Would Britain risk joining if it wasn’t a member? No chance. That doesn’t change the fact we’ve had a 40-year success story
This article appeared towards the end of the EU referendum campaign. I had told readers earlier in the campaign that I supported remaining and had written about how my family history – and the premium I placed on peace in Europe – had influenced my decision.
‘Europe was to be our deus ex machina; it was to create a political argument with insular socialism; dish the Liberals by stealing their clothes; give us something new after 12–13 years; act as a catalyst of modernisation; give us a new place in the international sun. It was Macmillan’s ace, and de Gaulle trumped it.’
This is how Michael Fraser, one of Supermac’s advisers, described the moment when General Charles de Gaulle doomed Harold Macmillan. On 14 January 1963, the French president said ‘Non’ to Britain’s application to join the European Economic Community. The Prime Minister resigned later that year and it was another decade before we were allowed in.
That critical moment in our relationship with Europe sheds light on the critical decision we face next week. It helps answer the question: if we were not already in the European Union, would we choose to join it?
Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP, posed this question the other day, and it’s a powerful way of making the argument for voting Leave. It deserves a careful reply from those of us who wish to remain. And in any case, it’s always best to tackle an opposing argument at its strongest point.
I had better begin with an act of surrender before attempting to advance. All other things being equal, if the British people were now being asked to join for the first time I don’t believe they would. An understandable desire not to take unnecessary risks provides a large part of the support for remaining in the EU, and even that support is under great pressure. Without it, Daniel Hannan is unquestionably correct in assuming his side would win.
Yet those words ‘all other things being equal’ are being made to do a lot of work. They stand for an assumption that if we had not joined the community, things would be much the same as they are today. And that is an audacious assumption.
Let’s go back to Macmillan. Days after becoming prime minister in 1957, he sent Michael Fraser a note. It read: ‘I’m always hearing about the middle class. What is it they really want? Can you put it down on a sheet of notepaper, and then I will see whether we can give it to them.’
This apparently flippant request expressed Macmillan’s entirely serious understanding that the country he had inherited was changing – socially, economically and in its position in the world – and that the governing class didn’t know how to adapt. If he was going to succeed he would need to respond.
Britain was, not to put too fine a point on it, failing. It was being overtaken economically by Germany and overpowered by France. The end of Empire was coming and the Commonwealth seemed unlikely to provide a secure source of either economic or diplomatic power. The Americans, crucial to our defence and international clout, were clear that their primary interest in any kind of special relationship was our ability to act as a bridge with other European countries.
It seemed obvious to Macmillan, and indeed the bulk of the Conservative Party, that outside the European Community Britain faced economic and diplomatic eclipse. He recognised that joining would involve some sacrifice of control and independence. He knew, too, that other members wanted a more politically integrated Europe than Britain did, but he thought the gains outweighed the risk.
So what happened when, after ten years of attempts, we finally joined? Since 1973 we have grown faster than Germany, France, Italy and even the US. And in the single market era we have grown by 62 per cent while Germany has grown by 35 per cent. And Switzerland, which is outside the EU but a member of the European Free Trade Area? 48 per cent.
It is easy to respond by suggesting that this growth has occurred despite the EU rather than because of it. We have done well entirely because we have adopted a different economic model to our partners. Yet consider the admission that this response involves. It admits that the EU does not dictate our laws and economic model. We have been able to diverge, rather than converge, with our neighbours.
We have also managed to maintain a strong relationship with the US on exactly the basis that Macmillan posited. We act as a bridge to Europe and are valued for that reason.
There is another point worth adding. It is not just us who would be different if we hadn’t joined the community. The EU would be different too. We were critical to the creation of the single market and to enlargement.
So a big part of my answer to the question, ‘If we were not already a member of the European Union, would we choose to join it?’ is that when we were not a member we did choose to join it. We thought it would help correct weaknesses that we saw no other way to correct. And it did help tackle those weaknesses.
This country is tangibly more prosperous, more powerful, more tolerant, more welcoming, more democratic, more hopeful; simply a better place to be than it was in 1973. And despite sharing power with other EU member states, we are still distinctively British and different politically, economically and socially from our neighbours.
However, this is not enough by itself. Although Macmillan anticipated that we would be in tension with other members who would want to integrate more than we did, this has since become reality. Joining now involves much more serious power sharing than it would have done in 1963.
The best response to this is that virtually every democratic European country eligible to join has wanted to do so as soon as possible. They have, each one of them, perceived the trade-off as worthwhile. They believe it makes them richer and stronger.
The argument that we are different, that they had to join because they are weak and we wouldn’t have to because we are strong, makes, once again, that big assumption. It assumes that if we hadn’t joined the EU we would be as strong as we are now economically and diplomatically.
But Macmillan didn’t think we would be and neither has a single serving prime minister since.