by Larry Siedentop
Wednesday, 22
July 2020

To understand EU tensions, remember William III

The Dutch king warned that Europe must be saved from the French
by Larry Siedentop
William III Portrait by Sir Godfrey Kneller, 1680s. Credit: Wikipedia

The impasse in Brussels negotiations over a proposed coronavirus rescue fund for the EU has been described in parts of the British media as a ‘squabble’.

But that description is superficial and misleading. For what is going on in Brussels is a struggle over the future constitutional nature of the European Union. It is a struggle between the French conception of the goal for the EU, a centralised structure in many ways resembling the French state, and a decentralised model in which the EU would be at best a confederation.

This is a struggle of great importance for the UK, for on its outcome depends no less than the political future of Western Europe. For centuries it has been a maxim of British foreign policy that the emergence of an overweening, centralised power in Europe was to be avoided. It is striking that the maxim was introduced by William III, our Dutch king — a ruler who spent his life opposing the encroachments of France under Louis XIV. Those encroachments took the form of military invasion of the Netherlands and a real reduction of English independence by means of the generous subsidies on which Charles II depended.

Faced with the threat of French conquest of his native land and the prospect of England becoming a French satellite, William III’s entire career was dominated by a maxim he asserted when still quite young: “Europe must be saved from the French”. That conviction gradually came to guide British foreign policy. Adapted to apply not only to France, it became opposition to the emergence of any single, centralised state on the other side of the Channel.

Disengaging from the European Union has not reduced the UK’s proximity to Europe, yet there has been remarkably little discussion of how Britain’s exit was likely to affect the future shape of the EU itself. This is one of the most important matters that British policy must now address.

It is not a mere accident that the Dutch prime minister and finance minister have taken the lead in opposing the proposed coronavirus rescue fund. But they are not alone: Austria, Finland, Denmark and Sweden have joined. These EU states, which previously took British membership for granted and relied on the UK to defend the cause of a relatively decentralised EU, have now been awakened from their slumbers.

They can no longer rely on British scepticism about integration — something that often prevented centralising measures being put forward in the first place. Nor can they rely on Germany, despite its own relatively decentralised form of the state, to stand up to French pressures to extend the EU’s competences. Though Germany has recovered some confidence, even now it seems unable to stand up to French pressure at critical moments.

The current struggle is such a moment.

Join the discussion

  • What popular opposition?Most of the
    country, by their very nature were totally disinterested. A faction of the ‘gentry’, how many is anyone’s guess,
    thought otherwise.

    Had James shown more spine and stood and fought he had a good chance of destroying William and his invaders, just as Monmouth had previously been destroyed.

    Why he suffered such an attack of ‘lack of moral fibre’ is unclear. Earlier
    in his career he fought bravely enough for the Royal Navy.

    Incidentally it was a not a ‘bloodless revolution’ as Williamite propaganda maintains. What happened in Reading for example?
    The problem for ‘Whig’ historians and others is that was the last successful invasion of these Islands by foreign potentate, with a very foreign army, exactly a century after the Armada. Thus every possible excuse is used both to sanatize, if not air brush it from History.

  • How very interesting.
    However the condemnation for an attack of ‘funk’ will be hard to shift.

    A fine example of the adage “history is written by the victors”

  • If my interpretation is a Whiggish one, wouldn’t that make me the first Whig historian to be relaxed about the idea of Britain reverting to Catholicism?

    I guess the establishment of the Commonwealth was progress in some respects, but at the same time, wasn’t Cromwell something of an Ayatollah after a Shah?

    I always think of Dryden’s quip about the Restoration era – so neat that the satire comes out only in the last adjective – “A very merry, dancing, drinking, Laughing, quaffing, and unthinking time.”

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up