AT THE HEART OF INTEGRATION:

Understanding
National European
Policy

OBJECTIVES
To determine national policy of five selected states Germany, France, Italy, Britain,
and Denmark towards European integration through a survey of historiography
research.
To argue the relevance of the state at the heart of the EU and thus, the need for
continued research on national policy towards European integration

THE EUROPEAN PROJECT

Germany
France
Italy
Britain
Denmark

GERMANY: EUROPE AS MAGIC FORMULA

Historiography:
national history partial state integrated with the West
Integration as Westernization
Focus on Konrad Adenauers European policy = integration over unification
German industry and Parliament supported larger Western European market
Supported French idea European Defence Community (failed in F; NATO as
substitute)

GERMANY: EUROPE AS MAGIC FORMULA

European policy influenced by its domestic constitutional character Federal
Prioritized coordination within the Community and further integration during German
unification

Younger generation historians revisionist interpretation of German European policy:

Post-war Germanys self-image

FRANCE: FMS FACING DECOLONIZATION

Introspective (France-centrism) and inadvertently Gaullist historiography
agreement among French historians that De Gaulles policy was mainly
motivated by a combination of foreign policy goals: keeping Britain out of
EEC, maintaining French hegemony over WE, and controlling Germany

US leverage over French European Policy (F dependent on ERP funding)

Linkages of decolonization to European integration

FRANCE: FMS FACING DECOLONIZATION

More recent scholarship contextualize French policy-making more internationally
Fragmented French government, departments with different priorities
European backdoor = EEC as a means to carry out plans and competition policies that
would not have majority support domestically

ITALY: THE SMALLEST OF THE LARGER MS

Historiography focused on matters of national identity in a fragmented society
Federalist scholars = European integration as part of the Federalism Movement
De Gasperi et. al.
Western European ideals
Economic (modernization, liberalization) and political motives (formal equality vs
equal influence in relation to F and G)

ITALY: THE SMALLEST OF THE LARGER MS

Italian Socialists:
European union vs Atlantic Community

Wanted united Europe to overcome East West confrontation by mediating

between the 2SP
Italian Left:
strongly opposed integration until the 1960s/70s
helped deepen integration in the western European system while retaining
critical distance to the US

BRITAIN: LATE COMER TO CORE

EUROPE INTEGRATION
British contemporary history = period since WWII
State-centric historical research on Britains relationship with Europe
Britains self-exclusion from ECSC/EEC
British diplomacy in light of French veto to its applications
Rational choice perspective: national strategy to transition from the status of an
imperial power to medium-sized European power

BRITAIN: LATE COMER TO CORE

EUROPE INTEGRATION
Exaggerated British leadership claims
-not in line with the realities of EC politics

-neglected the study of EC impacts on Britain

Government developed a positive agenda for integration when Thatcher became PM

Cultural isolation, othering the EU partners, Brussels as a scapegoat for domestic failures

Eurosceptism vs proactive role within the EU

DENMARK: RELUCTANT EUROPEAN

Torn between links with Britain, Nordic cooperation, and core Europe integration
(Nielson, 1966)
Denmark as just another Scandanavian reluctant European (Toivo Miljan, 1977)
Danish European policy = domestic political strategy for building a national
welfare state (Sorensen, 2001)
PMs Jens Otto Krag and Bo Lidegaard fought Euroscepticism
Accession as an economic decision without political implications

DENMARK: RELUCTANT EUROPEAN

Comparison of Danish and Norwegian domestic debate
Yes camp = strategic, pragmatic

vs
No camp = ideological, dominated by intellectuals and political groups to the
left of the Labour Party
result: Sceptics among the social democrats were hesitant to
support the no camp
Recent research: multi-level politics, legal politics

TOWARDS COMPARING NATIONAL

EUROPEAN POLICY

1. HISTORICAL RESEARCH DONE IN THE

NATIONAL CONTEXT
- exception of Britain and France

GERMANY
European policy connected to the countrys
division and the Cold War

Fall of the Wall (Nov. 1989)

= focus on unification and nationalization

Neglected the history of European

integration and of German national policy

FMS:
- domestic consensus on the desirability of membership
in the EEC
- Historiography focus less on the WHYs but on HOW
national positions on institutional and policy issues
influenced interstate negotiations

LCC:
- EU integration was controversial except in
Spain and Portugal
- Strong public debate in Britain and Denmark
- Historiography focused on reconstructing
domestic debates FOR and AGAINST:
membership
decisions leading to applications
accession negotiations

2. HISTORIOGRAPHY SHOWS HOW MSG

FORMULATED AND PROJECTED PARTICULAR
INTERESTS NEGOTIATIONS
- two sets of interests:
Economic
DFS Policy

ECONOMIC
- Common market = increase exports
France: to strengthen state industries
Britain: to avoid exclusion
-Single Market = incentives!

ECONOMIC
Common Market
EEC (1975)
Vs
Single Market
EU (1992)

DFS POLICY
- States in continental west:
Membership = guarantee of territorial integrity
Weighted voting in the Council = influence despite size
- BENELUX

DFS POLICY
- Britain (a declining global power) : to safeguard its role at
the center of three circles
- JFK (1961) pressured Britain to enter EEC

Commonwealth
US

Community

3. EXTERNAL DEVELOPMENTS STRENGTHENED

NATIONAL STRATEGIES
-Two sets of strategies:
Integration with supranational dimension
vs

Policy of national sovereignty with intergovernmental economic cooperation

THE EXOGENOUS FACTOR

- EF = policies of the 2 SP

- OEEC has intergovernmental

institutional framework
Marshall Plan, ERP Funds

- US: support for supranationalism and

formation of EEC
- USSR: neutrality is inconsistent with
EEC membership

CONCLUSION

STATE CENTRISM
- Apparent weakness in explaining one national policy

Britain and Denmark: Role of party politics, interest groups, and public opinion

NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

THEN: How government decisions are influenced by domestic policies
NOW: How national and EU decision-making are influenced by transnational links
(domestic actors)
THEN: State decision in policy making
Diplomatic historian assume that decision is determined by a small policy-making circle or derived from
domestic politics

NOW: Role of ideas and ideology in policy-making

Policy-making influences by guiding integration ideas at multi-levels e.g. Consultative Assembly of the
Council of Europe, ECSC Assembly and High Authority, the EP, and the Commission

RECOMMENDATION
Repercussions of Community identity - Esprit de corps or Community-feeling for
national European policy-making
Bilateral relationships for national European policy
With particular focused on unequal partners such as IB, AG, and FR

Comparative Studies