The Franco-British wedding plan

The British media have been enjoying themselves for the past 24 hours with a story that sounds preposterous: Not so long ago, France invited Britain to unite with it as a single nation and when that did not work, it sought membership of the British Commonwealth.

In today's context, after decades of prickly Gaullism in France and British resistance in a French-designed European Union, the idea of a Paris-London marriage sounds like a joke. Yet it did happen -- twice: in 1956 in 1940.

Despite today's amazement, prompted by a BBC Radio documentary, the tale is not new. It came out two decades ago with the declassification of government papers and it has been well studied by historians. Dr James Ellison of Queen Mary's College, London University, called me to point this out yesterday while everyone was excited about the BBC's supposed revelation.

But it is worth revisiting the episode to see how different things might have been and how history can pivot around the events of a few months (Note to Frank Schnittger: This should answer your request for a post).

The first abortive cross-Channel marriage was a footnote in the fall of France to the Germans in June 1940. Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, issued a Declaration of Union in an attempt to stave off French capitulation. "The two Governments declare that France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union," proclaimed the British Cabinet.

France fell a day later and the union was dropped. It is interesting to note that its original author was Jean Monnet, the French statesman who, along with Robert Schuman, later invented the future European Community.

The episode in September 1956, recounted in the BBC's non-scoop, took place in a similar time of desperation. President Nasser, the Egyptian leader, had nationalised the Suez canal, threatening French and British interests in the east and stirring up trouble for France in its Algerian colony. Guy Mollet, the French Socialist Prime Minister,[right, above] suggested to Anthony Eden, the British Conservative premier, that they revive the Monnet scheme for Franco-British union.

Eden turned that down, but he was keen on the idea of France joining the British Commonwealth. On advice from the civil service, Eden later dropped that too but it was not quite such a mad idea as it seems now. Britain had just refused to join what was to become the European Union but it was eager to keep close to France as well as the former colonies of the Commonwealth.

The Suez affair ended in debacle when the USA forced France and Britain to withdraw their invading forces from Egypt in late 1956. That was the pivotal point. Britain and France thereafter reverted to their ancestral separate ways.

The following year, France led the launch of the European Community. Britain abandoned its claim to being a great power and threw in its lot with Washington. De Gaulle took power in the demoralised France of 1958 and turned it into a nuclear state with pretensions to independence from the USA and the Soviet Union. Soviet Russia disappeared, but French presidents all the way up to Jacques Chirac, have pursued the Gaulliste line.

Playing "what if", you could imagine a very different Europe if London and Paris had stuck together. France was buried in trauma in Algeria, which led to the call to de Gaulle, but if he had not been recruited as President, Britain would surely not have been kept out of the European project until 1973. When Britain belatedly joined, Brussels was a mature, French-driven machine.

This morning, they were musing on the Franco-British union on France Inter, the equivalent to BBC Radio 4. Bernard Guetta, the network's very anti-Anglo-Saxon commentator, said that there was logic to Mollet's scheme. France and Britain were right to try to restore power to Europe through a union of its great nations, he said. The EU might not be in such a mess if the scheme had gone ahead. At least the BBC story has got everyone thinking.

  [Paris 1956, London 1956]

Comments

[Edward Johns]

Wasn't there a (forced) marriage between the UK and France somwhere around 1066 ?

[Germain]

Four years ago, France and Germany celebrated the 40th anniversary of the franco-german treaty signed by De Gaulle and Adenauer in 1963. For two weeks, there were seemingly "serious" proposals of unifying the two countries in a "Françallemagne", and you could read editorials stressing the assets of such a strong contender of american unilateralism.

[Frank Schnittger]

Thanks Charles. A very much more measured piece - although I appreciate your first piece was somewhat tongue in cheek, as was my response!

What I think the episodes you mention illustrate is that major political changes generally happen in response to traumatic external events - be it the Nazi conquest of France, the Suez Crisis, or the French difficulties in Algeria.

They also illustrate that the structures which we now take for granted as being cast in stone (like the post war Nation state structure of Europe and the EU) - were at one time created in a very fluid situation, and things could very easily have turned out very differently.

I have long taken the view that it will take another such external shock to change or further develop the current political shape of Europe. The problem with the EU Constitutional Referenda was that they took place at a relatively peaceful and prosperous time when people saw no great need for radical change and could afford to take a swipe at the presumption of their political masters.

However the war in Iraq together with the abject failure of Tony Blair to have any significant influence on US Foreign Policy means that people are once again beginning to focus on the need for a counterweight to US hegemony in a rapidly globalising world.

Were the world economy to go seriously awry in the wake of future wars in the Middle East – escalating into great political insecurity within Europe in the face of terrorism, energy shortages, economic insecurity and world recession you might well have a popular re-think on the EU, and a demand that it become a much more effective alternative leader within the free world.

That would require significant constitutional changes, including, possibly, a European Prime Minister directly accountable to a much more powerful European Parliament, and with Foreign policy, Defence, and some Economic matters being handled much more at a central European rather than at a National level within Europe.

Such changes are unthinkable now, and it depends on how deep the crisis is as to whether they might become practicable in the future. Many people are quite happy to see the EU relatively ineffective now, thinking that Europe is over-governed, and under accountable in the first place.

But all that could change in the face of a major global crisis, where Europe once again stands impotently and ineptly by while other powers make war and risk all our security. George Bush may yet go down in history as the man who did more than anyone to unite Europe (against him!).

[john gregory Flinn]

"Playing "what if",...."

Mr Bremner, I think you should look closer to France itself.

After all I did post 'I think Chirac wants to become a King!', on your weblog "Chirac muddies the waters".

The idea of the British Queen as a royal ceremonial Head of State was considered acceptable in France, and possibly lies dormant.
Dear Jacques' machinations about the forthcoming presidential elections may be a prescient expression of this idea, and his ambition to fulfil it!

[Daisy]

J'aurais bien aime etre mi-anglaise, mi-francaise. Je parlerais couramment les deux langues, ma peau claire rougissante ne paraitrait pas incongrue, je pourrais boire du the en caressant des chats, impunement.

[Heinz Koenig]

What a superb idea, Frank. General elections for a European parliament.A European Prime Minister and the whole team of accountable ministers. Democratic power to a powerful Europe in the family of nations in the world.
But then, as the logic is with this idea to put Europe into the position to compete with the other big nations and add the European share to shaping the world - how stupid must those many in the "small" European nations be, who actively and vigorously fight every move to make Europe a powerful democracy. They complain so noisily and bitterly over the lack of power, influence, democratic standing as well as too much beaurocracy and division in Europe. They use their complaining arguments to deduct and conclude from their that Europe should be no more than a "Freetrade Zone" . They want international arrangemnts, yes, but definitively no supra national institutions and legislation, no. Absolutely in line with this is the enthusiasm to enlarge Europe to the Chinese border and construct that way a poorly working "free-trade-zone".
Sorry for the Brits though, even in that construct they will have not the influential say they hope and strive so badly for.
May I recomment to all Britts in this Blog to read the highly informative book of Dr. David Winn : BRITAIN VS EUROPE, I am sure after reading this book and knowing what really happened in the UK over the last 50 years, they will be surprised how knowledge can change opinions.
Heinz König

[Jess]

Enjoyed your piece, Charles, as much as I've been enjoying this whole splendid story. Britain and France conjoined is a quite breathtakingly absurd notion that will have me chortling for a long time to come. "Might as well mix oil and water" as one vox pop Frenchman on the Today programme commented.

A general comment on some of the EU-centred posts, above. It seems as desirable to me as it is to everyone else that the EU assert itself as a counterbalance to the USA's dangerous world hegemony. Particularly with regard to climate change and petrochemicals, where the EU has an opportunity to provide a genuine and potentially planet-saving lead.

Sadly, though, Europe is always doomed to insignificance while it remains a continent whose (diminishing) population becomes longer in the tooth with every passing day, while it refuses to spend an adequate fraction of its wealth on projection of military force and while it condemns an absurd portion of its (vanishing) youth to economic inactivity through socialist stupidity. As a continent, we are timorous, self-serving, isolationist and becoming rapidly redundant.

[Frank Schnittger]

"They complain so noisily and bitterly over the lack of power, influence, democratic standing as well as too much beaurocracy and division in Europe" - Heinz Koenig

They also complain in the same vein about the UN, their own National Government, and even their local Council - whether it be in Britain or France.

For some, Government is an extension of their own ego. If somebody else is running it, it can't be good. No matter that the UN and EU can only do what their members let them do.

Those who shout loudest about the ineffectiveness of such bodies are also the first to insist that such bodies can only legitimately do what they want them to do, and to withold their support for any initiative coming from another source.

All a bit childish really.

PS to Charles. I've been trying to drum up some business for you by being as provocative as possible - without success. Has everyone fallen asleep? Where are the resident Europhobes? Are your ratings way down? Are Timesonline blogs being phased out? (Your Colleage David Aaronovitch has taken his blog off the main blog page. Only Ruth Gledhill, besides your good self, still moderates regularly - and gets snowed under with huge volumes of posts for her trouble)

[MCD of USA]

"USA's dangerous hegemony"? Don't worry, Europe WILL unite...under sharia law.

[Edward Johns]

Hallo Daisy,
sorry but your archetypal "English Rose" has changed--apparently the true English 'gel' is to be found unconscious through intoxicants on the pavement of any UK town centre these days.

[Frank Schnittger]

"USA's dangerous hegemony"? Don't worry, Europe WILL unite...under sharia law." - MCD

I don't think so. We've seen how dangerous religious fundamentalism can be when it gets into power - as in the USA!

[MCD of USA]

Ah, the catch phrase of Europe. Can you tell me what America's religious fundamentalism is and exactly how 'it' is in power in the USA? Is going to church and having faith in God "religious fundamentalism" to Europeans? You seem to be the perfect puppet for the press. BTW, did the French vote to allow Sharia Law in their 'no go' neighborhoods? The Aussies, Canadians and Americans' see it, just not the Europeans.

[Frank Schnittger]

Yes - MCD, I would be delighted to help you out. Fundamentalism is a form of religion which believes in the absolute truth of a de-contextualised and unhistorical reading of certain selected ancient texts and that this gives the believer the right to impose their moral and political views on unbelievers and other nations - by force if necessary.

Its most popular current forms include the radical Islamic attempt to dhimmitise infidels and the American Fundamentalist Christian attempts to persecute gays, teach unscientific "creationist" dogmas in public schools, and justify the making of war on peoples and nations which stand in the way of US private and National interests because they control major oil reserves.

It is characterised by a merging of egotistical, moral, political, economic and national interests as all being somehow justified by God, or to protect "freedom" (meaning U.S. freedom to exercise power over others), or to defeat the forces of evil (meaning anyone who opposes U.S. interests).

You are absolutely right. Europeans (and many Americans) have been over tolerant in allowing such groups to encroach on their constitutional freedoms – which is why I have often argued for a much more powerful, cohesive, democratic, accountable and dynamic Europe. I’m sure you will agree that Europe needs to become far more assertive and self-reliant in warding off such threats to our collective freedom and security.

[MCDofUSA]

Well Frank, you did just what I knew you would, babble. You make statements without context. "American Fundamentalist Christian attempts to persecute gays"...Where are gays being persecuted? We have gay and lesbian political groups, clubs in public schools, rights in housing, employment, parental rights, partnership rights, etc. The Vice-President's daughter is gay for crying out loud. This 'dangerous group' doesn't seem to have the power your constant rhetoric purports. Most peoples' issues with gays are based on their own value system which has nothing to do with religious dogma.
Concerning 'Creationism': We are a democratic Country and if a group of people want to put forth a proposal for change, that is their right. They pay taxes and have a right to have a voice in the Public School System. Evolution is based on beliefs and pre-supposition. It is an un-proven theory. This is a fact. Why all the hoopla over differing ideas. Isn't that what our schools are for, expanding our minds and getting us to think, exploring all ideas and theories. Education is about knowledge and I find it hypocritical to want to 'keep out' such a profound, historical and enduring idea. They have no problem handing out condoms, birth contol pills and assisting you with an abortion, though, and that's part of the education system? An educational system itself is an ideology, so who's controlling whom here? It's rather laughable.
And please tell me how 'American Fudamentalists are justifying making war on the people and nations which stand in the way of US private and national interest'. You're full of hyper-bole, rhetoric, and propaganda, none of which you quantify. You are, well...someone who likes to listen to himself talk.

[Frank Schnittger]

Well MCD, if you don't want an answer, don't ask for one...

[MCDofUSA]

You're the one who doesn't give answers, nothing to back up your ridiculous claims. Just statements. Here's some statements on Ireland:
Ireland is being taken over by a sinister group of leprechauns. As the Irish sit on their stools in the vast pubs that litter the landscape, these egotistical leprechauns are undermining the moral, political, economic and national interests of Ireland, all being justified by folklore, in an effort to protect their treasure from evil forces that may try to take it away.
I will offer no proof of this, so don't ask, as my having stated it is proof enough.

[Frank Schnittger]

MCD - Your little fairy tale about Ireland is just a re-working of the fairy tale you used to spout about "reds under the bed" with a similar lack of credibility - as is your latest rendition here on a similar theme:

"USA's dangerous hegemony"? Don't worry, Europe WILL unite...under sharia law." - MCD

"I will offer no proof of this, so don't ask, as my having stated it is proof enough". - MCD

Is this supposed to be a direct quote from Gen. Colin Powell when he claimed, at the UN, to have irrefutable proof of Iraq active development and possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Just where did you offer proof that Europe will unite under Sharia law? Are we supposed to be scared by this prediction and go running into the kind arms of the Bush regime for protection?

Seems you are practicing precisely what you claim to preach against.

[Andrew Morrow]

How do the BBC get away with this kind of thing? This story, as Charles noted, has been known for a long time. If you are interested in the long history of Franco British relations then I highly recommend That Sweet Enemy by Robert and Isabelle Tombs published by Heinemann in 2006.

[Jackson]

To Frank and MDC,

Frank makes some valid points, and MDC obviously was stating some points more strongly than he actually believes.

Frank is right in that absent a sense of immediate threat, there is insufficient political will in many parts of Europe to make necessary changes. Much of the political stagnation in Europe is due to the interests of its aeging population being vested in the status quo, and naive youth who do not grasp that their future is being robbed under the pretext of egalitarian policies. This situation might be too entrenched to change. The test may present itself in France if Sarkozy is elected, and has the same politcal majorities as Chirac. Will he have the resoluteness to reform the education system and labor laws?

I mention the above in order to paint a broad stroke portrait of the European mentality, which is useful to keep in mind when considering possible disaster scenarios that could lead to political change.

The scenario that Frank depicts in which the instability of the Middle East results in economic and social disruption both globally and especially in Europe is possible, but is it entirely due to U.S. hegemony? Regardless, I do not, see a European response taking the form Frank suggests. The damage would already be done, so the political and economic integration he suggests would be ineffective in the short term. In a world made unstable by regional war in the Middle East, Europeans are more likely to align themselves ever more closely to the U.S. (and here is where my portrait of the Europeans is useful). I know that seems unlikely now, but they will push leaders to co-operate more closely with the U.S. because their economic and cultural ties combined are stronger than with any other suitor, and this relationship provides the best chance for maintaining some semblance of a materially comfortable status quo. The U.S. wants Europe to be as strong and economically vibrant a partner as possible, because it is confident that Europe will never take an active military stance against it. For this reason, China is a much bigger concern to the U.S. than Europe. Frank, can you seriously imagine the man on the street in today's Europe standing up to the U.S., and advocating an attack against it, or threatening an attack to to dissuade it from action? It is even less thinkable than the U.S. attacking Europe (which one might think is imminent if he reads some of the French press).

However, I do not think the future will reflect MDCs disaster scenario either (and Sharia law would be a disaster to Europe's liberal values). Muslims constitute an increasing percentage of European society, and will comand increasing political representation, but those who adopt materialist liberalism are far more numerous than the Islamic radicals.

May I suggest therefore that the two of you put down your daggers, and go about enjoying the cozy lives you can lead under U.S. hegemony?

[Frank Schnittger]

Jackson - thank you for your reasoned contribution - so much more fun to read than trading insults.

However the scenario you depict has already happened to some degree with the Iraq and South Lebanon wars. The UK has sought to align itself with the U.S., and has been utterly ignored in terms of having a serious input into U.S. foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy is designed to serve U.S. interests, not those of Europe, and increasingly those interests have been seen to diverge.

My suggestion to you is that the hostility MCD regularly displays towards anyone who argues for a stronger, more self reliant Europe, is not an isolated case of pique, but rather quite a common attitude in the U.S. of resentment towards any European country which takes an independent stance on anything.

Individually European countries are far too small to resist pressure from the U.S. Ireland, for example, had to allow rendition flights through Shannon despite the overwhelming opposition of the electorate, because the Government was afraid of losing inward U.S. investment.

Collectively, as part of the EU, we are comparable to the US in terms of population and GNP. However we lack two things by way of comparison: Firstly we do not have a strong, centralised, coherent and accountable decision making process, and second our military capability is much smaller.

This means we do not punch our weight in the Global economy or act decisively when conflicts arise – even on our own doorstep – as in the case of Kosovo.

But the most serious consequence of the growing divergence of interest between Europe and the U.S. is that the next time there is a very serious threat to European security or economic well being, there is absolutely no guarantee that the U.S. will come to our assistance. Don’t forget the U.S. only entered the First World War when it was nearly over, and the Second when its own interests were very directly attacked.

Thus my thesis is very simple: The next time there is a very serious threat to Europe, those who run to the U.S for assistance may well run in vain. MCD represents a very substantial body of opinion which is very hostile to Europe. Most recent U.S. Presidents (Carter and Clinton were the exceptions) were far more interested in developing relations with Asia and the Pacific rim than they were with Europe.

It is time Europe grew up and started being more self reliant and able to look after itself in the Global economy and international political system. Major divergences on trade, global warming, the Middle East, and the third world are just the beginning.

I am not suggesting for a moment that we should try to compete militarily with the US, or that our differences will become so severe that war may result. But I am suggesting that it is time we became of age and stopped behaving like a teenager whingeing at their (American) parent.

Americans have tired of bailing us out when we get into trouble. They have tired of our complaints every time they take decisive action when we have no alternative to offer. They can’t even negotiate with us because they don't know who to call when they want to cut a deal with Europe.

Europe may be an aging, and relatively, a declining continent. It is still, however by far the second most economically powerful region in the world – on a par almost with the U.S. It is time we started to punch our weight in the political sphere as well, and we can only do so when we radically overhaul the constitutional mess that currently passes for a European Union.

We won’t gain the respect of America, or of the rest of the world, until we do so. In some respects MCD is right to be derisive. Europe doesn’t know what it stands for at the moment, and has no means of fighting for it even if it knew.

[Joe Bunda]

I can hardly follow that logic in this thread for two reasons:

First, the post-colonial yet still culturally hegemonic edge in the discourse drowns out both realism and globalist unity.

Second, I've been drunk since supper: first a "Rob Roy," then two more; Chardonnay with Tilapia Almondine and goat cheese rissotto, then several volleys of Butterscotch Schnaps, vodka and a basecoat of Bailey's Irish Cream (wake up! They're called "Buttery Nipples!) and a Sambuca capper with three coffee beans for good luck (remember--always an odd number of beans for luck).

Lord Almighty, I've got to sort all of this out . . .

[Joe Bunda]

I can hardly follow that logic in this thread for two reasons:

First, the post-colonial yet still culturally hegemonic edge in the discourse drowns out both realism and globalist unity.

Second, I've been drunk since supper: first a "Rob Roy," then two more; Chardonnay with Tilapia Almondine and goat cheese rissotto, then several volleys of Butterscotch Schnaps, vodka and a basecoat of Bailey's Irish Cream (wake up! They're called "Buttery Nipples!) and a Sambuca capper with three coffee beans for good luck (remember--always an odd number of beans for luck).

Lord Almighty, I've got to sort all of this out . . .