UK votes 'Non' to Europe in 1973 Referendum

hammo1j

Donor
In 1957 the French and the Germans doormen didn't let the UK into their little club called the EEC. In 1973 Economic misery gave Ted Heath the idea that it would be the panacea the UK economy needed. This time, secure in their position, the Gauleiters and Burgomeisters decided the UK could come on board provided the late arriving UK paid through the nose as it was way after closing time and nowhere else was open.

Whatever his faults, Ted Heath gave the UK a referendum and debate on the issue, and the pro-Europeans won. The rest is history and the UK followed into the Euro luvved up zone with ever more federalism taking us towards what many see as the inevitable United States of Europe.

But what if the UK had thumbed it's nose at its European cousins and decided to go it alone or with its Commonwealth or even with the US?

Would the UK be in a stronger position than it is today?
 
In 1957 the French and the Germans doormen didn't let the UK into their little club called the EEC.

Did the UK want to join in 1957? its the first I've heard of it:confused:. Our outlook back then was that we were still a global power and head of the Commonwealth despite Suez.
 
Yes, but the French did not like the idea. The realized early that the UK would be a US sub in the EU.

Read "A little town in Germany" to get an impression of the British feeling of decline and impotence prior to their admission in 1973.

This largely depended upon Germany, with its love and peace approach to Europe, manhandling France with its more -umh- realistic vision.

To answer the the question of the original poster, using his style (Gauleiter etc.) :

The British beggar recovered on EU dole, getting special aid due to its poverty. Teutonic compassion saved the UK.

Nobody else would have been interested in bailing out this sick man of Europe:

The US had its own economic problems at the time and were still angry about the limited support they got in Vietnam.

The Commonwealth nations were already realizing that the future lay in aligning themselves with the US, not with the UK. The EU was also quite an interesting trading partner ... and growing fast, unlike the UK.
 
The British beggar recovered on EU dole, getting special aid due to its poverty. Teutonic compassion saved the UK.

Interesting assessment, do you have any evidence to back it up?
 

Hendryk

Banned
Get your facts straight. The referendum was in 1975.

This time, secure in their position, the Gauleiters and Burgomeisters decided the UK could come on board provided the late arriving UK paid through the nose as it was way after closing time and nowhere else was open.
"Gauleiters and Burgomeisters"?

I'm glad, though, that you admit that Britain wasn't in a position to bargain for a better deal, having exhausted all other options and coming late to the party.

The rest is history and the UK followed into the Euro luvved up zone with ever more federalism taking us towards what many see as the inevitable United States of Europe.
I missed the part where Britain joined the Eurozone. A question to British members: which currency are you using right now?

But what if the UK had thumbed it's nose at its European cousins and decided to go it alone or with its Commonwealth or even with the US?

Would the UK be in a stronger position than it is today?
Short answer: no.
 
Interesting assessment, do you have any evidence to back it up?

The harsh tone of my response was - as I said - a reaction to the "Gauleiter" nonsense, but it is based on facts:

As soon as the UK joined the EU, its contributions were assessed at a reduced rate compared to all the other member states. Somebody paying reduced fees, but receiving full benefits lives - to put it sharply - on welfare. This culminated with the notorious rebate given to the UK since 1984.

Brits tend to argue that they deserve a special treatment due their limited agricultural capabilities. This is hogwash, as they knew the system of assessing EU contributions prior to voluntarily entering the EU, yet did so anyhow.

The CAP - which benefits France - is nonsense, but it is equally idiotic to continue subsidizing the UK.
 
As soon as the UK joined the EU, its contributions were assessed at a reduced rate compared to all the other member states. Somebody paying reduced fees, but receiving full benefits lives - to put it sharply - on welfare. This culminated with the notorious rebate given to the UK since 1984.

Except that isn't true or atleast not as far as I am aware. At the time of joining the UK was something like the third poorest nation in the EEC yet was paying an amount second only to the far economically superior West Germany. The UK was paying far more money into the EEC than it was withdrawing by way of benefits. You can argue that membership of the EEC benefited trade (which is the line most go down) but Britain was still a net contributor not a debtor. It wasn't withdrawing lots of money like say Spain after Franco. The recovery of Britain wasn't built upon European charity.

Brits tend to argue that they deserve a special treatment due their limited agricultural capabilities. This is hogwash, as they knew the system of assessing EU contributions prior to voluntarily entering the EU, yet did so anyhow.

The CAP - which benefits France - is nonsense, but it is equally idiotic to continue subsidizing the UK.

Depends on how you assess things. This isn't a subsidy, Britain is still paying in money and is a net creditor to the EU, they are just not paying as much. So it is kind of a subsidy, but Britain isn't 'withdrawing' money from other European members if that makes sense. The arguement lies in the fact that since so little of the CAP expenditure goes to the miniscule British agriculture (and the CAP then made up something like 80% of all EU expenditure, dropped to 50%~ now) Britain is paying in proportionally far more than most other nations. This might not be true for the long suffering Germany (who really should be ruling the thing as its general paymaster) but for France the case is obvious. As it stands Britain has payed into the EEC/EU twice the amount of France (net, so input vs output), without the rebate Britain would have paid somewhere in the region of fourteen times as much. All this when the British econony was in a terrible state for the first decade after joining.
 
Except that isn't true or atleast not as far as I am aware. At the time of joining the UK was something like the third poorest nation in the EEC yet was paying an amount second only to the far economically superior West Germany. [SNIP} Depends on how you assess things. This isn't a subsidy, Britain is still paying in money and is a net creditor to the EU, they are just not paying as much.

Britain paid and continues to pay reduced rates due to its relative poverty in the beginning and later due to its non-agricultural structure, while still being a (minor) net contributor. I suppose we agree on these facts, but evaluate them differently:

You stress it being a net contributor despite its reduced rates.

I stress that it was the first nation to get special rate reductions. Call it a subsidy, call it being on the dole, whatever.

I doubt that Britain could have modernized its economy the way it did without having free access to the EU market, and I see its reduced fees as a subsidy. So, in my opinion, they reformed while being given special aid aka being on welfare.

A simple real life analogue might be the social transit ticket offered over here: less well-off persons pay a reduced fee to get full use of the Berlin transit system. I define this as welfare, as they pay only a fraction of the normal rate. But they do admittedly pay some money.
 
A simple real life analogue might be the social transit ticket offered over here: less well-off persons pay a reduced fee to get full use of the Berlin transit system. I define this as welfare, as they pay only a fraction of the normal rate. But they do admittedly pay some money.

The point is that Britain wasn't getting as much out of the EEC/EU as other respective powers (with the exception of Germany). The idea that the British should pay less since they recieve less back makes some sense does it not? First of all you have the subsidized nations who out and out benefit. Then you have the nations, like France for example who pay in alot but then withdraw vast amounts back through the CAP. To try at an analogy take for example a club where you pay to get in, but you get some sort of recompensation in the form of a free drink, except in the British case where there is no drink. Its not suprising they felt hard done by. The obvious answer is to extract the cost of the drink from the ticket.

Why should Britain, in her own vulnerable economic and political state, after all she didn't secure the rebate untill her economic fortunes had turned up, be paying for French or Italian farmers? You can say this is the price of entry and the British knew what they were getting in for but that doesn't seem an arguement likely to win many British supporters. The fact that the EEC was willing to grant the rebate rather than risk a major breech with Britain might demonstrate that Britain's involvement was a bit more important than as some destitute leech, after all didn't Europe's economy as a whole perform rather poorly in the first half of the 1980's?
 
To try at an analogy take for example a club where you pay to get in, but you get some sort of recompensation in the form of a free drink, except in the British case where there is no drink.

Or one might imagine a club where everybody gets one cheap Schnapps, while the Brits insists on 16 year old Lagavulin with free refills. They would be stupid not to try it, but should brace themselves for an angry response ...

You can say this is the price of entry and the British knew what they were getting in for but that doesn't seem an arguement likely to win many British supporters.

All European governments lie about the EU, blaming it for everything, but the British media have turned this into an art form ...

The fact that the EEC was willing to grant the rebate rather than risk a major breech with Britain might demonstrate that Britain's involvement was a bit more important than as some destitute leech, after all didn't Europe's economy as a whole perform rather poorly in the first half of the 1980's?

Germany, the main paymaster, really believed in the European idea at the time. Kohl, who has many character flaws, worked for European unity out of a sincere belief in this idea. France and the UK always had a more cynical approach to Europe, but were willing to go along, as long as the Germans kept paying.

Remember that the UK, a nuclear power, was very close to defaulting on its foreign debt in the mid-70s, which is not a pleasant scenario to consider. Propping up Britain also meant supporting a major NATO ally.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Get your facts straight. The referendum was in 1975.

Point taken, but what's 2 years between friends? We actually went in in 1972 which I also got wrong. Unfortunately I can't correct this since the forum timelimit has expired.

Look forward to such posts as WI no D-Day Landings in 1942 for Anglo Americans to save Europe

Here's the BBC take on the issue and what looks to be quite a good site of What If Material.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/what_if20020418.shtml
 
Whatever his faults, Ted Heath gave the UK a referendum and debate on the issue, and the pro-Europeans won.

Actually, the referendum was in 1975, it was on continued membership, and it was called by Harold Wilson, purely as a means of settling divisions in his own party.

Edit: I was typing this just as you were typing your post. Ak!
 
Last edited:
As for Britain being better off: I think economically, it's hard to say. The benefits of membership seem to me to be often highly over-egged and sometimes underplayed in some respects as well.

Diplomatically, though, I think it would almost certainly have been significant. It's not hard to imagine, for example, the 'special relationship' becoming a little less 'special' if Britain is cut off from European influence. A stronger relationship betwen the US and France, mayhaps?
 
Would Ireland have still joined if the U.K. did not?
Firstly, in awnser to your first question (not quoted) - ireland joined at the same time.

Secondly - Given that the UK was by and far the largest trade partner ireland had at the time (dont know the exact %, but 60 -70's wouldnt be that far off) and also the Irish punt was pegged officiall to the UK pound, and also the free travel zone between Ireland and the UK (no passport - no visa, no work visas, can vote in each oterh elections etc) then i think it would have been very very very hard for ireland to join with out the UK. it would take at least until the the mid 80's
 
Top