Pre-Reading Task:
What state-units do you know that exist or existed in the world? What do you know about the basics and the structure of a united state?

Some facts about European Community      http://www.eur-op.eu.int. + http://www.europa.eu.int/comm

  Study the figures about member states of EC. Which countries were the latest to enter the community in the last years of the 20th century?
1957 - Belgium    1957 - Germany    1957 - France     1957 - Italy    1957 - Luxembourg
1957 - the Netherlands    1973 - Denmark    1973 - Ireland     1973 - United Kingdom (UK)   
1981 - Greece    1986 - Portugal    1986 - Spain    
Austria    Finland    Sweden         ??
·    Can you explain the target of this unification in Europe?

The term 'European Communities' is a collective term for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), founded in 1951, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM or EAEC), founded in 1957.
The European Union, created by the Maastricht Treaty, did not make the European Communities disappear. They form its institutional framework. The Union remains based on the Communities, supplemented by the policies and the forms of cooperation - Economic and Monetary Fund, Common Foreign and Security Policy, cooperation in justice and home affairs - brought in by that treaty. In February 1983, the Communities' institutions decided to release their archives - Decision no. 359/83 ECSC (5 February 1983) and Regulation EEC-EURATOM no. 354/83, Article 1 - following the 30-years rule, thus making the documents accessible for research.
On 17 December 1984 an agreement was reached between the European Commission, acting in the name of all the other Communities' institutions, and the European University Institute with the object of depositing their historical documents in Florence and making them available to the public.

Reading and Discussing
Task 1. Read the following information and get ready to explain the meaning of some phrases underlined in the text.
# Britain and Europe Community
    Britain joined the European Community in 1973 under a Conservative government. Britain was the sixth country to join (a number of other countries have done so since) and membership was to be 'of unlimited duration'. This was in accord with the terms of the original Treaty of Rome, which started the Community in 1958. In 1975 Parliament's decision that Britain should become a member was confirmed by a referendum of the whole electorate (the first in British history): over eight million wanted to stay in. Therefore Britain continued to be a member, although not all the members of the Labour government, which called the referendum, were sure that this was the right decision.
    Britain's membership has not always been easy. There have been arguments over financial and agricultural policies, and for many people the way the Community operates remains a mystery. On the other hand, Britain's poorer regions have benefited receiving 24 per cent of the Community's regional and social funds in 1985, for example. Overall, however, Britain is a major net contributor to the Community's funds. Nearly half of Britain's trade is with the rest of the Community.

·    Do you find it rational for the U.K. to keep some distance from the United Europe activities?

Task 2. Reading for information.
What do the following abbreviations stand for - MEP, EC, EU, UK, VAT?
Read the text and ask questions to which the following facts will be the answers: a five-year term, in Brussels, one week a month, in Strasbourg, the headquarters of Parliament's civil service, for the year 2001.

    The European Parliament has 626 Members who are elected in the 15 member-states for a five-year term. There are 87 MEPs for the UK. Most of the time, Parliament and the MEPs are based in Brussels where its specialist committiees meet to scrutinize proposals for new EU laws.
Parliament meets for one week a month in Strasbourg in full plenary session to amend and vote draft legislation and policy. A number of additional two day plenary sessions are also held in Brussels. The headquarters of Parliament's civil service is located in Luxembourg, in accordance with the decision of the EU member states, though many of its officials are based in Brussels.
In addition to their growing role as legislators, MEPs approve the appointment of the European Commission, decide the EU budget with the member states, monitor spending, approve international agreements, question EU Commissioners and national Ministers, and appoint the European Ombudsman. Citizens have the right to petition the European Parliament.
MEPs do not sit in national delegations in the Parliament, but in multinational political groups. The centre-right European People's Party (EPP) and European Democrats, which includes British Conservatives, is the largest political group. British Labour MEPs belong to the Party of European Socialists, the second biggest group.
The European Liberal Group, where the largest national contingent is from the UK, is third biggest, closely followed by the Green / European Free Alliance which has brought together Green MEPs from 11 countries, including Britain's two Green members, and nationalist parties, including Plaid Cymru and SNP members.
The three British members elected for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) joined The Europe of Democracies and Diversities Group. The other groups are the European United Left / Nordic Green Left, which brings together Left and Green members from a number of countries including France, Greece and Italy; and the Union for Europe of the Nations. There are also a small number of MEPs who sit as independents.
The European Parliament's budget for the year 2001 is 620 million. This covers staff costs, buildings, MEPs' travel allowance and expenses. The Parliament employs 3,850 people, a third of whom work in the linguistic services covering a total of 11 working languages. Salaries of MEPs are the same as national MPs in their own countries. EU leaders have been asked by Parliament to agree a standard EU-wide salary for MEPs as part of a package for reforming pay and expenses.
Updated October 10th, 2001     (http:// europa.eu.int/)

Comprehension Check
1/ How is the EuroParliament structured? How are 15 member-countries represented in Brussels?
2/ What are responsibilities and duties of EuroParliament? What issues does it face with?
3/ What is the political system of the European Union based on? Can the national political parties influence the activities of the Parliament?
4/ How are the rights citizens of Europe represented or protected?

Task 3. Read the explanation to the Political Charter of European Community and find Russian equivalents for the underlined phrases.

# The Political Charter
What is the Charter?
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out a range of civil, political, economic and social rights enjoyed by the EU's 375 million citizens. In 54 articles it lists entitlements, such as the right to life, to privacy, to freedom of expression, to equality and to non-discrimination. Most of the rights in the Charter are contained in other documents, in particular the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the EU Treaty.
Why was it drawn up?
Although the Amsterdam Treaty states that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the founding principles of the European Union, EU leaders agreed in Cologne in 1999 that there was a need to spell out more clearly what these rights were. The Charter brings them together in a single and accessible text.
Does it have legal force?
The Charter was "proclaimed" rather than incorporated into the EU Treaty at the Nice European summit in December 2000. This means that it is not legally binding.
What then does it mean for me?
While people will not be able to base legal cases on the Charter, it may have indirect influence. It should also serve as a constraint on the possible abuse of power by EU bodies. One of its prime achievements is that it has placed fundamental rights firmly on the political agenda of the EU.
Why is it controversial?
Some countries, including Britain, took the view that the Charter should be no more than a political declaration setting out existing rights. Other member states, along with the European Parliament and the European Commission, favoured a legally binding Charter.
What next?
Although the Charter was not included in the EU treaty at Nice, a declaration annexed to the Treaty opens up a debate on the future development of the EU which is to conclude in 2004. The status of the EU Charter is one of the key questions to be resolved at that time.

Task 4. Read the Political Charter and say how the rights of every citizen of Europe and of every member-country are defended. Cite sentences from the charter to prove.

The Political Charter
The European members of the
"UNION FOR EUROPE OF THE NATIONS"
United by the values of respect for the individual, which form the basis of European civilization; determined to defend the principles of liberty, equality and brotherhood between citizens as well as nations.
Convinced that the European Union can only be built and prosper if sovereignty and national democracy are respected and that it can only exist as an independent force which is necessary for stability in the world.
Are united in favour of
- a Europe based on the freedom of nations to decide, where diversity is the first of all riches and not a Federal Europe which would subject sovereign nations and take away the identity of European peoples.
- a democratic Europe which respects citizens and the national will with a view to fighting the consequences of an overly bureaucratic and technocratic world.
- a Europe of solidarity between all social groupings and all regions in order to bring about equality between people and nations in a Europe which successfully protects the environment, protects the towns against overcrowding and urban decline and which allows the rural way of life and the peripheral regions to prosper and develop.
- a strong Europe which would not allow itself to be submitted to any foreign political, economic or cultural domination and which develops its own security and foreign policy.
- a Europe which is generous towards the least developed nations, in particular the ACP countries and which is open to European nations which want to become part of the Union.

Task 5. Study the information about shapes for political, economic and social enlargement of EU Institutions and find 3 the most important facts about the strategic development of the union structure. Get ready to explain the meanings of the phrases underlined. Prepare a short resume, which will present these facts.
To make enlargement a success, the EU Institutions must change their working methods as in the EU15 the decision making process is already cumbersome. EU Member States, in collaboration with the Commission and the European Parliament, have begun far-reaching discussions on how to reform the European Institutions without compromising the prospects of enlargement. This poses particular problems for the Council, which at present is made up of representatives from governments of each Member State.
Qualified majority voting should remain the general rule for decision-making in the Council, and the Commission proposes to limit exceptions to this rule. The Commission proposes to maintain 700 the maximum number of Members of the European Parliament. The Parliament should propose new arrangements for allocating these seats. The number of Commissioners in a 28-Member Union should be fixed at 20, with a system of rotation fixed by Treaty dealing with each member State on equal terms and on the basis of a one Member per Member State system.
Qualified-majority voting should be extended to taxation and social security. As regards taxation, the Commission proposes that EU decisions on measures to remove obstacles to trade, for ex. to stop penalizing a business which carries out activities in different Member States that is double taxation in VAT and excise duties. This should further apply to tax measures making a direct contribution to environmental protection and measures to combat fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance. Furthermore, the arrangements for coordinating national social security for migrant workers, which have been in force since 1959, should be modernized. As numerous aspects of social policy have been adopted by qualified-majority-decisions, the Commission insists that this be extended to social security matters that have repercussions on the Single Market.
The European Commission wants to apply the best administrative practices, operation world-wide. The Commission's reform, to be fully implemented by the second half of 2002, is based on four key principles: 'accountability, responsibility, efficiency and transparency.' The Commission is accountable to the European citizen for its actions and will have to report to the Council and the Parliament on its activities and the efficient use of its resources. Each Commission official, as an individual, has to take responsibility for his/her actions and the chains of approval should be as short as possible. 'Efficiency' means that cost-effectiveness must have a premiun, whereby the Commission will have to modify its own internal procedures. A modern administration must be transparent, open to the citizens. To these general principles a number of specific actions will be added, such as 'codes of conduct' for good administrative behavior, for relations with the Parliament and new rules to enhance public access to EU documents. The Commission also proposes a radical change in financial management and control. Comprehensive human resources policies should enable the Commission's employees to develop their careers through improved recruitment and promotion systems, training provisions, management and social infrastructures.
Open Europe should not be just a slogan. Every EU resident should have the right and possibility to access official EU documents. The only exceptions should apply to the protection of the public interest, respect for privacy, commercial or industrial secrets, confidentiality required by third parties and the protection of the interests of EU Institutions. President of the Commission Romano Prodi reaffirmed to the European Parliament that reform was aimed at providing the Commission with the administration that constituted a model for the 'advanced use of information technologies, a wholly computerized model of administration.'
[www.dlmforum.eu.org]

Task 6. Read about the activities aimed at the development of EU regions. Can you find here the facts that prove the seriousness of the EU Commission activities to guarantee the equality of political and social rights for every area within the European Community? Think about the Russian equivalents for the underlined English phrases. What does GNP stand for?
Presentation project.

New Opportunities for the EU regions.
Commissioner Michel Barnier on the EU's regional policy.
·    On efficient regional policy
During 2000-06 the Commission will spend є195 bn on regional policy. Already since the beginning of the EU, hundreds of billions of euros have been made available to the Structural Funds to finance regional development measures. EUR-OP News asked Michel Barnier, Commissioner for Regional Policy, what these investments have achieved and what their impact has been on job creation.
    As Mr. Barnier said, regional policy has not only helped to reduce significantly the disparities in living standards within the EU, but has also created new opportunities in many regions. Its resources are relatively limited, accounting for less than 0.5% of European GNP, and it has thus been essential to focus on the regions in greatest difficulty and on priority objectives. This makes it possible to avoid any fragmentation of Community aid. The Commission's report on the situation and the economic and social development of the regions of Europe, published in 2000, also shows that the four regions traditionally most economically backward - Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal - have made considerable advances over the last 10 years thanks to European regional policy, with their GNP rising from 65% of the EU average to 76.5%.
    *Recent studies have shown that the Structural Funds enabled annual growth to increase by 0.7%. However, these studies too often appear to underestimate the real impact of the Structural Funds, since they do not take account of the changes in behavior which regional policy has brought about in certain Member States. In Ireland, for example, many experts point out that it is thanks to EU programs that the need to involve new operators in the development process and to concentrate on meeting priority economic objectives is now accepted. Although action under the Structural Funds is known to have had an undeniable impact on economic growth in the Union, its results in terms of creating jobs and reducing unemployment are more mute. This must remain one of the EU's major concerns, since part of European growth can be explained by increased use of the new technologies.
·    On the balance between investment in transport infrastructures and environmental protection.
Improving and modernizing transport systems is certainly one of the priority objectives of European regional policy, since it is a determining factor in integrating the different regions of the EU. However, the Commission believes that environmental protection should be one of the major concerns. Cohesion policy in Europe is not being implemented to benefit just the present generations. European solidarity must also be aimed at future generations. Regional policy, however, makes it possible to directly fund infrastructures which improve the quality of the air, water and waste processing. It is worth pointing out that the new rules for these funds establish, for the first time, the application of the 'polluter pays' principle, under which anyone responsible for damaging the environment must bear the cost of repairing the damage. The four countries receiving cohesion funding - Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal - are also obliged to achieve a balance between the environmental projects and the transport projects which they wish to have financed by the EU. The newly formed Pre-Accession Fund for the applicant countries in Central and Eastern Europe is also aimed at drawing up a balanced spread of investment projects in the field of transport and the environment.
·    On how the Funds support measures at regional level
Because of their economic and social differences, the regions of Europe and their inhabitants are not playing on a level field. EU regional aid is designed to develop the less-favored regions and areas facing structural difficulties by supporting investments and job creation. To face the challenges of the Single Market and of Economic and Monetary Union, the financial resources of the Structural Funds have continued to rise since 1988. For the period 1989-93, they had є64 bn (at 1989 prices) available, an amount that has risen to є155 bn (at 1994 prices) for the period 1994-99. In 1999 at the Berlin European Council the Heads of States and Governments decided to allocate є260 bn for the period 2000-06. Of this sun є216 bn was committed to the 15 existing Member States via the Structural Funds programs (є195 bn) and the Cohesion Fund (є18 bn). An additional є47 bn was earmarked for the applicant countries for accession to the EU, that are Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia. The following random selection illustrates the successful work done in recent years.
Belgium: The International Technological Centre for Earth and for Stone in Tournai was inaugurated in May 1999. Its staff of 15 scientists and engineers is engaged in research aiming to develop and fine-tune mining processes and reduce their environmental impact.
Denmark: In order to revitalize the industry and trade of North Jutland, a science part for the benefit of existing and future enterprises was founded with EU support. 40 working places for scientists were created.
Germany: The EU co financed the revitalization of the traditional fishing docks of Bremerhaven. After the decline of deep-sea fishing in the 70s, the existence of these docks was threatened. Today they are a competitive center of fish and food treatment providing 8.200 jobs.
Greece: The construction of the Athens underground railway is a major calling due to the nature of the terrain, but also an obstacles of historical and cultural origin. The first railway line already crosses the city from the south to the north. The construction is still going.
Spain: The ancient pastoral system of seasonal migration and employment from one region to another is still going strong in some parts of the EU. One of these regions is the Spanish Rioja region, which initiated a first project building on this heritage to develop new forms of cultural tourism.
France: A special joint project brought the inhabitants of the Spanish and the French sides of the river Bidasoa in the Basque country closer together. Integration and cooperation was promoted by common activities, crossborder transports to facilitate the mobility of people and goods and a trilingual publications.
Ireland: One of Dublin's most run-down areas, the Temple Bar district, is now again one of the liveliest and most attractive of the city - thanks to the action plan for its regeneration. Artistic and cultural activities as well as new pedestrianized streets and parks were developed.
Italy: Cadore in the Dolomites has been producing spectacles since 1878. Today this area in the Belluno province is highly specialized in the optical sector, which has helped its many small and medium-sized enterprises to gain international recognition and keep unemployment exceptionally low.
Luxemburg: A vast innovation center in Esch-sur-Alzette promotes synergy between industry, research and development, vocational training and the creation of enterprises. The center supports business start-ups in the area of new technologies, and provides a range of high-tech services for businesses, with particular emphasis on information and environmental technologies.
The Netherlands: At the University of Groningen a support structure to increase research contracts was developed and the volume of contract research was expanded substantially. New buildings were erected and modern scientific laboratories were built. The university is now the largest employer in the region and one of The Netherlands' leading universities in terms of its volume of contract research.
Austria: Under the URBAN Community Initiative , an urban renewal program for the Gurtel area (the most run-down area of the city where over half of Vienna's immigrants live) was carried out. Help was provided to small firms, and a lot was done to make the area more attractive and to promote employment. Training for new technologies was provided and projects supporting the integration of disadvantaged groups were developed.
Portugal: Beautiful, futuristic, multimodal, the brand new Gare do Oriente, which was opened for the 1998 world exhibition , covers 15 ha in the east of the city. This site was chosen intentionally to create a new urban development zone and upgrade a 'forgotten' part of Lisbon. This new multimodal center is the point of intersection between the rail network, the underground railway and the road network.
Finland: The Furniture Technology and Design project in Lahti was established with the aim of compensating the consequences of Russia's economic decline, which had caused serious problems to many small companies. Manufacturers, suppliers and training schemes, advises companies on strategy and offers courses. The project has encouraged a development boom in participating firms and created various jobs.
Sweden: The main tourist attraction in the frontier region between Sweden and southern Norway has always been its natural environment. To extend the tourist season and to create further employment, a committee has set up a working party on culture and tourism to develop a new concept of tourism. A number of museums contributed to this project designed to demonstrate the common cultural heritage.
United Kingdom: After the decline of coal mining and steel-related businesses, villages in the Dearne Valley in South Yorkshire started to suffer from high unemployment and a lack of local investment. This is why the Three Towns Initiative was set up, a program of environmental works and vocational training. Local communities take care of their neighborhoods and surrounding countryside, parks and playgrounds are being revitalized by long-term job seekers.

Task 7. Read the following information and get ready to explain the meaning of some phrases underlined in the text. Translate it into Russian
# Britain and the European Community
    Britain joined the European Community in 1973 under a Conservative government. Britain was the sixth country to join (a number of other countries have done so since) and membership was to be 'of unlimited duration'. This was in accord with the terms of the original Treaty of Rome, which started the Community in 1958. In 1975 Parliament's decision that Britain should become a member was confirmed by a referendum of the whole electorate (the first in British history): over eight million wanted to stay in. Therefore Britain continued to be a member, although not all the members of the Labour government, which called the referendum, were sure that this was the right decision.
    Britain's membership has not always been easy. There have been arguments over financial and agricultural policies, and for many people the way the Community operates remains a mystery. On the other hand, Britain's poorer regions have benefited receiving 24 per cent of the Community's regional and social funds in 1985, for example. Overall, however, Britain is a major net contributor to the Community's funds. Nearly half of Britain's trade is with the rest of the Community.

Translate into English.
Ближе к Европе
За последние 200 лет мысль о туннеле, который пройдет под морем и соединит Британию и Францию, поднимался не раз (to put forward). Несколько раз ничиналось проектирование: в 1975 году был утвержден проект. В 1987 году вновь созданной англо-французской рабочей группе, которую назвали Евротоннель, было поручено строительство системы, которая должны была связать железную дорогу и автомагистраль в единую сеть, которая улучшит сообщение и торговые связи внутри Евросообщества (EuroCommunity). Общая стоимость туннеля превышает &5,000 миллионов. Планироалось завершить строительство к 1993 году. Теперь Британия связана с Европой двумя железно-дорожными путями и дополнительным туннелем, каждый длиной в 50 км. В конце 20 века было закончено строительство еще одного туннеля для автомобилей и грузовых машин. Однако, движение там небезопасно. Мы часто слышим о дорожных происшествиях в этом тоннеле.



Supplementary Reading    Translation practice
The only answer is "Yes" (United Kingdom should adopt the euro)
Author/s: Hugo Young
Issue: Nov 1, 2001
Euro-NEWS
Skeptics pretend that we still have a choice over Europe. It is a dangerous deception. Let us look forward a few years. Prime Minister Blair has been comfortably re-elected. It is, say, 2002. The referendum on sterling's disappearance is under way. It is not a referendum the public has asked for. The average voter in Sedgefield or Richmond, Dunfermline or Wokingham, does not spend time puzzling over exchange-rate theory or gauging the consequences for British exports of asymmetrical inflation targets. Nor is it happening because politicians have decided that the public should brace up and get interested in these questions prior to the irreversible decision. It is happening because of a political fix.
What will it be about? It may begin by being about the technical question on the paper. Should we change our monetary arrangements and join the euro? Doubtless there will be fine scrutinies of trade flows past and future and learned arguments about whether one interest rate can ever suit Britain as well as Germany, let alone Greece. But before the referendum has even started such conundrums will recede. The argument will have become political. Not just political, but existential. For two reasons.
First, the economic case is essentially unprovable either way. Although there can be a rational discussion about timing, nobody can get nearer than striking a balance of economic probabilities. There are persuasive reasons for expecting, without being certain, that Britain's economic performance would improve when inside the Single Market that a single currency zone makes more efficient. Equally, there are persuasive, but not decisive, reasons for anxiety that a single interest rate covering 15 economies will bring some problems. I belong to the Mervyn King school. King, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, said it would be 200 years before an intellectually sound statement of the economic consequences of the euro could be safely ventured.
That has not deterred the prophets of Euroscepticism from making the most adamant assertions about the inevitable disaster the euro would bring. Nor has it dissuaded the government from sticking to its five economic tests, as if the passing of these will represent proof positive that all our anxieties can be laid to rest. There will never be such proof either way. These claims on certainty from both sides, as both of them know - already have the covert purpose of disguising the politics in the economics. For Gordon Brown, holding us in suspense as we await his oracular pronouncement on the tests, the economics excuses him from engaging with the other issues. For Eurosceptics, asserting that the economics is impossible is a convenient way of not addressing their contradictions and confusions about the political destiny of Britain and Europe.
The second reason is that the British public will soon see through the fastidious pretence that the referendum is all about whether our currency should be put in the pot with a lot of other currencies for the greater good of the British and European economies.
Whatever the outcome, the declaration it makes will be much more momentous. If the answer is "Yes", the British will have opted to be a fully functioning player in the destiny of Europe. That decision may have taken Britain 30 years of nominal EU membership to brood about, trying the patience of her partners, and chronically losing influence among them. But it will, I think, at last be final: the resolution of the plot that we kept losing for five decades.
If the answer is "No" . . . well, what then? The decision will be equally momentous. But to what end, exactly? What will it mean? Something larger than a technical decision to stand back from this incidental little folly called economic and monetary union. But what? To ask the question immediately invites an inquiry into the real object of the Eurosceptic rage that now surrounds us: an interrogation that many sceptics have spared themselves.
If Britain says "No", some immediate consequences are indisputable. We will remain indefinitely outside the euro-11 committee of Ecofin and renounce any role in the European Central Bank. Actually, the euro-11 will probably then be the euro-14, as Denmark, Sweden and Greece seem likely to join before 2002. They will begin to have some of the coherence of an economic government in our largest trading area.
Only marginally less immediate will be the changed perceptions of the international economic world. Business and government in the US, in Japan, in the rest of the EU itself, which presently make investment decisions on the basis that sterling is fully expected to join the euro, will change their assessment. Britain will be downgraded from "pre-in" status to the category of forever-out". This will not be a temporary decision. The nation will have made a great political statement of rejection of the project to which the EU has devoted itself with great seriousness for a decade.
It will be the start of a great distancing. Both in Europe and on the offshore island, every other aspect of Britain's European aspirations will be called in question. Leave aside the domestic consequences for a prime minister thus defeated, which will weaken him, perhaps terminally. His entire European agenda will be destroyed. A European defence initiative? Forget it. More qualified majority voting on the environment or the CAP? Washed away in the anti-Europe declaration that has just been solemnly made. A future for the prudent give-and-take with which Blair has replaced the warrior stance of the Thatcher-Major years? The roar of rejection the British people had given would obliterate it.
This is the scenario to which a significant part of the body politic is now looking forward. It is relentlessly propounded by the majority of the press, and has been for the best part of a decade. It is the declared position of the second major political party. It has the country, supposedly, in its grip, and therefore has the government thoroughly alarmed. A "No" vote for the euro is the expectation that shadows, even dominates, our politics.
Yet who are the prophets of this case? Here are people who offer themselves as beacons of principle and patriotism - standing against the conspiracy that is Europe and the misbegotten policies of British crypto-federalists over the past 30 years: images lovingly filled in by editors and journalists. This self-definition deserves more serious scrutiny. Their record and reasoning should not be given exemption from normal rules of intellectual integrity.
They mostly have a past that they prefer to forget. Just as William Hague opposes the euro as a matter of principle, but only for another six or seven years, many of his predecessors now talk about the European Union with a loathing that could easily distract one from remembering that, as ministers not long ago, they strode its corridors, worked its committees and offered not a single indication that this was a world from which they wished to depart. Many of today's anti-Europeans were strongly in favour of Britain's entry into the community. Norman Lamont worked for it; Bill Cash supported it; David Owen left the Labour leadership and then the Labour Party on account of it. These were not ignorant Europeans. They seemed to know exactly what it meant. As a young man, Cash was deluging his lawyer friends with letters reminding them - as a pro-European-that the Treaty of Rome, when it came into force, would constitute a superior law to English law. Now his faction regards that as an unpardonable attack on British independence. Likewise, Lamont asks us to understand - requesting our sympathy - that he only found out what the founders and builders of the European Community really meant when he was negotiating, as chancellor of the exchequer, the treaty of Maastricht.
These do not seem to be people of very solid judgement. But they are models of judicious consistency compared with Margaret Thatcher. Here was the leader who took Britain further into Europe than any leader since Ted Heath. She did, admittedly, conduct a form of warfare with Brussels. But her record - based on negotiating tactics brilliantly summarised by Douglas Hurd in three words: No, No, Yes - is thoroughly integrationist. She half-invented and enthusiastically signed the Single European Act. She presided over the curtailment of national vetoes. She approved Britain's entry into the ERM. She did not dissent, at the time, from a verdict on the treaty of Maastricht, apparent throughout the Tory press, which found the Daily Mail, for example, looking forward to the single currency as one day "worth having" and to Britain playing its part in "shaping an ever closer European union".
These are unrecognizable sentiments today. Lady Thatcher has become leader of the faction that scapegoats Europe as the source of every British problem and puts the exit option on the table. Confronted by her record on the Single European Act, all she can do is retreat into paranoia. The most famous small-print scrutineer ever to occupy Downing Street says the Foreign Office misled her. She now repudiates, as do so many once-serious Tory politicians, the beliefs and actions of a long career.
The great rejection - the object of Eurosceptic politics now - is not unimaginable. There is a case to make that integration has had its day; that fragmentation makes more sense; that Britain should no longer be tied to the political and economic dinosaur that Europe is. We should head for the open sea, perhaps. Or become the 51st state. Or go it alone, as a Hong Kong-type. It certainly can be said - and the Tory MP Michael Spicer, for example, has said it - that there is "a fundamental difference in the philosophy which lies behind the British constitution and those of her Continental partners", which means this union between us is heading for ruin.
This is breathtakingly ambitious. If true, it needs working out in great and careful detail. Yet if you scour the Eurosceptic literature, you find nothing that measures up. The pamphlets and polemics have been torrential. Critiques abound of every aspect of the union, Brussels, the court, the parliament, the Commission. Ridicule and hatred pour forth daily from the press. But academic, let alone political, utterances seldom reach the bottom of the great question.
There are glancing proposals for this or that - withdraw from the court, repatriate the powers, repeal the Single European Act, restore the supremacy of the House of Commons and now veto any treaty that doesn't include a clause providing for serial opt-outs for every member that fancies them. All those things have been said by leading Conservative politicians in recent years. But there is a startling indifference to consequences. They haven't begun to consult with the collaborators - American or European - who might be needed to give this picture some credibility. They've said nothing constructive to the British people whose destiny they're playing with, beyond the hot air about "giving you back your country", as the leader told the recent Tory party conference.
Other schools reject the case for the stakes being as serious as I describe. David Owen and his friends, for example, think the argument can be confined to the narrow technicality: they want Britain to be fully of Europe, but they never want the euro. As it turns out, Lord Owen is even more opposed to a common foreign and security policy than he is to the euro. But some of his allies think it is enough to reject the euro as an economic cuckoo in the nest which would suck the life out of British economic independence - and whose rejection would have no other impact on a happy relationship that would proceed, undamaged, through the 21st century.
These people want the referendum not to be held. They think this is the best way of ensuring Britain doesn't enter the euro, without putting to the test their own claim to have nothing in common with Rupert Murdoch and the coarse, mendacious Europhobes, he lets loose in the Sun. They fear the contest, either way. They know Blair might win it. They half understand that, if he loses, Britain would be spitting in the face of their so-called Europeanism. So their strategy is to join those who want to scare the Prime Minister away from his chosen course. They want to have it both ways and think this can best be done by putting off the choice.

vocabulary
to face problems /high level of unemployment; to come to power; heavy industry; state-owned industry; major political party; to cut taxes; to widen a gap; to criticize the sales; to provide education, health, social services; free of charge; to increase efficiency and individual choice; decline in standards; to afford to pay; to be split between; to bring smb's support; solution to the problems;

# Closer to Europe
    Over the last 200 years the idea of a tunnel under the sea between Britain and France has been put forward a number of times. On several occasions, construction has actually been started: one project was abandoned as recently as 1975. In 1987 a new Anglo-French group called Eurotunnel was chosen to construct a system, which would link the road and rail networks of Britain and France and improve communications and commercial links inside the European Community. The Channel Tunnel is costing nearly $5,000 million and is due to be completed in 1993. There are two rail tunnels and a service tunnel, each nearly 50 kilometers long. There is also a possibility that a separate road tunnel for cars and lorries will be built in the future.