The European Union Background – What is the EU? The future of the EU Constitutional impact of EU membership The Policy Impact The Policy-Making Impact Party Views

The first two sections are for background reading only

1. Background : What is the EU ? Key Developments in the EU 1951 Treaty of Paris - Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy and West Germany (The Six) set up

the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) 1957 Treaty of Rome - The Six set up the European Economic Community and European Atomic Energy

Authority. (Euratom). 1962 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) established - regulates farm prices and decides on agricultural

priorities right across the community. 1967 Creation of the European Communities (EC) by the merger of the previous areas of co-operation

under a Commission and Council of Ministers. 1968 Creation of European Customs Union. 1973 Denmark, Ireland, and the UK join the EC. 1974 Heads of Government begin to meet as European Council. The Regional Fund created to help

declining regions inside member states. 1979 First direct elections to the European Parliament and European Monetary System (EMS) with its

Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and European Currency Unit (ECU) created. 1981 Greece joins EC. 1985 The Milan Summit and Single European Act (SEA) amend the Treaty of Rome to introduce modified

majority voting in areas related to setting up a single market and take the first steps towards setting up a common foreign policy.

1986 Spain and Portugal join the EC. 1989 Strasbourg Meeting. Germany insists that political union is necessary for monetary union. 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) amends the SEA and prevents a plan for economic

and political union. The Treaty covers co-operation on political, environmental, defence, social, cultural, and legal matters. Britain and Denmark opt out of the Social Chapter on welfare and regulation of working conditions

1992/3 Maastricht Treaty narrowly approved by French referendum and on the second go in Denmark. 1992 UK is forced by a currency crisis to withdraw from ERM and EMS - other European currencies

follow. 1993 Single internal market inaugurated. 1995 Austria, Finland and Sweden join EU. 1997 Amsterdam Treaty - attempts by the Dutch to introduce major changes - like ending the national

veto, extending QMV to virtually every aspect of EU policy - were not successful but important reforms were introduced.

1999 January - an inner core of member states adopt a common currency. Their own banknotes will disappear in 2002. Sweden, Denmark and the UK choose to stay out.

2000 September - Denmark votes against joining the common currency by 53% to 47%, despite the support for the euro from the major parties, business and the media.

2002 the EU members agree to admit 12 new states in 2005

o In 1973 the United Kingdom became a member of the three European Communities, the organisations which are now absorbed into the European Union (EU).

o In the subsequent period the UK political system has become increasingly interlinked with, and affected by, the institutions and policies associated with the European integration process. In consequence, very few areas of British policy have escaped the impact of the EU. Similarly, almost all political forces and institutions have been affected by European integration.

o For Britain rest of Europe the period following the Second World War brought major change. Although emerging as one of the victorious allies the UK effectively lost its status as a world power. For Britain the new situation had two effects.

Firstly, it had to manage the 'descent from power' and adapt its foreign policy to being a medium sized power.

Second it had to recognise that it faced long-term economic problems in competing in a new environment.

o Yet, for various reasons (like the strong ties with the Commonwealth) successive British governments in the 1950s did not confront the issue of reorienting British foreign policy to a new European-centred focus. The nation-state was still an object of pride.

o The post-war experience of continental Europe was rather different. The six member states which were to form the core of European integration until 1973 shared two particular experiences which encouraged them to develop a new form of co-operation:

Firstly, they had all had their prestige undermined by national defeat: whether at the hands of Hitler's Germany or whether, as in the case of Germany and Italy, at the hands of the Allies.

Secondly, in various ways they had all suffered from the excesses of state power, with the Nazi holocaust against the Jews the most extreme manifestation of this.

These six states were France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium.

o The consequence was that key continental political leaders, predominantly from the centre-right, developed supranational integration as a specific form of co-operation between states. Supranationalism involves not only a commitment on the part of member states to work together but, unlike other European or international organisations, also places formal constraints on national autonomy.

o National governments have increasingly given up control of their own policies. Moreover, supranationalism expresses itself in a distinctive institutional European structure of government, in a body of law that takes precedence over national law and in a pattern of government which penetrates British politics and policies to a unique extent.

o However, the French President, de Gaulle, sought to undermine supranationalism and in January 1966 the Luxembourg Compromise established an informal agreement that the principal decisions between governments would be taken on the basis of unanimity or consensus. This was a departure from the planned introduction of qualified majority voting. The effect was to dilute the supranational character of the EC for some twenty years until new momentum was provided by the Single European Act

o For the UK this episode was also to be of importance at a later stage. When the first enlargement took place in 1973 (with the UK, Ireland and Denmark acceding), the British government presented the EC as an organisation which posed little major threat to sovereignty. In other words final and absolute authority would remain in the UK and not be challenged from outside.

o However, it is important to remember that this assumption about sovereignty was true only under the convention established in the Luxembourg Compromise and not under the formal rules set down in the treaties. When member states started to wish to return to the formal rules, and in particular to majority voting in the Council of Ministers (see below), the UK was less at ease because sovereignty was challenged.

o In general terms, regardless of which party has been in power, Britain has not been an enthusiast for greater supranationalism, but this has not stopped the general trend to more and more power being exercised by European institutions,

o It was in the 1980s that the integration process advanced in a striking way. Deepening came about in the form of the Single European Act (SEA), which took effect in 1987. The SEA was the first comprehensive set of revisions to the original treaties of the 1950s. Most prominently the SEA contained a commitment to accelerating economic integration. It was designed in part to put into practice an agreement reached in 1985 to create a single European market. the basis to reinvigorate the competitiveness of the European economy. However, the SEA also strengthened the supranational institutions in order to speed up decision-making.

o The passage of the SEA greatly extended the scope of the Community. The Act provided for the completion of the single market by the end of 1992. What this meant was that all technical, physical and fiscal barriers to intra-

2

community trade, were to be eliminated, as were all barriers to the free provision of professional and other services.

o This was in line with the original concept of the Community, that there should be a Common market, a free trade area without any restraints to trade. Yet some regulations and barriers had never been eliminated and others had developed in the enlarged Community.

o In signing the Single European Act, The Twelve committed themselves to movement towards monetary union, which was a goal to be 'progressively realised'. Provision was also made for closer cooperation in the area of foreign policy and security, and for environmental improvement. The main purpose of the Single European Act was to create a single internal market among The Twelve by the end of 1992. This would fulfil the original version of a tariff-free trading area without obstacles to the free movement of goods, services, capital.

o Among other things, this involved: The creation of a single market for services such as banking,

insurance, credit and securities The creation of a single legal framework for business The standardisation of differing national technical requirements for

products The gradual harmonisation of indirect taxes so as to remove the

need for tax adjustments at the border The easing of restrictions on living and working in another member

state, with mutually recognised qualifications and diplomaso The Objectives and Principles of the Treaty of Rome were amended by the new Act,

and the Preamble agreed by the High Contracting Parties set out the new version which expressed a determination ‘to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ and ‘resolved to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries’.

o Among other things, three main innovations in Community procedure were agreed;

The extent of majority-voting was widened, so that unanimity was required only for sensitive issues on which there were strong national interests

Matters concerning aspects of energy, environmental, research/ technological and social policy were brought within the authority of the EC

A new decision-making procedure was introduced. For matters concerned with the single market, there was in future to be a 'co-operation procedure' which would allow the European Parliament a greater say in the development of policy.

o The SEA required the agreement of each member country and had to be formally ratified in all of the national legislatures, because it amended the Treaty of Rome. Mrs Thatcher felt able to go along with the measure, for her Conservative Government had a very market-oriented approach to economic policy.

o The Treaty on European Union (or, more popularly, the Maastricht Treaty), was signed in February 1992. The Maastricht Treaty represented an attempt at a structured blueprint for European integration. The Maastricht summit (December 1991) was an important step in the process of moving towards a united states of Europe. It laid the foundations for more radical moves towards a federal-style union which would follow later in the decade. The 'f' word was excluded from the agreement, but the commitment remained to work towards an ever closer political union of the peoples of Europe.

The most important agreement was to fix a definite date for monetary union (EMU) - 1999. The French and Germans were determined to set an irreversible timescale. The French backed the German desire for a powerful central bank which would be free from political interference.

Some progress was made towards a common foreign and security policy. In foreign policy, the principles would have to be agreed unanimously, but it could be unanimously agreed to use weighted majority voting for their implementation.

3

For those 11 nations which were signatories to it, the Social Chapter (formerly the Social Charter) meant that they could embark on new measures as soon as they were agreed. No longer would they need to fear a British veto when they were seeking significant improvements in workers' rights.

The concrete result was agreement on the text of a Treaty of European Union. In the words of the Preamble, it was designed to achieve 'an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe where decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens'.

o The agreement marked a new phase in the life of the Community, establishing a Union based on three separate sections, or 'pillars'.

The first pillar built on the existing EC Treaties (Rome etc), and was a development of economic and social policy. In addition, it extended its scope to cover such matters as economic and monetary union and the growth in power of the European Parliament. Maastricht took the SEA further. Internal frontiers were already due to be abolished by January 1993, and the new Treaty decreed that citizens of member states would automatically become members of the European Union. As such, they could live and work in any member state, stand for municipal office or for the European Parliament wherever they live, and vote in the country of residence.

The other two pillars were based on intergovernmental co-operation (ie not transferring power to the European Institutions) outside the scope of the existing treaties. The Second Pillar (Common Foreign and Security Policy) involved new arrangements on foreign and security policy which were important. This innovation was intended 'to assert the Community's identity on the international scene'. It covered all aspects of European security, and included provisions for the eventual framing of a common defence policy, and perhaps a common defence force. Decision-making would generally be through unanimity, though the governments could decide to take implementing decisions by majority voting.

The Third Pillar was concerned with policing and immigration control, and dealt with matters ranging from asylum and illegal immigration, to the fight against drug-trafficking and terrorism. The intention was to agree a common asylum policy by the beginning of 1993, and to develop police co-operation to combat drug-trafficking and organised crime, through EUROPOL, the new international police unit.

o To understand the impact of the EU on British politics it is necessary to have an outline understanding of how the EU makes decisions.

o THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS - Ministers representing the member states make the key decisions. In fact the Council of Ministers consists of 23 different gatherings, dealing with government departments from foreign affairs to the environment. The outcomes are then binding on the national parliaments. If decisions cannot be reached they are referred to the six-monthly meetings of heads of governments, known as the European Council. Meetings of the Council of Ministers are mostly held in Brussels, and as there are 15 member states, there are always 15 members of the Council, whether it be Agriculture Ministers, Foreign Secretaries or Finance Ministers. In other words, European law is made by meetings of ministers from the member states and by a process of bargaining and negotiation.

o Under QMV, each country is allocated so many votes depending on the size of its population; the UK had 10 out of a total of 76 at the time of the Single European Act. Fifty-four votes were required to approve a measure. This meant that Britain alone could no longer veto a measure, and it needed the support of other countries. In practice, the negotiating process is such that compromises are made.

o THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION - has 20 Commissioners: two each from the five larger states (France, Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy) and one from each of the remaining ten. They are aided by a relatively small full-time staff of around 16,000. Each Commissioner is served by a cabinet of advisers. Although appointed by national governments, the Commissioners take an oath to serve the Community as a whole, and cannot be recalled by member states. The President is chosen from among the Commission and normally serves more than one term. The French

4

Socialist Jacques Delors served from 1989 to 1994. The President is the public face of the Commission, the closest Europe has to a 'leader'. He/she co-ordinates the work of the Commission and deals directly with the Council of Ministers and heads of government, e.g., by attending meetings of the European Council.

o The most important duty carried out by the Commission is the drafting of policy documents for discussion and decision by the Council of Ministers, the remit of the Commission being to initiate and formulate policy that will promote the aims for which the European Communities were founded.

o THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - consists of 626 members, elected every five years. This is the one directly elected part of the European Union, but is also the least powerful; elections to it have so far failed to ignite public interest, especially in the UK. It shares control over the budget with the Council of Ministers, and it has co-decision-making powers in many areas, which means it can amend or reject draft law. Even so, it is a forum for debate rather than a policy-making body.

o There is a serious democratic deficit in a Union which prides itself on being a collection of democratic states. This raises issues of representation and legitimacy. In every treaty change over the past 20 years, the European Parliament has won extra powers, which is why pressure groups now devote more attention to it. Even so, its power remains very limited. In the words of the British academic Perry Anderton, 'it functions less like a legislature than a ceremonial apparatus of government, providing a symbolic facade’.

o D. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE - based in Luxembourg, is not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights, which meets in Strasbourg. The latter has nothing to do with the EU, even though all member states of the EU have signed the European Convention of Human Rights. The Court of Justice is exclusively concerned with the administration of Community Law.

o The Court interprets and applies European Law and is made up of one judge for each member state, plus one additional judge. Cases can be brought before the Court by the institutions of the Community or by member states. Possibly the most frequent are cases brought by the Commission against member states for non-compliance with Community directives or regulations. Cases can, however, be brought by individuals or organisations who feel that their national governments are penalising them in breach of Community Law.

o Summary The EU has evolved rather than developed according to a blueprint It began as - and continues to be centred on - economic co-operation

and increasing integration i.e. the nations have common economic policies.

The scope of joint decision-making and common policy making has continued to grow, especially since the SEA of 1986. Much co-operation is based on inter-governmental agreement and negotiation but ....

The EU involves the transfer of national sovereignty to EU institutions and the trend has been for these areas to increase

The ultimate aim of many European politicians is to establish a political union where more and more political authority is vested in European institutions. The EU document Agenda 2000 highlights central issues in the future direction of the EU

2. The Future of the EUo Enlargement: The EU's commitment is based on the conviction that enlargement

is a historic opportunity for creating a stronger, wider, more stable Europe. The alleged benefits for existing members will be :

a more influential European voice in world affairs,

a broader, and therefore more effective,

5

co-operation in dealing with challenges such as environmental pollution and organised crime and also

opportunities for economic growth.

o The attractions of membership for the applicants from central, eastern and south-eastern Europe are

democratic and social stability, as well as enhanced prosperity. For many of these countries, joining the Union is

almost a homecoming, a return to European political and cultural traditions that were denied them for decades.

o Accession negotiations began in March 1998 with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia. Other countries who have applied include Malta,Turkey, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Lithunia and Latvia. In 2002, the EU agreed to admit 12 additional members in 2005.

o The European Council meeting in Copenhagen on 22 June 1993 set out the conditions required for membership:

stable institutions guaranteeing democracy the primacy of law, and respect of human rights;

the existence of a viable market economy and the ability to face up to the pressure of competition and the market forces within the Union;

The ability of the candidate country to assume the obligations stemming from membership, and particularly to take on board the aims of political, economic and monetary union.

o A Greater Security and Diplomatic Role for the EU : The Maastricht Treaty, which came into force on 1 November 1993 strengthened a set of rules and practices for diplomatic co-operation. The objective was set out as ‘A common foreign and security policy encompassing all matters relating to the security of the European Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in turn lead to common defence’ (i.e. a European army).

The Helsinki European Council meeting of 11th December 1999 marked a further step in the construction of the European identity in terms of security and defence. The principle of an autonomous capacity to launch and conduct military operations under the direction of the European Union is a big step forward in asserting Europe's political role.

The Helsinki European Council decided that 'the Member States, co-operating on a voluntary basis in operations directed by the European Union must be capable by the year 2003 of deploying within 60 days and sustaining for at least a year military forces of up to 50,000-60, 000 persons'. These forces should be able to jointly carry out 'humanitarian and evacuation missions, peace-keeping missions and combat missions to manage crises, including missions to restore peace'.

o Common Citizenship and Human Rights: The freedom to move around without checks or restrictions within the EU territory was already an objective and a right for the citizens of the Union from the SEA of 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. The logic is economic initially - it would be unthinkable to have a single market where goods, capital and services could cross borders freely, but where people did not enjoy a similar freedom of movement.

Over and above the economic logic designed to facilitate the mobility of labour, the concept of European citizenship was crucial in justifying the removal of personal checks on movement, residence and employment rights.

The EU has put a great deal of effort into harmonising the right of asylum and immigration, to bring national legislations closer into line when it comes to civil law and civil procedure. Judicial

6

co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation also need to be strengthened in order to cope effectively with transnational crime.

One of the most important developments in the Amsterdam Treaty was to move some human rights issues which were previously decided by inter-governmental negotiation into the area of Community competence (i.e. they are now decided by the EU institutions.

All EU members are bound by the European Convention of Human Rights In 1989, the European Parliament called for the enactment of a 'Bill of Rights' for citizens of the European Union on the basis of a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, to be drawn up by the European Parliament. The drafting of such a document began in 1999. The EU is concerned to advance the same high standards of human rights throughout the Union and to promote rights as a safeguard against the growing powers of European government to regulate and control.

o 4. Reform of EU Institutions: It is widely recognised that the way EU decisions

are made needs reforming. The role of the European Parliament has been strengthened by giving

it ‘co-decision’ powers in some areas of policy so that the Council of Ministers cannot merely decide matters between themselves.

The parliament is pressing for measures which will enable it to be a more effective check on the power of the Commission. In 1999 the Parliament actually dismissed the entire Commission because of corruption.

At the same time QMV may be extended to virtually all decisions in the Council of Ministers - with only a few very rare instances when vital national interests will allow states to opt out. With imminent enlargement - possibly to 28 members in the next decade - new procedures will be needed to ensure that decisions can be made. This means - of course - that countries in the minority will increasingly have to go along with the majority.

o Agriculture, Environment and Regional Policy: Agenda 2000 put stress on reforming the Common agricultural Policy (CAP) for four reasons

to correct market imbalances, to build in environmental management into agricultural policy, to provide greater consumer protection to provide simpler, more enforceable rules and regulations.

o In regional affairs, the EU has a number of objectives to help areas which lag behind to assist areas which have suffered from the decline of specific

industries like mining to assist in providing training and education to improve job chances;

to improve the chances of women in the market place.

o A Common Currency: Eleven members of the EU (not the UK and Denmark) adopted a common currency in 1999, although euro bank notes and coins will not be in circulation until January 2002. Greece was allowed to join the euro zone in 2000.

o The three key ideas are that currency speculation and instability in Europe will cease; the costs of doing business will be cut as there will be no transaction

costs (and therefore goods and services should be cheaper) and interest rates will be kept low (good for investment and jobs). Of

course, the euro is a controversial issue - not only in the UK.

3. The Impact of Europe on British Government and Politics.a. Introduction:

7

An assessment of the impact of the EU on Britain can be divided into the 4 following areas: 1. Constitutional Impact - The key question relates to British Sovereignty. 2. The Policy Impact - many policies are now made by the European Institutions or need

to be negotiated with European partners. 3. The Policy Process Impact - because of the transfer of authority to Europe, the

workings of British politics and government have been widely affected4. The Impact on the Political Parties - Europe has been a major issue of conflict

between the parties and within the parties - especially within the Conservative Party

b. The Constitutional Impact of EU Membership Parliamentary sovereignty:

o Sovereignty might be defined as 'supreme and unrestricted power residing in an indiwdual or group of people or body',. Sovereignty belongs to an institution which has no superior body to override it. In Britain, sovereignty is vested in the Crown in Parliament. The debate in Britain about sovereignty and the EU has two dimensions:

Parliamentary sovereignty - the position of the national parliament in relationship to European lawmaking, and

National sovereignty (i.e. national independence)

o The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been dramatically affected because of Britain’s membership of the EU:

Some laws made in Europe are directly applicable in Britain and the other member countries, and have to be applied by British courts.

In areas covered by the European treaties, the British Parliament cannot pass laws which contradict European laws.

In case of dispute Britain must accept decisions of the European Court of Justice. Of course, parliament retains a power to remove Britain from the EU in a strictly legal sense.

o These facts are not in dispute but complexity and confusion arises because the debate about sovereignty in Britain centres on the second meaning - the extent to which Britain has surrendered independence of action by its membership of the EU and how far it should do so in the future.

o The EU and national independence : The Eurosceptic Argument: Opponents of political integration use the term Federal Europe as

one of abuse. They use it as short hand to refer to a European super-state limiting the power of individual nations . There are several key arguments:

Federalism is a threat to national independence. Sovereignty requires autonomy, but the existence of supranational institutions, by definition, restricts a nation's freedom of manoeuvre. Opponents of the EC argue that a loss of sovereignty in a democratic political system reduces the rights of citizens to exercise control over the decision making authority. The ultimate recourse of the British electorate is to "kick the rascals out" by voting for a change of government at a general election. However, if national government is no longer the sovereign authority then national elections and policy preferences expressed in them may make little difference if they run counter to preferences agreed at Community level.

The EU is therefore a threat to British democracy. Whilst most Eurosceptics in the UK accept that membership of the EU brings benefits to trade and the economy, the EU should be a free trade area and no more.

There is too great a diversity between the member states for a United States of Europe to be a practical possibility. There are different cultures, different languages, different standards of living and different types of economy. Imposing uniformity is not the solution. The differences between member states should be recognised and accommodated. Many Eurosceptics support enlargement of the EU. If, in the near future, the EU was to expand to an organisation to 20 or 30 states, there would be even greater diversity. Harmonisation would be proportionately more

8

difficult and less practical. A larger EU is, therefore, likely to be a less federal-minded EU.

Many Eurosceptics are hostile towards EU institutions. They accuse the Commission of being over-bureaucratic and the Parliament of being an expensive burden. Commissioners are not elected and MEPs are not really accountable to the electorate.

EU institutions are remote from ordinary people and to transfer more power to them would be to transfer power to unknown bureaucrats. In short, there is a democratic deficit that would be exacerbated in a federal Europe.

Eurosceptics' claim that the march towards a federal Europe is taking place without the consent of the majority of people living in the EU.

Eurosceptics argue that nationalism (or 'patriotism') is a virtue - it reconciles classes; smooths over regional differences; and gives ordinary people a sense of community, pride and history. Replacing the nation state with a supranational superstate would destroy this valuable motivating force.

John RedwoodSOVEREIGNTY AND DEMOCRACYfrom ‘Britain and Europe : The Choices We Make’ ed Martin RosenbaumOne currency needs one government

If you want a democratic country it needs its own currency. One people, one governing system, one central bank, one currency: these go together.A nation has its own bank account and its own currency. The country's elected government decides on the movements into and out of the account. Those who argue the case for more European integration often point to a democratic deficit in the way the current European institutions work. They are quite right in pointing out that the European Commission, aided and abetted by the Council of Ministers, legislates for more than 350 million people in Western Europe without proper demo-cratic scrutiny, argument, or parliamentary debate.The situation in monetary and economic policy is in some ways even worse. The EU has decided upon a method of running the single currency which is secretive and bureaucratic. The European Central Bank has sole charge over interest rates, the stock of money, and the general conduct of monetary policy. This body is directed by a group of board members of the Central Bank governing body who are appointed for long single terms, who are not answerable to any elected parliament, and who are effectively in place for the duration however they perform or behave.In the case of the European Central Bank there will always be a permanent democratic deficit. Were the European Central Bank to set interest rates that were too high and to restrict money policy too severely, there will be mass unemployment, too many bankruptcies, and a low level of business activity across Western Europe. The people who carried out this policy would be unassailable. No vote cast n a general election anywhere in a member state could make one iota of difference to the conduct of this policy or to the people who were undertaking it. Similarly, if the Board of the Central Bank misjudge things the other way, set interest rates that were too low, printed too much money, and created a big inflation, there would be nothing the population of the member states could do.

By William HagueGuardian Unlimited Sunday March 21, 1999 Europe's politicians in general, and our own Prime Minister in particular, should ….. understand that Europe needs to do less, not more. To start with, we should be asking why the European Union has its own overseas aid budget when all the evidence suggests that aid administered by individual countries is much more effective. Why shouldn't money in the European aid budget be given back to member states to distribute through their own aid projects? We should be questioning a European fishing policy that regulates exactly how much British fishermen can catch but does nothing to protect fish stocks, and arguing instead for a return to local or national control. Then there are the occasions when the EU seems to be its own worst enemy. For instance when it issues regulations on what shape bananas can be, whether carrots are fruits or vegetables, or if shandy can be sold in a pint glass, and when it spends millions of pounds on grants to organisation such as the Union of European Federalists or on children's comic strips which preach the virtues of a United States of Europe.

9

interventionist, more powerful and more ambitious European Union institutions.

From ‘Believing in Britain’ 2000, a pre-election Consertvative manifestoWe should be building our future on our country's strengths. Instead, each in turn is being undermined. We are threatened with the loss of much of our economic independence, the loss of much of our political independence, even the loss of much of our military independence.

The reason Britain is drifting in this direction is because we are being guided by the beliefs of a small but powerful elite rather than those of the mainstream majority. We are being guided by people who believe that Britain cannot survive as an independent nation in a global economy and should instead become a small part of a regional bloc. Britain needs a very different approach. Britain needs a Common Sense Revolution. Down one route lies a fully integrated superstate, with nation states and the national veto disappearing. This is the route down which Britain is gradually drifting. The alternative route, our route, is to a Europe of nations combining in different combinations for different purposes and to a different extent, a network Europe.

So the next Conservative government will:

Insist on a Treaty 'Flexibility' provision so that outside the areas of the single market and core elements of an open, free-trading and competitive EU, countries need only participate in new legislative actions at a European level if they see this as in their national interest.Be willing to support the principle of 'reinforced co-operation' in Europe, under which small groups of countries can integrate more closely together if they wish to do so, although we will use our veto to stop them in cases where their action would damage our national interest. This will be accompanied by a strong defence of our freedom and independence.

The next Conservative government will: Maintain our national veto on European legislation. Reject an autonomous EU defence identity outside NATO, which risks undermining NATO. Oppose a Charter of Fundamental Rights enforceable by the European Court of Justice Keep the pound throughout the Parliament. That is our Sterling Guarantee. Amend our domestic law to include "reserved powers". This will prevent EU law from overriding the will of Parliament beyond the powers intended by Parliament to be transferred to the EU. Veto further transfers of power from Westminster to Brussels. Should any future Government wish to surrender any more of Parliament's rights and power to Brussels they should be required to secure approval for such a transfer in a referendum

Campaign for an Independent Britain EU Cannot Be Serious!

The truth about Europe.

Can Britain veto decisions we don't agree with?Britain's right to protect itself has been steadily eroded. We can still block decisions in a few areas but even these are under threat. In most cases, Britain can be outvoted by other EU countries. The House of Commons is then compelled to put the EU's decision into law.It is not just that Britain often loses to the other EU countries. We also have to fight the bureaucrats who work for the EU institutions: the Commission, Council, Court and Parliament. They are committed to building a single government for Europe, giving them increasing power over us. They approach every problem with this goal in mind. Is there any protection for minority interests like the UK under European law?The EU does have a special Court to hear this kind of appeal. Unfortunately, it invariably finds in favour of the 'ever closer union of the peoples of Europe' as required by the Treaty, rather than protecting the rights of individual nations. What do we pay our contribution for?Much of it is wasted running the absurdly over-regulated bureaucracy of the EU. The EU is like a paper-making factory. The number of regulations, directives and legal acts issued by the EU has increased more than tenfold since Britain joined and there are now over 25,000 in force.The EU spends most effort on the least important subjects. The Ten Commandments run to 300 words and the American Declaration of Independence to just under 1330. In contrast, the EU directive on the export of duck eggs runs to over 26,900 words - a time-consuming bureaucratic blizzard of bumf.

10

Is it really true that there is a lot of fraud and corruption in the EU?The EU Commission has admitted to fraud of about £500 million a year enough to build 5 hospitals a year in Britain. But experts in the House of Lords think that the true figure is at least seven times as much. The EU Court of Auditors refused to pass the EU accounts for several years and every member of the Commission had to resign in 1999 because of the scandalous record. The EU's £7 billion annual foreign aid budget is also grossly mismanaged; much of the money does not arrive at its destination. Have we benefited from the Common Agricultural Policy?The CAP is a complete nonsense. The EU pays some farmers not to produce food. It pays others to produce food which is not worth growing. For example, the EU obliges us to provide only 85 per cent of the milk we need, while our farmers spray milk onto fields to avoid exceeding their quota.The result is that British people pay more for food than they should. The CAP costs the average UK family an extra £1000 a year in food costs. We need the CAP like a hole in the head.If the EU has its way, will we still have the capacity to wage war or defend ourselves?The current plan is for the EU to have a force of 60,000 soldiers. It will be used only for humanitarian purposes. But the long term aim of creating a single European government means that we can expect demands for a single EU army. In this event, NATO, which has kept the peace in Europe for many years, would be severely undermined. The men and women in our armed forces might be required to fight a war under a French or German general for a cause in which we do not believe. We might also find it difficult to help our allies, like America. Is the EU working well?Far from it. On average there are twice as many people unemployed in European countries than in the USA. Europe is in fact lagging behind America in every respect. It has more people out of work. Its people earn lower wages and suffer higher taxes. It is behind in the key industries of the future such as the internet. Can Britain go it alone?Of course we can. Britain is one of the world's strongest countries. We have the fourth largest economy in the world. The City of London is one of the world's leading financial centres. We sit on the United Nations Security Council with the world's other leading countries. We founded the Commonwealth and English is spoken by over one billion people.This year Britain has twice been voted the second best place in the whole world to do business. In a recent survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Britain's prospects for the next five years were rated second only to the Netherlands. Germany and France were 10th and 15th respectively.We lead Europe in the industries of the future, such as the internet. Britain has expert knowledge in advanced technology, art, science, engineering, telecommunications and medicine.Before too long we would not miss the EU Single Market. It already costs very little to trade with most countries around the world. The World Trade Organisation is aiming to remove the last remaining duties. Trading blocs like the EU will become a thing of the past. But until then we should have no difficulty in negotiating a new Free Trade Agreement with Europe. Because we buy more of their goods than they do of ours, they would be mad to let us withdraw without one.On our own we would be free from the crushing bureaucracy of Brussels and free from having to pay billions of pounds towards its costs. This money could be far better spent in our economy.Britain has had to fight many wars to preserve the right to govern ourselves. We should not give up our sovereignty lightly. Our current leaders do not seem to have grasped that our freedom is at stake. The British people themselves need to take a stand.Isn't joining EMU more about trade than politics?That is what most politicians tell you. They say that Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is only a commercial project. But in Europe all politicians accept that it is designed to create a single European government, with its own foreign and defence policies and its own legal system. You have only to listen to what some of the key people in the EU have been saying for years:A previous President of the EU, Jacques Delors, said: 'Yes, we have to have transfers of sovereignty to achieve economic and monetary union.'More recently, the new President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told the European Parliament: 'We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.'Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, said: 'The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.'

WHY BRITAIN MUST KEEP THE POUND by Lord Stoddart of SwindonDespite the many warnings about the dangers of not joining Euroland in the first wave, Britain has prospered outside the euro. A recent survey has shown that this country has consolidated its position as the number one destination for inward investment in Europe. The City has also been very successful at trading in the euro. Last year, foreign banks in London dramatically increased their

11

staff in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency. The City is thriving on its freedom from the euro straitjacket and must remain independent to protect its worldwide interests. It is not widely appreciated that only 14.4 per cent (1997 figures) of Britain's GDP is concerned with the EU and the trade deficit on that small percentage was a colossal £5.4 billion. The remaining 85.6 per cent is made up of purely internal trade and exports to countries outside the EU. Why should we abolish the pound to suit a mere 14.4 per cent of our GDP, on which we trade in huge deficit? British exports to the EU are now actually falling, while they continue to rise to every other Continent. Furthermore, Government figures show that Britain has a structural, on-going trade surplus with the two biggest and most technologically advanced countries in the World: the USA and Japan. In fact, taking into account goods, services and investment, we have a trade surplus with every Continent on the planet, except one: Europe. As for the much-hyped EU Single Market, the proportion of British exports going there in 1997 was smaller than it was in 1991, the year before the Market began. Since 1992, British exports to English-speaking countries have grown almost twice as fast as exports to the Single Market. Britain's economy is more in synchronisation with that of the United States. If sacrificing Sterling, a strong and internationally respected currency, should ever be considered, and circumstances that would dictate such a drastic course are extremely unlikely and unacceptable - logic would dictate a merger with the US dollar.

The oft quoted mantra of 'influence' is a mirage. The longer we remain in the EU, the less influence we have because of the ever expanding web of federalism in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. The European Commission, with each new treaty and through the thousands of new and legally binding directives it issues, is constantly expanding its powers at the expense of the elected governments of Europe. Signing up to the Euro would be a further nail in the coffin of real democracy in this country and significantly reduce any influence we have in the world. If we are not even in control of our own finances, which will be subject to the whims of bankers in Frankfurt, how can we influence anything or command respect as a nation?

The EU and National Independence : A Defence:

o The essence of the political integrationist case is that individual European nations are too small to cope with the needs of society in the age of modern technology. The EU is a wider political body that can do things that individual states can no longer do separately. In particular, Europe needs to compete with the USA and the Pacific rim countries and if this means that significant national independence is lost, then the benefits outweigh this.

o It might be said that the whole concept of national sovereignty is obsolete. Britain has joined many organisations where it has given up its ability to decide for itself, e.g. NATO, GATT, IMF. Integrationists condemn successive British governments for being reluctant Europeans and thereby reducing British influence in Europe.

o The idea that Britain has 'surrendered' the ability to defend national interests is highly misleading for several reasons. The European treaties cover economic, environmental and social issues, but leave many areas of policy to the national governments or to intergovernmental agreements which require unanimity. Britain is represented on all the organs of the EU and has both formal and informal methods of pursuing national interests. Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) gives Britain big power status (along with France, Germany and Italy) and on major issues national governments may opt out as Britain did initially with the Social Chapter and the EMU timetable. So, Europe has a system of variable geometry (or a fast-track and a slow-track).

o Only full engagement in Europe is the only way to influence European policy and reforms.

o The concept of subsidiarity (different tasks performed at different levels of government) has been used by the British government to stiffen resistance against supra-national trends. Britain used its presidency in 1992 to define subsidiarity so that 'the community is to act only when member states cannot achieve the required goals themselves'.

o Those who favour closer links with Europe share a positive European view of federalism - different tasks are best performed at different levels of government. A federal system of government is a system where different levels of government coexist and remain autonomous. The different layers of government have their own areas of responsibility and they have control over

12

these areas. The aim of a federal system is to ensure that decisions are made at an appropriate level. Matters concerning everyone are dealt with by national government, whilst matters concerning a particular region only are dealt with by regional government.

o It is argued that federalism would bring great social benefits to citizens of the EU. Workers, for example, could expect to find the same basic minimum standards of health and safety in the workplace throughout the EU. Second, it is argued that federalism would help to combat the ultra-nationalism that has led to the growth of neo-Nazi movements and it would ensure that political instability (like that which led to civil war in Yugoslavia) would be unthinkable.

Britain needs Europe, says Blair Britain needs Europe, says Blair News Unlimited staff and agencies

Guardian Unlimited Wednesday February 23, 2000 Britain's economic prosperity depends on the country's full participation in the European Union, the prime minister insisted today. Tony Blair warned three million jobs depended directly on EU membership and said a large part of British trade was connected with Europe. In a speech at Ghent city hall in Belgium, Mr Blair said that Britain could survive outside the EU - "but it would be a poorer, weaker Britain". "We could probably get access to the single market, as Norway and Switzerland do. But the price would be applying Europe's laws without having the chance to shape them," he said.

Tony Blair: Making the case for Britain in Europe The prime minister's full speech to the London Business School Guardian Unlimited Tuesday July 27, 1999 Now is the right time to make the case for Britain in Europe. I do it unashamedly from the standpoint of the British national interest. I want to challenge those forces of anti-Europeanism in Britain that if unchallenged, can do real and fundamental damage to our national interests. We need therefore to remain engaged at all times; to be building political alliances; to be shaping Europe's development not continually have it shaped by others. That is precisely why, again in the teeth of Conservative opposition, Britain has played a leading role in the debates over European defence. Why? The answer is simple. It is a debate that was underway in Europe in any event. It is obvious that as Europe integrates more, it will want to fashion a more coherent foreign policy and security role. And what before Kosovo may have been desirable, has now, post-Kosovo, became a necessity. Kosovo laid bare the problems of European defence capability, our dependence on our American allies, the inadequacy of our present means of cooperation. No country will ever yield up control of their own armed forces. Britain will never put at risk NATO, the foundation of our security. Britain and France and many others insist that there is no European Commission role in military matters. All these caveats stated, however, we need better, fuller European defence cooperation. Look at how the policy of constructive engagement has helped Britain since May 1997. When we came to office, Britain was utterly marginalised; the beef ban was in place; we were at the nadir of our political influence. John Major retained personal respect only because people knew he was, with difficulty and some courage, holding together an increasingly unmanageable Conservative Party. Together with our partners, we pioneered a new European employment policy at the Luxembourg summit in November 1997, turning the tide against an old job protection agenda of legislative harmonisation of workplace standards, in order to put in place a new process of peer review that puts employment first. We also used our presidency of the European Union to inject new momentum into the Single Market, with the proportion of Single Market legislation enacted in Member States rising from 73% in 1997 to 87% today. And we pushed through the liberalisation of the gas and telecoms markets. At Berlin, with key allies, we managed to cap the growth of EU spending - in stark contrast to the sharp real terms growth agreed by the Tories in 1988 and 1992. By working with others rather than against them, we won at Berlin a higher share of funding for Britain from the Regional and Structural funds for the next six years than we obtained in the last EU funding arrangement, with the extension of the Objective One

13

status to Cornwall and South Wales and special help for Northern Ireland and the Highlands and Islands. Without banging the table, we also protected the rebate. We promoted Britain's interests by arguing our case. Just as at Amsterdam, we safeguarded our national border controls. Just as, more recently, we ended the beef ban by agreement with our partners on the basis of objective scientific evidence. In the last few years, we have halted the tidal wave of new EU legislation. The number of Commission proposals for new legislation has fallen from an average of 50 a year in the early 1990s to fewer than 10 a year recently. Subsidiarity is working. But it needs to work better. We want Europe to do more in areas where people want us to work together. Like the environment and crime. Which is why, in 1998, we backed the establishment of Europol. We are determined to build this into an effective instrument for tackling the growing menace of transnational crime within the EU. So: we can already see the benefits of Britain in Europe and British constructive engagement in Europe. That must also be our response to the euro. That is why I say there are three positions on the euro, the first two of which are misguided. To rule it out regardless of the economic conditions; to join regardless of the economic conditions; or to make the economic conditions the test of joining. The latter position - the practical option - is and will remain our position. It is our settled conviction. No-one and no interest will push us into either of the other positions, because they are not right for Britain. The European Union needs to regain the support and engagement of the people of Europe. And it can only do that through reform. The institutions of the European Union need to be seen as the servants of the people. Too often, they are perceived to behave more like the masters. Nothing has provoked a more widespread and negative reaction to the idea of European integration than the revelations of complacency and waste in Brussels. This is far from being just tabloid invention, and far from being confined to Britain. Europe's institutions need to become more flexible, more open, more efficient and more accountable. They need to develop policies in areas where people want Europe to work together. They need to do more to avoid functions that are done better and more accountably at the national or local level. The opportunity for real change is better than at any time in Europe's recent history. The Commission's resignation has generated a powerful momentum. Many of the Commission's staff themselves want modernisation. The European Parliament wants it. The people of Europe want it. And the new Commission under Romano Prodi wants to deliver it. So, the political and economic case for positive engagement for Britain in Europe, is overwhelming. Indeed the case is stronger than ever; we need to make it with equal strength. I want British business men and women, and believers in Britain in Europe of all political persuasions to make the case with me. This is a time to put narrow party advantage to one side.

Europe is best for Britain, says BlairBy Michael White and Ian Black Guardian 14/11/2000Tony Blair last night made an historic claim that Labour has transformed Britain's relationship with Europe for the better - and thereby increased its power, influence and authority in the world. "If we want to stand up for Britain then we have to be in Europe, active, constructive, involved all the time. We have to negotiate toughly and get our way, not stand aside and let other European countries make the decisions that matter to us," said Mr Blair. The main thrust of the prime minister's annual foreign policy speech to a City audience at the Mansion House was the inter-dependence of the modern world which compels every state, even the US - "the only superpower" - to cooperate on everything from global warming and world trade to Aids and the nuclear threat from rogue states.

QuestionsWhat impact has EU membership had on UK sovereignty?Explain the opposing views of the euro-positives and euro-sceptics.

c. The Policy Impacto The Treaty of Rome: .refers to three areas of policy as 'common' ones, those

involving agriculture, commerce and transport. However, in addition there are other references to 'common policies', and especially in the later treaties (the Single European Act and Maastricht) references are made to 'Community policy'.

14

o Initially, the emphasis of the Community was upon the development of a common market free of trading barriers, and this aspect is still of fundamental importance. The Common Commercial Policy, competition policy and the Single European Act are all related to the promotion of a common market. For example, footballers who are European citizens can freely play in any EU Country and it would be illegal for any national league to limit the number of European ‘foreigners’ playing for any one team.

o Being a member of the EU has had a range of consequences for the laws and policies experienced by Britain's citizens, for example, the single market has meant consumer protection. So, there are European laws on consumer health and safety, the prohibition of misleading advertising, rights of information, rights of redress and consumer representation in decision making.

o Another area is environmental policy where the EU has targeted pollution of the air, water and soil and the problem of toxic waste. In addition, all engineering projects must take into account its affect on the environment, particularly the habitat of wildlife. The community has standards for car exhaust emissions, the quality of drinking water and beaches. Women's rights have also been enhanced by EU legislation (see box overleaf).

o One high profile issue has concerned women who were dismissed from the armed services for becoming pregnant. European competition policy has greatly lowered the prices of European air travel.

o The extent of European influence should not be exaggerated - the EU does not penetrate to every nook and cranny of British law. There are many Euro myths fostered by a largely Euro-phobe press. Among these are that Europe demanded that fisherman wear hair nets or that Christmas trees must be entirely symmetrical, or that cucumbers must be straight or that carrots are categorised as fruit. None of which had great foundation. It is true that in some areas, such as agriculture, industry and trade, many important decisions are now taken at European level.

o The trend over the last generation has been for Brussels to become more involved in many spheres, including some in which its role was once limited. On foreign policy and the environment, the European machinery now has far more of a role than was the case even a decade or so ago, and many of the policies dealt with under the heading of Justice and Home Affairs had only very limited Community involvement before the Maastricht treaty. However, in some areas of policy there is very little EU involvement.

Examples of EU Involvement in Policy Making Much involvement Joint involvement Little or none

Agriculture * Fishing * Trade * Environmental * Regional * Working Conditions * Defence * Education * Health * Housing * Welfare * Drugs *

Women's rights and Europe:

Perhaps the greatest beneficiaries of European social legislation or judgements are women.

All the most progressive legislation on women's rights is coming from Europe. The British government is continually being pushed to act by European directives and court decisions.

The cases with the highest profiles have been those of women who were dismissed from the armed services when they became pregnant. As a result of a

15

ruling from Europe the British courts are having to award substantial damages to the women affected, who could number in excess of 5,500.

These rulings over sexual equality are a result of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which states the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work.

In 1984 the European Court ordered the British Government to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to read 'equal pay for work of equal value', which meant that employers could no longer justify inequalities in pay by claiming that men and women were doing different jobs.

European rules have also helped women in cases of equality of retirement, maternity benefits, compensation to pregnant women for unfair dismissal, Invalid Care Allowances, sexual harassment in the workplace and so on.

QuestionTo what extent are policies that affect the citizens of the UK, now made in the EU?

d. The Policy Process Impact (The Europeanisation of British Politics) Impact on the Executive:

o The executive branch of government is very closely involved with the EU decision-making process. It is consulted by the Commission when it is formulating policy proposals and government ministers and their civil service advisers are at the centre of the policy making, in the Council of Ministers.

o British civil servants constantly work with colleagues from other member countries in working parties. Much policy is actually non-controversial but sometimes ministers must engage in long negotiating sessions. Ministers must make frequent trips to Brussels.

o One consequence of EU membership is an increase in the power of the Government and Cabinet. This is because the main centres of power in the EU are not accountable to the British Parliament, nor to any other national parliament, for that matter.

o The Council of Ministers in Brussels, is composed of representatives of national governments. Thus any influence the British Parliament brings to bear upon the Council must pass through the British Government. And this, of course, gives the Government a crucial role.

o Parliamentary approval is not required for EU legislation and the British Parliament may only scrutinise legislation on a ‘take-note' (i.e. it can only give the government its opinion) basis, and even then it may only deal with proposed, future legislation. 'Taking note' means recording legislation and the action it requires, but doing nothing to change it in any way.

o Officers of the EU do not attend parliamentary meetings, and neither explain nor justify their actions to Parliament. Parliament can only advise ministers about the policy they should adopt and await the outcome. Ministers may take note of parliamentary opinion, but they may also ignore it if they please.

Impact on the Legislative:o The European dimension to legislation means that the British government must

constantly refer to European law when it is making British law because no British law can contradict a European law within the authority of the EU treaties.

o Co-ordinating the work of British government to European government has added a very demanding dimension to the workload of ministers and civil servants.

o Together with the relative weakness of the European Parliament, the minor role the British parliament has, has led to criticisms that there is a major democratic deficit in the processes by which the EU makes its decisions.

QuestionHow has EU membership affected the way British government works?

16

e. The Impact on British Political Parties Party Divisions: o The European issue has been one of great significance for British parties and the

Conservative and Labour parties have had great difficulties establishing a clear, united and consistent view on the central issues.

o The four general views on Europe can still be seen in both the major parties and over the period since the 1960s the official policies of the party have been very erratic.

Perspectives on Europe:o In British politics as a whole there are probably four broad attitudes to Europe which

cut across party lines. o Euro- enthusiasts, those who welcome moves towards integration. o Europhobes, who are opposed to anything European and would gladly welcome a

British withdrawal from Europe. There are possibly thirty or forty Tory MPs in this category.

o Eurosceptics, people who are very doubtful about the increasing political integration of Europe but realise that Britain has economic advantages to gain and nowhere else to go. This group is highly suspicious of moves towards a European Union. They want to see European decision-making kept at an inter-governmental level.

o Europositives, people who are basically in favour of the European project but don't want to endorse change indiscriminantly, at least partly because public opinion in Britain remains divided.

Two Examples of the European Issue on Party Politics : (1)Thatcher’s defeat 1990 and (2)Major’s attempt to keep party unity, 1990-1997:

o Mrs Thatcher approved the creation of the single market and the SEA of 1985 but strongly opposed entry to the ERM (Exchange Rate Mechanism) and political integration. She was opposed from 1986 onwards by two key figures in her government Chancellor Lawson and Foreign secretary Howe. In the end both of these ministers resigned and Howe’s public criticism of Thatcher led directly to her downfall in November 1990.

o After coming to power in 1990 John Major had to endure a number of crises. At first his negotiations at Maastrict appeared to be a great victory in the sense of holding his party together. Major opted out of the Social Chapter, the EMU and cut out the word federal in the treaty. But the Conservative majority was reduced to 21 in 1992 and the hard-core of Europhobes caused havoc throughout the 1992 to 1997 period. Major had enormous difficulties getting the Maastrict treaty endorsed by Parliament. Major’s Cabinet contained Europositives, like Kenneth Clark, but many members were sceptical, bordering on phobic. John Redwood, Michael Portillo and Peter Lilley were referred to by Major in an unguarded as 'the bastards' and in July 1995, Major resigned to flush out Redwood to reassert his own leadership. Major tried hard to reconcile the different wings of the party but failed. Conservative divisions on Europe played a major role in the defeat of 1997.

MILESTONES IN CONSERVATIVE AND LABOUR DIVISIONSON EUROPE

1967 36 Labour MPs defy their party and vote against joining the EEC 1974 The Conservative ex-Cabinet Minister, Enoch Powell, advises Conservatives to vote Labour in the February general election in order to support Labour's anti-European policy 1975 A deeply split Labour Government uses the European referendum to extricate itself from its political dilemma over whether to stay in the EEC1981 The 'Gang of Four' (Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Shirley Williams, Bill Rogers) leaves the Labour Party to form the rival Social Democratic Party (SDP), partly in reaction to Labour's growing anti-European policy1983 Labour adopts an anti-Europe position for the general election and loses heavily1986 Michael Heseltine resigns his Cabinet post as Defence Secretary in protest over the sale of Westland Helicopters to an American rather than a European firm. Lean Brittan (who was Trade and Industry Secretary) leaves the Government over the quarrel 1989 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, resigns partly because of a running battle with Margaret Thatcher over joining the EMS, and partly because of remarks by her economic advisor, Professor Sir Alan Walters about the ERM

17

1990 Nicolas Ridley (a close ally of Margaret Thatcher's) is forced to resign over anti-German remarks 1990 Sir Geoffrey Howe resigns as deputy Prime Minister and leader of the House of Commons, partly over Margaret Thatcher's European policy1992 Both parties try to avoid election campaign statements about Europe for fear of opening wounds 1992 Britain withdraws from the EMS after heavy selling of sterling. The popularity of the Major Government declines and never recovers 1994 The Conservative Whip is withdrawn from eight Conservative backbench Eurosceptics 1994-95 The Government's small majority is threatened by Conservative Eurosceptics 1997 Sir James Goldsmith's breakaway Referendum Party (campaigning on the single issue of a Referendum on Europe) threatens the Conservative Party's election chances. It fails to gain any seats but makes inroads into Conservative support.

QuestionHow has EU membership affected British political parties?

18