Britain's relationship with Europe and its impact

Model answer

On Black Wednesday the pound fell so far that Britain was forced to leave the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. As a result, the Conservative government's reputation for economic competence was badly damaged.

Model answer

Joining the EEC on 1 January 1973 was significant first because it changed the direction of Britain's economy. Britain had applied because the EEC's economies were growing faster than its own while the Commonwealth was becoming less important. After 1973 Britain's trade shifted steadily towards Europe; by 2015 the EU took about 44% of British exports. Access to the European market also attracted foreign investment, such as Nissan's car factory at Sunderland, opened in 1986. However, there were costs: the Common Agricultural Policy raised food prices, Britain paid more into the budget than it received until Thatcher won a rebate in 1984, and fishing communities resented the Common Fisheries Policy.

Secondly, it was politically significant. The European Communities Act of 1972 made European law part of British law, taking priority over Acts of Parliament where they conflicted, which started a long debate about sovereignty. Both main parties were divided. Wilson held a referendum in 1975, in which about 67% voted to stay in, but Labour promised to leave in 1983, and later the Conservatives split over Europe, especially after the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.

Thirdly, it marked Britain's turn from empire towards Europe. Commonwealth countries that depended on the British market, such as New Zealand with its butter and lamb and Caribbean sugar producers, lost their special access, although the Lomé Convention of 1975 gave former colonies some help. Membership also brought regional funding for poorer areas and, later, European rules on workers' rights, the environment and free movement.

In the long term, joining was significant because it shaped British politics for almost half a century. Membership lasted 47 years, and the debates it started about sovereignty, budgets and later immigration led to the referendum of 2016 and Britain's departure in 2020.

Model answer

The enlargement of the EU in 2004 was significant first because of the scale of migration it caused. Ten countries joined, eight of them former communist states such as Poland, Lithuania and Hungary. Britain was one of only three existing members to allow their citizens to work immediately, and the government had expected relatively small numbers. In fact hundreds of thousands came; the Polish-born population of England and Wales rose from about 58,000 in 2001 to about 579,000 in 2011, and Polish became the second most spoken language in England.

Secondly, it was economically significant. Many of the migrants were young and well qualified, and they filled jobs in farming, food processing, construction, hotels and care, especially in places such as Peterborough, Boston in Lincolnshire and London. Most studies found that they benefited the economy overall, although there was debate about their effects on wages and local services.

Thirdly, it changed communities and culture. Polish shops, churches and Saturday schools appeared in many towns, and some small towns changed quickly. Many migrants settled permanently and raised families in Britain.

Finally, enlargement was politically significant. Immigration became one of the leading issues in British politics. The government kept restrictions on workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which joined in 2007, until 2014, and the UK Independence Party, which campaigned against free movement, won the European elections of 2014. Free movement from the EU was a central issue in the 2016 referendum; Boston, which had seen rapid migration, recorded the highest Leave vote in the country, about 75%. After Britain left, free movement ended in 2021. So the 2004 enlargement transformed migration to Britain and, indirectly, helped lead to Britain's departure from the EU.

Model answer

Individuals have made many of the decisive choices in Britain's relationship with Europe, from William the Conqueror to the leaders of the 2016 referendum campaigns. However, they acted within wider forces - war, trade, religion and ideas - and in modern times the decisions of millions of voters have mattered more than any single leader.

In the medieval period individual rulers were central, because kingdoms were personal possessions. Cnut joined England to Denmark and Norway in a North Sea Empire, and William of Normandy's victory at Hastings in 1066 tied England to France for centuries. Henry II's marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine created the Angevin Empire, while John's failures, including the murder of his nephew Arthur, helped lose Normandy in 1204. Edward III's claim to the French throne began the Hundred Years War in 1337, and Henry V's victory at Agincourt in 1415 nearly made him King of France. However, even here other factors mattered: Philip II of France had greater resources than John, and the wool trade with Flanders shaped Edward III's alliances.

In the early modern period individuals continued to play key roles, but religion became a powerful force. Henry VIII's break with Rome in the 1530s was a personal decision, yet the Reformation created religious divisions that lasted long after him. Elizabeth I faced the Armada in 1588 because Philip II of Spain saw himself as the champion of Catholic Europe. William III, a Dutch prince, took England into long wars against Louis XIV after 1689, but these wars were also about the balance of power and Protestantism.

After 1945 individuals again seemed decisive. Churchill's vision of Britain at the centre of 'three circles' encouraged British leaders to stay out of the early European communities. De Gaulle personally vetoed British entry in 1963 and 1967, and only after he left office could Edward Heath take Britain into the EEC in 1973. Thatcher won a budget rebate in 1984 but warned against a 'European super-state' in her Bruges speech of 1988, inspiring Eurosceptics, and David Cameron chose to hold the referendum of 2016. However, these leaders responded to deeper forces: the EEC's faster economic growth explains why Britain applied, and long-standing ideas about sovereignty and national identity explain the strength of Euroscepticism. Above all, the key decisions in 1975 and 2016 were made by millions of voters in referendums, not by individual leaders.

In conclusion, individuals were the main factor in the medieval period, when kings treated lands as personal inheritances, and they made decisive choices at modern turning points such as 1963, 1973 and 2016. But they acted within forces they did not control - war, trade, religion and ideas - and in the modern era the people themselves have decided. Overall, the role of individuals has been important but not the main factor.