In the next six score (120) days not only will we be deciding whether the UK remains part of EU but also the long term future of Britain. It takes two to tango and let's not forget that the UK was almost begging to join the common market in the late sixties and early seventies. Why? What was so attractive about it then?
In the present debate we do not hear much about how the modern EU has evolved from a modest Steel and Coal Authority in the mid-fifties.
From 1870 (Franco-Prussian War) to 1945 (the end of Second World War) the European mainland lost millions of citizens and suffered enormous destruction to the extent that the UK, France and other allies as well as Germany and Italy (Axis countries) were completely ruined. The US Marshall programme and its billions of dollars of aid gave us, the citizens of Europe, a breathing space to rebuild and today's prosperity is too precious to be squandered by internecine warfare or for some small or limited objectives. The idea of the EU itself was conceived soon after, when Jean Monnet and other European thinkers proposed a strategy to ensure that the wars between European nations didn't happen again.
The important minerals of iron ore, coal and limestone under the lands of Alsace-Lorraine between Germany and Belgium were one of the main causes of friction going back over 100 years. Professor Monnet and others proposed to form a Steel and Coal Authority where all neighbouring countries could jointly exploit the natural resources. To begin with France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg joined this Authority which rapidly developed through free trade into the European Common Market. The UK originally was approached but it declined in the fifties. But, once the common market was making substantial gains in economical terms, the British Governments of the time (both Conservative and Labour) sent out feelers to be invited to join the common market.
President Charles de Gaulle of France bluntly said 'Non' in spite of some positive signals from Germany, Holland and Belgium. Eventually after numerous discussions and mainly pleas from the UK which were supported by the Americans, Britain was invited to join the common market in 1973 with Denmark and Ireland.
Indeed, the common market has evolved into more than a trading bloc. This was not a hidden agenda, and whether Britain liked it or not the founding fathers of the common market and European Union were aiming to form a kind of a United States of Europe. Such a project was and is not feasible to a very large extent. That is true. But with certain checks and balances some sort of common approach on international relations (both diplomatic and defence) as well as co-operation with major trading blocs in Asia, USA or other continents is possible, and a strong united voice with common objectives is certainly a need of the time.
Over the next few weeks I would like to describe what happened in India during the process of “Integration of States” between 1946 and 1947. If the Indian Independence Act, 1947, of the British Parliament had been allowed to develop in the format it was originally proposed, then India would not have been a united country. It would be far more porous and more reminiscent of the medieval times when hundreds of princely states were continually fighting amongst themselves. Almost identical things happened in Europe between the 13th and 17th centuries. But the Indian Union is not an artificial construst. It was a reality 2,500 years ago during the reign of Chandragupta and his guru Chanakya.
In the forthcoming weeks, As I See It will also try to elaborate on the key issues to do with our membership of the EU from the eyes of someone who opted to be British 55 years ago when he was an Indian citizen in Tanganyika with an option to apply for Green Card which was available to him.
The prime issue frustrating Eurosceptics is the centralised control of the European Commission in Brussels with its lavish budget and with its ever encompassing interference in what can be termed national matters. But in spite of the interference or the economic cost one should not forget that all the countries of European Union do not spend as much money as they would have had to spend on individual's defence budget if such a peaceful and inclusive state of affairs was not established.
‘In' or ‘out' is a misleading and dangerous simplification of an issue with long term ramifications, which shouldn't be decided when emotions are running high but under a rigorous logical assessment of realities. The important subjects to be considered are not just trade, commerce, immigration, national pride or so-called ongoing interference. The UK has earned its place in the world paying the full price in blood and toil over at least 150 years to have a special status for an island nation.
Of course, it is the second-most prosperous nation in EU and its ambitions and deep desires for independence deserve more comprehensive and detailed examination than emotional outbursts from of a section of Conservative MPs who are labelled as Eurosceptics. For once Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was almost right when he said last Saturday that it is not for national interest alone that PM David Cameron has called for referendum on June 23, 2016. Perhaps, while trying to secure a clear majority in the 2015 General Elections, the seeds were planted for this turbulence.
To be continued
