Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:50:35.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Churchill's ‘No’ to Europe: The ‘Rejection’ of European Union by Churchill's Post-War Government, 1951–1952

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

John W. Young
John W. Young
Affiliation:
Leicester University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are several points in post-war history at which, it is argued, Britain lost an early opportunity to enter the European community. The refusals to join the Schuman Plan and Messina deliberations in the 1950s, and the failure of the E.E.C. applications of Macmillan and Wilson, are most commonly mentioned. But some commentators have pointed to another ‘missed opportunity’, following Winston Churchill's return to Downing Street in October 1951. For, in opposition, Churchill had seemed a great exponent of European unity, and several of his ministers – foremost among them the home secretary, Maxwell Fyfe, and housing minister, Harold Macmillan – had shown great enthusiasm for his ideas. Hopes that Churchill's government would favour a more positive approach to European unification were quickly disappointed, however: within weeks the foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, had ruled out any direct British role in Europe's emerging ‘supranational’ institutions, and in 1952 he defeated some determined efforts by Macmillan to change his policy. The ‘pro-Europeans’ did not forget this ‘betrayal’, however. They argued that a real opportunity to take the leadership of Europe had been lost and in the ensuing years, as Britain's failure to join the European community became more generally criticized, their thesis seemed credible. An examination of the evidence, however, allows a very different picture of this ‘missed opportunity’ to be painted.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 1985 , pp. 923 - 937
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Boothby, Lord, My yesterday, your tomorrow (London, 1962), p. 83Google Scholar, states that Britain ‘had betrayed Europe’; Macmillan, Harold, Tides of fortune, 1945–55 (London, 1969), p. 461Google Scholar, says British policy was ‘almost a betrayal’.

1 On the union proposal see SirWoodward, L., British foreign policy in the second world war (5 vols. London 1970–1976) 1, 276–82Google Scholar. On Churchill's ‘Council of Europe’ idea see for example Wheeler-Bennett, J. (ed.), Action this day (London, 1968), pp. 83–4Google Scholar and Gilbert, M., Winston S. Churchill: Finest Hour (London, 1983), pp. 943–4Google Scholar.

3 Churchill, Winston S., The sinews of peace: post-war speeches (London, 1948), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.

4 Ibid. pp. 198–202.

5 On the western bloc see Woodward, , British foreign policy, 111, 95–103 and V, 181–97Google Scholar.

6 Churchill, , Sinews of peace, p. 202Google Scholar.

7 See the Commons debate on the issue in Hansard: 476 H.C. Deb. 5. s. cols. 1907–24 and 2140–59.

8 Churchill condemned the Pleven Plan for creating a ‘sludgy amalgam’: Wheeler-Bennett, (ed.) Action this day, p. 127Google Scholar.

9 This re-interpretation of Labour's policy is derived from Young, John W., Britain, France and the unity of Europe, 1945–51 (Leicester, 1984)Google Scholar.

10 On the Macmillan-Eccles Plan see Monnet, Jean, Memoirs (London, 1978), pp. 325–6 and 334–5Google Scholar; and Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 201–19Google Scholar.

11 Public Record Office, CAB. 128/23 C.C (51) 10, item 4 (22 November); Macmillan, , Tides, p. 462Google Scholar.

12 Earl, of Kilmuir, , Political adventure (London, 1964), p. 187Google Scholar; Macmillan, , Tides, p. 463Google Scholar; Boothby, , My yesterday, p. 83Google Scholar.

13 Macmillan, , Tides, p. 463Google Scholar.

14 Kilmuir, , Adventure, p. 187Google Scholar. On the events of 28 November see also Nutting, Anthony, Europe will not wait (London, 1960), pp. 40–1Google Scholar; Boothby, , My yesterday, p. 83Google Scholar; and Eden, Anthony, Full circle (London, 1960), p. 33Google Scholar.

15 Letter of delegates to Churchill, 3 December 1951, Public Record Office, PREM. 11/153; Booth by, ibid. p. 84.

16 Eden to Churchill, 5 December, PREM, 11/153.

17 Spaak, Paul-Henri, The continuing battle (London, 1971), pp. 219–25Google Scholar. Interestingly Spaak concentrates on condemning Maxwell Fyfe's speech, not Eden's.

18 Macmillan, , Tides, p. 463Google Scholar.

19 See for example Calvocoressi, Peter, Survey of international affairs, 1951 (London, 1954), pp. 79–80Google Scholar; Carlton, David, Anthony Eden (London, 1983), pp. 309–10Google Scholar.

20 Eden, , Full circle, p. 32Google Scholar.

21 CAB 129/48, C. (51) 32 (29 November).

22 Boothby to Churchill, 12 December, and Churchill to Eden, 13 December, PREM. 11/153. Boothby had met a group of US senators favourable to European unity in November: Boothby, , My yesterday, p. 83Google Scholar. But, at an official level, Eden's policy – at least as regards the E.D.C. – was encouraged by Eisenhower: Eden, , Full circle, pp. 32–3Google Scholar.

23 On the Paris visit see Eden, ibid. pp. 33–5; and CAB. 128/23, C.C. (51) 16, item 8 (11 December).

24 Eden to Churchill, 15 December 1951, and Churchill minute, PREM. 11/153.

25 CAB 128/23; C.C. (51) 16, item 8 (11 December); Eden, , Full Circle, pp. 33–4Google Scholar.

26 Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 468–70Google Scholar

27 CAB. 129/49, C. (52) 40 (15 February 1952); Eden, , Full circle, pp. 47–8Google Scholar; and Nutting, , Europe, pp. 41–2Google Scholar.

28 CAB. 129/50, C. (52) 56 (29 February 1952); Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 470–1Google Scholar. Interestingly Macmillan's paper also talked of forming a currency link between Britain and Europe.

29 CAB. 128/24, C.C. (52) 29 (12 March).

30 CAB. 129/50, C. (52) 75 (12 March).

31 CAB. 128/24, C.C (52) 30 (13 March); Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 471–2Google Scholar.

32 Macmillan to Churchill, 17 March, and Eden to Churchill, 18 March, PREM. 11/153; Macmillan, ibid. p. 472.

33 CAB. 128/25, C.C. (52) 53 (15 May); CAB. 129/52, C. (52) 155 (13 May); Boothby, , My yesterday, p. 86Google Scholar. It is easy to see from this discussion why Macmillan and Maxwell Fyfe point to Salisbury as one of their main opponents. Similar ideas to the Strasbourg Plan had already been considered, and rejected, under Labour: see, for example, CAB. 129/27, C.P. (49) 208 (18 October 1949).

34 Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 475–8Google Scholar; Boothby, , My yesterday, pp. 84–5Google Scholar; Seldon, Anthony, Churchill's Indian summer (London, 1981), p. 414Google Scholar.

35 Macmillan, , Tides, pp. 479–80Google Scholar; Kilmuir, , Adventure, p. 188Google Scholar.

36 CAB. 129/52, C. (52) 189 (10 june 1952); Monnet, , Memoirs, pp. 380–1Google Scholar; Nutting, ; Europe, pp. 42–6Google Scholar; and see also Spaak, , Continuing battle, p. 226Google Scholar.

37 Macmillan, , Tides, p. 473Google Scholar.