Abstract
Books Reviewed
Bulmer Simon, Burch Martin, Carter Caitríona, Hogwood Patricia and Scott Andrew (2002) British Politics and European Policy-Making: Transforming British into Multi-Level Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave, xxv + pp. ISBN 1-4039-0010-8.
Geddes Andrew (2004) The European Union and British Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave, xv + pp. ISBN 0-333-98121-9.
Holden Russell (2002) The Making of New Labour's European Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave, viii + pp. ISBN 0-333-91447-3.
Jordan Andrew (2002) The Europeanization of British Environmental Policy: A Departmental Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave, xviii + pp. ISBN 0-333-94631-6.
Britain's relationship with the European Economic Community (EEC)/European Union (EU) has been the subject of numerous studies that have often concluded it to be something of a ‘reluctant’ or ‘awkward’ partner (George 1998). Orthodox interpretations of the initial British policy towards the EEC stress that it ‘missed opportunities’ by not fully engaging in the efforts which resulted in the Treaties of Rome. For a long time, such interpretations, which focused on the policy preferences of prime ministers from Clement Attlee to Anthony Eden, dominated the analysis of Britain's relationship with the EU. In contrast to this viewpoint, other scholars have noted that, although it is possible to conclude in retrospect that Britain could have played a fuller part in the history of European integration if governments had taken a more positive attitude from the outset, the decisions that had to be taken in the 1940s and 1950s were by no means as clear cut as some academics would point out. Thus, while British trade was no doubt declining in the post-Second World War era, it continued to be an influential trading nation. Many revisionist writers have therefore attempted to highlight the fact that while the choices that Britain faced in the post-1945 period may appear obvious today, they were far from clear to decision-makers within government at the time. But, although such an argument can be made about the decisions taken in the early years of the European project, the fact of the matter remains that Britain has spent a considerable amount of its time as an EU member state in disagreement with the aims of many other member states and European institutions. One impact of this has been that its relationship with the European integration project has continued to generate a strong academic interest from historians to political scientists.
Britain's relationship with the European Union has increasingly been the subject of studies that have sought to develop the theme of the impact that the EU has had on Britain, in which considerable attention has been attached to institutional change. A focus on the means by which the administration of government has adapted to the challenges posed by the EU has been greatly influenced by the quickening in the pace of European integration since the single market programme of the late 1980s, with many of the resulting outputs concentrating on the impact of EU membership on specific policies and the extent to which national systems of government have adapted to the challenges posed by the EU. The need to impart structure to such analysis of bureaucratic adaptation has in turn resulted in an emphasis being attached to institutionalist theoretical approaches, particularly historical institutionalism. The attractiveness of the latter approach has been conditioned by its utility in mapping bureaucratic changes over a period of time, in which the potential for future changes is shaped by past developments. Such an approach has figured prominently in studies of Europeanisation that have attempted to map the impact of EU membership on member states through an analysis of institutional change (see Bulmer and Burch 2001; Cowles, Caporaso and Risse 2001; Knill 2001).
A focus on change has resulted in considerable emphasis being attached to viewing Europeanisation as a ‘top-down’ process, in which the adaptation that has taken place within member states has been the product of the pressures exercised at the European level. But, while a common theme of adaptation can be found in studies of Europeanisation, the exact nature of the term has been subject to considerable debate (see Cole and Drake 2000; Featherstone and Kazamias 2001; Featherstone 2003; Knill 2001). This is not least because Europeanisation is something of a catch-all term that is applied to a variety of studies, ranging from specific policy areas (Dyson 2000) to institutional adaptation (Bulmer and Burch 2001) and party political systems. In response to this state of affairs, it has been argued that Europeanisation could be viewed to have different meanings depending on the area that it is applied to (Olsen 2002; Radaelli 2003). But while it is true that these pressures from the EU level have produced a degree of adaptation in a variety of policy areas, most notably in the regulative environment of the single market, Europeanisation has not necessarily led to a convergence of approaches across EU member states (Börzel 2002). Member states regularly adopt different approaches to the interpretation of EU policies. Moreover, the perception that Europeanisation is a top-down process, or ‘one-way street’, ignores the efforts of member states to shape EU policies in their own image at the EU level.
In terms of institutional adaptation, the presence (and absence) of veto points within the structures of government have additionally conditioned the extent to which national administrations have responded to pressures from the EU level, a factor that can be examined by means of a ‘path dependency’ approach (Pierson 1996). It was noticeable in the 2003–2004 intergovernmental conference (IGC) negotiations on the European Constitution that the main issues that Britain took into the final European Council were held by the Treasury and the Home Office. And although the deployment of tough negotiating positions may appease Eurosceptics who are critical of European integration, the structure of national and sub-national government along with the focus of companies and interest groups have been transformed by EU membership. The relevance and importance of the EU has therefore spread to all aspects of government, although it nevertheless continues to be the case that some areas continue to think more European than others. Moreover, even in those policy areas which British governments have attempted to isolate from EU influence, most notably social policy and the single currency, the existence of these policies has nevertheless had a consequence for Britain. Thus, apart from a desire to create a more stable framework for determining monetary policy, the Labour government's decision to grant independence to the Bank of England had also been shaped by the reality of Economic and Monetary Union and the necessity of framing some form of strategy for membership. In this context, one argument was that a reduction in the government's ability to interfere in domestic monetary policy meant that it would lessen the conflict surrounding the transfer of power to the European Central Bank. The significance of such an outcome is that it demonstrates that the EU matters even in those policies where member states have attempted to exempt themselves.
The European Union and British Politics by Andrew Geddes joins a long list of publications that have sought to examine the ‘never-ending’ story of British membership of the European Union (see Kaiser 2002). A common thread that has run through much of this scholarship has been the portrayal of Britain as an ‘awkward’, ‘reluctant’ and ‘semi-detached’ member state that has essentially been ‘at odds’ with Europe. To the defence of successive governments, other member states have also been members of the awkward squad and, of course, Britain can point to a number of areas where it has been an active participant, of which the most notable example remains the single market programme. In seeking to cast fresh light on the subject matter, Andrew Geddes focuses on two key themes. The first, ‘Britain in Europe’, aims to ‘show the ways in which Britain has engaged (or not) with European integration since the 1950s and how Britain has sought to use its influence in the councils of Europe across the wide range of policy issues with which the EU is concerned’ (p. 5). The second, ‘Europe in Britain’, ‘involves analysis of the extent to which European integration has been absorbed into the logic of British domestic politics’ (p. 6).
The end product is a book which (among other things) aims to cover the historical milestones of the relationship, survey the development and impact of key policies, explore the EU's institutional system, review the EU's impact on the British state, highlight the rise of Euroscepticism and examine the attitude of the public to European integration. The outcome of this strategy is to produce a book that is more than just about Britain and Europe; considerable detail is given to explaining the EU institutional structure and describing a number of core EU policies. This is both a strength and a weakness: while the general background information on the EU helps to make the overall presentation of the subject matter more accessible, in some instances it limits the discussion about Britain. The eight paragraphs that are devoted to examining the structure and development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy contrast with the one paragraph dedicated to Britain and the CFSP. Yet, this is a policy which highlights New Labour's efforts to engage in Europe (a point that Geddes makes), and at the same time a policy area that has undergone change whereby the initial image of an intergovernmental relationship has in reality given way to deeper forms of co-operation. It might therefore be possible to demonstrate to the reader the extent to which British governments have been ‘drawn’ into deeper European integration by means of a ‘ratchet effect’ (Forster and Blair 2002, 114). Overall, Geddes has nevertheless produced a very valuable book which is successful in demonstrating the factors that have determined British policy towards European integration and at the same time illustrating the impact that the EU has had within Britain. It will as a result figure prominently in undergraduate and postgraduate reading lists.
The problem of not fully engaging in the EU is explored in Andrew Jordan's study of The Europeanization of British Environmental Policy: A Departmental Perspective. Written in a clear style and based on extensive primary research, including interviews with many of the key actors, Jordan points out that the then Department of the Environment failed fully to engage in the important and early stages of the development of EU environment policy, of which the ‘result was Europeanisation on the EU's terms, rather than Whitehall's’ (xvii). This was despite the fact that EU environment policy was, for the most part, non-existent when Britain became a member in 1973 and, as such, the British government had a key opportunity to shape policies as they were being developed. This contrasted with the position it faced in other policy fields, such as agriculture, where the government had to contend with established rules of the game.
But while Jordan highlights that British government ministers initially failed to grasp the opportunities presented by the EU to ‘upload’ policy preferences to Brussels, it is a position that ‘was not so much because Ministers were anti-European, but because they were generally uninterested in the environment as a political issue’ (p. 29). A direct consequence of this strategy was that the Department of the Environment ‘overlooked important opportunities to network with potential allies in other governments and supranational agencies’ (p. 209). The essence of this was that environment was perceived to be a ‘low’ political issue that did not require the same degree of engagement as other policies and which could be traded for more important negotiating objectives. Thus, instead of engaging in the European debate, the British response to EU initiatives was to deploy the national veto and/or ‘neuter legislation that had already been downloaded from Brussels’ (p. 35). Even though this strategy appeared to ‘cope’ with EU environmental initiatives for much of the 1970s and 1980s, the Department of the Environment was gradually presented with a more robust position by the Commission that challenged British obstruction. In some instances these even resulted in recourse to the judgments of the European Court of Justice. For that reason, by the mid-1980s environment policy was elevated from being an issue of low politics to one of high politics. In some instances, a change in status was also influenced by the possibility of EU decisions undermining domestic political priorities. For example, Jordan demonstrates that in the case of the Bathing Water Directive, a shift in Britain's traditional reluctance to accept this proposal (because the government argued for the maintenance of British practices of pumping raw sewage into the sea) was influenced in the 1980s by a realisation that investor confidence in the planned privatisation of the Regional Water Authorities could be undermined by an appearance in the European Court of Justice (pp.122–123). Taken as a whole, Andrew Jordan has therefore produced a research-rich book which skilfully and lucidly illustrates the extent to which the reluctance of successive governments fully to engage with environmental policy resulted in a situation whereby British environmental policy was ‘Europeanised indirectly, stealthily and largely contrary to the expectations of the British government’ (p. 209).
The history of Britain's difficult relationship with European integration prompted Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1998 to request a review of Britain's overall approach to the EU. The outcome of this review was a ‘step change’ programme that emphasised the necessity for Britain to advance a more positive negotiating position on European issues. A particular feature of this approach was an understanding on the part of the government that it needed to establish closer ties with a broader range of member states and develop proposals with a view to engaging in discussions at the earliest possible stage, thereby illustrating the extent to which change was shaped by the pressures of Europeanisation.
Such a strategy has produced mixed results, with efforts to engage and shape discussions on CFSP and labour market reform being tempered by Britain's continued exclusion from the single currency. Prime Minister Blair's desire to establish a more positive British European policy (see Blair 2002) can be traced back to the Labour party's dreadful performance in the 1983 general election when it advocated a policy of withdrawal from the Community. But while Labour's path to power has often focused on the significance of the reform of its economic policies and the changing nature of the party's relationship with the trade unions, Russell Holden argues in The Making of New Labour's European Policy that insufficient attention has focused on the impact that the European dimension has had on the modernisation of the Labour party. Holden's thesis is that the resolution of the European issue was central to the restoration of unity within the Labour party and for the advancement of a competent economic policy (p.194). As the title of the book suggests, the core of this study is an analysis of the Labour party in opposition, with only one chapter being devoted to Labour in government. Yet, although the focus of this chapter includes predictable coverage of such issues as EMU, it does not really demonstrate the complexity of the Blair–Brown relationship on European policy (see Naughtie 2001). Moreover, no mention is made of other key policies, including the impact of devolution on the orchestration of European policy.
This is instead a story that is outlined in great detail in British Devolution and European Policy-Making: Transforming Britain into Multi-Level Governance. Building on earlier work on the organisation and co-ordination of Britain's European policy (see Bulmer and Burch 1998 and 2001; Forster and Blair 2002; Blair 1998) and aimed at the informed reader, the book presents a research-rich examination of the period from the passage of the devolution legislation in the summer of 1998 through the initial 10 months of the operation of the devolved governments until the end of February 2000 (p. 3). In examining the challenges posed by devolution, Bulmer et al. demonstrate that devolution was the product of change from within Britain, whereby the ‘Europeanisation effect was marginal and secondary’ (p. 171).
The handling of European policy is chosen as the subject of the study of devolution because ‘it involves questions that concern multiple tiers of government’ which is essentially ‘a new development for the UK’ (p. 4). The overall focus is to demonstrate (among other points) the impact of devolution on the co-ordination of UK European policy-making and whether the challenge of devolution represented a ‘critical juncture’ in the management of Britain's European policy. In conducting this examination, Bulmer et al. tackle the subject in a systematic way by focusing on the predevolution story of European policy-making, reviewing the institutional implications of a Scottish Executive and Parliament and a Welsh Executive and Assembly, documenting the establishment of the Scottish and Welsh representative offices in Brussels and examining the specific cases of agriculture and the environment which, among a number of devolved issues, create the potential for a structure based on multi-level governance.
The empirical evidence from this research suggests that the political and electoral dimension of sub-state structures has ‘engendered a shift to a form of multi-level governance’ (p. 159). Considering the nature of this argument and the subtitle of the book, it is somewhat surprising that the index only contains one reference to multi-level governance (p. 17). Such irregularities aside, the strength of this book is that it highlights that the management of European policy has been opened up to ‘new pressures and agendas and takes the issue outside the confines of the central apparatus’ (p. 166). Put another way, the construction of Britain's European policy is subject to less central control. In the period prior to devolution, European policy was subject to the cabinet convention of collective ministerial responsibility, whereas post-devolution such collective responsibility is harder to maintain for the very reason that there is a greater pressure placed on Scottish and Welsh ministers to adopt a distinctive position. ‘In effect devolution opens up the process. It breaks the chain and the seamless web, introduces new arenas, and new points of conflict and tension’ (ibid.).
The material that is presented in this collection of four books provides a fascinating account of the changing nature of Britain's relationship with the EU and the books will act as useful additions to reading lists for students of British and European politics. The European Union and British Politics by Andrew Geddes is of particular value in providing a text that goes beyond the ‘awkwardness’ debate and has the greatest utility in assisting the teaching of the subject. All of the remaining books have a strong research focus, but British Devolution and European Policy-Making: Transforming Britain into Multi-Level Governance by Simon Bulmer et al. and The Europeanization of British Environmental Policy: A Departmental Perspective by Andrew Jordan go furthest to advance the research basis of the UK–EU relationship. Overall, it is evident that a picture is emerging of a multi-level structure that has impacted on the handling of Britain's European policy and which is increasingly subject to the process of Europeanisation. Efforts to upload and shape policy within Brussels do, however, appear to be primarily targeted towards the Commission and the other member states, with somewhat less attention being directed towards a European Parliament which is of direct relevance to more than 80 per cent of all legislation by means of the co-decision procedure.
To conclude, it is important to make the point that despite this (and other) research having helped to add some clarity to understanding the impact of Britain's membership of the EU, including the efforts of the Blair government to actively engage in Europe, there has yet to occur a sea change in the views of a British electorate that continues to be uncertain as to the benefits of EU membership. Indeed, as Andrew Geddes notes, it is an irony that while Tony Blair ‘has been able to make the case for Britain in Europe …, he has not been able to make the case for Europe in Britain’ (p. 228). A direct consequence of this state of affairs is, of course, that any attempts by British governments to orchestrate both a coherent and engaged European policy will continue to be constrained by the consequences of a divided electorate. The impending referendum on the Constitutional Treaty will therefore test the ability of the British government to inform an electorate that has for the most part been left behind on European issues. It is the outcome of this referendum that will act as the real ‘critical juncture’ in Britain's relationship with the EU.