The UK and European "centre formation" from 1950 to brexit

Christopher J. Lord
{"title":"The UK and European \"centre formation\" from 1950 to brexit","authors":"Christopher J. Lord","doi":"10.22381/GHIR10120183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It might be thought that Brexit is just a case of the UK getting honest with itself and its partners. On that interpretation, much British opinion never really accepted European integration. Hence, the UK should never have joined a body committed to an “ever closer Union between the peoples of Europe.” Yet, I argue, the relationship of the UK to the process of European integration has been complex and paradoxical. As a member of the EU, the UK promoted a major act of European centre formation: namely, the formation of the single market. Even where they felt unable to participate in other initiatives – such as monetary union and Schengen – British Governments settled for largely constructive forms of abstention. One thing the UK has not been is a significant constraint, or source of fragmentation in the process of European integration. That may not even change with the vote in June 2016 to leave the Union. Continued UK participation in aspects of European integration cannot be ruled out. Nor can a failed exit from the Union. On the one hand, Brexit seems both necessary and impossible: something the UK has to do and something that it cannot do. On the other hand, there seems to be no stable equilibrium in British politics for any one approach to Brexit. Yet, if it cannot “exit,” the UK may have to seek more “voice” and “loyalty” in its relationship with the Union. I make this argument by reviewing some of the history and contemporary political science of the UK’s relationship with the European Union in what, I hope, are mutually helpful ways.","PeriodicalId":37543,"journal":{"name":"Geopolitics, History, and International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geopolitics, History, and International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22381/GHIR10120183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

It might be thought that Brexit is just a case of the UK getting honest with itself and its partners. On that interpretation, much British opinion never really accepted European integration. Hence, the UK should never have joined a body committed to an “ever closer Union between the peoples of Europe.” Yet, I argue, the relationship of the UK to the process of European integration has been complex and paradoxical. As a member of the EU, the UK promoted a major act of European centre formation: namely, the formation of the single market. Even where they felt unable to participate in other initiatives – such as monetary union and Schengen – British Governments settled for largely constructive forms of abstention. One thing the UK has not been is a significant constraint, or source of fragmentation in the process of European integration. That may not even change with the vote in June 2016 to leave the Union. Continued UK participation in aspects of European integration cannot be ruled out. Nor can a failed exit from the Union. On the one hand, Brexit seems both necessary and impossible: something the UK has to do and something that it cannot do. On the other hand, there seems to be no stable equilibrium in British politics for any one approach to Brexit. Yet, if it cannot “exit,” the UK may have to seek more “voice” and “loyalty” in its relationship with the Union. I make this argument by reviewing some of the history and contemporary political science of the UK’s relationship with the European Union in what, I hope, are mutually helpful ways.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从1950年到英国脱欧,英国和欧洲的“中心形成”
人们可能会认为,英国脱欧只是英国对自己和合作伙伴诚实的一个例子。按照这种解释,很多英国人从未真正接受过欧洲一体化。因此,英国不应该加入一个致力于“欧洲各国人民之间日益紧密的联盟”的机构。然而,我认为,英国与欧洲一体化进程的关系既复杂又矛盾。作为欧盟成员国,英国推动了欧洲中心形成的一项重大举措:即单一市场的形成。即使在它们感到无法参加其他倡议的地方- -例如货币联盟和申根- -英国政府也基本上选择了建设性的弃权形式。在欧洲一体化进程中,英国没有成为一个重要的制约因素,也没有成为分裂的根源。即使2016年6月的脱欧公投也不会改变这一点。不能排除英国继续参与欧洲一体化的可能性。退出欧盟失败也不能。一方面,英国退欧似乎既必要又不可能:这是英国必须做的事,也是它不能做的事。另一方面,对于任何一种脱欧方式,英国政治似乎都没有稳定的平衡。然而,如果它不能“退出”,英国可能不得不在与欧盟的关系中寻求更多的“发言权”和“忠诚”。我通过回顾英国与欧盟关系的一些历史和当代政治科学来提出这一观点,我希望这是一种互惠互利的方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Geopolitics, History, and International Relations publishes mainly original empirical research and review articles focusing on hot emerging topics, e.g. digital diplomacy, online political participation, data activism, fake social media news, algorithmic governance, computational politics, Internet terrorism, autonomous weapons systems, virtual history, innovative data-driven smart urban ecosystems, etc. This journal considers only manuscripts having a high integrative value in the current Scopus- and Web of Science-indexed literature.
期刊最新文献
Global Public Goods and Higher Education in an Apocalyptic Era: The Promise of Open Science Urban Greenhouse Gas Accounting for Net-Zero Carbon Cities: Sustainable Development, Renewable Energy, and Climate Change The Geopolitics of Smart Urban Governance: 3D Space Mapping Algorithms, Digital Twin Simulation and Virtual Reality Modeling Tools, and Cloud Computing and Image Recognition Technologies The Geopolitics of Urban Digital Twins: Spatial Cognition and Predictive Modeling Algorithms, Simulation and Virtualization Technologies, and Blockchain-enabled Cyber-Physical Systems Digital Twin Algorithms, Smart City Technologies, and 3D Spatio-Temporal Simulations in Virtual Urban Environments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1