Britain and the European Economic Community (EEC) 1950-1960

The EEC: 

• Set up in 1957 by the treaty of Rome. 
• Six members originally - France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg. 
• Main motive was to get a Common Market - a trading system between the countries with very few regulations. 
• Protectionist against non members - making non-common market goods uncompetitive by denying them entry or placing tariffs on them. 
• Promoted the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - poorer areas in the Community were subsidised by a transfer of money from the rich areas. 

Motives behind the six countries in joining the EEC

• Germany's desire was to re-establish itself as a respectable and acceptable nation after the Nazi's. 
• France wanted to control Germany. 
• Benelux countries and Italy saw the opportunity of economic concessions. 

Britain at first had no interest in joining the EEC. Both the Conservatives and Labour parties agreed that they didn't want a foreign group to have power over Britain. So why did attitudes change?

• Compared to all the other countries in the EEC, Britain's economy was doing badly. 
• The success of EFTA (European Free Trade Association - countries included Austria, Switzerland, Norway, Portugal and Denmark) never matched the success of the EEC. 
• The Suez Crisis questioned Britain's status in Europe 
• More Conservative politicians were young and pro-European. They thought it was a good idea to join the EEC. 

Why was Britain rejected? 

• Macmillan had the view that Britain would only join the EEC if the privileges of the Commonwealth and EFTA was satisfied - Britain still wanted to trade with them but being part of the EEC meant that the countries in the Commonwealth and EFTA had to pay premiums. 
• Some EEC members, such as the French President Charles DeGaulle, believed Britain would not fully commit themselves to Europe because of the Commonwealth. However he had other motives too. He wanted to keep France completely independent to the UK and so thought that Britain in the EEC would take some power over the EEC away from France. He also felt that the US may try to influence the EEC through Britain. 

Aftermath: 

• Britain were humiliated - the rejection showed just how weak Britain had become politically as well as economically.  

"Wind of Change" - Britain and decolonization 1950-1960

British Politicians originally wanted to manage the transition from Empire to Commonwealth slowly and gradually so that countries learned to govern themselves without help from Britain. However, decolonization was sped up for a number of reasons:

• Growth of independence movements in colonies
• Britain could not send the army to put down rebellions because of economic decline - two world wars had taken its toll so Britain was relying heavily on the US for money. 
• This meant that Britain no longer had military or financial strength to dominate other countries. 
• This links to more people rebelling in the colonies because Britain was now seen as weak, especially after the Suez Crisis. 
• Investing money in colonies meant that less money was being spent at home. 
• The USSR and China had began to offer assistance to the colonies - Britain did not want to begin a fight against Russia and China to keep the colonies. 
• Communism influence. 
• British Immigration restrictions (1962)
• Change in political focus - Attlee's government was more focused on homes and society rather than foreign investments. 
• Giving colonies independence meant that goodwill between them and Britain remained.

The impact of Suez - was it a major turning point?

Yes

• Britain faced an economic crisis through their actions - the pound became worth much less on international money markets. 
• Britain's relationship with other countries was hindered, especially among the Arabs. 
• Showed for the first time the importance of using nuclear weapons on another country as a threat.
• Proved that the UK could not intervene militarily without the support of the United States. 
• Britain was seen as an unreliable ally in the eyes of the US. 
• Colonies were given confidence to rebel against British rule - decolonization was speeded up as people realised that Britain was no longer backed up by a strong military force. 
• Showed that the Commonwealth would not always support Britain.
• Suez brought home to the public the extent in which their nation has declined - Britain's self image as an imperial superpower would never be the same again. 
• Eden lying to parliament (he claimed he did not know about Israel's involvement in Suez) even had an impact as it exacerbated the collapse in deference in Britain. 
• French support in Britain was harmed by UK withdrawal. 

No

• Promises had already been made to the Colonies concerning their independence before Suez.
• African independence movements had far more impact in decolonization than the Suez crisis. 
• The Conservatives won the next general election - showed that the Crisis did not have a major impact on the British people. 
• The "Special Relationship" between the USA and Britain was repaired by JFK and Macmillan. 
• Pride of the British Empire still remained among politicians and the public.

The Suez Crisis of 1956

What was it all about? 

• The President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nassar wanted to build the Aswan dam, a project which would supply the Egyptian people with electricity. 
• He was in need of money so he asked the US and British government who in turn agreed to give him a loan. 
• However, Nasser also approached Russia. The US and Britain heard about this and ended up withdrawing their offer. 
• This is where the Suez Canal comes in. The canal was the main trading for ships from the Mediterranean to Asia. 80% of the western world's oil also went through the here. In the past, the canal was owned by a number of private investors, British and American alike. This changed in 1956.
• Desperate for money, Nasser decided to Nationalise the canal, making it part of the Egypt and therefore all the profits will be sent straight to the Egyptian government.  
• The British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was livid. The nationalisation of the canal meant Nasser could control Britain's oil supply and charge the ships how much he wanted. 
• As a result, Eden began to think of ways to bring Nasser down. 

What happened? 

• Britain allied itself with Israel and France. The US did not want to get involved since a presidential election was imminent so the invasion would be unpopular with the American people. The US also warned Britain not to get involved, but Britain went ahead anyway. 
• The plan was to get Israel to attack Egypt, then France and Britain would come in as peacemakers. Britain would then claim the canal. (It was much more complicated than this, but that was the basically what they intended to do.) 
• Everything was going smoothly until the US found out what was happening - they were furious that they were not consulted. 
• The USSR also got involved by sending a formal note to Britain which condemned the invasion and described it as bullying. They even threatened to use rockets (nuclear weapons) against them.

Why did Eden have to pull out of the Suez campaign?

• The strength of the opposition - Gaitskell and Bevan made attacks on Eden's "mad venture." 
• Pressure from the United Nations and from the US to withdraw. 
• Britain's failure at international backing. 
• Reluctance of most Commonwealth countries to support Britain. 
• Run on the pound - less people investing on the sterling. 
• Arab threat of imposing a total oil embargo on Britain and France. 
• Russia's threat (though it was unlikely that they would have gone through with it; they only wanted to shake up the relationship between Britain and America.) 

Aftermath 

• Eden resigned as Prime Minister. 
• The crisis made a fundamental impact on British Politics (explained in the next post).  

Immigration in the 1960's.

Where were the Immigrants mainly coming from? 

1. West Indies 
2. India and Pakistan
3. West Africa
4. Cyprus 
5. Others

Push factors

• Restrictions imposed on the US in 1952 led many to come to Britain. 
• Economic problems at home such as high unemployment. 

Pull factors

• There was a romantic and glamorised image of Britain from the people of the colonies. 
• Britain was seen as their "mother country." 
• Jobs were readily available in Britain. 
• The arrival of the ship "Empire Windrush" brought a new wave of afro-carribbean immigration into Britain. 

Arguments to restrict Immigration: 

• Overcrowding - Britain already had the highest population density in the world. 
• There would be trouble if the economy went back into recession due to the lack of jobs available - Voucher system (proposed by the Immigration Act of 1962) could regulate the inflow of people to match job vacancies. 
• There were growing tensions between the white and black immigrants, so restricting immigration could prevent the situation from growing worse. (Riots did actually start between young white males and black residents in places such as Notting Hill, Nottingham and poorer areas of London.The Salmon report gave a few reasons for the underlying reasons for the break out such as: the anger that the blacks were working for low wages, bitterness at the rise of rents - which was blamed on the blacks - and the “teddy boys” playing local heroes by using violence to reduce the number of black residents.) 
• Immigrants would only settle in certain towns and large cities as a group which caused even more overcrowding - government had to move them but then the Immigrants were accused of being "queue jumping" council house waiting lists, creating more tension. This also did not help the immigrants to mingle with the white people. 
• Immigrants claimed to be making unreasonable demands on the welfare state and made no contribution to the welfare funds. 
• People argued that there was no need to introduce racial problems to Britain as people were already and always will be prejudiced, so Immigration should be restricted. 
• Commonwealth was part of Britain's past therefore Britain should be concentrating on building a relationship between the US and countries around Europe instead of pleasing the people of the Commonwealth. 

Arguments in favour of Immigration: 

• Free entry had not produced the problem of overcrowding in the past, so will not pose a problem now. 
• Relationship between jobs and availability of jobs was self regulating - if the number of jobs available falls, then the number of immigrants coming to Britain will fall too and vice versa. 
• Social tensions were not excessive - the government should punish the wrongdoers individually. 
• There was no evidence that the immigrants were making no contributions to the welfare state or making unreasonable demands - in fact they were helping to run the national services and even made a massive contribution to the Second World War, which some people were quick to forget.  
• The immigrants scarcely complained about where they lived - the solution to overcrowding was to build more and better housing. 
• People would grow out of being prejudiced in time - they should be encouraged to be friendly with the Immigrants and allow multi-cultural societies to be welcomed in Britain. 
• Should not hinder the relationship with the Commonwealth as they were clearly still loyal to Britain. 

Education in the 1960's - Grammar school vs Comprehensive

Arguments against Comprehensive education 

• Comprehensive meant that the tripartite system was under one roof. 

• Comprehensives arranged pupils into sets therefore the social divide between groups of children will still exist. 

• Mixed ability classes would be taught at a pace for slower learners - slower learners will be demoralised by frequent comparisons to their faster learning peers.

• Comprehensives will undermine the higher standards of behaviour and attitude to learning. 

• Denied able children the chance to benefit from a specialist school. 

• Grammar benefits children by encouraging them to be ambitious and competitive. 

• Quality of schools depended on the area - bad areas had no alternatives as Grammar schools would be abolished. 

• Wealthy parents had the choice to move to better areas where there are better Comprehensives - poorer families could not do this. 

• Pupil's individuality will be lost because Comprehensive schools are bigger, so more classes and more pupils per class.

• Overall examination results were worse with mixed ability classes.

Arguments in favour of Comprehensive education 

• There would no longer be the need for additional exams.

• Money will be saved since the 11+ exams no longer need to be produced.

• 11+ was psychologically dubious and unreliable.

• Secondary Modern pupils were classed as being "failures."

• Comprehensive education will encourage children and give them a wider range of opportunities to match their academic ability.

• Most talented children are undermined because they fail their 11+, but begin to improve at the age of thirteen or fourteen.

• Comprehensives are better in this way because it is easier to reallocate children between sets than between schools.

• Greater share of public funds went to Grammar schools - Comprehensive schools will now provide economically for all children and have sixth form facilities. This will create a level playing field.

• Pupils performed just as good at Comprehensives.

• Grammar schools discriminated in favour of upper and middle class pupils who could afford private tuition, therefore Grammar school pupils will have higher social status and job prospects than pupils who attended Secondary Modern.

• More regular social interaction between different groups of children.

• The Comprehensive education system was simply fairer.