What do you think?
Rate this book
On Europe
First published in her pioneering treatise Statecraft, the opinions and projections of the former Prime Minister on Europe remain potent and resoundingly prophetic. Margaret Thatcher foresaw the European Union as a swelling superstate, gradually eroding Britain's freedom. Irreparable and doomed, European integration did not allow for the birthright of nationhood. It was the most recent incarnation of an idea that has been tried many times before, and the outcomes were far from happy. “During my lifetime,” she says, “most of the problems the world has faced have come, in one fashion or other, from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it.”
- GenresPolitics
128 pages, Paperback
Published May 18, 2017
13 people are currently reading
61 people want to read
About the author
Margaret Thatcher
99 books302 followersBritish politician Baroness Margaret Hilda Thatcher from 1979 served; measures against inflation, a brief war in the Falkland Islands in 1982, and the passage of a poll tax marked her prime administration to 1990.
Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts) of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She was the first and to date only woman to hold either post.
She went to read chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford. She was selected as Conservative candidate for Finchley in 1958 and took her seat in the House of Commons in the following year of 1959. Upon the election of Edward Heath in 1970, people appointed Thatcher as secretary of state for education and science. In 1974, she backed Sir Keith Joseph for the Conservative party leader, but he fell short and afterward dropped out the race. Thatcher entered and led the Conservative party in 1975. She defiantly opposed the Soviet Union, and her tough-talking rhetoric gained her the nickname the "iron lady." As the Conservative party maintained leads, Thatcher went in the general election of 1979.
The longest tenure of Thatcher the longest since that of Lord Salisbury and was the longest continuous period in office since the tenure of Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century. This first woman led a major party in the United Kingdom and held any of the four great offices of state. After her resignation, she was ennobled as Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire, which entitled her to sit in the House of Lords. During her tenure, she needed sleep of just four hours in a night.
Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS (née Roberts) of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. She was the first and to date only woman to hold either post.
She went to read chemistry at Somerville College, Oxford. She was selected as Conservative candidate for Finchley in 1958 and took her seat in the House of Commons in the following year of 1959. Upon the election of Edward Heath in 1970, people appointed Thatcher as secretary of state for education and science. In 1974, she backed Sir Keith Joseph for the Conservative party leader, but he fell short and afterward dropped out the race. Thatcher entered and led the Conservative party in 1975. She defiantly opposed the Soviet Union, and her tough-talking rhetoric gained her the nickname the "iron lady." As the Conservative party maintained leads, Thatcher went in the general election of 1979.
The longest tenure of Thatcher the longest since that of Lord Salisbury and was the longest continuous period in office since the tenure of Lord Liverpool in the early 19th century. This first woman led a major party in the United Kingdom and held any of the four great offices of state. After her resignation, she was ennobled as Thatcher, of Kesteven in the County of Lincolnshire, which entitled her to sit in the House of Lords. During her tenure, she needed sleep of just four hours in a night.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
January 1, 2018
This extract, published this year, from a book Thatcher wrote in 2002 is interesting to read today for several reasons, foremost among which is the extent to which the arguments she advanced for reforming or terminating the UK's membership of the EU, and for the likely success of that endeavour, were adopted by the Leave campaigners in the UK's 2016 EU referendum, warts and all -
and warts there are in plenty.
Take for example "The rest of the EU needs us more than we need them" and "EU workers are going to bring pressure on them [EU politicians] to keep our markets open". Both of these were uncritically parroted by the Leave campaign, and both are utter nonsense.
In support of the former assertion, Thatcher cites the fact that the UK is a "substantial net importer from the rest of the EU". Well, as well as this ignoring that British consumers want to purchase these EU goods, and would be unhappy at not being able to do so, it also ignores that the proportion of UK exports to the EU is much higher than the proportion of EU exports to the UK. Meaning the EU has the UK by the short and curlies. The latter assertion has now been disproved by history, as Germany's car manufacturers have lined up to emphasise the importance of the integrity of the EU's Single Market.
Indeed, On Europe is full of the kind of subjectivity, hypocrisy, wishful thinking, woolly logic, appeals to authority, and outright falsehoods that characterised the Leave campaign. For example, Thatcher complains that when she became PM, the UK was "on the verge of becoming the EEC's largest net contributor, even though we were then only the seventh richest nation per head". This of course is comparing apples with oranges: the net contribution of the UK, which is a total for the country as a whole, and therefore dependent on population size, and the UK's wealth per head, which is an average. To give just one more of the many examples of unsound argument, Thatcher compares unemployment in the UK, USA, Germany France and Japan in order to attack Europe's stronger social protections, which she says hinder job creation. But she does so for just a single time point, rather than over a prolonged duration, and she ignores any consideration of whether, for example, France's citizens might prefer early retirement to low national unemployment.
But the book's biggest problem is its near-complete failure to engage with what ought to be the main question of any debate about the EU, which is: what is the ideal scale at which democracy should take place? Thatcher does make the occasional baseless assertion that, for example, the EU is inherently undemocratic purely because "there exists no pan-European public opinion", or that Europe is inherently divided because "it makes no sense at all to lump together Beethoven and Debussy, Voltaire and Burke, Vermeer and Picasso, boiled beef and bouillabaisse". But she makes no attempt to set out why it makes more sense for, say, defence policy or interest rates to be decided at the scale of the UK rather than that of Europe, or why Westminster should have total sovereignty but not Scotland, or why decentralisation is a good thing when it entails more power for nations but a bad thing when it means more power for regions (e.g. through the Committee of the Regions).
There may well be answers to these questions that make EU membership less attractive - it's a fascinating field - but Thatcher didn't provide them, and nor has anyone else that I've seen, either prior to or since the referendum. Thatcher's arguments were a thin tissue full of holes that ought to have been shredded in the referendum. That they weren't says more about the nature of human decision-making and the state of British politics and journalism than we have yet dared to admit.
and warts there are in plenty.
Take for example "The rest of the EU needs us more than we need them" and "EU workers are going to bring pressure on them [EU politicians] to keep our markets open". Both of these were uncritically parroted by the Leave campaign, and both are utter nonsense.
In support of the former assertion, Thatcher cites the fact that the UK is a "substantial net importer from the rest of the EU". Well, as well as this ignoring that British consumers want to purchase these EU goods, and would be unhappy at not being able to do so, it also ignores that the proportion of UK exports to the EU is much higher than the proportion of EU exports to the UK. Meaning the EU has the UK by the short and curlies. The latter assertion has now been disproved by history, as Germany's car manufacturers have lined up to emphasise the importance of the integrity of the EU's Single Market.
Indeed, On Europe is full of the kind of subjectivity, hypocrisy, wishful thinking, woolly logic, appeals to authority, and outright falsehoods that characterised the Leave campaign. For example, Thatcher complains that when she became PM, the UK was "on the verge of becoming the EEC's largest net contributor, even though we were then only the seventh richest nation per head". This of course is comparing apples with oranges: the net contribution of the UK, which is a total for the country as a whole, and therefore dependent on population size, and the UK's wealth per head, which is an average. To give just one more of the many examples of unsound argument, Thatcher compares unemployment in the UK, USA, Germany France and Japan in order to attack Europe's stronger social protections, which she says hinder job creation. But she does so for just a single time point, rather than over a prolonged duration, and she ignores any consideration of whether, for example, France's citizens might prefer early retirement to low national unemployment.
But the book's biggest problem is its near-complete failure to engage with what ought to be the main question of any debate about the EU, which is: what is the ideal scale at which democracy should take place? Thatcher does make the occasional baseless assertion that, for example, the EU is inherently undemocratic purely because "there exists no pan-European public opinion", or that Europe is inherently divided because "it makes no sense at all to lump together Beethoven and Debussy, Voltaire and Burke, Vermeer and Picasso, boiled beef and bouillabaisse". But she makes no attempt to set out why it makes more sense for, say, defence policy or interest rates to be decided at the scale of the UK rather than that of Europe, or why Westminster should have total sovereignty but not Scotland, or why decentralisation is a good thing when it entails more power for nations but a bad thing when it means more power for regions (e.g. through the Committee of the Regions).
There may well be answers to these questions that make EU membership less attractive - it's a fascinating field - but Thatcher didn't provide them, and nor has anyone else that I've seen, either prior to or since the referendum. Thatcher's arguments were a thin tissue full of holes that ought to have been shredded in the referendum. That they weren't says more about the nature of human decision-making and the state of British politics and journalism than we have yet dared to admit.
December 14, 2019
Splendid.
April 14, 2020
A well written piece in defence of Euroscepticism, giving key insights on the fundamental principles of anti-EU sentiments.
Drawing upon her experience in office, contemporary history, official reports and documents, and neoliberal economic theory, Thatcher presents a well-rounded, case for Euroscepticism.
Drawing upon her experience in office, contemporary history, official reports and documents, and neoliberal economic theory, Thatcher presents a well-rounded, case for Euroscepticism.
September 30, 2019
Never thought I'd agree with Thatcher!!!
Quite an interesting read when read in the context of today's political climate. Well worth your time and money. Thoroughly enjoyed
Quite an interesting read when read in the context of today's political climate. Well worth your time and money. Thoroughly enjoyed
August 7, 2024
INTERESTING! very fascinating to hear Thatchers perspective on Europe and on the EU, and also fascinating to know at times I agreed with what was said! The big states do have immense power and it doesn’t make for a very fair democracy within the EU. Other parts didn’t agree with so much… but hey!
March 20, 2018
Very interesting to read in the aftermaths of Brexit. As a true believer of globalisation, she really illustrated some evidence why leaving EU could be a good idea for Britain in a long run. Though her reasons may be very far from some Brexiters.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews