EU Referendum: Will Britain Choose Europe or the U.S.?
British Prime Minister Tony Blair stunned everybody with his dramatic U-turn April 19 announcing a referendum on the proposed new EU constitution, responding to fears that the proposed legislation would make Britain an offshore province of a European superstate. Which way will the British vote? What will be the consequences for the special relationship with the United States?
by Melvin Rhodes
When I was in school in England in the '50s and early '60s, we were taught that British foreign policy toward the Continent for 400 years had been based on staying out of Europe unless one of its nations became so powerful that it threatened the peaceful existence of others, especially Great Britain. British security, we were told, lay beyond the seas, with the British Commonwealth and the United States.
Four of my younger brothers, a few years behind me, were taught something quite different. Britain's future, they were assured, lay with Europe. Following a vote in the British Parliament in 1971, Britain applied to join what was then the European Economic Community (EEC). On Jan. 1, 1973, Britain became a full member.
Britain's future, however, was still not resolved. Two years later, a different government announced the first referendum in U.K. history—a vote on whether to stay in the EEC. At the start of the campaign, most were against continuing membership in the community. By the time of the vote, they had changed their minds and Britain's future seemed assured.
Now, it seems, the debate is still not over. Britain is now set to have another referendum on Europe in the autumn of next year, this time to decide whether the country should sign the new European constitution, a constitution that will create a federal Europe to rival the United States of America.
Broken promises
Europe has come a long way since British entry into the EEC in 1973. Before that year there were only six members of the EEC. Joining at the same time as the United Kingdom were Ireland and Denmark. Others joined later, making it 15. May 1 this year another 10 joined, making the total number of members 25. A little over 10 years ago the EEC became the European Union (EU). Members are committed to forming "an ever closer union."
With the new century came the euro, the European currency used by 12 of the 15 members at its introduction. The currency has already successfully established itself as a viable international trading currency to rival the American dollar. Britain stayed out of the eurozone, keeping its own currency, the pound sterling. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in favor of Britain using the euro, but the conditions for entry have never been right. This is partly because Britain's economy is in better shape than many of its continental neighbors.
With the euro firmly established as the European currency, the push is now on for the next step toward full union—a European constitution that would effectively end national sovereignty and create, in essence, a United States of Europe, though it will still be called the EU.
Many British people are very aware of the implications of the new constitution. While the prime minister claims that it will have little impact on the day-to-day lives of the peoples of the United Kingdom, older people remember similar promises made 30 years ago before the first referendum. Then, the British people were told that the EEC was simply a free-trade area and would not impact their laws or way of life in any way whatsoever.
Nothing could have been further from the truth.
Right at the beginning food prices increased dramatically, as Britain had to stop importing cheap food from Commonwealth countries and switch to importing much more expensive food from the continent of Europe. The fishing industry in my home town was ruined by U.K. entry into Europe, when British fishing waters were opened to fishing fleets from other countries.
On the economic front, the British people were told that their economy would boom as markets opened in Europe. The fact is, their economy did boom, but it was mostly due to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's economic reforms in the '80s. Even today the British still export more to non-European countries than to other nations in the EU.
Economically, there have been many negatives for the United Kingdom. The country remains a net contributor to EU funds. In other words, the British pay more into Europe than they get out of it. The Germans are even greater contributors, but they have a much higher population and seem to get things more their way in the EU. Other economic negatives include mountains of red tape from the bureaucracy in Brussels—rules and regulations to which private companies and farmers must adhere.
An additional burden on the British people has been the free movement of peoples within the EU. With the addition of 10 new (and much poorer) members May 1, fears are being expressed of a massive influx of immigrants from the new member states. Britain has already absorbed millions of immigrants from Europe, all of whom qualify for full welfare and medical benefits from the moment they set foot on the island's shores.
On the legal front, European courts often overturn British legal decisions.
Recent problems
Of more immediate concern to many lately has been the united front most EU members have had against the U.S./U.K. coalition that overthrew the former Iraqi regime. Of particular concern has been the Franco-German stance against Washington and London. Once again, it seems, the French and the Germans have tried to set the course for the whole of Europe. If the proposed new constitution is approved, Britain will lose its independent foreign policy in a European Union dominated by Germany and France, two nations that have become increasingly anti-American at the highest levels of government.
If Britain opts out of the new constitution, what will be the consequences?
Rejection could mean a two-tier Europe. If enough countries reject the constitution (Britain is not the only country promising a referendum), then those countries left out of the new federal Europe could continue to be linked in an economic union. But it could also mean the end of the European dream, with Britain having to think once again about its future course.
On the other hand, a "yes" vote will leave America having to rethink its future course. Losing its most powerful ally in an increasingly unfriendly world would be a serious loss for Washington. The history of the 20th century shows that whenever America and Britain have fought together, they have always won. If the vote on the proposed EU constitution is "yes," it could very likely spell the end of the special relationship.
What would replace it? The Bible shows that between now and the second coming of the Messiah there will be a union of 10 kings who will restore the Roman Empire (Revelation 17:8,12-14).
This will not be the first restoration of the Roman Empire. Just 35 years before what is now called the EU was founded by the Treaty of Rome in 1957, Benito Mussolini proclaimed the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire.
Many today in the new Europe draw inspiration from an earlier restoration of the Holy Roman Empire, that of Charlemagne.
All of the nations that once were a part of the Holy Roman Empire are today members of the EU. Interestingly, Britain was never a part of the Holy Roman Empire.
There are now 25 members of the EU. As Bible prophecy shows that "ten kings" (or nations) will come together to form the revived Roman Empire, it may be that some of the present members will not be a part of the new federal Europe. Or there could be a hard-core 10, with many others forming a closely connected economic union.
Whatever the outcome of the referendum next year in Britain, Europe is certainly a continent to watch. A new European superpower is rising and the world will never be the same again. WNP
[ Return to Table of Contents ] [ View next article ]