If, like me, you have a long-standing interest in Europe and the emergence of what is now the EU, it is useful to consider the modern day EU in the context of British policy towards Europe over the last few centuries.
These words, written in 1936, by a historian, explain how Britain historically conducted its relationship with its European neighbours and the policies that drive British actions towards Europe. It explains how Britain provided the balance of power within Europe.
I think it's very useful to consider how the modern policy towards Europe has changed and whether the policies that we followed for centuries in our European dealings still have any validity?
-
'For four hundred years the policy of England has been to oppose the strongest, most aggressive, most dominating Power on the continent, and particularly to prevent the Low Countries falling into the hands of such a Power.
Viewed in the light of history, these four centuries of consistent purpose, amid so many changes of names and facts, of circumstances and conditions, must Mark as one of the most remarkable episodes, ehich the records of any race, nation, State or people can show.
Moreover, on all occasions England took the more difficult course.
Faced by Philip II of Spain, against Louis XIV under William III and Marlborough under Napoleon, against Willem II of Germany, it would have been easy, and must have been very tempting to join the stronger and to share the fruits of his conquest.
However, we always took the harder course, joined with the less strong Powers, made a combination among them and thus defeated and frustrated the continental military tyrant, whoever he was, whatever nation he led.
Thus we preserved the liberties of Europe, protected the growth of its vivacious and varied society, and emerged after four terrible struggles, with an ever-growing fame and wider empire, and with the Low Countries safely protected in their independence.
Here is the wonderful unconscious trading of British Foreign Policy. All our thoughts rest in that tradition today.
I know of nothing that occurred to alter or weaken the justice, wisdom, valour or prudence upon which our ancestors acted.
I know of nothing that has happened to human nature which in the slightest degree, alters the validity of their conclusions.
I know nothing in military, political, economic or scientific fact which makes me feel we are less capable. I know of nothing that makes me feel we might not, or cannot, march along the same road.
I venture to put this very general proposition before you because it seems to me that if it is accepted everything else becomes much more simple.
Observe that the policy of England takes no account of which nation it is that seeks the overlordship of Europe. The question is not whether it is Spain, or the French Monarchy or the French Empire or the German Empire or the Hitler regime.
It has nothing to do with the rulers or nations, it is concerned solely with whoever is the strongest or the potentially dominating tyrant.
Therefore we should not be afraid of being accused of being pro-French or anti-German. If the circumstances were reversed, we could equally be pro-German and anti-French.
It is a law of public policy which we are following and not a mere expedient dictated by accidental circumstances, or likes and dislikes, or any other sentiment.
The question therefore arises, which is to-day the Power in Europe which is the strongest , and which seeks in a dangerous and oppressive sense to dominate?
-
The author reiterated those views 12 years later and said they were still the approach that should be followed.