![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This article focuses on the early years of Federal Union (FU), the leading British federalist association created in 1938. It sets out to demonstrate that FU members heavily disagreed about the economic powers of the future Federation and that these divisions weakened the appeal of the federalist cause. Archival evidence suggests the organisation shifted from economic neutrality, favoured by allegiance to nineteenth-century liberalism, which emphasized the benefits of free trade while keeping a minimum of centralized force in order to prevent interstate rivalries from boiling over into war, to a radical advocacy of supranational planning, aimed at enforcing social rights and welfare entitlements granted to all the citizens of the member-states. This swing to the Left had several implications, including abandoning the prospect of an Anglo-American union, developing a more sympathetic attitude towards the Soviet system, and breaking ties with influential members of the British establishment who had initially lent support to FU, such as Lionel Curtis and William Beveridge. By pointing at the tension between the models of ‘Federation Pure and Simple’ and ‘Federation Plus’, this article also highlights the supple and muddled nature of federalism as an ideology.
Notes
1. See Cash, Against a Federal Europe; Vander Elst, Resisting Leviathan; Obdam, The Rape of Britannia; Boyd, Britain and European Union; Atkinson and McWhirter, Treason at Maastricht; Lamont, Sovereign Britain. For an overview on British Euroscepticism in the early 1990s, see Forster, Euroscepticism in Contemporary British Politics, 83–105; Gifford, The Making of Eurosceptic Britain, 124–35.
2. Radice, Offshore: Britain and the European Idea, 139. See also Preston, Europe, Democracy and the Dissolution of Britain, 130–54.
3. Burgess, Federalism, 1.
4. See Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism.
5. Spinelli, “The Growth of the European Movement since World War II,” 39–40. On the ascendancy of British federalism, see Pinder, “Federalism in Britain and Italy: Radicals and the English Liberal Tradition,” 201–23; Levi, “Altiero Spinelli, Mario Albertini and the Italian Federalist School: Federalism as Ideology,” 2: 217–34.
6. See Lipgens, A History of European Integration, 142; Daddow, Britain and Europe since 1945, 87.
7. The first Statement of Aims dated June 1939 can be found in Lord Lothian, The Ending of Armageddon, 16–17.
8. On the origins of FU, see Rawnsley, “How Federal Union Began,” 4; Anonymous, Federal Union: Aims and Policy, 7–9; Josephy, Background Information 1938–1947, 6 February 1948, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/4, as well as later accounts by Kimber, “La nascita di Federal Union,” 206–13; Kimber, “Federal Union,” 105–11; Pinder, “Federal Union 1939–41,” 26–34; Bosco, “Curtis, Kimber and the Federal Union Movement (1938–40),” 465–502; Mayne, Pinder, and de V. Roberts, Federal Union: The Pioneers, 1–16; Bosco, Federal Union e l’unione franco-britannica: il dibattito federalista nel Regno Unito dal Patto di Monaco al crollo della Francia (1938–1940), 29–136.
9. See Federal Union: Report of the Executive to the Council for the Period October-December 1945, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/12; Mayne, Pinder, and Roberts, Federal Union: The Pioneers, 30–2.
10. Pinder, European Unity and World Order: Federal Trust 1945–1995 (London, 1995), 2. See also Kendle, Federal Britain, 121–2; Bosco, Federal Union e l’unione franco-britannica, 360, 430.
11. See Wilford, “The Federal Union Campaign,” 111; Lipgens, A History of European Integration, 160; Bell, “Discussion of European Integration in Britain 1942–45,” 205–7; Dedman, The Origins and Development of the European Union 1945–2008: A History of European Integration, 18–19.
12. Mayne, Pinder, and Roberts, Federal Union, 13. In his acclaimed essay The American Century, Henry R. Luce contended that “no thoughtful American has done his duty by the United States until he has read and pondered Clarence Streit’s book” (63) Union Now. See also Brinkley, The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century, 248. On Streit, see Strauss, “Clarence Streit’s Revival of the Federalist Strand in American History,” 1: 327–49.
13. Excerpts of Union Now appeared as an FU Tract under the title America Speaks (London: Federal Union, 1939). Later wartime pamphlets by Streit – The Need for Union Now: Why Our Urgent Problem is to Form an Inter-Democracy Federal Union (1940) and Union Now with Britain (1941) – were released by American publishers only.
14. Mayne, Pinder, and Roberts, Federal Union: The Pioneers, 14, 26.
15. Burgess, The British Tradition of Federalism, 145, 143.
16. Caedel, Semi-Detached Idealists, 384, 402, 410, 418.
17. See Castelli, Una pace da costruire, 75–81, 112–20. In recollecting internal splits, Castelli referred to Pinder, “British Federalists 1940–1947,” 247–74, which is rather elusive on the matter.
18. “Statement of Aims” in Lothian, The Ending of Armageddon, 16–17. See also Melville Channing-Pearce, “Introduction,” 9–14.
19. Lothian, The Ending of Armageddon, 7.
20. Curry, The Case for Federal Union, 178–9.
21. Beveridge, Peace by Federation?, 17–18.
22. Joad, “The Motion Opposed,” Federal Union News 20 (3 February 1940): 5–7.
23. See e.g. Law, Federal Union and the League of Nations; Jennings, A Federation for Western Europe, 112–15; Jameson, “Federalism and the New Europe,” 258–60; Wheare, What Federal Government Is, 10–13. For a similar point, see Streit, Union Now, 80–1, 259–62.
24. In the words of Alexander Hamilton: “An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished, and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part.” [“Federalist XI,” in Madison, Hamilton, and Jay, The Federalist Papers, 132.
25. Channing-Pearce, “The Federation of the Free,” 17.
26. Anonymous, How We Shall Win, 10. See also “Oxford Conference Lecture: How We Shall Win,” Federal Union News 14 (14 September 1940), 2. Emphasis in the original.
27. Robbins, The Great Depression, 193–4. Robbins subsequently changed his mind on the causes of the Depression and expressed regret about the book. See Lord Robbins, Autobiography of An Economist, 154–5.
28. Röpke to Robbins, 19 May 1937, Lionel Robbins Papers, LSE, 3/1/1; G. D. H. Cole, “An Apostle of Laisser-Faire,” The New Statesman and Nation 13, no. 327 (29 May 1937): 898. Robbins vehemently rejected Cole’s argument: see Lionel Robbins, “An Apostle of Laisser Faire,” The New Statesman and Nation 13, no. 328 (5 June 1937): 921.
29. Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, 64, 96, 245, 247, 259, 327.
30. Robbins, The Economic Causes of War, 99, 107.
31. Bosco, Federal Union e l’unione franco-britannica, 67–8; Howson, Lionel Robbins, 345–6.
32. Hayek, “The Economic Conditions of Inter-State Federalism,” 134, 135, 136, 142, 141, 146. See also Hayek Monetary Nationalism and International Stability. On Hayek’s international thought, see Spieker, “F. A. Hayek and the Reinvention of Liberal Internationalism,” 919–42.
33. Cedric Collyer, “A Socialist Thinks This,” Federal Union 10 (25 November 1939): 5, 6. Building on Collyer’s article, local branches debated whether socialism should precede the establishment of a federation. Where votes were taken (in Birmingham, Brighton, Harrow, Peckham and Southend-on-Sea) a heavy majority of unionists supported federation first. However, most of the opinions reported by Federal Union News were not anti-socialist and did not rule out a transition to socialism at federal level in the long run: see “January Group Debate: ‘That Socialism Should Precede Federal Union’,” Federal Union News 20 (3 February 1940): 2–3.
34. Murry, “Pre-Conditions of Federal Union,” 156, 160.
35. Stapledon, “Federalism and Socialism,” 121, 129, Stapledon’s socialist federalism, exposed at length in New Hope for Britain, owed much to MP Richard Acland, FU member and later founder of the New Common Wealth Party.
36. Masini, “Money, Business Cycle, Public Goods,” 182. Along with Robbins, Hayek, and Beveridge, the other FURI economists were Evan F.M. Durbin, Henry D. Dickinson, J. Marcus Fleming, James E. Meade and Barbara Wootton. Federal Union News hailed at the first meeting as “a real success, and it is of great significance that economists of such different schools of thought as, for instance, Prof. Robbins and Mrs. Wootton are able to agree” [“Economic Conference at Oxford,” Federal Union News 6 (28 October 1939): 1]. On FURI, see Bosco “Introduction,” in Towards the United States of Europe: Studies on the Making of the European Constitution, 13–46.
37. See Hayek, “Socialist Calculation: The Competitive Solution,” 125–49.
38. Henry Douglas Dickinson, Federal Union, Free Trade and Economic Planning, 1939, 1, 5, 8, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
39. James Harold Wilson, Economics Aspects of Federation, 1940, 2, 4, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
40. James Meade, Economic Problems of International Government, 1939, 3, 9, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1. Meade further elaborated his argument in The Economic Basis of a Durable Peace, 37–73.
41. See e.g. Henry Dickinson, Memorandum on Labour Legislation by an International Authority, 1940, 1–2, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1; James Marcus Fleming, Memorandum on Unemployment and Federation, 1940, 1–3, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1; Henry Douglas Dickinson, Comments on Mr. Fleming’s Memorandum on Unemployment and Federation, 1940, 1–2, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
42. FURI prevailing opinion is summarized in Barbara Wootton, “Economic Aspects of Federal Union”, in Federal Union Research Institute – First Annual Report 1939–1940, 1–3; Report of an Anglo-French Economists’ Conference, Paris, April 13 and 14 1940, 1–4, Report of Meeting of the Economists’ Committee, August 15, 1940, 1-2; Patrick Ransome, “Introduction,” in Federal Union Research Institute – Second Annual Report 1940–1941, 1–2, all in Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
43. See Meade to Robbins, 31/3/1940, in Lionel Robbins Papers, LSE, 3/1/7.
44. Lionel Robbins, Interim Report on the Economic Aspects of the Federal Constitution, 1940, 5, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
45. Robbins, “Economic Aspects of Federation,” 172. Emphasis in the original. The essay was reprinted by Macmillan in 1941 and enjoyed wide circulation: see Pinder, “Robbins: a Federal Framework for an International Economy: Introductory Note,” 45–7.
46. See Lionel Robbins, “Book of the Day: Economics and Peace,” The Spectator, 21 March 1940, reviewing Meade’s The Economic Basis of a Durable Peace; and his articles on “Federal Union Examined,” in The Spectator, 29 March 1940, and The Spectator, 11 April 1940. Robbins insisted that his position was a “bridge” between liberals and collectivists within FU [see Channing-Pearce to Robbins, 7/3/1940 and 11/3/1940, Lionel Robbins Papers, LSE, 3/1/7]. Having read Meade’s memorandum, Dickinson acknowledged that his views had changed “considerably” for Meade’s measures “would overcome many of the difficulties [...] and enable a form of Federal Government to be reconciled with extensive State powers of economic planning and social controls.” [Henry Douglas Dickinson, Addendum to Federal Union, Free Trade and Economic Planning, 1]
47. See “Federal Union Research Institute – Conference on the Re-Education of the German People, University College, Oxford, April 26 & 27, 1941,” in Federal Union Research Institute – Second Annual Report 1940–1941, 1–2, Federal Trust, LSE, B/2/1.
48. See Howson and Moggridge, “Introduction,” 1.
49. See Flewers, “The Lure of the Plan,” 343–61; Jones, The Russia Complex: The British Labour Party and the Soviet Union, 11–32. On the term “progressive,” see Clarke, “The Progressive Movement in England,” 159–81; Blaazer, The Popular Front and the Progressive Tradition, 12–20.
50. Brailsford, The Federal Idea, 7, 13.
51. On Wootton, see Castelli, Una pace da costruire, 120–34; Oakley, A Critical Woman, 141–64. For her views on Streit, see Wootton, “Economic Problems of Federal Union,” 150–6.
52. VV. AA., Should Socialists Support Federal Union?, 11, 39.
53. Wootton to Robbins, 28/12/1939, Lionel Robbins Papers, LSE, 3/1/1.
54. Barbara Wootton, “Socialism and Federal Union,” Federal Union News 35 (25 May 1940): 5.
55. Barbara Wootton, “The Lost Internationalism,” Federal Union News 23 (February–March 1940): 4. Wootton, Socialism and Federation, 28–32.
56. Wootton probably drew this insight from the FURI debates and other left-wing federalists such as R.G.W. Mackay: see e.g. Mackay, Federal Europe, 58, 129, 194–8. In summer 1940 Mackay was asked to write an economic draft for the F.U. Executive Committee: see Minutes of Meeting of Executive Committee Held on August 29th, 1–2, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/2.
57. Barbara Wootton, “Plus Plan for Plenty,” Federal Union News 41 (6 July 1940): 1.
58. Barbara Wootton “Oxford Conference Lecture: Mrs. Barbara Wootton, “Standards for a Federal Government,”’ Federal Union News 50 (7 September 1940): 3. Wootton borrowed the terminology from another FU activist, Freda Gurling, whose concept of “federation plus” was not immediately related to economics: see Freda Gurling, “Federation: Superstructure or ‘Super’ Structure?” Federal Union News 34 (18 May 1940): 2–6.
59. Friedrich A. Hayek “Prof. Von Hayek Replies to Mrs. Wootton,” Federal Union News 42 (13 July 1940): 3.
60. In the book Hayek also bashed the “numerous ill-considered and often extremely silly claims on behalf of federal organisations” on economic matters, clearly hinting at FU: Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 239.
61. As Or Rosenboim summed up: ‘While for Hayek political devolution was meant to weaken and disintegrate the national state without transferring its powers to the federal authority, for Wootton it was a means of involving the individuals in the system of planning directed by the federal state’ [Rosenboim “Barbara Wootton, Friedrich Hayek and the Debate on Democratic Federalism in the 1940s,” 913]. Despite shedding some light on Wootton’s engagement with FU, Rosenboim’s article is mostly concerned about her stature as international political theorist.
62. The invitation to “think in terms of concrete things,” avoiding “ism-words which are quite as useless”, appeared often in her writings: see Wootton, End Social Inequality, 60; Wootton, “A Plague on All Your Isms,” 44.
63. See Barbara Wootton “Plan for Plenty,” Federal Union News 60 (1 March 1941): 1–4; Barbara Wootton “Plan for Plenty (2),” Federal Union News 61 (15 March 1941): 1–2; Barbara Wootton “Plan for Plenty (3),” Federal Union News 63 (26 April 1941): 2.
64. See Barbara Wootton The Policy of Federal Union, 21 November 1940, Federal Trust, LSE, B/4/2; “Policy: Executive Options,” Federal Union News 55 (21 December 1940): 2–3.
65. “Annual Delegates’ Conference,” Federal Union News 57 (18 January 1941): 2–4.
66. “Our New Policy,” Federal Union News 64 (10 May 1941): 5. According to Ransome this section, almost entirely drafted by Wotton, proved “highly contentious” among FURI economists: see Ransom to Beveridge, 24/5/1941, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 7/63.
67. In August 1941, Robbins – no longer a member – criticized the new FU economic platform for federation was originally supposed to “accommodate different types of social and economic structure”, not “only one”: see Robbins to Mackay, 15/8/1941, Lionel Robbins Papers, LSE, 3/1/5.
68. Bidmead to Mackay, 14/5/1941, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/5. On Bidmead’s federalism, see Bidmead, Tilting at Windbags.
69. “Peace Aim-War Weapon,” Federal Union News 28 (28 March 1942): 3.
70. Anonymous, Federal Union Official Policy (London: Federal Union, 1942), 3.
71. “The People’s Poll for a People’s Peace,” Federal Union News 95 (January 1943): 1; Anonymous, Federation: Target for Today! (London: Federal Union, 1944), 6–7.
72. See “Annual General Meeting: Report of the Federal Powers Committee of the Federal Union to the A.G.M.,” Federal Union News 101 (July 1943): 1, 14.
73. Hoyland, Federate or Perish, 181; Report of the Executive Committee, 23–4 September 1944, Federal Trust, LSE, A/1/1.
74. See “Pass the Ammunition!,” Federal News 119 (January 1945): 9–12; H. M. L. Newlands, “Fun with the ‘Brains,” Federal News 122 (April–May 1945): 9–13; Ruth Pepper, “Round the Poll,” Federal News 125 (August 1945): 13–14.
75. Catlin, The Anglo-Saxon Tradition, 264–75; Catlin, One Anglo-American Nation, 91; Catlin, Anglo-American Union as a Nucleus of World Federation, 34–6.
76. R.W.G. Mackay, Report on Talks which Mr. Mackay Had with Mr. Clarence Streit in New York, 1941, 4, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/5. See also R.W.G. Mackay, “American Movement,” Federal Union News 65 (24 May 1941): 2.
77. “Anglo-American Union?” Federal News 69 (19 July 1941): 1, 4.
78. Council Meeting to be held on January 17th and 18th – Additional Resolutions, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/6.
79. “Europe First. Annual General Meeting, September 23–24,” Federal News 116 (October 1944): 13–14; H. M. L. Newlands, “United States of Europe – The Key to Peace,” Federal News 118 (December 1944): 1–2, 6.
80. Beveridge, Peace by Federation?, 7, 30. In 1941 Beveridge refused a reprint permission because of the essay’s anti-Soviet bias although he privately admitted his views on the USSR had not changed. See Beveridge to Ransome, 8/9/1941, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, /7/63; Beveridge to Macmillan & Co., 22/11/1941, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 7/63.
81. See “Soviet Union – Federal Union’s Official View,” Federal Union News 70 (2 August1941): 1; “Russian Treaty,” Federal Union News 89 (July 1942): 1.
82. Charles Kimber, “European Security,” Federal Union News 98 (April 1943): 1–2, Amendment to Foreign Office Memorandum (substance passed by A.G.M., July 1943), 7 October 1943, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE 1/9. Admiration for the Soviets was expressed also by Barbara Wootton, “International Cooperation – The Constitutional Aspects,” in VV. AA., What Kind of Peace, 78; Bentwich, “The Political Issues,” 47–8; Hoyland, Federate or Perish, 188–9, and others.
83. “Federal Union National Council Meets in London,” Federal Union News, 96 (February 1943): 4–5; “Federal Union National Council Meeting,” Federal Union News 99 (May 1943): 4–5.
84. Frances L. Josephy, Europe – The Key to Peace, 11.
85. On “Third Force,” see Jonathan Schneer, Labour’s Conscience: The Labour Left, 1945–51, 52–78; Douglas, The Labour Party, Nationalism and Internationalism, 1939–1951, 228–33.
86. See, Kendle The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union, 73–106; Levin, From Empire to International Commonwealth, 276–97; Parmar, “Anglo-American Elites in the Interwar Years,” 53–75.
87. Curtis to Law, 16/1/1940, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 21/43.
88. Curtis to Howard, 29/5/1941, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 23/113; Curtis to Ransome, 26/11/1941, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 24/141; Curtis to Rawnsley, 30/11/1943, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 28/168.
89. Curtis to Twentyman, 1/7/1940, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 22/147.
90. Curtis to Dulles, 14/5/1940, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 22/26. See also Curtis to Streit, 15/5/1941, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 23/102.
91. Curtis to Bidmead, 4/9/1941, Lionel Curtis Papers, Bodleian Library, 23/196.
92. Curtis, Faith and Works, 41. See also Curtis, Decision, 45–52; Curtis, Action, 57–65; Curtis, The Way to Peace, 11–32; Curtis, World War: Its Cause and Cure, 167–72.
93. Patrick Ransome, “Review of ‘Decision’,” Federal Union News 76 (8 November 1941): 4.
94. Charles Kimber, “Review of ‘Faith and Works’,” Federal Union News 100 (June 1943): 12–13.
95. “Mr. Curtis and Federal Union,” Federal Union News 103 (November 1943): 13.
96. See e.g. Harris, William Beveridge, 355.
97. Beveridge, Power and Influence, 266.
98. Beveridge, Peace Aims. Comments on Memorandum Entitled “European Order and World Order; What We Are Fighting For,” 26 October 1939, 6, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 9a/75. See also William Beveridge, “Note on Federal Union – Practical Problems,” Appendix to Peace Aims, 26–30, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 9a/75.
99. Beveridge to Kimber, 19/2/ 1940, Federal Trust, LSE, B/1/1.
100. As stated in Beveridge, Planning under Socialism, 30–1, 134–6.
101. See Henry C. Usborne, and Lancelot Hogben, “Beveridge Plan and F.U.” Federal Union News 96 (February 1943): 14; Charles Kimber, “Work for All,” Federal Union News 97 (March 1943): 1–2; William Beveridge “Common Ends,” Federal Union News 98 (April 1943): 3.
102. Beveridge to Josephy, 11/9/1944, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 9B/31/24.
103. Beveridge to Josephy, 13/9/1944, William Beveridge Papers, LSE, 7/63.
104. Frances L. Josephy, “Planning or Employment – The Editor of ‘Federal News’ Interviews Sir William Beveridge,” Federal News 117 (November 1944): 8, 9.
105. William Beveridge, The Price of Peace (London: Pilot Press, 1945), 68, 82.
106. “None So Blind …,” Federal Union News 122 (April-May 1945): 4; Beveridge, “Foreword” in Curtis, World War: Its Cause and Cure, v–ix.
107. Attlee, Labour’s Peace Aims, 13.
108. Bevin, “Forward Democracy”: Address by Ernest Bevin, General Secretary, Transport and General Workers’ Union, delivered at the Convocation of the Teachers' College, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A, 15-17 August 1939 (London: Victoria House Printing, 1939), 14.
109. See Minutes of Meeting of Directors Held on Friday 4th November, 1942, 1–4, Frances Josephy Papers, LSE, 1/8. No explanation was given for this request.
110. Barbara Wootton, Copy of a Letter to the Chairman of the Executive Committee from Mrs. Barbara Wootton, 6 May 1944, 1, Federal Trust, LSE, B/4/8.
111. See Wootton, In a World I Never Made, 97–9.
112. Somewhat ironically, it was a conservative – Sir Winston Churchill – who raised the banner of the United States of Europe in 1946 and helped to launch the heavily cross-partisan European Movement: see Best, Churchill: A Study in Greatness, 283–8.
113. See e.g., Mayne, Pinder, and Roberts, Federal Union: The Pioneers, 1–4; Bosco, Federal Union e l’unione franco-britannica, 429–35.
114. See Schwabe, “The Cold War and European Integration, 1947–63,” 18–34; Ludlow, “European Integration and the Cold War,” 2: 179–97.