AHC:Have Britain be less Eurosceptic

I was thinking that it would have to take Britain being less nationalistic as it apparently gained a boost after the Falklands war, so that being averted or being more of a disaster for Britain, forcing the US/NATO to help could make it less Eurosceptic as it sees itself as only being able to remain a great power with the Eu.

Brits aren't really very nationalistic as it is. Quite frankly, I think Canadians are more nationalistic.
 

MrP

Banned
How about Europe does better? This is based on what some of the people I know (Brexitiers) who voted to leave the EU gave as reasons for voting that way

The EU does not allow certain Nations to join knowing that they are not ready - ie Greece - making sure that those nations had reached a particular level before allowing them to join
Bringing in as many new members as possible ("broadening"), with the not so covert aim of making consensus more difficult and thus prevent further integration ("deepening"), has been a British policy all along, so it's rather paradoxical to invoke it as a reason for leaving.

Obligatory Yes, Minister reference:

 

Wallet

Banned
The Soviet Union survives, but the US becomes isolationist and withdraws from Europe.

Britain and Europe have to stick together
 
Reading this article, one could also argue that certain ingredients for not only Brexit, but a generally Eurosceptic mood were there all along and had less to do with party politics, but a general 'psyche' that stretched back to a malaise in the sense of being "non-metropolitan but not necessarily “natural”" (as it is described in the article) in many parts of England. The ideas of 'splendid isolation' and the decline of the major industries probably amplified that. That's why I'd also say that Britain would have to enter the EC or EU much, much later than OTL, with the idea of 'Europe' offering a way out and a new 'leap into the unknown'.

In most Eastern European countries, people are more Europhile (though many leading politicians often play out the 'anti-Brussels' card) due to the fact that EU membership means subsidies and funding for building projects. At the same time, some of these countries also saw a major economic boost since joining the EU, whereas the years before that were marked by the wilderness of the market 'shock therapy' years. So if the economic decline continues throughout the 1980s and 1990s, with Britain joining maybe in 1995, pro-European feelings would probably be stronger.
 
Make the rest of Europe more euroscepic and British public opinion will be more pro-EU if there was no prospect of the E.U. evolving into a United States of Europe.

So the U.K. still joins the Common Market in 1973. The Single European Market still comes into operation in 1992. But:
  1. The European Economic Community must not become the E.U.
  2. The Social Chapter must not happed and there must not be any chance of one happening for decades.
  3. The Single Currency must not happen and again there must not be any chance of one happening.

How about Europe does better? This is based on what some of the people I know (Brexitiers) who voted to leave the EU gave as reasons for voting that way

The EU does not allow certain Nations to join knowing that they are not ready - ie Greece - making sure that those nations had reached a particular level before allowing them to join

The organisation focuses more on being a common market (what my parent's generation 'thought' that they had voted for) and not as what many saw, becoming a Federal Europe with laws dictated from 'Brussels' - and what many saw as unnecessary stifling Red tape making their jobs more difficult.

There are meaningful controls over the movement of people from new member states preventing the influx of Eastern Europeans or options for individual member nations to have greater control of their borders - the immigration issue seemed to be one of the main causes for people to vote leave.

Also has to be said The Daily Moral Panic (The Daily Mail and Daily Express) - go out of print some time in the 80s and no longer pollute the British peoples with their hate filled gash of a viewspaper and in addition to this, much greater education and information about the EU and Britain's place in it.

One critical problem with all this is that federalist aspirations were embedded in the DNA of Europe from the start. The phrase "ever-closer union" was in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome, signed after a failed effort to unify western Europe's militaries in the mid-1950s. The 1960s were full of federalist goals, with everything from continuing work on the single market to the introduction of the European Parliament to, at the end of the decade, talk of monetary union. Britain ended up departing the looser organization of EFTA for the EEC explicitly because this sort of deeper union was thought of as better for the United Kingdom.

Britons who were alive in the early 1970s and who were at all politically informed have no grounds to claim ignorance of the then-European Economic Community's federalist goals. I have no idea how modern-day Brexiteers who were alive at the time can claim ignorance of events and trends that were entirely public at the time, unless they were willfully ignorant.

Much of what Brexiteers dislike about the European Union was inevitable. If you are going to have a single market in goods, services, capital and workers, then you are going to have a single level of government regulating this market. This inevitably will be a European model. To the extent that Brexiteers are opposed to any external restraints, they are never going to be happy with European integration.

Other things can be put down to highly contingent elements of domestic politics. As I noted here in May, the fact that so many Poles and Balts headed to the United Kingdom in 2004 was a huge surprise, something unprecedented in the prior history of Polish and Baltic migration to the United Kingdom. It occurred only because of the decision of the British government to open its labour market to migrants from the new EU member-states after 2004 while Germany, in many respects the more natural destination, opted to keep its labour market closed. Had Britain's government made a different decision--something that every other large EU member-state did--then this influx would not have occurred.

What could change this? I suppose that British politicians and Britons at large would have to abandon vain dreams of surpassing France or Germany as a world power, of a Special Relationship with the United States or an especially meaningful Commonwealth that could magnify British power and influence. What it would take to do this, I do not know, but some kind of bruising defeat somewhere might work.
 
De Gaulle doesn't bar UK entry into the EEC in 1961.

That is essentially impossible. De Gaulle was never going to let the UK in so early (if ever), because at the time he sought to build with Adenauer a third wheel of international politics (see: Fouchet Plan) in which the UK, as essentially an extension of the US would not be acceptable, and also because in 1961, the negotiations for the creation and model for the CAP were ongoing, and the British agricultural model was so at odds with that of the European countries that it was unacceptable to him for the UK to join at such a stage.
 
The reality of Eurosceptism: I did vote to stay in the EU for economic reasons however I was willing to put "shared collaboration across the board" aside. However, since the anger in the north of the country, which is where I am from, I understand Eurosceptism and people have nothing. No jobs, no excitement, no prospects, no investment, everything is like pit hole, run down i.e the north-south divide.

The cultural reason behind Eurosceptism: Simply it comes down to us being too outward-looking and that created the British Empire which is still part of our culture, along with the British monarchy, which has lasted for centuries (and commonwealth) and having the special relationship contributes. We are the old bearded man, the USA is the frustrated angry child.

Talking personally on Brexit: People in the UK as a people miss/hate not being a big speaker in the world through the British Empire (prestige, global economy, military) and we missed and are throwing away the chance to create something "special" and that was and is The Commonwealth post WWII through trade agreements and an eventually creating a Sterling trading union bloc. The final goal would be to create a commonwealth union of UK (and overseas territories), Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Malta and New Zealand and integrate former British colonial countries into the union that are third or second world countries. Getting access to the single market through negotiations, through a fee would be monumental and getting India would send everyone truly reeling.

In all respect we though I voted "in" thank god we are getting out.

Having Henry V crowned may prevent this, however, he wanted both kingdoms ruled completely separately so there would no integration for 300-400 years even if it go that far and France could easily split off. Then there is the discussion of whether the peoples in each country wanted integration and finally, there are the obstacles to integration.
 
Last edited:
No. There is no prospect of any kind if Commonwealth bloc. The Commonwealth has been very clear about this,

Re-read my post and I says it has (past) and is been thrown away (present), anyway who says you cannot do it illegally and ignore it but only a genius diplomat on par/similar with someone like Bismarck could do create it.

The chance might have existed back in, oh, 1930 or so, was mostly gone by 1945, and the remnants totally evaporated in 1973.

The chances of it happening now are nearly impossible if impossible however having trade agreements is already being talked about in Australia and we are in negotiation with Canada about a trade agreement long before Brexit was conceived. I think Brexit will signal to our former colonies that we have abandoned the EU project and that we want to create new relationships for the next 50 to 75 years, how well this goes along with the relationship with the EU for us will determine what we want to be a part of and by that time we'll stick with going it alone because we like it that way.
 
The reality of Eurosceptism: I did vote to stay in the EU for economic reasons however I was willing to put "shared collaboration across the board" aside. However, since the anger in the north of the country, which is where I am from, I understand Eurosceptism and people have nothing. No jobs, no excitement, no prospects, no investment, everything is like pit hole, run down i.e the north-south divide.

The cultural reason behind Eurosceptism: Simply it comes down to us being too outward-looking and that created the British Empire which is still part of our culture, along with the British monarchy, which has lasted for centuries (and commonwealth) and having the special relationship contributes. We are the old bearded man, the USA is the frustrated angry child.

Talking personally on Brexit: People in the UK as a people miss/hate not being a big speaker in the world through the British Empire (prestige, global economy, military) and we missed and are throwing away the chance to create something "special" and that was and is The Commonwealth post WWII through trade agreements and an eventually creating a Sterling trading union bloc. The final goal would be to create a commonwealth union of UK (and overseas territories), Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Malta and New Zealand and integrate former British colonial countries into the union that are third or second world countries. Getting access to the single market through negotiations, through a fee would be monumental and getting India would send everyone truly reeling.

In all respect we though I voted "in" thank god we are getting out.

Having Henry V crowned may prevent this, however, he wanted both kingdoms ruled completely separately so there would no integration for 300-400 years even if it go that far and France could easily split off. Then there is the discussion of whether the peoples in each country wanted integration and finally, there are the obstacles to integration.

If Henry V is crowded there is no Britain to begin with unless you keep a magical butterfly net which means Scotland inherits England again.
 
The cultural reason behind Eurosceptism: Simply it comes down to us being too outward-looking and that created the British Empire which is still part of our culture, along with the British monarchy, which has lasted for centuries (and commonwealth) and having the special relationship contributes. We are the old bearded man, the USA is the frustrated angry child.

Talking personally on Brexit: People in the UK as a people miss/hate not being a big speaker in the world through the British Empire (prestige, global economy, military) and we missed and are throwing away the chance to create something "special" and that was and is The Commonwealth post WWII through trade agreements and an eventually creating a Sterling trading union bloc. The final goal would be to create a commonwealth union of UK (and overseas territories), Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, Malta and New Zealand and integrate former British colonial countries into the union that are third or second world countries. Getting access to the single market through negotiations, through a fee would be monumental and getting India would send everyone truly reeling.

What I find curious is this whole "either/or" thing going on with respect to EU vs. ties with ex-colonies seems to be exclusively a UK issue...
I mean, other EU countries who used to be colonial empires don't perceive being an EU member state and having close ties with their ex-colonies as an either/or thing...
They see it more of a "why not both?" thing...

And didn't the UK try to keep the Sterling bloc post-WWII, but failed?
Which is why they ended up joining the EEC in the first place?

Also, I really doubt that Ireland would join you in that "Commonwealth union", especially as they're not happy at the UK right now due to Brexit (owing to economic uncertainty and the whole Northern Ireland stuff)...
 
What I find curious is this whole "either/or" thing going on with respect to EU vs. ties with ex-colonies seems to be exclusively a UK issue...
I mean, other EU countries who used to be colonial empires don't perceive being an EU member state and having close ties with their ex-colonies as an either/or thing...
They see it more of a "why not both?" thing...
I am afraid this quite simply down to us being an island, we don't like meddling in Europe/outward-looking - world domination

And didn't the UK try to keep the Sterling bloc post-WWII, but failed?
Which is why they ended up joining the EEC in the first place?
During 1945 - 1979 the UK was in an era of political and economic inadequacy and made an absolute shit hole of itself. Look at Germany and Japan and their "golden era" economies after carpet bombing and nuclear fallout. Only since Margret Thatcher did she create something special, mainly in "London" and the south but even she made big mistakes, for example closing all the mines... Where are all the miners going? In graves through popping pills, snapping their own necks or getting turned into swiss cheese. The solution was to retrain them to create growth, increasing birth rates, less unemployment and so on.

Also, I really doubt that Ireland would join you in that "Commonwealth union", especially as they're not happy at the UK right now due to Brexit (owing to economic uncertainty and the whole Northern Ireland stuff)...
The logical question can never be can Northern Ireland join Ireland but can Ireland Join the UK. For two reasons, one is Northern Ireland is financially more powerful, well-off than Ireland and if Ireland is united. Ireland would not be able to pay of Northern Ireland’s debts off because its economy is not big enough. (Even with Northern Ireland. Yea that is right the UK debt is astronomically far bigger than its trillion-pound economy. I think it currently stands at 9 trillion in debt, 3 trillion GDP.)

In all respect joining the EEC was a cop out, by that time we seemed to lack the desire, innovative and ambition to look forward. It seems that we thought it was the end but it could have been different and it did not need to be like that. We could have easily kept Malta and Singapore if we put our minds to it and Hong Kong... We could have kept it and there is still a chance it might come back to us or go independent. Some Hong Kongers have set up political parties for such purposes due to the recent political protests. The Good thing about Hong Kong is that it's the older voters who want to stay with China and the younger voters who want to rejoin the UK or go independent because China is tyrannical and everyone knows the young always win.
 
Last edited:
In all respect joining the EEC was a cop out, by that time we seemed to lack the desire, innovative and ambition to look forward. It seems that we thought it was the end but it could have been different and it did not need to be like that. We could have easily kept Malta and Singapore if we put our minds to it and Hong Kong... We could have kept it and there is still a chance it might come back to us or go independent. Some Hong Kongers have set up political parties for such purposes due to the recent political protests. The Good thing about Hong Kong is that it's the older voters who want to stay with China and the younger voters who want to rejoin the UK or go independent because China is tyrannical and everyone knows the young always win.

If the young always win, then that means that Brexit wouldn't have happened...
And I disagree that UK could've kept Singapore...
 
Top