Seminar paper from the year 2006 in the subject English Language and Literature Studies - Culture and Applied Geography, grade: 1,0, University of Sheffield, course: Britishness, Englishness, Otherness, language: English, abstract: This slightly exaggerated statement by the Bolshevik revolutionary, though referring to a soviet-republican idea of Europe, marks the borderlines of British ambivalence towards European integration after 1945: the fear of a supranational federation and the need for a peaceful, stable and free-trading Europe. “I am British. I am not European” – These are the words of a shopkeeper who among a small group of other “metric martyrs” in 2001 refused to attach to the metric system that had been imported to Great Britain.2 This man was not a philosopher, a historian and certainly not a politician, and his fundamental belief did not refer to the Union, the Empire or the Continent, but to himself as an individual. Is Great Britain’s reluctance to join the European Union – or rather: to consider oneself European – based entirely on metaphysical convictions, on emotions and ancient sentiments such as “the Empire”? Or are there reasonable arguments for British refusal of European alliance – economical reasons, considerations of power or even force? Do the British consider themselves part of an “Anglo-American” axis or merely a bridge between Old Europe and the New World? The following text gives an overview of the process of European integration from a British perspective. It will further discuss the difficulties in defining the difference between “British” and “European” as an attempt to answer the question whether the United Kingdom can be European while remaining British at all.

In 2016, the voters of the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union. The majority for 'Leave' was small. Yet, in more than 40 years of EU membership, the British had never been wholeheartedly content. In the 1950s, governments preferred the Commonwealth to the Common Market. In the 1960s, successive Conservative and Labour administrations applied to join the European Community because it was a surprising success, whilst the UK's post-war policies had failed. But the British were turned down by the French. When the UK did join, more than 10 years after first asking, it joined a club whose rules had been made by others and which it did not much like. At one time or another, Labour and Conservative were at war with each other and internally. In 1975, the Labour government held a referendum on whether the UK should stay in. Two thirds of voters decided to do so. But the wounds did not heal. Europe remained 'them', 'not 'us'. The UK was on the front foot in proposing reform and modernisation and on the back foot as other EU members wanted to advance to 'ever closer union'. As a British diplomat from 1968, Stephen Wall observed and participated in these unfolding events and negotiations. He worked for many of the British politicians who wrestled to reconcile the UK's national interest in making a success of our membership with the sceptical, even hostile, strands of opinion in parliament, the press and public opinion. This book tells the story of a relationship rooted in a thousand years of British history, and of our sense of national identity in conflict with our political and economic need for partnership with continental Europe.

During the past fifty years few issues in British politics have generated such heated controversy as Britain's approach to European integration. Why has Europe had such an explosive impact on British politics? What impelled British policymakers to embrace a European destiny and why did they take such a cautious approach? These are some of the key issues addressed inThe Reluctant Europeans. This new study draws upon recently available source material providing a clear chronological account and covering events right up to Blair's first year in office and the launch of the Euro.

Analysing some 30 policy decisions across three countries and five decades, Sieglinde Gstohl considers why some countries continue to be 'reluctant Europeans' and offers insights into the problems associated with integration in an enlarging EU.

Using contemporary documents, this book tells the story of Britain's hesitant moves into Europe. It assesses the debates and controversies surrounding Britain's attitudes to European integration, including the arguments on sovereignty.

The history of Britain's complex relationship with Europe, untangled "The best short introduction to both the political realignment that produced the 2016 Referendum result and the immense fallout since."--CapX, "Books of the Year" (2020) "[A] cool-headed, fair, and judicious analysis of Britain and the EU at a decisive period in history"-- Thomas Gallagher, Brexit-Watch.org Is Britain a part of Europe? The British have been ambivalent on this question since the Second World War, when the Western European nations sought to prevent the return of fascism by creating strong international ties throughout the Continent. Britain reluctantly joined the Common Market, the European Community, and ultimately the European Union, but its decades of membership never quite led it to accept a European orientation. In the view of the distinguished political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, the question of Britain's relationship to Europe is rooted in "the prime conflict of our time," the dispute between the competing faiths of liberalism and nationalism. This concise, expertly guided tour provides the essential background to the struggle over Brexit.

This book provides both a comprehensive introduction and a perceptive examination of Britain’s relations with the European Community and the European Union since 1945, combining an historical account with political analysis to illustrate the changing and multifaceted nature of British and European politics. Few issues in British politics since 1945 have generated such heated controversy as Britain’s approach to the process of European integration associated with the European Union. The long-running debate on the subject has not only played a major part in the downfall of prime ministers and other leading political figures but has also exposed major fault-lines within governments and caused deep and rancorous divisions within and between the major political parties. This highly contested issue has given rise to bitter campaigning in the press and between pressure groups, and it has bemused, confused and divided the public at large. Key questions addressed include: Why has Europe had such an explosive impact on British politics? What impelled British policymakers to join the European Community and to undertake one of the radical, if not the most radical, changes in modern British history? What have been the perceived advantages and disadvantages of British membership of the European Union? Why has British membership of the European Union rarely attracted a national consensus? Engaging with both academic and public debates about Britain and the European Union, this volume is essential reading for all students of British history, British politics, and European politics.