May 8, 2015 | By Richard C. Longworth

The Gaullist Ghost in the British Election

Workers applaud as Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife return to 10 Downing Street. REUTERS/Stefan Rousseau

Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative Party have swept to victory in Britain’s general election. Which means the British probably will get a chance to show whether Charles de Gaulle was right after all.

Fifty years ago, de Gaulle, the imperious French president, twice vetoed British membership in what became the European Union. De Gaulle listed his reasons. Britain was a maritime nation with worldwide connections, more committed to its ties with the British Commonwealth and, especially, the United States, than to its European neighbors. It was an off-shore island, “not continental.” And, de Gaulle said, Britain harbored a “deep-seated hostility” to European unity.

The European Common Market, as it was then, comprised “a compact geographic and strategic unit.” Britain, de Gaulle said, just didn’t fit.

Britain eventually joined the Common Market in 1973, after de Gaulle stepped down. But after more than 40 years inside the European Club, it still doesn’t fit.

The “deep-seated hostility” remains, mostly outside London, among the nationalistic “little Englanders,” in the Europhobic wing of Cameron’s Conservative Party and, most stridently, in much of the nation’s tabloid press.

Cameron bowed to this hostility when he announced two years ago that he would renegotiate Britain’s terms of EU membership. Then, he said, he would hold a national referendum in 2017, a yes-no vote asking the British people whether they want to stay in the EU.

The big problem: the reforms Cameron wanted would mean that the EU would stop being the EU.

All this depended, of course, on Cameron’s Tories still being in power in 2017. This election all but guaranteed that they will.

(I have to ask the forgiveness of readers for straying so far from my usual Midwestern turf. As a foreign correspondent, I wrote the story when de Gaulle first vetoed British membership. I covered British membership in 1973 and, later, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s increasing rancor toward Brussels, a rancor she bequeathed to her once pro-EU Tories. Having watched these problems blossom, it’s fascinating to see them now in full bloom.)

Britain has always been an awkward member of the EU, demanding special treatment and budget breaks. It’s by far the biggest EU member with no plans to adopt the euro: Poland is another non-euro country but plans to join.

The euro’s problems and the sad post-recession performance of the Eurozone economies have only strengthened euro-skepticism in Britain. So have migrants from new EU members in eastern Europe, which under EU rules have free movement within the Union.

It was against these attitudes that Cameron promised his referendum. He began by acknowledging that Britain is different. “Our geography has shaped our psychology,” he said. “We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.” Because of this, Britain’s attitude toward the EU “is more practical than emotional.”

Throw in the recent problems in Europe, he said, and “democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer thin.” British voters probably will vote to leave the EU unless “fundamental, far-reaching changes” are negotiated before then.

It’s these “fundamental, far-reaching changes” that are the problem.

Cameron said he wants to slow up and reverse the flow of regulations from Brussels. He wants more power flowing back to national parliaments from Brussels. He wants the ability of nations such as Britain to opt out of objectionable EU decisions.

But mostly, he urged that EU abandon its goal of increasing political unity and become just a “single market”–in essence, a free trade zone within which countries would cooperate but would retain full sovereignty.

This sounds reasonable to the Brits, but is being rejected by the EU’s continental members. They simply see European unity differently from the British. Cameron was right that Britain, unlike the continentals, are “more practical than emotional” about EU membership.

The continental Europeans–especially original members such as France and Germany–are very emotional about membership, and for a reason.

The EU started life as a free trade zone–the Common Market–but its founders always intended it to be something closer to a United States of Europe. Economic efficiency never was its purpose. Rather, it aimed to use economic agreements to forge Europeans nations closer together, so they never again would fight the ruinous wars that wracked the continent in the first half of the 20th century.

In other words, the EU isn’t an economic union, and wasn’t meant to be. It aims to be a political union, almost an historical union, with one goal–no more Hitlers. This is the “emotional” factor that Cameron doesn’t share and can’t see.

The EU has always sought “widening and deepening”–that is, a growing membership and a deeper union. Its members see it not as a finished project but a process toward unity. Cameron wants to throw this process in reverse.

Britain suffered in the world wars but, unlike the other European nations, was never occupied or defeated. As Churchill said, World War II was “its finest hour.” The English Channel may be only 20 miles wide, but the emotional gap between Britain and its European neighbors is oceanic.

When Cameron demands that any negotiations make the EU less of a union and more of a single market, he is asking the Europeans to make the EU something it was never meant to be.

This is not to say that the negotiations will fail, or that Cameron lacks allies. Some of the EU’s other newer members–the Swedes and Danes, or the Hungarians–also are more lukewarm members than the true believers of Berlin and Paris.

But the odds still favor a “Brexit,” as the British exit is called. With his election victory, Cameron has two years to sway the continentals, or to convince the British that they’re better in than out.

Otherwise, bad times loom. A Brexit would weaken both the EU and Britain. But a U-turn from greater unity would derail a European project that, for all its problems, has brought decades of peace and prosperity to a continental battleground.

Unhappily, de Gaulle had it right.


Richard Longworth is nonresident senior fellow on global cities at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and author of On Global Cities and Caught in the Middle: America’s Heartland in the Age of Globalism, on the impact of globalization on the American Midwest. He also was a distinguished visiting scholar at DePaul University and adjunct professor of international relations at Northwestern University, and is a mentor at the Harris School at the University of Chicago.


| By Richard C. Longworth

Global Cities Speak

Global cities exist. Like globalization itself, they’re new but real. And like globalization, they’re both enriching and impoverishing, good for those who know how to navigate these global waters, bad for those left in their wake.

| By Richard C. Longworth

On Global Cities

In my new book, On Global Cities, I take a fresh and focused look at global cities — what they are, why they are special, what makes them global, how they emerged, and where they are going.

| By Richard C. Longworth

Into The Madding Crowd

We’re told that we’re living in a world of lonely individuals. Maybe so. But my bet is that the future really lives, like the rest of us, in crowds.

| By Richard C. Longworth

The Future of Farming

I was talking recently with a farmer who farms a big spread in northern Illinois. There’s more to this these days, he said, than just going out and plowing the back 40. Where and how he plows depends largely on the data he gets daily from three satellites orbiting a thousand miles above his farm.  

| By Richard C. Longworth

New Life for Old Cities

Instead of larding the PACs of their favorite political candidates, wouldn’t it be nice if Chicago’s plutocrats put their money where it might actually do some real good? 

| By Richard C. Longworth

Chicago as Stockholm

Chicago is getting bad press, to put it mildly. It may be time for the city to think about a makeover – in both substance and image – if it is going to be taken seriously as a global city. 

| By Richard C. Longworth

Governors on the Warpath

Illinois and Indiana may be competitors, but it’s mostly over which governor can do the most damage to his state. Earlier this month, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence seemed ready to retire the gubernatorial dunce cap, with his signing and then backtracking on his state’s infamous “religious freedom” law. But now comes Bruce Rauner, Illinois’ rookie governor, with a virtual declaration of economic warfare on the Hoosiers next door.

| By Richard C. Longworth

The Midwest's Fresh Water Solution

The Midwest is sitting on the resource that will shape the future, and it’s just beginning to think what it can do with it. No, it’s not oil. Nor iron, steel or farmland, the resources that powered its industrial-era economy. It’s water. Or rather, fresh water, the useful low-salt variety that is in increasingly short supply around the country and around the world. 

| By Richard C. Longworth

What's Ailing Midwestern Legislatures?

The Indiana legislature recently passed a bill, signed by Gov. Mike Pence that, in effect, authorizes businesses in that state to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Pence and the Indiana legislature claim the bill is meant to protect religious freedom, not to discriminate against any group. Not surprisingly, nobody believes them, especially as their's isn't the only Midwestern state passing this type of legislation. 

| By Richard C. Longworth

It's Politics Time Again in Iowa

It’s early days yet in Iowa. The state girls’ basketball tournament is barely over. Farmers won’t start planting the first corn or soybeans for another month yet. The last vestiges of snow still fringe some fields. But it’s never too early for politics in the state that seems to have a lock on the quadrennial jockeying for pole position in the presidential sweepstakes.

| By Richard C. Longworth

Chicago Picks a Mayor

Chicagoans, or at least a few of them, will vote next month in a mayoral election notable both for its importance and for its meager turnout. Either Mayor Rahm Emanuel or his challenger, Jesus (Chuy) Garcia, will be the next mayor. In a sense, it’s a shame they both can’t win.