Introduction

Britain's relationship with the European Union (EU) is frequently characterised as being simple. In ways never really explained by the media and politicians, the EU is perceived to have ‘taken away’ Britain’s sovereign powers and has the ability to determine much of its legislation. The history of how this process has occurred is never discussed and, unlike other countries in Europe, no UK newspaper or broadcast media has a regular slot for the daily work of the European Council or Commission to inform or educate such debate. The European Parliament fares better with a share of the BBC Democracy Live website, but its substantive discussions rarely appear in the print media.

Neither the British public nor other parts of civil society have the knowledge and, thus, the ability to converse about current European policy issues as they do on other domestic or international topics. Megaphone diplomacy seems to be the order of the day – popularly characterised through headlines in newspapers. When discussing EU policy processes on television or radio, Members of Parliament (MPs) demonstrate that they do not understand how the EU works. This is remarkable after 40 years of membership and 50 years of a relationship. It is also a position that may be English rather than British. Being unable to engage in policy debates, discussions on emerging legislative programmes and spending decisions suggests a sense of hopelessness, or even fatalism, at achieving any kind of influence. Or is it the collective burying of the national head in the sand? This suggests that if Britain is not seen to engage in the processes of its successive and continuing pooling of powers within the EU, then it cannot be held accountable for the outcomes of these decisions.

What is the reality of the relationship between Britain and the EU? This book will explore this through its provenance and subsequent engagement. This extends from the original opaque presentation of the implications of EU membership during negotiations and subsequent referenda (Camps, 1964; FCO 1970, George, 1991), the continuing fractures at the heart of government when centralising formal negotiating positions (O’Riordan and Rowbotham, 1996; Jordan, 2008) and a failure to maintain public day-to-day engagement in a joint institution within which Britain has invested much of its sovereign powers (Bulmer and Burch, 2009).