voted out after just 3 years, being replaced by another Conservative premier, the fence-straddling David Cameron. During this time, one can properly evaluate why and how things came to a grinding halt after 2016, leading to the current turbulence of trade negotiations.

Getting to Grips with it all

The idea of splendid isolation stuck for as long as Westminster politicians were preoccupied with an empire upon which the Sun never set. Following the unparalleled political upheaval of the World Wars in the 20th century, the British Empire declined and faded into the annals of history. While France, following Suez, did face significant internal upheaval, leaders in the Elysée have always found confidence in consolidating the strength and influence of France in Europe. Britain, on the other hand, simply never found its own place in the World after 1957. Instead, British leaders have been desperate to wear an American leash in international affairs, as a junior partner beholden to a former colony.

Of course, the UK could always look to Europe, making use of its closest European partners as a means for British leadership to shadow Germany’s. To act as a leader in, or of, Europe however, would certainly mean concessions, just as other nations have conceded for the sake of integration, something the UK has never intended to do. It is for that reason that one may come to the saddening conclusion that maybe General de Gaulle was right after all, in that Britain never deserved to form part of a united Europe on account of Britons’ refusal to do so.

Perhaps, a glimmer of hope for the UK, one that is both near Europe, yet far from the Union. However, this does not mean that Britain ought to be antagonized by today’s European Union.

Europe must acknowledge Britain as a separate state. A separate state which while alongside a greater, more powerful and united European family of nations, will never serve as a father, mother, uncle or aunt, but as a neighbour upon whom Europe can always rely on as an ally and friend. Bound by the common and unbreakable virtues of democracy, freedom, the entrepreneurial spirit, international peace and security, opposition to terrorism, hatred and tyranny. Britain and the EU, both with the common goal of preserving peace, security and stability both on the European continent, as well as on the international stage as a whole.

The post Brexit In-depth: A Longtime Coming? | JEF Malta appeared first on The Third Eye.

Written by Joseph Axisa

In June 2016 the United Kingdom held a referendum to determine whether the country was to leave the European Union, which the UK joined in 1973.

72.2% of the country’s electorate voted in this referendum, amounting to a total of about 33 million votes. 52% of the UK citizens voted to leave the EU whilst 48% voted to remain. The majority of the votes to leave the EU were found in England and Wales, whilst every council in Scotland saw the majority of its voters voting to remain in the European Union.

The following year, in March 2017, the Government sought to express the will of the British people by triggering Article 50 of The Treaty on European Union, which states that “any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. Furthermore, this Treaty provision states that the Union is to negotiate an agreement with the State, taking into account a framework for the future relationship between the Union and the exiting State.

The United Kingdom settled on a withdrawal agreement with the European Union in November 2018. This agreement mainly relates to the primary concerns of the electorate, those being trade and law amongst others. The withdrawal agreement is regarded by some as being a transitional agreement intended to make the exit from the European Union as smooth as possible for the withdrawing member state.

In an ideal world The United Kingdom would have exited the European Union by the 29th of March with a transitional period lasting until the end of 2020. In this period the United Kingdom would not be present within the governing entities of the European Union, however it would still have the obligations of any other EU member state, such as the obligation to act within the parameters of European Union law.

The withdrawal agreement acceded to by The British Government and The European Union has been recently referred to as ‘The Deal’. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May was the protagonist behind this deal. However, it has suffered a massive defeat in The House of Commons. 432 members of parliament voted against the deal whilst 202 members of parliament voted in favour. This amounted to it being the largest defeat for a sitting government in the history of The British Parliament. The primary issue with the withdrawal agreement is that the UK has to pay upwards of 40 billion euros to settle its obligations with the Union. This has been criticized due to the fact that the financial statement involves a large sum of money being paid to the Union without any guarantee regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

The Government then tried to pass the same deal for a second time through the house, which led to its second rejection by another overwhelming majority with 391 MPs voting against the deal and 242 MPs voting in favour.

Speculations have arisen as to whether Theresa May can table her deal for a third time. The Speaker of The House of Commons John Bercow eliminated the possibility of this by citing an archaic parliamentary precedent dating back to the 17th century which is laid down in the book by Thomas Erskine May on parliamentary procedure. Speaker John Bercow stated that a motion which is the same or substantially the same cannot be tabled again in parliament. However, Speaker John Bercow also stated that if the government was to bring a new proposition which was neither the same, nor substantially the same to that voted down on the 12th of March then this would be permissible within the parliament.

On the 21st of March 2019 Prime Minister Theresa May attended a summit in Brussels where she negotiated an extension for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The goal was to delay the Brexit date until June 2019, however she was only granted an extension until 12th April 2019.

These are the current state of affairs, however there are other options for the United Kingdom. The Labour Party’s leader Jeremy Corbyn has stated in a continuous manner that the best situation for the United Kingdom is for a second referendum to be held. His argument is that throughout this 2 year period the citizens of the UK have seen the consequences that a withdrawal from the European Union holds. The United Kingdom can still terminate BREXIT proceedings if a referendum in favour of remaining in the European Union materialises. This termination can be done by the revocation of Article 50 which would terminate the BREXIT proceedings.

The United Kingdom can indeed leave without a withdrawal agreement, however this is not desired. Leaving the European Union without a suitable and efficient withdrawal agreement would mean that the 21 month transition period would be inapplicable and unnecessary. A No-Deal situation does not only lead to a poor political relationship between the Union and the UK, but it would also lead to massive uncertainty in the UK with regards to business and day to day life.

The post Do We Really Know What Brexit Is? appeared first on The Third Eye.