HistoryExtra
type: channel
link: https://www.historyextra.com
description: Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
date: 2023-10-11T08:48:06.000Z
update period: hourly
update frequency: 1
update base: 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00
items: Has the EU been a success?
items: The big question: has the European Union been a success?
items: Britain decides: the first European referendum
items: A medieval European union: why the Hanseatic League still matters
items: Brexit, the Corn Laws and the Common Market: a brief history of Britain’s trade deals
items: Brexit and American independence
items: Simon Jenkins and Kathleen Burk on the history of Europe
items: A half-hour history of Europe
items: Why has Britain decided to leave the EU?

Has the EU been a success?
type: item
date: 2020-11-18T16:53:59.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: European Union
description: Kiran Klaus Patel tracks the development of the EU over the postwar decades, considering whether it really did bring peace to the continent
encoded: Kiran Klaus Patel, author of Project Europe: A History, tracks the development of the EU over the postwar decades, considering whether it really did bring peace to the continent and what impact it’s had on economic growth.

Podcast-Kiran-Patel-Web-large-fc2620d.jpg
width: 620
height: 413

The big question: has the European Union been a success?
type: item
date: 2020-01-31T09:16:44.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: Period
subject: European Union
description: Europe’s ambitious postwar project is considered by some to have been a triumph, ensuring peace and steadying economies across the continent – yet it is decried by others as a bureaucratic nightmare. Written ahead of the confirmation that Brexit will go ahead on 31 January 2020, eight experts assess the achievements and failings of the EU
encoded: Denise Dunne The EU is the culmination of a process of co-operation that began in 1952 with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which aimed to make war between its members “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible”. Though Europe has not been free from war since, there has not been an armed conflict between member states since the foundation of the EU – a remarkable achievement, given the history of savage conflict in the first half of the 20th century. Maintaining peace among members through economic partnership remains the EU’s primary purpose. The fact so many people are either unaware of this, choose to overlook it, or take peace for granted, is indicative of how successful it has been in fulfilling its primary purpose. Why has Britain decided to leave the EU? EU referendum: how significant is Britain’s vote to leave? Historians debate Brexit lessons from history Since 1952, the integration process has meandered forward. Treaties negotiated between 1957 and 2009 provide the legal scaffolding for the EU’s institutions, with their unique DNA of supranationalism and intergovernmentalism. The deepening of interdependence through treaties has been accompanied by enlargement to 28 members with a combined population of over 512 million. Member states reap the benefits of free movement of people, goods, services and capital, and 19 share a common currency, the euro. EU citizens can live, study or work anywhere in Europe, and their rights are enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Yet almost every achievement can be critiqued. Arguably, economic and monetary union is incomplete and unfair. The EU can’t speak with one voice on foreign policy and defence issues. Its institutions and decision-making procedures baffle the public and seem permanently in need of reform. The EU is imperfect – but will go down in history as one of Europe’s most creative experiments in peaceful community building. The EU evolves in response to c…

BBC-WH12-color-2-highres-3922105.jpg
width: 4488
height: 4488

Britain decides: the first European referendum
type: item
date: 2019-10-24T07:00:30.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: European Union
subject: The Crown
subject: TV interest
description: On 23 June 2016, Britain voted to leave the European Union. Writing ahead of the 2016 vote, historian Robert Saunders looked back at the first UK-wide referendum, held in 1975 on the United Kingdom's continued membership of the European Economic Community (EEC), and considers what we can learn from its outcome...
encoded: On 4 June 1975, just hours before the polls opened in Britain’s first national referendum, two men in top hats and tails fought a duel in St James’s Park. They were there as representatives of the Eldon League, a student dining club whose motto was ‘forwards into the past’, to settle the question of British membership of the European Community. Before a hushed and anxious crowd, the two champions paced out the ground, turned and opened fire – not with pistols, but with champagne bottles handed to them by their seconds. As the heavens thundered to the roar of champagne corks, a lucky shot blew one man’s top hat clean from his shoulders. His opponent, a young lawyer and Conservative activist named Neil Hamilton, was declared victorious, and it was at once agreed that the League would oppose British membership. Britain had joined the European Economic Community – or the Common Market, as it was widely known – on 1 January 1973. After two failed attempts in the 1960s, success was finally achieved by the Conservative government of Ted Heath, who had come to power in 1970 promising “nothing less” than “to change the course of history of this nation”. Joining the EEC was central to that ambition; yet his achievement was almost throttled at birth. When the Heath government fell in 1974 it was replaced by a Labour administration that was bitterly divided on Europe. To hold his party together, the new prime minister, Harold Wilson, made a twofold promise: he would renegotiate the terms of membership, then put them to the people in a referendum. It was an offer that David Cameron would repeat more than four decades later. We’re not in Kansas anymore Comparing the referendums of 1975 and 2016 reminds us just how fundamentally British politics had changed in the meantime. In 1975 it was the Conservative Party that was most enthusiastically supportive of membership. Its new leader, Margaret Thatcher, called for “a massive Yes” to Europe, and stumped the country in a woolly jumper…

Three-documents-for-and-against-published-for-the-referendum-held-in-1975-on-the-United-Kingdom’s-continued-membership-of-the-European-Economic-Community-76a3624.jpg
width: 800
height: 530

A medieval European union: why the Hanseatic League still matters
type: item
date: 2019-07-11T06:00:21.000Z
subject: Medieval
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: European Union
description: Until the rise of nationalism brought it down, the Hanseatic League was one of the most successful trading blocs in history – a union of towns and merchants’ guilds that dominated northern European trade in the medieval period. The League’s innovative methods included information-sharing and sophisticated payment mechanisms. And if that didn’t work? Well, it could always turn to brute force. By Chris Bowlby
encoded: The early 15th century was a bad time to be a Russian squirrel. As many as half a million animal skins – mainly belonging to the bushy-tailed rodent – were transported every year from Russian towns like Novgorod. They were packed into special barrels and loaded onto ships in huge consignments – as many as a hundred thousand at a time – before being ferried across the Baltic’s pirate-infested waters to German port cities. The poor animals would then be turned into fashionable garments and trims for western Europe’s increasingly affluent consumers. They were even used as an alternative currency. It was a lucrative business for the merchants at its centre, families like the Wittenborgs of Lübeck, whose trading tentacles stretched from England to Russia. The Wittenborgs would take cloth from, say, Flanders and luxury goods from the Mediterranean, then transport them to eastern markets. In return, they would pick up furs, timber, corn, wax for candles, and fish – especially cod and herring – which they salted and sold on, or devoured themselves. “The Germans are enormous eaters,” one Venetian traveller was said to have commented – and their feasts were famously lavish. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2019/07/AKG6264283-8daf9d7.jpg" width="3764" height="4896" alt="This painting by Hans Holbein the Younger is thought to depict Hanseatic merchant Hermann von Wedigh III, London, 1532. The English capital was home to a major Hanseatic base, the 'Steelyard'. (Photo by AKG)" title="This painting by Hans Holbein the Younger is thought to depict Hanseatic merchant Hermann von Wedigh III, London, 1532. The English capital was home to a major Hanseatic base, the 'Steelyard'. (Photo by AKG)" /> But this money-spinning operation was not just about enterprising individuals. Lübeck, and families like the Wittenborgs, lay at the centre of an extraordinary medieval trading network. The Hansa, as that network was known, sought to dominate east-west tra…

GettyImages-53371289-d2b8b24.jpg
width: 3901
height: 3059

Brexit, the Corn Laws and the Common Market: a brief history of Britain’s trade deals
type: item
date: 2019-02-21T14:40:55.000Z
subject: 20th Century
subject: General Modern
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Victorian
subject: British prime ministers
subject: European Union
description: They allow consumers to buy more, better-quality products at lower prices, and as such are credited with driving economic growth and encouraging innovation. It’s little wonder, then, that the future of Britain’s trade deals post-Brexit are dominating headlines worldwide. Here, Professor Kevin O'Rourke charts the history of Britain’s trading agreements and explains why they have often proved divisive…
encoded: On 2 July 2018, Theresa May was preparing for a crucial cabinet meeting to be held four days later in Chequers. The United Kingdom had finally been given the green light to start negotiating with the European Union on the future trade relationship between the two parties, but in order to do so it needed to decide what it wanted. And this was proving difficult, given the huge gulf that existed between Tory Europhiles and Eurosceptics. Broadly speaking, the former group wanted a relationship between the UK and EU that was as close as possible, involving no new barriers to trade or costly border formalities. The latter wanted Britain to be free to make its own laws and regulate its trade as it saw fit. Mrs May’s problem was to find a common position behind which the two warring factions could unite. Robert Peel’s Corn Laws A backbench Conservative MP named Jacob Rees-Mogg warned Mrs May in a newspaper article published that morning (2 July 2018) that unless she held firm to her Lancaster House promise to leave the EU's Single Market and customs union, she would suffer the fate of Robert Peel in 1846. Peel had taken a decisive move towards free trade in that year [1846] by abolishing the Corn Laws. This was surprising, since Peel was a Conservative, and the Conservatives had traditionally been the party of landowners. Allowing tariff-free imports of grain would, everyone assumed, lower food prices and agricultural incomes. And so the Conservative party split; the Liberals came to power; and the Tories were largely excluded from government for a generation. 1846 was a traumatic year for the party, and Rees-Mogg has not been the only Conservative to invoke it at times of stress. In 1961 Harold Macmillan, who was trying to engineer the UK's entry into the European Economic Community (EEC), faced opposition from Tory backbenchers worried that this would undermine Britain's links with the Commonwealth. In his diary he noted that things were “getting terribly like 1846” [see …

Fidgety-Joe-2-1b40cdb.jpg
width: 800
height: 530

Brexit and American independence
type: item
date: 2018-10-08T17:31:20.000Z
subject: Georgian
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: European Union
description: Tom Cutterham describes how the Brexit negotiations compare with America’s departure from the British empire
encoded: Historian Tom Cutterham compares the ongoing negotiations to take Britain out of the EU with those of the 1780s when the United States departed from the British empire.

Podcast-Website-large-Tom-Cutterham-6592897.jpg
width: 2953
height: 1980

Simon Jenkins and Kathleen Burk on the history of Europe
type: item
date: 2018-09-17T16:15:20.000Z
subject: General ancient history
subject: General Modern
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: European Union
description: Simon Jenkins’ new book, A Short History of Europe, offers a concise overview of the successes and failures of the continent across centuries. He met fellow historian Kathleen Burk to discuss these highs and lows
encoded: Kathleen Burk: Why did you decide to write a ‘short history’ of Europe? Simon Jenkins: Because I didn’t have time to write a long one! But it’s also because I don’t regard myself as – and I’m careful here – a ‘serious’ historian. I’m a popular historian – a journalist by background. When I did the first book in this series [2011’s A Short History of England], I was fascinated to see if there were actually any virtues in such a book being short. It came to seem to me that the exercise of editing and excision, of leaving things out, was a serious activity in a history of any sort. That’s different to, say, the [20th-century British historian] Lewis Namier approach, in which you put everything in, leaving the reader to do the editing and decide what’s important. I do also think that shortness is a virtue in itself in this day and age, when people like things brief. I can see why short books sell. Listen to the full discussion between Simon Jenkins and Kathleen Burk on the History Extra podcast, available now You write that yours is “a conventional history”, based on power and led by great men – and, of course, the odd woman. Why write it this way? Was it because your intended market would easily recognise and accept such an approach? Yes. When you use the word ‘history’, people think of kings, battles, and dates, and they do so for a good reason. As in a newspaper, history is mostly about those things, along with diseases and divorces. So it does appeal to people. But, much more importantly, I’m trying to tell the story of Europe, which is a political entity. It’s not a geographical entity, really: there’s no real reason why Europe should be a separate continent from Asia, for instance, other than the nature of territorial aggrandisement and the politics of land. I believe – and this is possibly controversial – that all history begins with politics, and with the battle over land and who should occupy it. A key theme of your book seems to be that people are inherently v…

Simon Kathleen 013-5c61131.jpg
width: 1024
height: 603

A half-hour history of Europe
type: item
date: 2018-09-13T15:43:42.000Z
subject: First World War
subject: General Modern
subject: Medieval
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Tudor
subject: European Union
description: Simon Jenkins and Kathleen Burk explore the continent’s history from ancient times until the present day
encoded: Author and journalist Simon Jenkins is joined by Professor Kathleen Burk to discuss his forthcoming Short History of Europe, which explores some of the key themes and milestones in the continent’s past. You can also read the full conversation, which first appeared in BBC World Histories magazine, in The Library <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/09/Simon_Kathleen_013-5c61131.jpg" width="1024" height="603" alt="Professor Kathleen Burk and Simon Jenkins discuss Jenkins's new book, 'A Short History of Europe'. (Photo by David Hampton for BBC World Histories magazine)" title="Professor Kathleen Burk and Simon Jenkins discuss Jenkins's new book, 'A Short History of Europe'. (Photo by David Hampton for BBC World Histories magazine)" />

Podcast-Website-large-Burke-and-Jenkins-6d4e8e5.jpg
width: 2953
height: 1980

Why has Britain decided to leave the EU?
type: item
date: 2018-06-22T14:44:44.000Z
subject: General Modern
subject: Membership
subject: Period
subject: Dominic Sandbrook
subject: European Union
description: On 23 June 2016, Britain voted narrowly in favour of leaving the European Union. In the aftermath of this historic decision, we asked five historians to offer their opinions – about the causes of the Leave victory and what it might mean for the country's future
encoded: The panel Richard Overy is a professor of history at the University of Exeter who specialises in 20th-century international history, especially the Second World War. Dominic Sandbrook is a historian, writer and broadcaster who has presented a number of BBC TV series on postwar Britain, including a forthcoming history of the 1980s. David Abulafiais professor of Mediterranean history at Cambridge University. He is the leader of Historians for Britain, which argued for changes to Britain’s EU membership. Helen McCarthy is a senior lecturer at Queen Mary University of London who works on modern Britain. She edits the journal Twentieth Century British History. Kathleen Burk is emeritus professor of modern and contemporary history at University College London. Her interests lie in British and Anglo-American history. Were you surprised by the result, and if so, why? Richard Overy: I was not surprised as the result was always a strong possibility given the long history of populist hostility to Europe and the difficulty of finding a popular political language in favour of a European future. The narrow margin was also entirely predictable. Helen McCarthy: I was surprised because I believed the ‘safety first’ argument of the Remain side would resonate in the final days of the campaign and pull undecideds towards Remain. I underestimated the strength of anti-EU sentiment, even in relatively affluent parts of England, such as Essex, Suffolk and Surrey where many stand to lose a great deal in the recession which almost inevitably will follow Brexit. The result confounds the familiar logic of ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ – which has fitted so neatly with the evidence of general elections in recent decades. Do you see the Leave victory as more the result of short or long-term factors? Dominic Sandbrook: Clearly it’s a bit of both. It was close, after all. One very obvious short-term factor, for example, is the fact that Labour had such an extraordinarily unconvincing leader, which no…

GettyImages-683230277-a01f904.jpg
width: 4112
height: 2736