"Perhaps it would have been better all around if Britain had not done joined and, instead, had just stayed out."
For people with a keen sense of history, the ongoing Brexit (Britain exiting from the European Union) process brings back memories of the origin of the United Kingdom’s becoming a member of the 28-member union of European countries. With the UK’s departure—this has just been deferred to early 2020—that number will go down to 27.
The year of origin was 1952. In that year the leaders of France and Germany, which had fought the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, World War I of 1914-1919 and World War II of 1939-1945, decided that their two countries should not go to war ever again and, toward that end, agreed to create a mechanism for binding their countries together for non-nationalistic endeavors. Together with four of their nearest neighbors—Italy and the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), France and Germany created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). At that time France was led by wartime hero Gen. Charles de Gaulle and the head of the then-West German government was Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
De Gaulle, Adenauer and their ECSC partners agreed that the best approach to Western European solidarity and stability was the economic approach—bind the economies of the six countries tightly so that their managers would focus on economic matters; politics could come later. ECSC could be expanded into a broader economic union among the Six, which would then be the nucleus of a politic union among them.
The economics-first approach favored by De Gaulle, Adenauer and their ECSC partners—notable among whom were Italy’s Alcide de Gasperi and Belgium’s Paul-Henri Spark—proved to be the correct one, and by the end of the Fifties ECSC was ready to take a big leap forward. The strong economic recoveries of the Six from the devastation of World War II, coupled with the desire of other Western European countries, notably Spain, Austria and Denmark, to become partners of the Six, led to a decision to enlarge ECSC into a full-blown, Western Europe-wide economic union.
Thus was the EEC (European Economic Community) born. After 75 years of hostility and strife, around a dozen Western European countries were willing and able to embark on the Europe Project. With a resurgent West German economy leading the way, EEC was ready to take on the economic power centers of the day—to wit, the US, the Russian-led Comecon (Communist Economic Council) and Japan.
All of this time, the UK, lying off the coast of northwestern Europe, was pretty much attending to its own affairs and striving to effect a full recovery from the financial devastation caused by World War II.
Naturally, the pro-Europe, non-insular-minded sector of British society were watching with great interest the economic and political happenings on the other side of the English Channel. On the other hand, many of Western Europe’s leaders were of the belief that a Western Europe without Britain historically was a leading producer of manufactured goods and London was one of the world’s two leading financial centers. In the view of these sectors the UK needed to be closely involved with its Western European neighbors and a Western Europe truly would be Western Europe with the UK in it.
After much discussion, debate and negotiation, Britain was prevailed upon to join, and it accepted the membership terms, of what had in the interim become the EC (European Community). There was pleasure and relief on both sides of the English Channel when, with appropriate ceremony, Britain’s Prime Minister affixed his signature to the Treaty of Rome.
Today, the world watches as the sad and deplorable proceedings for Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU) unfold in Brussels and London. The present British government thinks that Britain is doing the right thing; EU’s leaders regret Brexit and believe that the UK has taken a bad, bad decision. Looking back, EEC/EC was doing quite well, going from strength to strength, before Britain signed the Treaty of Rome. Perhaps it would have been better all around if Britain had not done so and, instead, had just stayed out.