“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *

UZ HANÇARLI, Pınar

“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *

Pınar UZ HANÇARLI (Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi Bölümü, Denizli, Türkiye)

Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi

6 1

Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 33 Sayı: 33/1 Sayfa Aralığı: 261 - 281 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 27-05-2019

“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *

Öz:

9 May 1950 was a milestone in the history of European Integration when the French ForeignMinister Robert Schuman proposed the pooling of French and West German supplies of coal andsteel; and made an invitation to other European states willing to be involved in this plan. Theinvitation for the conference on Schuman Plan came to the agenda of British Parliament on 26June as a motion by Conservative Party demanding Labour Party Government to accept theinvitation which had already been declined at the end of May, 1950. Following the debate on 26-27 June, The Economist published an article titled “Broker or Brakeman?” in which the SchumanPlan discussions on British Parliament were explored. The Journal was arguing that “it is theresemblances, not the differences, between the outlook of Government and Opposition that aremost striking” on this issue of foreign policy. Although this argument makes sense to a certainextent; this study argues that it was the adversarial nature of British party politics that shaped thegeneral structure of the above mentioned parliamentary debate. Moreover, this nature contributedthe decision makers to apply exceptionalist discourses and policies when it came to EuropeanIntegration, therefore to a British non-involvement in the Plan.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tarih Sosyoloji

Öz:

Fransız Dışişleri Bakanı Robert Schuman’ın Fransa ve Batı Almanya’nın kömür ve çelik rezervlerinin birleştirilmesini önermesi ve diğer Avrupa devletlerine de bu plana katılmaları için davet göndermesi ile 9 Mayıs 1950 Avrupa bütünleşmesi tarihinde bir dönüm noktası oldu. Aslında 1950 Mayıs’ının sonunda Britanya tarafından reddedilen Schuman Planı için düzenlenecek konferansa katılım daveti Britanya Parlamentosu gündemine 26 Haziran’da Muhafazakâr Parti’nin İşçi Partisi hükümetinin bu daveti kabulünü talep eden önergesiyle gelmiş oldu. 26-27 Haziran’daki parlamento görüşmelerinin ardından The Economist dergisi bu görüşmelerin ele alındığı “Simsar mı Frenci mi?” başlık bir makale yayınladı. Makaleye göre bu dış politika konusunda “Muhalefet ve İktidar tutumları arasında belirgin olan görüş farklılıkları değil, benzerlikleriydi”. Her ne kadar bu argüman belirli bir dereceye kadar anlaşılabilir olsa da, bu çalışmada Britanya siyasi partilerinin hasımlığa dayanan yapısının yukarıda bahsi geçen parlamento görüşmelerinin genel çerçevesini belirlediği savunulmaktadır. Ayrıca, bu siyasi yapı Britanya karar alıcılarının Avrupa bütünleşmesi konusunda istisnacılık söylemleri ve politikalarını benimsemelerine ve nihayetinde Britanya’nın Schuman Planı dışında kalmasına katkıda bulunduğu belirtilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Tarih Sosyoloji

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Hansard, 11 May 1950, vol. 475 column 588.
Hansard, 13 June 1950, vol 476, column 36-37
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1916.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1933.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1934.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1937.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1938.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1939.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1947.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1964.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1970.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1973.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 1977.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2010.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2013.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2017.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2021.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2026
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2031.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2034-2035.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2037.
Hansard, 26 June 1950, vol 476, column 2041.
Hansard, 27 June 1950, vol 476, column 2107.
Hansard, 27 June 1950, vol 476, column 2120.
Hansard, 27 June 1950, vol 476, column 2157.
Black1994 Jeremy Black,Convergence or Divergence?: Britain and TheContinent.London:Macmillan.
Bullock1985 Alan Bullock,Ernest Bevin. Foreign Secretary 1945.Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Coxall and Robins 1998 Bill Coxall and Lynton Robins,British Politics Since the War. London: Macmillan Press.
Dedman2006 Martin Dedman,The Origins and Development of theEuropean Union 1945-1995: A History of European Integration. Routledge, London-NewYork.
Deighton1990 Anne Deighton, “Missing the boat: Britain and Europe 1945- 61”,Contemporary British History, 3(3), p.15-17.
Dinan1999 Desmond Dinan,Ever Closer Union: An Introduction toEuropean Integration. Basingstoke, UnitedKingdom.
Gowland et alii 2010 David Gowland, Arthur Turner and Alex WrightBritain andEuropean Integration Since 1945 On the Sidelines,London: Routledge
Hörber2006 Thomas Hörber,The Foundation of Europe: EuropeanIntegration Ideas in France, Germany and Britain in the 1950s.Heidelberg: VS Verlag fürSozialwissenschaften
Kaiser1996 William Kaiser,Using Europe, Abusing the Europeans: Britainand European Integration, 1945-63.London:Macmillan.
Kavanagh1992 Denis Kavanagh, “The Postwar Consensus”,Twentieth CenturyBritish Politics, 3(2), p.175-190.
Lord1998 Christopher Lord, “With, but not of: Britain and Schuman Plan, a Reinterpretation”.Journal of European Integration History,4(2), p.23-46.
Marquand1988 David Marquand,The Unprincipled Society.London: J.Cape
Milward1992 AlanMilward,TheEuropeanRescueofNationState.London: Routledge.
Nutting1960 Anthony Nutting,Europe will not Wait.London: Hollis & Carter.
Onslow1997 Sue Onslow,Backbench Debate within the Conservative Partyand its Influence on British Foreign Policy, 1948-57.London: Macmillan Press.
Pimlott et alii 1989 Ben Pimlott, Denis Kavanagh and Peter Morris, “Is the ‘the postwar consensus’ a myth ?”Contemporary Record, 2(6), p. 12-15.
Rose1980 Richard Rose,Do parties make a difference ?London: The Macmillan Press
Sham and Younger 1967 Ulrich Sham and Kenneth Younger, “Britain and Europe, 1950”,International Affairs, 43(1), p. 12-24.
Smith and Aspinwall 2007 Mitchell Smith and Mark Aspinwall, “Institutions and Ambivalence: Party Management, Adversarialism and British Policy Toward Europe”,Current Politics and Economics ofEurope, 19(3-4), p. 233-250.
The Economist July 1 1950 The Economist , “Broker or Brakeman?” July 1, 1950; p. 3; Issue 5575.
Urwin2014 D. W. Urwin,The community of Europe: A history ofEuropean integration since 1945,Routledge.
Warner1996 Geoffrey Warner, “From ‘Ally to Enemy: Britain’s Relations with the Soviet Union, 1941-8”The Soviet Union and Europein the Cold War, 1943-53,Palgrave Macmillan: London, p. 293-309
Wurm1998 Clemens August Wurm, “Britain and European Integration, 1945–63”,Contemporary Euroepan History, 7(2), p.249-261.
Young1993 John W. Young,Britain and European Unity, 1945-1992.New York:Macmillan.

APA	UZ HANÇARLI P (2018). “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. , 261 - 281.
Chicago	UZ HANÇARLI Pınar “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. (2018): 261 - 281.
MLA	UZ HANÇARLI Pınar “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. , 2018, ss.261 - 281.
AMA	UZ HANÇARLI P “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. . 2018; 261 - 281.
Vancouver	UZ HANÇARLI P “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. . 2018; 261 - 281.
IEEE	UZ HANÇARLI P "“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *." , ss.261 - 281, 2018.
ISNAD	UZ HANÇARLI, Pınar. "“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *". (2018), 261-281.

APA	UZ HANÇARLI P (2018). “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 33(33/1), 261 - 281.
Chicago	UZ HANÇARLI Pınar “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 33, no.33/1 (2018): 261 - 281.
MLA	UZ HANÇARLI Pınar “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, vol.33, no.33/1, 2018, ss.261 - 281.
AMA	UZ HANÇARLI P “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 2018; 33(33/1): 261 - 281.
Vancouver	UZ HANÇARLI P “BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 2018; 33(33/1): 261 - 281.
IEEE	UZ HANÇARLI P "“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *." Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi, 33, ss.261 - 281, 2018.
ISNAD	UZ HANÇARLI, Pınar. "“BROKER OR BRAKEMAN?”: AN ANALYSIS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON SCHUMAN PLAN BETWEEN BRITISH LABOUR AND CONSERVATIVE PARTIES *". Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi 33/33/1 (2018), 261-281.