Note:<\/strong>\u00a0this article does not intend to offer any insight into the arguments for either side in the Referendum. It simply outlines the origins of the EU.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n At the end of the Second World War there was again a consensus among the Western powers that there should not be another war of attrition in Europe. Following the First World War there had been institutions such as the\u00a0League of Nations<\/a>\u00a0and a range of\u00a0economic packages<\/a>\u00a0put in place to aid recovery: essentially US aid and loans that lasted until the\u00a0Wall Street Crash of 1929<\/a>.<\/p>\n The end of the war brought with it the end of empires. The British, having the most to lose and perhaps being the least willing to accept this, hung on to hope of Empire and Commonwealth longer than many others. Whilst Independence was granted to India and Pakistan in 1947 there was continued resistance to withdrawal from other arts of the empire for both imperialistic and economic reasons. As such, the UK still had large trading links with many parts of what we now know as the Commonwealth in the years following the war.<\/p>\n In Europe though, things began to change. In his 1975 book,\u00a0History of the World, J.M. Roberts<\/em>\u00a0notes:<\/p>\n \u201cThe trend toward a supra national organisation in Europe also continued. In 1952 the Coal and Steel Community was set up which provided for the international organisation of these industries in France, Germany and the Low countries. The most important functional organisation for Europe appeared in 1957: The European Economic Community (also known as the Common Market.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Intriguingly, Roberts then illustrates several reasons why the concept of Brexit is not such as new one. First, he points out the reluctance of Great Britain to join initially: though he calls that in itself a tragedy. Secondly, he shows that in the early days of the EEC, the French, led by de Gaulle, were resistant to British involvement and vetoed membership on two occasions: lending weight to arguments that the Union more favourable to some nations than it is to others.<\/p>\n Roberts also illustrates the reasons why the UK opted to join:<\/p>\n \u201cA recognition, at last, of the facts of twentieth century history by the most conservative of nations\u2026 For a quarter of a century all British governments failed to combine sustained economic growth, increased social service provision and a high level of employment\u2026 The vulnerability of the traditional British economy\u2019s commitment to international trade was a handicap here.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Roberts has alluded to issues that, some forty years and several incarnations of European cooperation later, would be at a\u00a0point in the UK where a Referendum is being held.<\/p>\n On the one hand those who argue that the United Kingdom needs the stability of the EU, it\u2019s free trade and large economic zone as a basis upon which we as a nation can\u00a0prosper. That the collective nature of the union is a strength that has brought about social and economic improvements.<\/p>\n On the other, those who argue that economically there are better arrangements to be had; that the binds of EU law are too costly and that our nations sovereignty is undermined by freedom of movement, bureaucratic intervention and the actions of other major European nations.<\/p>\n The idea of a European movement towards co-operation was mooted in the war and it\u2019s immediate aftermath. Britain\u2019s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, backing the notion by arguing in favour of:<\/p>\n \u201ca structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom\u2026 a kind of United States of Europe.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A leading French diplomat, Jean Monnet, who was involved in writing the Treaty of Rome, commented on Britain\u2019s reluctance to join the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community in 1957 by saying:<\/p>\n \u201cI never understood why the British did not join. I came to the conclusion that it must have been because it was the price of victory \u2013 the illusion that you could maintain what you had, without change.\u201d<\/p>\n The United Kingdom applied for membership of the European Coal and Steel Community on two occasions, only to be vetoed by France. In 173 The UK, under the leadership of Conservative rime Minister Edward Heath, joined the EEC. A referendum, the only one\u00a0prior to the June 201 vote, was held in 1975 on maintaining membership. With the support of all the major\u00a0parties and mainstream media at the time, the result was SIX7% in favour of being within the EEC.<\/p>\n Despite the move into Europe the British economy did not recover as quickly as it had been hoped. Some areas of the economy felt that they were suffering as a result of membershi of the EEC \u2013 an argument still put forward in relation to areas such as Agriculture and Fisheries. Nontheless membership has been viewed by most leading\u00a0politicians as the right thing in the\u00a0period since then with opposition to membership coming\u00a0predominently from the right of the Conservative movement and from the Left of the Labour arty. Indeed, the 193 Labour party Manifesto for the General Election stated that Michael Foot\u2019s Labour party would leave the European Community if elected.<\/p>\n The Maastrict Treaty of 1992 led to the creation of what we now know as the European Union. The Union came about in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Europe, indeed the world, was changing. Maastrict was not universally\u00a0poular and was only ratified in some European nations after amendments and with some difficulties at national governmental level \u2013 this is true of the UK and Germany, for example.<\/p>\n The Maastrict Treaty brought about Three\u00a0pillars for a European, the\u00a0Single European Act (SEA), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and the Justice and Home Affairs Community. These enshrined some of the shared economic interests that were in the EEC but in involving new aspects it both\u00a0pleased supporters of Union and disgusted opponents in equal measure.<\/p>\n The United Kingdom retained a veto on some key aspects of the newly formed union. For example the Social Charter that is an integral\u00a0part of the EU was vetoed by the United Kingdom in 1992 \u2013 later endorsed and ratified by the Labour Government of Tony Blair in 1997.<\/p>\n The EU has led to a Single Currency, the Euro, in much of the Union. The United Kingdom opted against joining the Europe wide currency when it was launched and has not given it serious\u00a0public consideration since.<\/p>\n The EU has also expanded since it\u2019s inception. With twenty eight members the EU is now home to over five hundred million people. The Union stretches from Ireland in the West to the Turkish border in the east. From the Shores of the Mediterranean to those of the Baltic. \u00a0This expansion has led to\u00a0political divisions within the EU and within nation states.<\/p>\n Further Reading:<\/strong><\/p>\n BBC Newsround<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 ideal for younger readers \u2013 What does the EU do?<\/p>\n The European Union Website<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the \u201cAbout Us\u201d section.<\/p>\n BBC \u2013 Britain and the EU, a rocky relationship<\/a>\u00a0A detailed history of Britain\u2019s post war relationship with Europe including links to articles and speeches about pivotal moments.<\/p>\n History and policy \u2013 lessons for Brexit<\/a>. A policy paper on Britain and Europe written after the 2015 General Election.<\/p>\n History Learning Site<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 A timeline of the development of the European Union.<\/p>\n BBC<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 Prime Ministers Speeches on Europe.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/schoolshistory.org.uk\/topics\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/euvote-300x171.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Jacques](\"http:\/\/gcsehistory.org.uk\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/euvote-300x171.jpg\")
<\/p>\n