British Politics and the European Union - Essay Example

British Politics and the European Union The relationship between Britain and the European Union has been described constantly as awkward by many political analysts. The history of the British relationship with the European Union leaves some questions unanswered as concerning its membership and the subsequent relationship with the Union. The description of Britain as an awkward partner is mainly based on the abstention of the nation from becoming a member of the Union for sometimes and then when it finally became a member, the behaviors in the in the European Union are questionable. This phenomenon has resulted into the British public’s deep skepticism with regard to the European integration process. According to Bache & Jordan (2006:3), failure of the British political elites to promote the importance of the integration is one of the reasons that is given for the awkward nature of Britain towards the development of the integration. This has resulted into the negative perception of the integration within the British community as well as lack of its promotion. The negative perception of the integration is much dangerous to the region owing to the fact that Britain is a major stake holder in the region and plays vital role in the direction of the policies of the union. This lack of promotion of the advantages of the integration has therefore left opportunity for other system to irresponsibly highlight the negative or the disadvantages of the integration. As observed by Scheffler (2008: 37), the media has been given whole opportunity to highlight the weaknesses of European Union and as a result, the sense of skepticism has continued to deepen. This has also resulted into the deepening of the differences between the parties in the integration and hence resulting into a more sophisticated debate on the merits of the integration. This is believed to be one of the reasons that have shaped the British approach to Europe which is important as well before one can describe British as an awkward partner in the union (Bache & Jordan, 2006:4). However, these are failures of the government and do not justify the British awkwardness with respect to the affairs of the integration. As stated by Booker & Richard (2003:174), however, all independent nations would want to benefit from all the economic integrations tat they are engaged in and hence would participate in the affairs of such integrations if they benefit. Lack of favoritism policies of the European Union is therefore perceived as a reason for awkwardness. However, as stated by Bache & Jordan (2006:5), the late membership of Britain to the European Union must have cost the nation greatly. Since Britain joined the European Union late after other members states had joined and set rules and regulations, some politicians have argued that the rules were set in favor of the existing members. As a result, Britain has not benefited much from the joining of the integration. This means that the policies and regulations of the integration do not benefit the nation. The rules that were set in favor of the founding members states therefore presents a technical constraint to Britain and hence presents it as an awkward member. This reflects the fact that the political practices as well as the constitutional attitudes of the founders of the European Union are different from those that the United Kingdom was accustomed. The relationship between the integration and the United Kingdom is therefore very difficult as the nations and the Union’s policies and constitutions are not homogenous. The differences in the constitution have therefore presented difficulties with regard to the United Kingdom’s relation to the integration. For example, the basis of the European Union is the separation of the powers of institutions as well as political coalitions unlike the British’s emphasis on centralized state, an adversarial “winner take all” as a style of party politics and the informal constitution. In this context, it is difficult for the nation to benefit adequately from the activities or its active participation in the European Union. As observed by Buller & Gamble (2002: 6), by the time Britain joined the integration in the year 1973; most policies across different crucial sectors in the region had already been developed but were different from the policies and practices of the Britain. It is difficult for the nation to claim its rightful position in the European Union and the integration. By 1973, most political, economical as well as social interactions between the existing members had been developed and the correlation was difficult for Britain. This included trade as well as other foreign policies that created common market for the existing members. With this regard, it is difficult for Britain to cope as it would cost a lot in creating the new networks within the new integration. As outlined by Booker & Richard (2003:176), Britain was left behind in all the important policies and activities of the European Union and hence will take time to change the integration or be changed by the integration in order to benefit just like the founder member states. The British governments have relatively taken consistent positions with regard to the relation with the European Union. The same policies taken throughout the successive British governments have also contributed to the alienation of Britain to the European Union as they have always supported enlarged and the intergovernmental European Union which should be led by the independent states (Dorn & Dittmer, 2007: 13). Federalism in British government is not recognized by any politician and hence the British governments have not supported it in any way either. However as outlined by Dorn & Dittmer (2007: 14), Federalism could have been an alternative avenue for Britain in the relation with the integration. Another different idea of the British government is the consistent and the desire to continue engaging closely with the United States of America. This limits the opportunity of the nation to corporate well with the other nations in Europe. Moreover, other member states of the integration do not have any relation with the United States or a lot of interest as British and hence Britain looks awkward in the European Union. Some political analysts have argued that the British government suffers from conflict of interest in its efforts to keep America close as well as participating in the activities of the integration. The difference in the interest of the nation compared to those of the other member states is also portraying United Kingdom as an awkward member of the European Union. It has been noted throughout the history that the government of Britain has supported most of the American foreign policies than those of the European Union. For example, the inversion of Iraq by America was one of the controversial issues among the great nations of the west and Europe (Scheffler, 2006: 31). While most nations resisted the invasion and distanced themselves from the invasion, Britain was one of the nations that supported the invasion. Britain did not only support the invasion, but it also contributed in terms of resources. This relations and the interest that Britain has developed with the United States of America has resulted into great consequences. This has created tensions between the European Union and Britain and hence the pro-European credentials of Britain have suffered serious consequences. As observed by Daddow (2004:28), the tensions that are often created as a result of the collaboration and close relation of the United States and Britain have been detrimental to the relationship of the Britain and the integration of the Europe. When this is compared to the actions by the other European Union member states, it is clear that the Britain has a different perspective of the integration. However, other politicians have argued that Britain is working close with the United State of America because of the benefits that it derives from America than the integration of the European community (Daddow, 2004: 29). This is an “awkward” state since most member states do not enjoy such close relation with the United States of America. Initially, Britain was reluctant to joining the European Union compared to the other member states that joined earlier. This is explained partly by its special relationship with the United States of America as well as the commitment that it had with regard to the remaining empire and the commonwealth of the independent states that were evolving. It is therefore important to note that the European policy was developed through three spheres of influences which the governments thought would benefit the nation. With these three different forces influencing the nation, it was very difficult to develop its foreign policy immediately as it was in contradiction to the existing European Union policies and regulations of the member states (Wall, 2008: 43). It was therefore difficult for the nation to commit itself to the affairs of the European Union alone since this would result reduction in its influence on the other two different spheres. It is therefore important to note that America has played an important part in influencing the policies of Britain and its relation to the European. As outlined earlier in this paper, there have been consistency in the leadership and the successive governments in Britain. This has made it difficult for the initial awkwardness of the nation to fade away. However, little change has been done with regard to their relationship with the European Union, the United States of America and other commonwealth nations. in particular, changes affects within the European union member states as well as the government o Britain have been very instrumental in reducing the awkward look of the Britain (Wilks, 1996:227). The changes that took place within the underlying fundamentals of their relationship that stated that the conditions were inevitable for Britain made the nation look less awkward with respect to their policies. This was achieved through the partial changes in Britain policy as well as the changes in the policy of the European Union. However, the partnership of Britain in the integration is still awkward though the awkwardness has been reduced. According to Wilks (1996:227), Britain’s persistent awkwardness can be viewed as a result of both political as well as economical constraints. The positions that could be adopted by the British government domestically together with the problems of the adjustments of its economy to the membership of the integration are some of the core underlying issues. The contributions of the British government to the common budget present a great challenge to the government and the European Union as well. This meant that Britain had to adjust its budget after becoming a member in the integration and hence it was not easy for the government to accept certain policies of the European Union that were particularly irrelevant to their domestic policies. Partnership awkwardness of Britain in relation to the European Union can be perceived as being motivated by the domestic political challenges. It is important to note that it was difficult for the politicians to convert the citizens of Britain to accept the idea of Europeanism (Wilks, 1996:227). In this context, it would be very difficult for such individuals to win elections in this kind of political culture. As a result, no political leader made an effort to convince the British people to accept the integration of the European countries. This was because of the fear that an individual would not go through elections as a success. This was of course coupled with the consistent media criticism of the integration stating that it had nothing better to offer to the British people. This has therefore led to the attitude change and the development of the negative perception of the European Union in United Kingdom. During the four years of Tony Blair government, there were several efforts to move Britain closer to the European Union and start participating actively in the activities of the Union. However, the September 11th changed everything. Even though the influence of Britain in Europe was not affected much, there was increased upsurge due to the French referendum (Bache & Jordan, 2006:8). It is worth noting that the relation between the Britain and other member states had been rebuilt up after the controversial invasion of Iraq. Blair was therefore on the right track of bring the policies of the British government closer home than the previous governments had done. However due to lack of participation of the Britain in the European communities, the leadership still remained far from being close to the European community. Most observers have however persisted that the government of Tony Blair was one of the closest government’s on the heart of European Union since the Heath’s government of 1070s (Bache & Jordan, 2006:9). However due to the persistent fault lines and differences in opinion within the labor party and the politics of British in a wider perspective have contributed to the exclusion of Britain from the European Union. The changes in the budgeting, taxation and the tax harmonization are some of the important issues that are viewed by the individuals as the most important development of the Blair’s government. However, Britain still remains an awkward partner since it has not engaged itself at the heart of European Union activities. British government is however moving closer to the integration though still experiencing attitude and economic challenges. Its relation with the United States of America and foreign policies are also contributing factors to its awkwardness. References Bache, I. & Jordan, A. (2006) “Britain in Europe and Europe in Britain’ in Bache & Jordan (eds) The Europeanisation of British Politics, Palgrave, Basingstoke. http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/1403995192.Pdf. May 4, 2011. Booker, C. & Richard N, (2003), “The great Deception: A secret history of the European Union.” New York: Continuum Publisher. Buller, J & Gamble, A. (2002) “Conceptualising Europeanisation”, Public Policy & Administration, Vol.17 No.2.p.6-15. Daddow, O. J. (2004). “Britain and Europe Since 1945: Historiographical perspective on integration.” New York: Manchester University Press. Dorn, L. & Dittmer, L. (2007). “The united nation as an Outsider to the EU: Histology politics and the ideological determinants seminar paper.” Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Scheffler, J. (2006). “Towards an Ever Closer Union? The US-UK Special Relationship Until the UK’s final accession to European community 1973.” Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Wall, S. (2008). “A stranger in Europe: Britain and the EU from Thatcher to Blair.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilks, S., (1996), “Britain and Europe: Awkward Partner or Awkward State?’, Politics, and government.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More