\n\t\t\t17\/02\/2024. Munich, Germany. President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, meets the UK\u2019s then-Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, at the 2024 Munich Security Conference. Picture by Christophe Licoppe \/ European Commission Audiovisual Service.
\n
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t<\/p>\n
As part of a series of articles for the Young European Federalists\u2019 What If? Campaign<\/strong>, the UK\u2019s International Officer, Jonathan Saunders, writes for The New Federalist about the history of the post-war relationship between Britain and Europe, the reasons for Brexit, and what could have gone differently to prevent it.<\/p>\n \u201cI wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy, and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity, and glory which its millions of people would enjoy.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Winston Churchill, at this point the Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament, an elder statesman in the fifth of his staggering seven decades as an MP, was speaking to academics and students<\/a> at the University of Zurich in 1946 in favour of Austrian-Japanese intellectual Richard von Coudengove-Kalegri\u2019s manifesto for a European Union (EU).<\/p>\n Commending the late socialist French Prime Minister, Artistide Briand, for attempting to save the League of Nations, he argued that only the union of France and Germany under Europe\u2019s banner could ensure the United Nations\u2019 longevity. Churchill\u2019s endorsement for European integration put credibility and momentum towards its cause. Two years later, he presided over hundreds of national representatives at the Congress of Europe in the Hague.<\/p>\n 68 years later, Churchill\u2019s country \u2014 my country of birth \u2014 voted to leave the EU that was formed in his image. Some have argued that Churchill\u2019s support for Europe is exaggerated or taken out of context. Others have argued that the modern-day EU is far different to what he advocated. Neither of these claims could be further from the truth: Churchill rightfully holds his spot as one of its founding fathers, even if our country is no longer one of its member states.<\/p>\n Churchill\u2019s Role as a Founding Father of Europe<\/strong><\/p>\n So, how did Britain and Europe\u2019s marriage break-up so acrimoniously? I believe that it is not any one factor \u2014 Britain\u2019s economy and its regulations, immigration and its multicultural society, or a loss of control over its domestic affairs \u2014 but a series of missed opportunities for Britain to take the leading role in European politics that Churchill as a post-war statesman longed for.<\/p>\n Speaking at the Congress in 1948<\/a>, Churchill provided his support for the creation of a Council of Europe, which Britain was a founding member of and from which resulted in the Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards European\u2019s protections from arbitrary power to this day. Yet, he went much further than this.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure\u201d, said Churchill \u2014 Europe, with Britain and the Commonwealth\u2019s involvement, should form one of the world\u2019s \u201carmies of peace\u201d with the United States and the Soviet Union, safeguarding the United Nations and all the new structures of international law. Churchill may have been nostalgic for Britain\u2019s empire, but he saw no incompatibility between his country and Europe.<\/p>\n Britain\u2019s Rejections from the European Economic Community<\/strong><\/p>\n In Churchill\u2019s second term as Prime Minister from 1951 to 1955, he left the door open to economic union \u2014 something he criticised the post-war Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, for failing to negotiate on coal and steel \u2014 and supported unsuccessful efforts to create a defence union. When Harold Macmillan applied to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961, Churchill wrote to his Conservative Association in support<\/a>.<\/p>\n Macmillan was a friend of Europe from his appointment as Prime Minister in 1957, calling in one of his earliest statements<\/a> \u201cto overcome the natural tendency to resist experiment or the inherent skepticism which is one of the dangers of an old civilisation\u201d. His greatest success was in forming the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) with Austria, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.<\/p>\n This made it all-the-more disappointing when France\u2019s President, Charles de Gaulle, slammed the door shut on Britain, declaring \u201cnon!\u201d to their entry on national television in 1963. Dejected, Macmillan wrote in his diary<\/a> that \u201call our policies at home and abroad are in ruins\u201d. He was hospitalised shortly after and deposed by a cabinet which he had fallen out with in the aftermath of the humiliation inflicted by de Gaulle.<\/p>\n When Labour were re-elected under Harold Wilson in 1964, Europe went back in the list of priorities. Then, Labour were the less pro-Europe of the two parties on the basis that free movement may threaten the jobs of its voter base. This argument faded into obscurity when the UK Government had to devalue the pound to prevent an incoming economic catastrophe. Britain applied for the EEC again in 1967, but was vetoed for a second time by de Gaulle.<\/p>\n\n