The Back Door To A Federal Europe: A Short Timeline

Many people in Britain feel frustrated about the decisions taken in their name with regard to European integration. Here we explain briefly the main events in the history of the EU, and the amount of input that the peoples of Europe had in these events, in the pursuit of European Union.

*    *    *

The last time that the British people got their say about the European Union was in 1975, when we voted YES by a narrow margin to stay within the European Economic Community. Most believed that what Edward Heath had signed us up for in 1973 was a ‘common market,’ as it was known as in the UK, and that the principles of the agreement would be centred on liberalising free trade.

Robert Schuman,
one of the founding fathers
of the European Union

The initial developments of the European Union appeared to be just that, but even from the outset, the ideology of political integration was present. The Paris Treaty of 1951 between France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands saw the beginning of the European Coal and Steel Community. The sharing of key resources between old enemies was seen as a historic moment which would bring diplomatic and economic stability and ensure that Europe would never again be ravaged by the dictatorial and fascist regimes that arose from “extreme nationalism”. Resources that had once been used for machines of war were now the basis for stability and reconstruction across the continent. Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister at the time, succeeded in realising his vision of a common ‘high authority,’ open to participation from other European countries. Integral to the treaty was the birth of ‘Europe,’ which no longer referred to just the European landmass, but the foundation of a new democratic organisation, a supranational entity. This entity was seen by some as the birth of the political commitment to integration and the beginning of the path to a European federation.

Charles de Gaulle twice denied
Britain entry to the European Community

Britain’s initial application for EU membership was vetoed twice by French President Charles de Gaulle, first in 1963 and again in 1967, due to Britain’s “lack of interest” in the Common Market. He cited Britain’s “deep-seated hostility” towards European construction. He understood that Britain’s relationship with the USA and Britain’s colonial and commonwealth links could get in the way, and that for many reasons the UK market was “incompatible” with the European framework. Despite this rejection being viewed as a treacherous betrayal by the then UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson, in many ways de Gaulle was right about Britain’s anti-European sentiment, and the rejection was welcomed by anti-EU campaigners. After de Gaulle lost power in 1969, Britain applied for a third time and was taken into the EU by the Conservative government under Edward Heath.

Since its formation, the Coal and Steel Community had merged with other European trade organisations and at the time of UK accession it was then a combined league of European Communities, still governed through the principles of strengthening the common European market. The Communities have since grown over the last 60 years to become the European Union which itself was born in 2009. During this time there were 9 other treaties that saw the development of the Community’s powers and governance in a slowly evolving, incremental fashion. A major stepping stone was the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 in which the Euro was introduced. With this treaty the European Communities fully embraced the supranational principle. The Commission was now responsible for initiating legislation across the continent, namely Directives (targets for nations to achieve in the way they deem best), and Regualtions (laws), on a huge range of areas including the customs union, single market, agricultural policy, the Euro and interest rates, education, healthcare, asylum and immigration. The areas of foreign policy, human rights, defence and peacekeeping, judicial and criminal matters and terrorism were at this point in time still coordinated through inter-governmental means.

The next main right of passage for the union was the European Constitution. The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe sought to bring into force a new consolidated constitution for the European Union, with its own Charter of Fundamental Rights, replacing all the original treaties and introducing Qualified Majority Voting into policy areas that had previously required unanimity among all member states. It was signed by the representatives of the 25 member states in October 2004. After being signed by the Council, it needed to be ratified within all member states to become valid. The proposal for a European Constitution was a great step in European integration and its very existence would change and indeed override many powers vested in national parliaments through national constitutions. Referendums were planned for various countries.

In May 2005, the Spanish people said YES by 76% of the votes, although voter turnout was only around 43%. The French public later said NO by 55% with a 69% turnout and a few days later the Dutch people said NO by 61% on a 62% turnout. Notwithstanding the French and Dutch results, the people of Luxembourg approved the constitution but by that time it was too late. The treaty to establish a Constitution for Europe was considered a failure and all the other planned referendums (UK, Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark and Ireland) were cancelled.

Valery Giscard D'Estaing strongly
criticised the Lisbon Treaty

Following a ‘period of reflection’, the Lisbon Treaty was presented as an alternative to the constitution. It contained all of the principal changes of the constitution but was presented as a series of amendments to the existing treaties rather than an all encompassing constitution. Many described this as a ruse, to cunningly separate the legislation into different documents to present the changes in a less foreboding and more manageable way. This feeling of deception was described by Valery Giscard D'Estaing, ex-president of France, saying that "public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly," and that the treaty “would confirm to European citizens the notion that European construction is a procedure organised behind their backs by lawyers and diplomats."


Even if the treaty was presented in a clear, honest and transparent way, this kind of constitutional transformation is a subject of such importance that there would need to be a huge public campaign to explain in great detail every aspect of the treaty to the public so that people can decide the future of their own country and so that the European government may gain trust and legitimacy in its actions.

The Lisbon Treaty introduced a new European Council President and a single foreign relations High Representative. Most importantly it introduced Qualified Majority Voting to a large number of policy areas that previously required unanimity, another great step towards a European federation as opposed to a cooperation of countries. In this system, some actions require only 18 out of 27 countries to pass laws and for many decisions countries are given weightings according to their size. Actions proposed by the Commission only require 14 of 27 country representatives to pass, with no weighting based on the size of the country. The quality majority vote now applies to vast areas of policy such as criminal law, social security, defence, immigration, intellectual property, establishing a business and self-employment rights, the European Central Bank and many more. With this system, many decisions that directly affect UK citizens can be made without the consent of the UK representatives, let alone the UK people. In the case of proposals from the commission, decisions can be passed with a majority of countries whose populations may only make up a small percentage of the peoples of Europe. The main policy areas such as finances, taxation, citizenship and EU membership still require the agreement of all members.

The Treaty of Lisbon was signed in December 2007 by the Council representatives. Despite its similarity to the Constitution in content, the process of ratification that followed was rather different. The French and Dutch people had said NO to the Constitution, but further referendums were not given to them for the Treaty of Lisbon. Only in Ireland was a referendum granted, as it is required in the Irish constitution for such circumstances. In June 2008 the Irish people said NO to the Treaty of Lisbon by 53% and a turnout of 53%. This cast much doubt over the future of EU integration and put enormous pressure on Irish politicians to find a solution. Eventually the treaty was edited to provide legal guarantees for Ireland in the areas of taxation and defence among others. This, combined with the changing mood that European unity would provide more economic stability after the financial crisis of the previous year, led the Irish people to vote YES in October of 2009. As we now know, this economic stability was short lived and many must now wonder now about the wisdom of the decision.

"We will put it [The European Constitution] to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote."
- Labour Party 2005 Election Manifesto

Gordon Brown broke his election
promise to the British people

Contrary to the pledge made in their last election manifesto, the Labour party pushed through the treaty in July of 2008. Not only was Gordon Brown handing away powers from London to Brussels without the consent of the British people, but this was all being done shortly after the Irish people had said NO in a nationwide referendum. The (then, shadow) Foreign Secretary William Hague said the prime minister had "no democratic or moral authority to sign Britain up to the renamed EU constitution," and that it represented “a total breach of trust with the British people.” Much of the country would have no doubt agreed, if they had even known what was happening at the time.

And thus the Lisbon Treaty was ratified and came into force on the 1st December 2009. How could this have been allowed to happen? How can people who claim they believe in democracy simply ignore the wishes of member states that have expressly said NO in referendum?

The orchestrators of the European project have dedicated untold time and money to its continuation and must wake every day with a passion to work hard to bring their life’s work to fruition. They have the backing of a political elite and the power to gather all the resources they need to accomplish this. A vote of NO from one member state is seen merely as an obstacle that can be overcome, a blip in the long term plan.

With the current economic woes of the Euro zone, the only credible path to ensuring monetary stability is a much closer fiscal and political union. It is therefore quite possible that the next stepping stone to European political integration is not so far away.

The UK has chosen to ‘opt out’ of several aspects of European integration since accession in 1973. These include: the monetary union (we have our own currency and central bank), the Schengen treaty (that which guarantees free movement across the borders of EU countries), certain aspects of the Fundamental Rights Charter and the use of qualified majority voting for the area of police and judicial affairs.

“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years go. The Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”
- Liberal Democrats 2010 Election Manifesto

"Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the European Union without the say of the British people in a referendum."
- David Cameron, November 2009

David Cameron describes himself
as a practical Euro-sceptic

Both of the Coalition parties have expressed their commitment to a referendum on the EU. The prime minister believes that the people have been let down with the decisions taken by past governments without their consent but doesn’t think that an in/out referendum is the question that the people want answered. Instead he believes that Britain should be practical and try to renegotiate our relationship with the EU step by step.

A strong majority of the country do want a European cooperation based on the principles of the Council of Europe and free trade. Few can object to free trade advantages such as importing more German cars or simplifying mobile phone roaming charges. However, many do object to an ongoing movement towards ever-closer political union and decisions that affect all citizens, and the very sovereignty of European countries, being taken without their consent. Further transferral of powers to Brussels will trigger a referendum under Cameron’s pledge and will likely not be about the UK leaving the EU, but about strengthening our diplomatic hand in negotiating a form of trade-only relationship similar to what we thought we had signed up to in the first place.

Just imagine if we, and other European countries for that matter, still had a prime minster with the ‘balls’ to say NO.