British and European Interests

The UK was a still the biggest empire on earth right after the Second World War, and a victorious country in the deadliest conflicts on the human history, the two world wars. The British had defeated Germany twice and with that their national spirit was reinforced. The UK had to stand alone in Western Europe against the powerful Nazis; it had been the only country able to oppose Hitler’s designs, and this gave the British a feeling of exclusivity. The position and necessities of the British after the war did not precisely fit with the main aims of the forces driving to a United Europe:

1. Nationalism, British nationalism, was not seen in the UK as something negative, as something that had led the country to a confrontation with other nations. Nationalism was seen as a feeling that united the British people in their titanic effort against an external threat. The emotive speeches of Winston Churchill to the British people followed this pattern asking for a national sacrifice to defeat the Nazis. The British, united by the national feeling, could stand against any threat to their way of life. Obviously this was not a rational feeling, and this was not the right interpretation about what caused the Second World War, but was the feeling spread among the citizens of the UK. The British nation was seen as something benign in the fight supporting freedom and democracy against the totalitarian fascism. British nationalism was regarded as a model to expand to the rest of countries to erase totalitarian forces from Europe. So, the vision of Europe as a peace system to avoid conflicts generated by nationalism was not shared by the United Kingdom, and the idea to separate political power from the national level was seen as an attack to the British freedom, achieved in the war by the fight of the British nation against the German forces. The UK as the only important country of Western Europe that was not defeated during the war, unlike France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy or Germany, had a significantly different approach to the matter, and the main British contribution to the debate of Europe as a peace system was following the same pattern than what was used before the Second World War—a community of free nations collaborating freely and in good faith with the partners. The idea was linked with a gentle conception about British nationalism and was hence extendable to other kinds of nationalism. The position of the British on nationalism was supported by two other nations not involved in the war, two national states not defeated, two states that had not suffered the severe conditions of the war—namely, Sweden and Ireland.

2. The United Kingdom was still the main world power in world affairs after the war. It was Churchill who organized the world affairs with Stalin and Roosevelt. The British used to believe that their country was still the greatest empire in the world history, but the time of the British as the world’s hegemonic power was close to an end after the Second World War. There were some signs pointing to the direction of the end of the British Empire, but the long-passed triumph and a recent victory against the Axis forces made most of the British believe that their time was not still over and the British international power was still unmatched. Even the most capable politicians in the UK could not foresee the British decline: for example, Churchill believed in a new world order different from the past, with a balance between three powers—the USA, the USSR and the UK. The British politician, war hero and writer overrated the power of its country thinking it could still match the two new rising powers. The British decline from a leading position in world affairs to a middle power, still with important influence but no longer independent in its international agenda, was slow and in many cases smooth thanks to the tight collaboration between the UK and the USA. The predominant role of the UK in different parts of the world was taken for granted by the Americans as they shared the interests in many cases and the USA thus became the natural heir of British power. Nevertheless, as the Yalta Conference showed, the UK did not have any need for Europe to keep their influence in the postwar world affairs, and thus the UK did not have any interest in participating in a European association to focus on this necessity. On the other hand, de Gaulle was trying to use the European Communities to implement a third way in the duality of the Cold War. Of course, the French president wanted this third way to be led by France and financed by Europe.

3. The third main idea about Europe was economic, expanding the European market in order to increase the economic activity and hence the economic performance of the weakened European economies. The war had meant a total focus on military priorities with a consequent shock for the production. The influence of the war on the people’s life affected also the consumption and their own performance as economic agents. It was obvious that Europe needed a strong shock therapy to recover its sick economy. The ideas were multiple, from common rules to common trade. The UK was a fervent champion of the free trade in the European area as it had traditionally been in the world during centuries. Liberalism and trust in the market had the British footprints, going beyond the traditional democracy to a more free system based on the trust of the self-regulation of the economic agents. Milton Friedman’s advocacy of free markets over government intervention and his prescription for fighting inflation by central banks were treated as fringe notions by many economists (Ip & Whitehouse, 2006). Since then the British have denied the necessity of a high regulation of the market, as it can regulate itself in a more efficient way, influencing the European and the world economy in this sense. Economic cooperation became a priority for the UK and the country became an important actor in most of the proposals launched in Europe in this field, but also developed its own world trade area, including the former colonies of its vast empire. Countries of world importance such as Canada, South Africa or Australia were included in the so-called Imperial Preference system inside a community of British ex-colonies, the Commonwealth. The idea of a Common European market was against the two main priorities of British economy at that time—the free trade and the development of the Commonwealth—because it meant the creation of an exclusive economic area close to its members that could not be enlarged to other parts of the world, the former British colonies. Also the Common European Market was to be regulated by the common institutions of the organization, against the idea of free trade and deregulation defended traditionally by the British government.

4. Europe as protection from the Soviet Union or Europe as a focus of stability was less important for the UK than for other European countries. British political system is, and was, one of the most stable democracies in the human history. Since the Glorious Revolution, the role of the British Parliament as a counterbalance to the monarchy created a constitutional system envied in the rest of the world; the own British people, conscious about their achievements, also felt proud of their political system. The stability of the system was so strong that during the Industrial Revolution, the growing British working class melted into the system without threatening to break it. The system was elastic enough to absorb the changes and incorporate the new necessities of the society to the traditional establishment without major shocks. The theoretical revolutionary Karl Marx predicted the triumph of the working-class revolution in the United Kingdom sooner than anywhere else in the world because the working class was more developed on the British soil than in any other country in the world. According to the communist perception of history based on linking stages of human development to production system, the society moves naturally to communism through a normal improvement of human relations. Obviously, Marx was wrong because communism has never been a tangible threat to the UK and it was mostly successful in more agrarian societies with a small industrial working class, such as Russia. As the political system was stable in the UK and the threat of an internal revolution leading to a communist regime was minimal, the country did not need to protect any European association. Also, the British institutions had shown during the war a great resistance against adversity and counted with a high respect from the British citizens, so there was either a necessity to back the political system or the state institutions with the popular legitimacy coming beyond the national borders.

5. Europe as a way to restore the international role of the country was not a necessity to the UK as it kept its prestige intact in the period after the war. The British had suffered a long war but were still controlling the biggest empire in the world history. The UK was still the leader of the free world in Europe, the leader of democratic systems against totalitarianism, but in the postwar period the domination of the international relations of the two new world powers, the USA and the USSR changed the international scenario. The British government had alternatives to reverse its growing international weakness and opted to follow with its traditional policy of deep collaboration with the USA. The Americans had helped the British twice to defeat its European enemies. The First World War was on standby after many years of bloody conflict; the German Empire had already succeeded on the Eastern front and could then focus on the French front, strengthening its position. The US joining the war on the British side broke the balance and ended in a victory to the Allies. The subsequent Americans’ withdrawal from the world politics kept the British status in world affairs intact. The Second World War was clearly on German side with the fast conquest of France and other Western European states. On the East front, the Germans were fighting on the Soviet soil, with Eastern and Central Europe under its power. The United Kingdom was completed isolated in Europe, as it was the only important country able to resist the Nazis. The rest of Europe was occupied by Germany, or allied with Germans or in a delicate neutral position. The USA again became the UK’s savior, but this time American contribution to the war was more important, as there was no balance of power in Europe as it had been in the First World War, but only German hegemony. The Soviet Union and the United Kingdom survived owing to the technological and material support of the Americans and its enormous market economy, and once the US joined the conflict, the Germans’ defeat was decided. The US had saved the British twice from the German threat. The USA also shared cultural similarities with the UK and their way to understand economy and politics were similar. So, the most obvious decision for the British government in the international arena was to work closely with the USA. It allowed a smooth transition in the world, as the previous world power, the UK, agreed to collaborate with the new one, the USA, without major conflicts between them. It allowed the Americans to use British expertise and British allies to increase its power, and permitted the British to keep some influence in world affairs that otherwise would have been lost, as it had happened before with other hegemonic world powers. Nevertheless, the decision of the British to work closely with the USA was more sensitive than collaborating with former British enemies to build an uncertain community of common interest.