Much has been said and written on the outcome of the EU summit over the weekend in Brussels. As something of a history and politics buff, while being a macro-economist, I try to look at these meetings from as many perspectives as possible. Because those kinds of meetings are NEVER about economics alone. They are at least as much about politics (at least as I say) meaning that history plays an important role. For example, if it is about politics, foreign policy of every state plays a role and foreign policies are in general long term affairs, I.e. the ultimate goals tend not to change much over the course of decades if not centuries.
Looking at the recent summit from this point of view, I think Great Britain has suffered a rare defeat. For the first time in centuries the British have overplayed their hand or, to put it differently, the Europeans have called the British bluff.
Viewed over centuries, the British foreign policy ´s overarching goal was to make sure continental European countries do not form a united front because that could hurt Great Britain. Just look at the various wars on the European soil in the last few centuries and the British role in them, more specific the alliances the British have formed in them.
All the British wars
In the Spanish war in 1701, the British allied with Austria and Prussia to fight against France and Spain. In 1717 it was with France against Spain, somewhat later with Austria and Russia against France and Spain again, few year later with Prussia against France and Russia now. Then there is the war just before 1800, in which Britain fought with some royalist French against republican French and later on with Germans against the French. Then again, there were wars where Britain fought with the French against the Germans and the Russians and with Russians against the Germans and so on.
We could go on and on and on, the list is endless. The common theme is that Britain always formed alliances with some (great) European nations on the continent against other (great) European nations, with allies and enemies frequently switching sides in various wars (another common theme is that the French in general have been on the enemy side for the British).
With this divide-and-conquer policy, Great Britain has always tried to make sure Europe does not become a fully fledged force, capable of acting forcefully and swiftly, let alone to start resembling something of a state. In the recent, peaceful era, this foreign policy strategy was not abandoned. It was only that the tactics changed. In this sense, it is telling that the British Conservatives state in their manifesto that they ´support the further enlargement of the EU subject to all candidates meeting the strict accession criteria.´ The more member states the Union has, the less it is able to act swiftly and forcefully in any area. The British know that very well.
Spectacular failure
This strategy of playing Europeans against each other failed however spectacularly at the EU summit earlier this month. Great Britain asked for too much and all of Europe together rejected it.
Great Britain was never a member of the EU out of desire. This is the reason why London does not subscribe to the euro or the Schengen agreement, why it balks at helping Europe financially to save the euro, why it famously blackmailed Europe for its rebate, why it does not want to write a rule for balanced budget in its laws or does not take part in common social, judicial and immigration policy or in the cooperation between the police forces in the EU. Being a member of the EU was an important part of the earlier mentioned new tactics to criple Europe.
Now, this has backfired. For perhaps the first time ever, all of Europe has formed a united front, leaving Great Britain isolated. The most dramatic reminder of how things have changed was the recent call of the Polish foreign minister to Germany to act forcefully to solve the crisis, saying what will surely become historic words ´I fear Germany’s power less than her inactivity´.
It will be interesting to watch the reaction of London in the next years. Will the spectacular defeat in December 2011 lead to something that has never happened before, namely a reformulation of the British foreign policy as far as Europe, and the British place in it, is concerned?
Not far from the meeting venue lies the little Belgian town Waterloo, famous for being the place where Napoleon was defeated. Given the history of France and Great Britain, it is somewhat ironic that the places where the greatest leader of the first and the long standing foreign policy of the second are to be found so close to each other.
#1 by Albert Spits on December 12, 2011 - 1:01 pm
I object to the word ‘fiasco’. First of all the whole EU as well as the euro are a fiasco, not the British defiance of the Franco-German power play now in motion. Also I object to the word ‘European’, because this only entails the EU. Only half of Europeans are represented by this entity. This is a perfect attempt to divert attention of the real problems, i.e. the centralisation of power, in other words the concentration of power, which always evolves into something nasty history is teaching us.
Therefore, I am elated that at least one country sees sense in this appalling state of affairs. The majority of euzone-citizens want to eliminate the euro, so it would be much better to facilitate an orderly breakup of this monstrosity. And not to continue with a dead-end solution as is suggested by Merkozy and their sycophants.
I firmly hope our own prime minister Mark Rutte will come to his senses and sees this is a project that can only end in tears and economic devastation.
Albert Spits
Board Member Frédéric Bastiat Stichting The Netherlands
#2 by akin on December 12, 2011 - 1:01 pm
that is why Britain supports Turkey’s accession and most of others do not.
#3 by RCS on December 12, 2011 - 4:57 pm
What pretentious rubbish!
Merkozy has created an alternative history that the economic woes of the EU are due to the evil “Anglo-Saxon” methods of doing business. Their agenda is to shaft the City of London with layers of poorly thought out and damaging regulation. No British Prime Minister would sign up to this.
Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the evil Brits, what Merkozy are proposing is a statist, anti-democratic non-solution to a major problem. They are no further on in solving the problems of the Euro and their may be a few problems ahead. Are all the nations involved really give up their sovereignty and self determination to have their economies directed by Brussels? Given the cock-ups that the Commission have made, is this really a wise thing to do?
Do you really believe that a good dose of Teutonic discipline is going to save the Euro without acknowledging that it is an economically absurd concept that was bound to fail (as the UK pointed out)? How will the French and the Dutch respond to their economies being run from Brussels?
Unfortunately there is a total lack of political leadership in the major Eurozone countries. The common sense approach is to wind down the Euro, let the poorer countries leave, devalue and start to grow again.
I don’t think many Brits are too worried. We have always been semi detached from “Europe” and most of us are appalled at how the EU has developed into a bureaucratic, anti-democratic, economically stagnant backwater.
#4 by Spyro on December 12, 2011 - 10:42 pm
You forgot to mention that Thatcher was against the reunification of Germany because it would upset the ‘balance of power’. Yes, 18th century terms in modern politics. She would much rather see people suffer next door than help them realise their potential.
Another historical bit: the ‘splendid isolation’ of late 18th century. That is, the overextended Empire couldn’t meddle in Continental matters, but since it is Britain we’re talking about it had to be termed splendid, right? It is the writing on the wall for Little England. It can no longer prop up its delusions of grandeur and distract the populace by bashing the EU.
Mr Spits, you are out of touch with reality. There is an intelligent European majority out there which is silent because it works hard its way through the crisis and focuses its energy on its family and friends and not political power struggles and other shenanigans. That majority has nothing to split, and doesn’t quite buy the inwardness (and bigotry) you’re selling.
Also enough with the whole “devalue and grow” cr*p. How can devaluation help Greece with a non-existent export sector at first place or Ireland with the worst bank liquidity in Europe? And people are out of their minds if they think that any western nation will accept the asset scam that devaluation is.
#5 by Steve Massey on December 13, 2011 - 3:59 am
It should be duly noted that European disunity has been a major creative force for centuries, from the Renaissance (disunity of the Italian states), to the Enlightenment, to the Industrial revolution. Compare that with what happened in China under the Ming dynasty, or the Communists. We must hope and pray that the EU fails miserably, for the future of humanity.
#6 by Albert Spits on December 13, 2011 - 12:24 pm
Mr Spyro, if you learned about free market economics, then you would have realised at an early stage the euro was a non-starter from the beginning, for it was a purely political project with no economic sense whatever.
Besides, again the majority within the EU was against the euro in the first place. The Eurocracy has never even obeyed the trappings of democracy, for it ignored completely the wishes of the French, the Dutch, the Irish and the Czechs to name a few. The Germans were not even allowed to vote on the matter. You might think this is inward looking or bigotry, but this is entirely beside the point, for it does not take into account that agreement always follows a bottom up procedure within democracies.
Therefore, looking at the numbers the support of the euro and the EU is gradually but surely evaporating due to the political behaviour of the Europhile politicians. They will be presented with the reckoning later on, mark my words.
“The only thing we have learned from history is we have not learned anything from history” – George Santayana,
#7 by Patrick on December 13, 2011 - 4:22 pm
Once the Euro is saved and begins to thrive, the new united Europe should abandon the EU and move to a new organisation, leaving Britain as the only member.
Border controls between the UK and the rest of the EU should be imposed, with all pensioners and workers being sent home unless they have skills which cannot be found elsewhere in the refounded EU. Oh happy day.
#8 by Robert on December 13, 2011 - 8:29 pm
I think we need a lesson in basic European History.
Did the French not try to veto Britain in the first place.
Why ?
Its fundamental diplomacy to form alliances for or against one another. The triple entente and the central powers for example.
As you are aware here in the UK, we did not hold a referendum about the EU treaty changes.
It might surprise readers to know that the vast majority of ordinary people here. Think the entire EU is a expensive regulatory waste of time.
If members states and their politicians do not want us there. Feel free to eject us.
I would remind people that behind every good socialist lies the money of a capitalist.
If we took the entire EU budget over the past few years and the forthcoming years.
What percentage in the budget do the Germans, French , Italy and the UK pay in comparison to the other countries input.
Where is the logic in the EU and co observing and tightening up member states finances. When there is no balance sheet for its own finances signed off from an independent external third party audit.
We have to remain a member because or trade.
Its a two way process, remember.
Does the German state railway not own a large share in the train operating companies.
How our friends in Paris belittle the UK whilst at the same time winning contracts for nuclear reactors here.
At present there is talk about the rebate for Britain.
Fair enough i would end it tomorrow.
Why does any country have to pay to be a member of the EU. No one has ever really answered that.
Why do countries have to get money out of the EU as well.
To trade with the rest of the world, do we need a parliament or budget surely.
What percentage of world trade goes across the Pacific or elsewhere compared to throughout Europe.
I think Winston Churchill once said the sea is more important than Europe for trade or words to that effect. Charles De Gualle made a similar comment.
Though Churchill i think make a statement about the united states of europe.
Think globally not continental please.
Common law does for Australia and Canada. Who are often seen as the ideal places to prosper.
Dare our European cousins follow a similar path.
With or without Britain in the EU. Money is money that still talks whether its Brussels. Berlin or Beijing.
Brass is brass.
#9 by Robert on December 13, 2011 - 9:33 pm
It is such a shame that the well educated, highly intelligent people from Europes universites. Are that landlocked in their mindset. They fail to see that the rest of the world is moving ahead trading with one another across water.
Whilst Europe ties its self up in regulation.
I think the Kaiser once said ” Germanys future lies on the seas”.
True. In one click on a computer i can do business anywhere in the world.
If i were an American. Russian, Chinese, Indian Brazilian business. I am laughing all the way to the bank. Whilst Europe stands still feeling sorry for itself. Making legislation that no one really wants.
Everyone want to make money out of each other in the EU. But there is no new money coming into the system. Unless your Germany manufacturing and sending half your exports globally.
If you care to read European history, you will be aware that an English monarch was ex-communicated before. Did England collapse.
Perhaps the author of this thread would care to learn that the Germans and Dutch won the battle of Waterloo. Were there not Poles fighting in Spain for Napoleon then.
What is the current unemployment rate for Spain. Where are the jobs going to come from for young people throughout Europe.
Why single out Britain. Dear chap.
Sour grapes.
Do you European politicians not like us or just want more money out of us.
Mr Spits, you are only saying what everyone knows but dare not say.
The EU and the politicians fight shy of a ballot box, because they know the gravy train is over.
Some people have seen the light, whilst others cannot look in a mirror and see there worst enemy, themselves.
Alot of these experts cannot run a toy train, let alone run a country. The only answer is to look inward not outwards to the rest of the world.
#10 by Albert Farrugia on December 14, 2011 - 1:51 pm
Dear Mr Mugajic, you seem to have forgotten to mention that in one of it’s most recent attempts “to make sure continental European countries do not form a united front because that could hurt Great Britain”, the UK intervened on the Continent to help rid it of Nazism. And also to help secure freedom for that little country called The Netherlands in which you work. This little country which, by the way, does not seem to have any problems in being “isolated” and “going it alone” in blocking, single-handedly, Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to Schengen, inspite of the fact these countries have fulfilled their obligations.
#11 by wilfulsprite on December 14, 2011 - 11:20 pm
Now that some time has passed, the kneejerk reactions that were printed at the time look extremely premature and churlish.
In fact I would go as far as to say that Britain and Cameron *deserve an apology* for the appalling way that we have been, and continue to be treated.
Cameron did the honest thing – he stated what he needed, and was refused. That should have been the end of it, but no. The other 26 agreed, have gone off and either changed their minds or are having domestic problems, and in the case of Sweden, they agreed only on the premise that they would not be subject to the new rules in Sweden, which is much more than Cameron asked for.
An apology, now, for ganging up and threatening the only politician who brought their balls to the summit and had the decency to declare that they were out, when it mattered.
Thank you for nothing, and good luck with ‘disciplining’ the other dissenters, now numbering seven countries.
#12 by Prof. Anthony Eaton. on December 15, 2011 - 12:22 pm
It may be a foggy classical education (over sixty years ago) but I seem to remember that VETO meant, at least in Rome, that the matter could not proceed. If that be the case, there was no VETO as the rest of the members were free to do as they wished and the UK did not join in. One may only wait and see what the outcome of a “two tier” Europe will be. I, for one, may be excused for feeling happy that we did not join the herd.
#13 by Rick Daudi on December 16, 2011 - 5:42 pm
I feel sorry for the Brits. Can’t help feeling that they were somehow hoodwincked into this isolation. The truth is: this situation is bad for the UK, but also for Europe.
Now the British are often described as ‘Eurosceptic’ – whatever that may mean since they’re themselves Europeans. I think that’s another perception of the media that just got repeated long enough to make everyone believe it. But I think the British are sceptic about authority in general, and that there are historical and social causes for that attitude. The British have always been more sceptic about their political leaders than, for eaxmple, the Germans. Due to populism and mediahypes, that (healthy) sceptism is directed away from London-based politicians to Brussels-based politicians all the time.
Suddenly the country finds itself outside the EU and the scapegoat is gone. The anger will now direct itself to the domestic politicians that are truely responsible, but it’s already too late. The truth is, staying outside Schengen, the euro, etc. came at a price. The UK had to sell out its public services to stay competitive with an increasingly integrated and thus more efficient continental Europe. What is left is an impoverized society. Good education is only available for the wealthy, health care has become a luxury, public transport has been sold out to private coorporations. Yes, the economy has still been doing reasonably well during the 90s and 00s, but this growth went into the pockets of an increasingly select rich upper class.
Sadly, the country lacks a secondary source of income as Switzerland has (interests from a vast storage of gold of dubious origin), or Norway (huge reserves of hydrocarbons). It can’t remodel its society on these other outsiders. The UK still has London’s financial sector though. And that was exactly the point. What was on the table was a ‘fair’ competition, in which banks all across Europe would work along the same rules, taxes and rates. Of course that was unacceptable for Cameron! He knows very well that his country, being outside of the euro, can only be competitive when it offers the banks lower taxes / rates.
The saddest thing of all is that now Britain finds itself an outsider, the other countries will try to find ways to put obstacles in place for London-based financial transactions. The UK will thus loose the one big asset it still has, probably even sooner than expected. That means: more socio-economic misery to come. And again it won’t be the bankers but the British citizens who will have to pay the price.
#14 by Betterworld on December 18, 2011 - 12:47 am
Actually this is a complete misreading – if the Brits had created unity in Europe that would indeed have been a historic mistake. But I think it is far too soon to suggest that anything approaching unity has been created, either in opposition to Britain or in fiscal solidarity.
The view from Ireland is that the ink we signed with has a very limited shelf life and is conditional on many things, some of which will be left to the Irish electorate to crudely daub on the walls of the ECB (because the Irish government has no need to upset it friends, yet).
#15 by Wim on December 19, 2011 - 3:06 pm
It is a fiasco that Britain couldn’t convince the other countries that what they are doing is stupid. But it certainly is no fiasco that it stayed out of this treaty that no one wants and doesn’t make sense. In fact we are wasting all this money so that Germany can keep its exports going. It won’t work and in a year or so we will the next crisis.
Unfortunately our eurocrats won’t budge. They are used to never retreat and they won’t a single step back – even if the economic survival of the EU depended on it.
#16 by A Kurski on December 20, 2011 - 6:18 pm
This article is beyond offensive. To imply that wishing to prevent (tyrannical) hegemony – ‘make sure Europe does not become a fully fledged force, capable of acting forcefully and swiftly…’ – as has been attempted on the continent of Europe several times is somehow wrong is obscene.
Perhaps Mr Mujagic would approve of the domination of Napoleon, he who re-established slavery in France’s colonies and slaughtered those who tried to resist, most notably in Haiti but also in Europe?
Or perhaps Mr Mujagic would approve of the attempts of Mr Hitler to make of Europe ‘a fully fledged force, capable of acting forcefully and swiftly (…to ends we know well)’. As a man of Slavic origin (as am I), I doubt very much whether Mr Hitler’s concept of Untermenschen (of which both he and I would have belonged), would have suited Mr Mujagic very well. It certainly would not have left him safely ensconced in the Netherlands at any rate.
I find it offensive that attempts to resist open aggression are result in Mr Mujagic’s characterisation of unhappy episodes in European history as ‘British wars’. I note Mr Mujagic is Bosnian and that the UK intervened repeatedly in Yugoslavia to check Serbian aggression (although not nearly early enough), would he characterise the awful events of the 1990s as ‘British wars’?
The flaws in both history and logic are self-evident (although I would point out to the self-proclaimed historian than no sovereign state named ‘Great Britain’ has existed since 1701). I would make one comment to the editors however. Comment may be free, but that which one publishes reflects also upon oneself.
This article is disgraceful and ill-informed Anglophobia. i am disappointed in EUObserver for having deigned to publish it.
To suggest that attempts
#17 by Marcel on December 22, 2011 - 11:43 pm
The joke is on France of course, I wonder who they are going to get to cover the loss of Britains net contribution, a question I keep asking but is never answered. For my country Netherlands it would also be good to leave the Euro immediately, but alas the politicians have been ‘captured’ by the undemocratic supreme Eurosoviet.
#18 by Clive Hale on January 4, 2012 - 6:15 pm
“all of Europe has formed a united front”
Best joke of the year so far……
#19 by Rebeljim on January 12, 2012 - 8:41 am
Today’s EU is run by unelected leaders, high young unemployment sweeping through Europe, printing billions of Euros, to keep with the straggling economies will surely will cause high inflation.
Now we got all ingredients for a disaster, unelected leaders, high young unemployment, and high inflation.
Does anyone know the history?