Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The British exit from European Union (Brexit) has been an issue that has hogged a great deal of the world's attention since 2015 or thereabouts

An issue that has caused the downfall of two recent British PMs - David Cameron, Theresa May, and may cause more prolonged instability

It was also a remarkable instance where the British government is being forced to implement an action (in this case an "exit" from the Union) which it does not endorse

An instance where the will of the people is challenging the sovereignty of the Parliament

This is best summed up by these numbers -

In the 2016 Brexit referendum, 52% of the voters in Britain voted to "Leave" EU, triggering the Brexit process

However, 73% of the sitting MPs (including 56% of the ruling Conservative party MPs were for "Remain") as shown below

So Brexit is a challenge that is unique in British constitutional history where Parliament is being dictated to by the electorate

Given this conflict between the preference of working politicians (across parties) and the people's will, implementing Brexit is a massive challenge

The two year withdrawal process started in March 2017, but has been extended twice since, and may likely be extended again

While part of the problem is that politicians are in conflict with the verdict, the larger issue is that of complications arising from "Path dependence"

In principle, Brexit might be a great thing. But given all the history and legislations of the past 40 years, extricating oneself out of the EU is a messy process

Where Britain has little power to negotiate a good exit deal with a club it wishes to leave!

So that's the brief background, which is familiar to most

But this is a good occasion to reflect on Britain and the Continent

1. Is Britain a part of Europe? Or is it not? What makes it distinct from Europe?

2. What prompted European integration in the first place?

3. Why was Britain aloof to the idea of Europe at the start, before coming around to it?

4. Why wasn't there a major groundswell opposition to British entry into the European community in the early 70s?

5. Why has Euro-scepticism grown in Britain over time?

6. What triggered the popular wave in Britain against Europe in the present decade?

Questions that require us to dig deep into the past

Firstly let's reflect on Britain - a medium sized island separated from mainland Europe by the sea - which serves as a moat of sorts

Here's how the white cliffs of Dover (Kent) look when viewed from the French coast

This was likely the view that Julius Caesar had of Britain when he launched his invasion from the mainland circa 55 BCE

At that point, Britain was viewed widely as the edge of the "known world"

The invasion was not wholly successful

But despite resistance from the native warlike Brits (who were of Celtic stock), Britain eventually fell to Rome some 100 years later (between 40 and 80 CE) during the reigns of emperors Claudius and Vespasian

What followed was a period of British history when it was very much a part of Roman Empire

Its high culture was that of Rome. It was very much part of Europe

Even a patriot like Winston Churchill, recalling the events of 1st century CE, 2000 years later, wrote approvingly of Roman invasion of Britain

Some extracts containing his glowing remarks

The Roman idyll was shattered circa 400 CE when the Empire collapsed in the mainland, and Britain itself was invaded by the Saxons, the Jutes and the Angles - the progenitors of the English speaking culture, which dominates the island today

But in the centuries that followed, the interaction with Southern Europe remained frequent and considerable.

The influence of Christianity largely stemmed from Europe. An example being St Augustine of Canterbury, an Italian who succeeded in converting King Ethelbert of Kent

The great historian Bede in the early 8th century, wrote his major work in Latin, a language of Southern Europe

Not in Old English

So the country's elite saw themselves not in terms of isolation, but as receivers of a high culture that was largely European

Post Norman conquest in 1066 CE, the influence of the mainland grew. It did not wane

But they remained thoroughly Norman and French in their culture.

Not English

The Norman kings spoke in French, though the population they lorded over spoke mostly English

In fact the first Norman king to speak English was Henry IV (1367 to 1413), a good 200+ years after the Norman conquest of the land

It was also a period of the English language's evolution, when it got Latinized enormously because of the influence of the ruling French elite

The huge continental influence on language is indicated below - note how many of the common "English" words are Norman borrowings

The point to note is that Britain was mostly a "receiver" as opposed to a radiator of culture back in that period

The orientation of the ruling elite was also towards the Continent. As evidenced by the 100 years war with France (from 1337 to 1453)

The War was between the English Norman kings and the mainland French royalty (House of Valois) over the right to rule France

A war that eventually settled in favor of France. Post which British claims on France were dropped

So it could be said that starting 15th century, the monarchy became more English, and shed its continental orientation

With the rise of the Tudor dynasty, England emerged as a very distinct nation, defined by its exceptionalism

English was now the language not merely of the people, but also that of the elite.

And the exceptionalism soon extended to religion. Where Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church (partly driven by personal reasons) turning the Anglican Church independent of Rome

By the end of the 16th cen, English exceptionalism extended to naval power, in which respect it trumped just about every Continental power

The maritime supremacy was declared by the decisive victory of the English fleets over Spanish Armada (which had hoped to invade England)

What followed in the 17th and early 18th centuries was a period when Britain's orientation shifted increasingly towards the Americas and Asia, and less so towards Europe, where France and Spain were the leading powers

The North American colonization started in the late 16th century and picked steam in the 17th cen

As the 18th century progressed, British interests in Asia grew, where it vied hard with France and Netherlands for greater influence and leverage in the Indian subcontinent

So we can think of the period starting in the 16th cen right up to early 20th cen as an aberration in British history

A period of 3 centuries, when it saw itself as mostly distinct from Europe

With an orientation towards the sea and distant lands as opposed to the Continent

The British empire of course expanded to engulf nearly 1/4th of the world's land area by late 19th century, notwithstanding the setback of losing United States in the 1780s

Its interest in Europe was hardly as strong during this period, as compared to the deep interest it had back in the 1300s when its kings still spoke French, and nursed ambitions of ruling France!

So clearly the period of "Empire" was an aberration

It was also a period of British confidence, when Great Britain was a "leader" showing the way to Europe in technology, culture, science, as opposed to the "follower" role it had played from 0 to 1500 CE

So with this longish background let's jump to the 20th century

The century began well for Britain, but it faced a challenge now

From Germany

Britain no longer had the huge advantage in industry and military might it enjoyed circa 1850

Germany was the new kid on the block after the 1871 unification

Challenging Britain in colonial ambitions and in economic might

German ambition was the key trigger for the great global conflict of 1914

When it was handed a defeat by Britain and its allies (including France and United States)

But the humiliation proved too much for Germany to bear. Causing it to emerge yet again in a more virulent avatar led by Hitler in the 1930s

Yet again, Britain managed to hold its own, and defeat Germany with Allied support

But these long wars took a major toll

Not just on Britain but on the Continent

The second world war triggered a process of decolonization, and Britain ceased to be an empire by the 1960s

On the Continent, the WW2 created a disillusionment among the elite towards the very idea of nationalism

Nationalism had triggered the rise of Nazis and Fascists

And it had cost 60MM lives - the total casualties in WW2

The Post war elite at least in Europe were a weary lot, and sought supra-national co-operation among all major European powers and a weakened sense of national identity

But this weariness with nationalism was not quite shared by Britain

The British saw themselves as having "rescued" Europe. And credited their patriotism for that.

So this marks the first major schism in the attitude towards Europe in Britain vs Continent

The Continent saw Europe as the way out of virulent nationalism

Britain retained its imperial pride and its patriotism, notwithstanding the loss of Empire

In the year 1950, the idea of Europe took its incipient form through the Schuman Declaration

A declaration conceived by a Franco-German diplomat, Robert Schuman, which sought to place French and German production of coal and steel under one common High Authority

This Declaration was the seed that eventually gave rise to the Treaty of Rome (1957), and the "European Community" which later evolved into the European Union we know today

But what prompted this "Declaration" was a certain fatigue with nationalism, and fear of Germany

The fear that German industry might propel German re-armament and a renewed conflict with France

So Schuman's key idea was -

Military and diplomatic treaties are insufficient to ensure world peace

What's needed is a form of economic union where the European community consciously keeps German ambitions in check

He said so almost explicitly in the text of the Declaration

"The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries"

The text continued -

So clearly the underlying fear was that of a resurgent Germany

So we needed a federation of Europe to check Franco-German antagonism

Even a British conservative like Churchill shared this need for the "Europe" project, as evidenced by his speech at Zurich in 1946, where he voiced his hope for a "United States of Europe"

Here are some excerpts

The incipient European Coal and Steel Community comprised of just six nations -

Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany

Britain was not a part of it. Nor was there a clamor from Europe seeking Britain to be part of it

Within Britain, funnily enough, the Labor party and the Left in general was strongly opposed to Britain joining the Community

Clement Attlee summed up his aversion to Europe with this quip much later in 1967, when the Coal and Steel Community had evolved into a "common market"

But as the 60s wore on, the British interest in joining the "European Community" grew

Though the public was indifferent to the idea

The "Community" held the promise of a common market which was enticing

An attempt was made by Harold Macmillan's Conservative Government in the early 60s, but spurned by France

Eventually Britain did join in 1973, notwithstanding widespread opposition to it within Britain

Now what caused the opposition?

The elites on one hand sort of gravitated towards Europe, given the urge not to be left out of this "federation" which could gang up against Britain if it remained isolated

But others saw Europe as a net negative

In part this stemmed from three factors -

1. In the 60s, Britain's economy was very distinct from that of the great European nations

Britain had a very efficient agricultural sector, unlike France or Italy

But its industrial sector was less competitive relative to Germamy's

So one feature of the European Community was the "Common Agricultural Policy" wherein the member nations would support high prices for farming produce from fellow members

This meant British consumers subsidizing the inefficient French, Italian farmers through higher prices

This also meant Britain getting closer to Europe, while moving away from its erstwhile allies in the Commonwealth. E.g. Aus or NZ, who would now face a tariff on their exports to Britain, given the first preference accorded to European Community members

2. The second reason pertained to the fear of being overwhelmed by German industrial might. As the 60s wore on, Germany was distinctly more competitive than British industry

So opening up to EC nations, would be less of an opportunity but more of a threat to British industry

3. There was this underlying fear that the Europe project will eventually lead to legislation on all matters from Brussels that will override the British parliamentary legislation, undermining national sovereignty

While all 3 fears were legitimate, they were not strong enough to cause a Brexit in 1975 when the Labor govt called for a referendum (under pressure from its anti-Europe base)

The country voted 2:1 in favor of Remain.

But as the 80s wore on, the popular angst against Europe grew, as was increasingly seen as a supra-national legislative body that undermined British sovereignty

It was a period when previously pro-Europe politicians like Margaret Thatcher turned against EU(or EC as it was then)

A good example of how European legislation can undermine Parliament is illustrated by this 1991 case (involving a company called Factortame)

A company of Spanish fisherman claimed British govt was breaching European law by requiring ships in UK to have majority British ownership

Britain also joined the "Exchange rate mechanism" in 1990, another European project, which was the precursor to Euro

Which required member nations to peg their currencies to each other

But the experiment was disastrous to Britain when there was a run on the pound in 1992, forcing it to leave the ERM and letting the pound float

This further strengthened the view of Eurosceptics in Britain that EU as an idea was not working too well for Britain

So clearly the European project now had assumed the ambitions of being a political, economic and military union - something that it did not necessarily harbor at the time of the Schuman declaration in 1950

This was formally voiced in the Copenhagen criteria articulated in 1993 as the bare minimum for new member nations -

Notice the criteria in bold - three things, none of which Britain favored though it was an existing member

So the British disillusionment with Europe was very much a consequence of the expanded scope of EU in our times relative to the 50-60s

In the 50s, the Europe project was conceived primarily to "check" Germany

In the 90-00s, it sought to become a government for all Europe

There was another reason for the growing urge to do away with Europe as the 90s wore on

This had to do with the rise of Britain as an economic force relative to France / Germany in the 80s-90s

In 1973, France was richer than Britain in per-capita terms.

A status quo that prevailed even in 1990

But by 2008 the scales had shifted

Here are some numbers (from WB site)

1990 PCI in PPP terms
UK: $16.7K
Germany: $19.4K
France: $17.6K

2006 PCI:
UK: $34.6K
Germany: $34.2K
France: $32.4K

The 80s-90s was a period of British rise relative to Germany/France

Britain became more confident that it can do without EU / Common market, and that the negatives of EU outweighed its positives

The decision to move away from ERM also worked out well, vindicating Euroscepticism

Sure. The years since 2008 have not been too good for the British economy.

Germany has stolen a big march since the recession

But it was in the 90s-00s that isolationism picked steam in Britain, probably bolstered by the improved economic fortunes

But the real issue which made "Europe" headline news and prompted Cameron to consider a referendum in a speech in 2013 was of course Immigration

But for immigration, all the other ills of Europe and the debates over sovereignty might have been overlooked

Immigration made Brexit a real alternative

Since 1997 till about 2015, the gross immigration from EU countries to Britain has been 2.25MM

The net figure being 800K

Now 2.25MM is a huge huge number given that UK's population itself is barely 70MM

Much of this immigration was not from Western Europe but from much poorer Eastern European countries (culturally more dissimilar to UK)

So clearly this was the issue that turned the public against Europe and greatly encouraged the rise of the pro-brexit UKIP party

The massive immigration could not be checked while Britain remained a part of EU, and committed to the ideal of free movement of people

So the Brexit option was the only way to address the concern around immigration

David Cameron acknowledged the public sentiment in this regard, and called for a referendum in a speech in 2013

Though he campaigned for "Remain" (and so did most mainstream leaders), the country voted for "Leave" with a narrow 52% majority

This brings us to the conclusion of the thread...and it is worthwhile to list some takeaways -

While the trigger for Brexit may have been immigration, the opposition to the European idea has always been there

This opposition has many reasons grounded in history.

1. Britain is different from Europe. Fundamentally.
More "national" and "patriotic" relative to many Continental states where there is an air of apologia around nationalism

2. Britain traditionally has had different economic strengths relative to the Continent

While Germany's forte is in its big industry, Britain has had a much smaller, more efficient agricultural sector

So it is sort of handicapped by the EU subsidies for Continental agriculture

3. Britain's polity has seen greater continuity since medieval times.

The development of its institutions are more "evolutionary" while the Continent has seen more "revolutions"

This makes Britain more averse to challenges to its sovereignty unlike France / Germany where the nations are much younger, and pride in traditional national institutions much lower

4. And lastly, Britain retains a certain 19th century hangover, with its orientation towards the Commonwealth and more broadly the English speaking world, be it US, Aus, NZ, even India

Europe seems more alien to it culturally

In contrast a country like Germany entered the colonial race much later, and German "nationalism" had unfortunate consequences and two world war defeats

So patriotism / sovereignty are weaker selling points to the German public given its disastrous setbacks in early 20th cen

On that note, we conclude the thread

The idea of Britain in a European federation which subsumes its national identity remains contrary to British national character

However given the path dependence of events, getting out of Brexit will admittedly be messy and painful

Post-script : Significant parts of the thread (especially the latter part) are derived from pointers from Vernon Bogdanor's many fine lectures on this topic at Gresham College -

A link to one of them below