12th September 2021
Once ‘euro-scepticism’ was a big thing in British politics.
Parties and politicians, as well as the media, competed with each other to be disdainful of the European Union project, but without calling for outright departure.
Anyone with an absolute view on the merits of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union were regarded as marginal if not eccentric – whether ‘pro’ or ‘anti’.
The conservative party, for example, had a steady stream of defections to the liberal democrats of ‘pro-EU’ politicians, and the referendum party came and went.
But about ten years ago ‘euro-scepticism’ disappeared, to be replaced by those seeking outright departure.
Why did this happen?
Well, one possibility is – paradoxically – the European Union stopped pushing for more powers and competencies.
To an extent ‘euro-scepticism’ was reactive: a response to treaty after treaty of expansion: Maastricht, Amsterdam, Lisbon.
And once the treaties stopped, then ‘euro-scepticism’ stopped – for it did not serve the purpose of a brake.
There still has not been a major European Union treaty since Lisbon, signed in 2007.
In respect of major treaties, the European Union has been in a steady state since Lisbon.
And there has been no real taste for one.
(Indeed, the fiscal pact of 2012 was done outside the European Union framework.)
And when the movement to ever close union ended – at least at treaty level – then British ‘euro-scepticism’ flipped into Brexiteering.
There were, of course, many other factors around ten years ago that contributed to Brexiteering.
But one cause must have been the collapse in ‘euro-scepticism’.
Few in 2016 wanted to ‘be in Europe but not run by Europe’ – as the old slogan said.
And ‘euro-scepticism’ was never a positive message such would win a binary referendum.
Not many would vote Remain because it offered only mild opposition to the European Union as opposed to Leave’s explicit hostility.
Polarisation on the European Union question did not suit the tradition of ‘euro-scepticism’.
But.
It can also be averred that ‘euro-scepticism’ had been successful – that is, if success is taken to mean a sequence of secured outcomes.
The United Kingdom had secured the benefit of opt-outs – from the Euro and freedom of movement to justice and home affairs.
On this basis, it is hard to say ‘euro-scepticism’ was a failure.
But opt-outs can only take you so far without touching upon the ultimate questions of membership.
By 2015 there was little left to opt out from.
The ‘re-negotiation’ was a flop.
So perhaps ‘euro-scepticism’ died in part because there was no longer anything left that it could achieve.
And also perhaps because that before 2015 it had been too successful.
**
Hello there – please do support this sceptical liberal constitutionalist blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
interesting catch, did not know or was aware that it disappeared.
But obviously true, my guidance on UK foreign policy regarding the European Union is still “Yes PrimeMinister” when Sir Henry explains the policy the UK had for centuries toward the continent.
Mostly Yes Minister and plain Humphrey (before the Sir), but here are some links. https://www.politico.eu/article/sir-antony-jay-what-yes-minister-satire-tv-show-taught-us-about-europe/
“Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. … We had to break the whole thing up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch… The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it’s just like old times.”
And now? We are on the outside looking in, like Turkey and Ukraine.
many thanks for the real souce of my memories.
i have seen it on youtube after the referendum and thought some nowadays in HMG seem to think of it as manual and not a comedy.
and thanks for the link after reading it i am not sure it
was comedy or just blatantly honest from the english pov.
As with its modern cousin “The Thick of It”, I am afraid you need to decide for yourself which parts are pure comedy built upon a grain of truth, and which parts are the truth presented in a comedic manner. Or perhaps they are both at the same time.
Interesting, but it is only part of a story.
Please could you do the second instalment on how Euroscepticism mutated into Europhobia. The sheer hostility to Europe (not just the EU) of the Brexiters now in power seem pathological? Why exactly don’t they want a constructive and positive relationship with our nearest neighbours?
Seconded.
Can we pls look at whether the Neoliberals are still now driving for their post-democratic aims? If so do they remain a credible threat? (I guess any band of daft-notioners poses a threat to the hollow populists who form this so-called govt.).
The fact that there has not been a major EU treaty since 2007, is an advantage for the EU. Most EU treaties take years to pass from a concept to reality and they are debated and argued during the gestation period so that they are now superior to laws enacted in the UK, which are often politically motivated and enacted without due Parliamentary scrutiny. Thus they do not have the solid foundations which will enable them to endure. The British must learn this, (again).
I agree that Euroscepticism ran out of steam but I think that it was being replaced by the idea that breaking up the EU was a possibility.
I remember the eurozone debt crisis and there was a distinct feeling amongst the Brexiteers that the whole thing would come crashing down. There was lots of demands from people that Germany should bailout Greece for instance across a wide range of commentators to be fair but particularly brexiteers and a lot of interesting articles about effects of the debt crisis but not the cause
I my view the biggest change i terms of Euroscepticism was the view that of UK left others may follow. To my mind this is why I think you can have speeches like those of Gove & Frost. Gove’s argument that Brexit was a contagion was particularly interesting since it came with may of he usual tropes. I would argue that there was two schools of thought surrounding Brexit the first that UK leaving would prompt others to leave and thus give UK a ready made organisation for which it would be able to leverage its power better and a second view that UK had enough gravity that although outside would have influence enough to be able to feed f EU ins a similar manner to when they were inside, the former could be an encapsulation of global Britain and the latter cakeism if you will.
I suspect the reality of what happened is firstly the contagion did not have the effect that Brexiteer felt would happen. For example the EU stuck to their script relentlessly where as the UK did not have one. the second one was economic in that UK overstated its importance to the EU compared to the EU importance to itself
Euroscepticism was always pushing against an open door. Most every opt out was actually gained with a lot of hot air but in truth less fuss that we made out i UK papers and media. We decided that Euroscepticism was a show for the public that became something that the public believed ad this is why unlike other remainers that I cannot see the EU breaking apart any time soon, nor do I think we will rejoin i the next 25 years. So yes Euroscepticism was successful in a way that it sold a completely different view of itself
There has been a corollary of Eurosceptics moving over to become Leave voters – a huge rise in pro-European sentiment amongst Remainers, which arguably did not exist to the same extent before 2016. And, to paraphrase Gerry Adams, we haven’t gone away, you know.
“…By 2015 there was little left to opt out from.
The ‘re-negotiation’ was a flop.
So perhaps ‘euro-scepticism’ died in part because there was no longer anything left that it could achieve…”
Here’s the rub – agreed,the February 2016 renegotiation was much more than a flop.It was a catalyst and the UK public saw how week the/any UK government was against Brussels.
The EU genuinely gave us the UK nothing.
Sir Ivan Rogers rather gave the game away as one of Cameron’s key advisors ( or chief Sherpa as he was known) when, with hindsight he felt that Cameron & Osborne really had lost the fight for The City ( aka Financial Services industry) to be outgunned by the Eurozone countries and the evermore growth of EZ ‘caucusing’ losing 41 national vetoes that were lost by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty now ageed by QMV .
European Integration really can’t stop – it’s based on ‘gearing’ , aka the ratchet and ‘engrenage’ – best described by arch federalist J C Juncker who likened EU integration to the forward motion of a wheel on a bicycle – if the bike stops integration will stop, ergo engrenage prevents this from happening.
“The EU genuinely gave us the UK nothing.”
There was nothing to give. Cameron’s self-inflicted timetable – that the result of the renegotiation be put to a referendum bu 2016 – meant there was no chance of a treaty change.
That the EU had something more to “give” in those circumstances is false.
“That the EU had something more to “give” in those circumstances is false….
Funny, on the day after returning, 20 Feb, Cameron announced the Referendum date – the rest is history.
You have to do better than that, John!
Your proposition was: “The EU genuinely gave us the UK nothing.”
This implies that the EU could have ‘given’ us something, but chose not to so.
So I challenged this – and pointed out that there was nothing more for the EU to give at that re-negotiation, and so your proposition was not sound.
And…
…when challenged, you could not say what the EU could have ‘given’.
If you are going to debate in these comments, you have to raise your game!
This Guardian piece gives good account of what Cameron tried to secure and what he actually secured – a pig & a poke.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/19/camerons-eu-deal-what-he-wanted-and-what-he-got
He got a 7 year v 13 year emergency break in regards to EU citizens – result poor for UK
He couldn’t stop Child Benefits going back to member states – result poor for UK.
He got a promise ( FFS a promise oh thank you Lord) that Euro Council would discuss ( only discuss ) stronger protection for Non EZ v EZ countries but this was considered extremely weak by all concerned.
All in all a bit of a pig & a poke.
The irony is that given the EU didn’t /couldn’t offer concessions, Cameron came back the next day & announced referendum date.
Maybe with a scintilla of foresight the EU might have given the UK a shot in the arm for energetic and enthusiastic campaigning for the Remainder vote – as it is, we got an ex Chair of M&S who couldn’t recall his team’s campaign name. Poor old Stuart Rose not the UK’s most gifted campaigner.
So, again: what more could the EU have offered?
What was actually available, without a treaty change?
Two simple amendments – which could have been introduced without leaving the EU – were restricting EU migrants ability to remain in the UK without employment to 3 months (as other EU countries currently do), and restricting eligibility to benefits to those who paid earned the right to receive them.
The fact that neither reform was introduced suggests that the issue with the EU was not fundamentally about free movement.
I thought Euroscepticism was a fair enough philosophical viewpoint just so long as not taken seriously. Had a certain air of grand detachment to go with ‘The Minister is not minded’ and ‘I happen to think…’ An air of intellectual superiority without much to back it up.
Then the realities of global trade and business efficiency (applied to the plebs) came along and Western capitalism failed to deliver – at home. Add to this a long lasting feeling that the UK should be a bit more like America, that we should be towed to the mid Atlantic politically and business wise. An ideal era in which to turn scepticism into action. Except that the UK stayed put exactly where it was and America has enough problems of its own.
Looking around, even those blogs that were of the Brexit mouthfoaming variety are cooling on the whole idea. Blaming the Leavers for blocking a golden opportunity or that somehow a jot or a tittle was put in the wrong place. Slowly waking up to the fact that Brexit was a silly idea.
“Eurosceptism” was always a political mask for the real desire to be out of the EU. The right wing of the Tories and the left wing of Labour were united in that aim but for very different reasons.
Euroscepticism isn’t dead – it’s a zombie.
But we were told that euro-scepticism wasn’t really a thing – more of a guise that hid the Brexiters real motives: xenophobic, racist, little Englanders that just hate anyone and anything foreign. However, this was never the case and demonstrably so as you have shown.