Britain has always been ambivalent about one of the greatest geopolitical experiments in human history – – namely the drawing together of diverse European states into a unified structure that would ensure that dialogue and agreement would it replace war and conquest as the means of dispute resolution. The experiment arose out of the ruins and ashes left over after World War II. It was consummated in the treaty of Rome in 1956. But Britain remained aloof from that treaty which was between France, Italy, Germany and the Benelux countries. Britain at the time cited its obligations to the Commonwealth as the primary reason for not signing that initial common market treaty.
However, Britain’s reluctance to engage with, let alone lead, the move to European unity runs far deeper than any residual affection for its former empire. Successive British governments and many British people have had long-term suspicion of Europe. That suspicion has ranged from fear of aggression to a xenophobic aversion to funny foreign foods and habits. Much of that could perhaps be put down to the fact that Britain is an island separated from Europe by the English Channel. Other European countries share land borders with each other which makes interaction far easier and more commonplace. And with interaction comes understanding and appreciation of other people’s different ways.
In the beginning of the 21st century, however, modern communications and improved transport links particularly the Channel Tunnel, should have eroded much of this suspicion. But events this week show that this is probably not the case.
The British government, the Opposition, and many British people and are in favour of retaining the British pound and are against joining the unified currency system under the euro. Prime Minister Tony Blair has promised a referendum on the issue. Last week he reiterated that promise, indicating it might be sooner than later. But the sooner it is held the more likely the result will be to oppose the unified currency. A, the sooner it is held, the more distance there will be between it and the next election. The latter point is critical. For 30 years British governments of both persuasions have had great difficulty with Oppositions playing the populist anti-Europe card.
It is a shame it that Mr Blair appears still to be wary of this possibility, despite the healthy majority he won in this month’s election and despite the fact that the Conservatives are now looking slightly more pro-European given the hammering at they got at the election during which they made much of their anti-euro stand. The leading challenger for the Conservative leadership, Michael Portillo, has publicly distanced himself from the former implacably anti-Europe stand. So now would be the time for Mr Blair to seize the moment and push a more European stand, because if Britain fails to join the single currency it will be to its long-term detriment. Major companies will review their investments in Britain and some might even a move their headquarters to countries which adopt at the euro. It may be that the British pound is temporally over priced but Britain should look at the long-term benefits of the unified currency.
In an the short term, the average Briton, as distinct from the business community, is opposed to the euro and would prefer to keep the familiar pound. But that it is a manifestation of the general principle that people do not like change. Come January, however, that might change with the appearance of a the euro as a notes-and-coins currency. Britons who travel will see its obvious advantage. With the currency in circulation and more Britons actually using it, the thought of the pound disappearing from existence will be less traumatic.