The United Kingdom is distancing itself from the EU

Oh bollocks! Who knew the Brits could be haughty, petty, and stubborn?

Last month, Conservative MP Eric Pickles was quoted by BBC as saying that "the Labour government has been caught red-handed conspiring with European bureaucrats to create a European superstate via the back door." He continued, "Gordon Brown literally wants to wipe England off the map." This belief was echoed by a number of British blogs and tabloids, which published headlines like "EU plots to carve up the UK into a United States of Europe" and "EU wipes England off the map." Although these headlines were published by the The Sun and The Daily Mail, which are about as reputable as The National Enquirer, these papers happen to be the two most-read in the UK. The reports caused enough of a stir that BBC felt it necessary to report, "England 'not being wiped off map.'"

The articles that followed the grandiose headlines were underwhelming, though. The "carving" mentioned by the articles was in actuality just a reference to the EU's new funding scheme, which distributes development money to its members along regional partitions, including one division that splits the UK into three "funding zones." That such a mundane event could prompt declarations of the UK being "wiped off the map" offers insight into the sentiments of some British citizens - it is painfully clear that the Brits are becoming increasingly suspicious of the European "experiment."

The UK is by far the most disengaged country in the EU. The EU's two most prominent programs, the Euro, which has recently shown remarkable strength versus the dollar, and the Schengen Agreement, a pact to promote free travel between signatories, are notably Brit-less (except for Ireland, Britain is the only country not to ratify Schengen). According to The Economist, British applications to administrative positions in the EU are dwindling (only 2% of recent applicants to the EU's executive branch, the European Commission, are British). It now seems unlikely that Britain will maintain its hold on 10% of the EU's civil service positions. Furthermore, Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently refused to join 16 other EU members in signing a statement endorsing the EU's motto, flag, and anthem. Interestingly, this snub occurred on the same day that Brown arrived late to the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, a treaty which established the EU as an official government entity as opposed to a set of international agreements, because he was attending an optional Parliament meeting. Although fashionable lateness may work for fraternity formals and Bar Mitzvahs, Gordon Brown was sending a clear message that any meeting in Britain is more important than one of the most significant meetings in EU history.

Though the Schengen Agreement is relatively uncontroversial, there are significant risks associated with joining a monetary union (as discussed by William Ryan). Regardless, Britain's opposition to each, as well as the outcry surrounding the EU's attempt to "wipe England off the map" signals its citizenry's opposition to further European unification. Britain has a difficult choice to make: it can either go its own way and risk animosity from EU members, or it can go along with the rest of Europe. The latter seems like the more logical choice - though it would limit their autonomy, it would allow them to share in Europe's growing spotlight. A middle ground where Britain would seek a "semi-attached" status like Switzerland and Norway seems infeasible, as it is a far larger and more internationally significant player than the neutral states that currently take this approach. It seems that Britain's best option is to set aside its ego (more commonly termed "nationalism") and realize that continuing to "snub" the EU risks alienating European countries - countries that could either promote British interests or serve as pesky counterweights to them.