Jump to content


Photo

The History Of The European Union And Great Britain


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 March 2009 - 03:24 PM

Hello...
I want ideas about *The History of the European Union and Great Britain* and I have no idea about so nothing to talk about
plz help :wacko:

#2 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 29 March 2009 - 07:27 PM

OK.
First you need to get a basic backgound.
You can 'go deeper' later into events which you deem to be important.
You need to start by getting a broad overview of what was going on.

Start with this BBC webpage on Britain's entry in 1975 into the EEC.

Then, using the 'Timeline: UK in Europe' and the slider, investigate all the other (according to the BBC) key events in the story of 'Britain in Europe'.
At the end, you should at least be able to tell your audience: 'The story of the European Union and Great Britain'.

As you study, you will want to 'go deeper' into various events, for which you can use google or get back to this forum.

#3 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 March 2009 - 12:07 PM

Ok Sir Thanks a Lot
Perfect ideas
any other ideas would be really helpful! ...
thank you again :wub:

#4 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 March 2009 - 01:07 PM

Hello
what about this:
"The Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.


May 2002.

Explain the importance of the Single European Act, 1986.
Explain why some people feel that membership of the European Union is a threat to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

January 2003.

7. Discuss the impact that membership of the European Union has had
on parliament.
Discuss the view that the further enlargement of the European Union
is desirable.

June 2003.

7. Discuss the importance of one of the following: the Single European
Act, the Maastricht Treaty, the Amsterdam Treaty.
8. Discuss the view that there is a ‘democratic deficit’ in the European
Union.

January 2004.

7. Discuss the view that a ‘federal Europe’ is a threat to the United
Kingdom.
8. Discuss the view that enlargement of the European Union is
desirable.

June 2004.

7. Explain why some people are opposed to British membership of
EMU for political reasons.
8. Discuss the impact of the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam on
Britain.

January 2005.

7. Discuss the importance of the Single European Act, 1986.
8. Discuss the constitutional impact that membership of the European
Union has had on the United Kingdom.



BRIEF HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

1945 – End of Second World War saw defeat of Nazism and Fascism. Two men –
Robert Schuman and Jean Monet had a vision of a Europe that cooperated
economically and, hopefully, socially and politically. France and Germany
began to build bridges.

1950 – Schuman Plan joined steel and coal industries of France and Germany
together

1951 – Treaty of Paris signed by France, Germany, Italy and Benelux (Belgium,
Netherlands and Luxembourg) countries to create the European Coal and
Steel Community.

1957 – TREATY OF ROME established the European Economic Community (EEC)

1968 – All export and import duties within member states abolished.

1973 – The six becomes 9 as UK, EIRE & DENMARK join.

1979 – First direct elections to the European Parliament.

1981 – 9 becomes 10 as GREECE joins.

1986 – 10 becomes 12 as SPAIN & PORTUGAL join.

1993 – the MAASTRICHT TREATY is ratified. It was designed to secure closer
political, economic and social union amongst member states. However, UK
secured an “opt-out” on things she does not agree with.

1995 – 12 enlarged to 15 as AUSTRIA, SWEDEN & FINLAND join. After a
referendum the Norwegians reject entry to the EU.

2002 – 12 of the 15 countries join the single currency the EURO.

2005 – The EU is enlarged to 25 – the following 10 countries joined:

CZECH REPUBLIC
CYPRUS
ESTONIA
HUNGARY
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
MALTA
POLAND
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA

THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT, 1986
&
THE MAASTRICHT TREATY, 1993.


Glossary:

Eurosceptic – an individual who believes that the EU threatens British sovereignty and mistrusts the intentions of those working for the European institutions. Some Eurosceptics accept the role of the EU on issues such as trade but they fear any move towards political integration and the emergence of a European superstate.

Europhile – an individual who supports and welcomes the developments in the EU.

Europhobe – an individual who dislikes Europe and Europeans and favours the UK remaining politically, socially and economically independent and able to make its own decisions.

Deregulation – removing administrative and bureaucratic obstacles to businesses trading. Removing government interference from how businesses conduct themselves e.g. businesses should be free to set wage rates and conditions of work. Consequently, there would be opposition from many businesses to the concept of the minimum wage.

Democratic Deficit – Critics of the REU use this phrase to argue that democracy in the UK is threatened because unaccountable bureaucrats in Europe (usually Brussels) take decisions that affect British citizens. These are unelected people who have more power and influence on British life than elected MPs at Westminster. Even civil servants (who are unelected) can be held to account in our system of democracy, ‘Eurocrats’ as they are often called by their critics are not.

Enlargement – This is the process of expanding the membership of the EU. At present ehre are 25 members states with others in the wings. One of the challenges facing the EU is the impact enlargement will have on the stability, organisation, efficiency and success of the EU in the future.

Subsiduarity – Action would be taken at EU level only if its objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states acting alone.

Federalism – It would mean two levels of government. This would mean that matters affecting all European citizens would be decided by the European institutions, whereas those affecting regions of Europe would be decided by national governments.

The Early Years, 1973-79.

Britain joined the European Economic Community on 1st January 1973. This was done under a Conservative Government led by Edward Heath. The chief British negotiator to entry was Geoffrey Rippon. Entry was not very popular amongst many politicians in the UK. By and large, the Labour party opposed entry to the EEC as did a number of leading Conservatives. There were a number of issues that prevented a consensus emerging.

Many people in the UK did not share Heath’s vision of a European superstate being created.
As Britain had not been a member from the outset there were a range of policies and regulations she had to abide by as a condition to entry. Many objected to these as they felt they disadvantaged British interests.
Britain’s traditional trading links with areas, such as the Commonwealth, brought penalties. Consequently, the UK’s contribution to EEC funds was particularly high. Also, one of the key aspects of the EEC was the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Britain’s farming industry was small but efficient and therefore she did not benefit much compared to many of the other EEC members whose agricultural industry was larger and more inefficient. This led to ‘butter mountains where member states were given subsidies to develop pastoral farming only to create a surplus of produce such as milk.

The EEC issue was hotly debated during the two elections of 1974. Both returned Labour governments, albeit with slim majorities. On winning the October 1974 election, the Labour Party had pledged to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the EEC or not. The referendum was held in June 1975 – two-thirds voted in favour of remaining in the EEC based on a 64% turnout.

The Thatcher Government, 1979.

Margaret Thatcher was a Euro-sceptic, unlike her predecessor Heath. She was very critical of Britain’s financial contribution to the EEC budget. She felt Britain paid in far more than her position warranted, whilst others paid less than they should. The wrangling culminated in Britain receiving a rebate but this was not agreed until Thatcher’s second term of government. This episode increased the antagonism of other EEC members who saw Britain as ‘aloof’ and ‘negative’ towards the EEC.

THE SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT, 1986.

Whilst many in Britain, business, politicians and ordinary citizens appreciated the economic benefits and opportunities presented by membership of the EEC, there was little support for closer political integration. However, a key development during the Thatcher years was the SINGLE EUROPEAN ACT, 1986.

The key elements to this important Act were:

Increase the EEC to 12
Develop the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), Britain did not join this until 1990
Increase the EEC’s control on environmental issues and other areas of national governments.
Develop a free internal market for goods, labour and capital by 1992. This restricted the ability of individual member states to control these areas of activity.
Increase the role of the European Parliament, thereby decreasing the role of individual national parliaments. However, UK citizens would elect MEP’s to sit in the European Parliament at Strasbourg.
Change the voting system and remove the power of veto of any member state over legislation. The consequence of this would mean that UK governments would not be able to prevent EEC legislation being imposed on them.



Why did the Thatcher Government support these radical developments of the EEC?

It is claimed that Eurosceptics like Thatcher agreed to the European Single Act because it promoted the single market that mean greater deregulation and less government intervention – both key conservative and Thatcherite principles. Europhiles like the President of the Commission at the time, Jacques Delors, saw the Act as a stepping-stone to closer political integration.

THE MAASTRICHT TREATY, 1993.

The Treaty was agreed in December 1991 among the 12 member states. The Treaty changed the provisions of the 1957 Treaty of Rome and paved the way for closer political and economic ties. It was this Treaty that saw the EEC change its name to the European Union.

In essence. The Treaty strengthened the power of the European Parliament and laid down a timetable for economic and monetary union. This would eventually lead to the introduction of a common currency (eventually to be known as the Euro). There was another part of the Treaty, known as a Protocol (the Social Chapter) giving fvorce to the Social Chapter that had been agreed in 1989.

The main provisions of the Treaty were:

The principle of subsiduarity was embodied.
Concept of European citizenship introduced, allowing citizens in the EU to vote in European Parliament and local elections in whichever member state they live.
Institutional reform introduced – new powers to the European Parliament and extension of qualified voting majority in the Council of Ministers.
A common foreign and security policy allowed for through intergovernmental cooperation
Agreement on increased intergovernmental cooperation on issues such as immigration and asylum seekers.
Move towards economic and monetary union.

Reaction to Maastricht.

The Maastricht Treaty was not welcomed among many Conservatives, even though bit was John Major who signed up to the Treaty. It had a long and difficult passage through Parliament.

One major complaint was it increased the path towards federalism. Eurosceptics attacked this claiming it was the slide towards a European superstate with a huge centralised bureaucracy. However, supporters of Maastricht and federalism interpret as a means of decentralising power, not centralising it.

Another controversial issue was monetary union. Maastricht laid down the disappearance of national currencies and the introduction of a single European currency, and the establishment of central European bank. This would have powers to set interest rates for the whole EU.

The other contentious area of Maastricht was the Social Chapter. The aim was to harmonise laws across the EU on social issues such as workers rights e.g. a minimum wage; this was designed to prevent unfair competition through exploitation of workers. In order to stave off defeat at home, and keep the Conservative Party on board, John Major negotiated an opt-out of the Social Chapter claiming it would increase the costs to business.

On coming to power Labour signed up to the Social Chapter in June 1997.




THE TREATY OF AMSTERDAM, 1997.

The Maastricht Treaty raised a number of issues for the leaders within the EU. Maastricht had proved highly unpopular in a number of member states. In Denmark, it took two referenda to get the Treaty ratified; in France (one of the original members) mass demonstrations and protests against the Treaty. Finally, in Britain, the Treaty split the ruling Conservative Party. A 1998 survey by the European Commission showed that in the UK 36% of respondents thought the EU was a good idea, whilst 23% thought it was a bad idea.

In essence, the Amsterdam Treaty was a follow-up to Maastricht. At the heart of the Treaty was movement on European citizenship, defence and foreign policy issues. The following issues were agreed:

On human rights, discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexuality and age was outlawed.
Free movement of people was guaranteed (although UK and Eire allowed to keep their border controls).
Law on divorce, immigration, visas and asylum were to be common throughout the EU.
Europol – an intelligence-gathering agency – to begin operations.
Budgetary deficits to be regulated once the single currency introduced.
Coordination of employment strategy between member states.
Social Chapter to be incorporated into the Treaty following UKs signing up to the Social Chapter in 1997.
High ranking civil servants to coordinate common foreign and security policy.
More powers for the European Parliament.

They could not agree on the following:

No progress on reforming the EU institutions.

One view of the Amsterdam Treaty is that it was a cautious development, ‘…a commitment to the future rather than a shift in policy’, (McNAughton). To avoid splits among member states, it was agreed that member states would be allowed to integrate at their own pace, opting out when they disagreed with measures acceptable to the majority of member states. For many, economic and monetary union was the priority in the late 1990s; therefore, potentially controversial issues such as reforming the decision-making rules were shelved."

#5 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 30 March 2009 - 08:52 PM

You need to include the decision as to wetehr we adopt the euro, and also the debate about the consitution.

For a long time France refused to allow Britain to join - much to the anger of the British - see this cartoon.

Yo notes seem interesting enough; now you need to bash your ideas into some kind of logical shape.

#6 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 31 March 2009 - 11:39 AM

Me again :blush:
What is the purpose of the European Union (EU)?
Britain’s Integration into Europe?Some ideas please Sir :(
Why Britain joined the European Union?and how?PLEASE

#7 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 31 March 2009 - 10:20 PM

What is the purpose of the European Union (EU)?

Read this site.

Why Britain joined the European Union?and how?

You will find the answer to this in the sources I have already given you.

Britain's Integration into Europe?

This is a very political issue, and is what the debate about the European Constitution is all about - that is the question facing the UK; how far should we integrate with Europe.
Google
how far should Britain integrate with Europe
and follow the likely-looking links for lots of different views.

#8 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 01 April 2009 - 09:45 AM

Thank you so much Sir



#9 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:05 PM

Very nice caricature :D :D
"For a long time France refused to allow Britain to join"
1963
French President Charles de Gaulle vetoes British membership
France's nationalist leader Charles de Gaulle refuses to back the UK's application to join the EEC saying that the British government lacks commitment to European integration.
1973
Britain Denmark and Ireland join the European Community
The three countries and Norway had failed to join 10 years earlier because of General de Gaulle's veto on British membership. This time all sign an accession treaty in 1972 but Norwegians reject it in a referendum later in the year. Denmark and Ireland hold successful referendums. The UK does not hold a referendum until 1975 after renegotiating its entry terms the result is twotoone in favour.

#10 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:40 AM

All seems good stuff, although - since I lived through it and remember it happening at the time - I must say that you are making me feel VERY old!
:huh:
Best of luck with the presentation.

#11 belle

belle
  • Student
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:57 AM

Thank you so much for all of your help!
You were so great to me in my time of need and you were very patient with me :blush:


Thank you

#12 anais-anais

anais-anais
  • Student
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:France edno sulle
  • Interests:history

Posted 05 April 2010 - 07:48 PM

Hello

The EEC issue was hotly debated during the two elections of 1974. Both returned Labour governments, albeit with slim majorities. On winning the October 1974 election, the Labour Party had pledged to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain a member of the EEC or not. The referendum was held in June 1975 – two-thirds voted in favour of remaining in the EEC based on a 64% turnout

So we can understand from this point that Labour MPs were against Britain's existence in the EEC,what about Conservatives?
what about Germany ? did she share France the ''NON'' ?
Thank You

#13 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 05 April 2010 - 10:53 PM

So we can understand from this point that Labour MPs were against Britain's existence in the EEC,what about Conservatives?

Both parties had their europhiles and their euro-skeptics, but the Conservatives were generally more anti-Europe than Labour.

what about Germany ? did she share France the ''NON'' ?

The Germans were less anglophobe than the French, but there was a general lack of enthusiasm for the British entry - which was one of the reasons the terms of entry were so harsh.

#14 anais-anais

anais-anais
  • Student
  • 13 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:France edno sulle
  • Interests:history

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:32 AM

Both parties had their europhiles and their euro-skeptics, but the Conservatives were generally more anti-Europe than Labour

In My link
they said :In opposition, Labour came out strongly against EEC membership under leader Hugh Gaitskell, who issued a passionate warning as to the effects membership would have on the UK’s sovereignty.
Is there any evidence about the conservative s anti-europe?
the referendum of 1975: Labour votes to leave the EEC and the Labour Party's splits over Europe have led to a series of embarrassments for the government recently. Labour MPs, including ministers, have forced defeats on the way votes are counted in the referendum, and on the renegotiation of Britain's membership of the EECMy link

The Germans were less anglophobe than the French, but there was a general lack of enthusiasm for the British entry - which was one of the reasons the terms of entry were so harsh.

other reason is the veto used by France.Are there other reasons?
Since both parties were against this membership why the 1961 & 1967 applications?
Thank you

#15 MrJohnDClare

MrJohnDClare
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 5,339 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:County Durham

Posted 06 April 2010 - 01:16 PM

In My link
they said :In opposition, Labour came out strongly against EEC membership under leader Hugh Gaitskell...

Ooops. Sorry. Well done you! That'll teach me to answer a question from memory! (Perhaps I was remembering the 1980s.) I would go with your link. Opposition in either party is usually about sovereignty and the feeling that somehow we are subsidising other countries.

Since both parties were against this membership why the 1961 & 1967 applications?

Dunno - and I'm certainly not answering based on how I remember things! :D
I'll put a request for help onto the Teachers' Forum. Look back in a couple of days.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users