Libmonster ID: UK-1571
Author(s) of the publication: I. I. ZHIGALOV

On June 5, 1975, the first national referendum in the country's history was held in the United Kingdom. The issue of the country's membership in the "Common Market", which has been one of the most acute problems and a source of tension in the internal political life of England for about 20 years, was put up for discussion. And although the UK was already part of the "Common Market" or European Economic Community (EEC) at that time, and the results of the referendum did not change this state, the very fact of its holding, the participation in its preparation and implementation of all the influential forces of English society, attempts to use it as a precedent for national population surveys in the future, The revival of the campaign for Britain's exit from the "Common Market" in mid-1977 makes the analysis of the political struggle, the results and significance of this referendum relevant.

The historiography of the issue under study is still very small. Publications in English scientific journals are represented by a number of articles 1 . Their main motive is to try to prove the legal invalidity, constitutional danger and political groundlessness of the referendum2 . Thus, E. Wright, sharing these provisions, considers the holding of a referendum to be a manifestation of an erroneous trend in political practice. 3 There are no works in Soviet literature specifically devoted to the referendum yet.

This event has a very complex and long prehistory. After the Second World War, especially in the context of the third stage of the general crisis of capitalism, the objective tendency towards the internationalization of economic life and capital characteristic of the monopoly stage of capitalism intensified. The most important factor contributing to integration in Western Europe was the political situation that developed after World War II: the defeat of fascism, the victory of socialism in a number of countries in Central and South-Eastern Europe, and the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism. From the very beginning, the initiators of various forms of unification of capitalist countries were guided by the desire to strengthen the position of imperialism in its struggle against the world communist, workers ' and national liberation movement, against the socialist community. The American Business Community Body in June 1962 emphasized: "The game-

1 See, for example, St. L. Bristow. Partisanship, Participation and Legitimacy in Britain's EEC Referendum. "Journal of Common Market Studies" (Oxford), 1976, N 4.

2 CM. R. J. Williams and J. R. Greenaway. The Referendum in British Politics - a Dissenting View. "Parliamentary Affairs", N 3, Summer 1975.

3 E. Wright. The British Referendum-The Constitutional Significance. "The Parliamentarian", N 3, July 1975.

page 81

Does the "Common Market" play a primary role in the" cold War " between East and West? There can be no doubt about it."4
From the very beginning, integration followed the path of collective autarkism-the creation of closed economic blocs as new forms of struggle for the division and redistribution of markets. When the Rome Agreements were signed in 1957 on the creation of the EEC as part of six European states (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), England refused to join this association at that time. Its economic position seemed solid, and its balance of payments was in surplus. Unlike other colonial powers, England has not changed the nature of economic relations with its former colonies, retaining significant advantages and benefits. It is characteristic of the statement in the House of Commons in November 1956 by the then Minister of Finance, H. Macmillan, that there was no point in England joining this customs union and that, in his opinion, the House of Commons would never agree with the plans for England's entry into the "Common Market".

Opposing the EEC, the British monopolies created the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1960, which included, in addition to England, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden. However, soon, in 1961, the British monopoly circles recognized the inefficiency of the EFTA and its defeat in the battle with the EEC, after which the British government decided to start negotiations on joining the "Common Market". The same G. Macmillan, but already in the rank of Prime Minister, announced this in the House of Commons on July 31, 1961, giving an opportunity to some English researchers to write about the "real somersault" 5 . British monopolistic circles, primarily associated with new industries, considered themselves fully prepared for the struggle within the UES for the seizure of new markets. W. Kitzinger, author of several works, founder and editor-in-chief of the specialized journal on the problems of the "Common Market", wrote: "The position of the ruling circles of England in relation to the EEC changed by 1961 because the domestic and foreign political situation of the country changed for the worse. This was a consequence of the failure of the Suez adventure, the failure of the Paris summit talks, and the outbreak of the first of a series of financial crises. " 6 In addition, in 1960 - 1961, the ruling circles of Great Britain, according to Kitzinger, for the first time began to show serious concern about the slow growth of national product at a time when almost all the member countries of the EEC were experiencing economic recovery. Some scepticism about the prospects of the Commonwealth of Nations and the cooling off under J. R. R. Tolkien also had a certain impact. Kennedy's "special relationship" with the United States.

A sharp political struggle has developed around the government's decision to join the "Common Market". Opening the debate in Parliament on June 6, 1962, the head of the British delegation that negotiated with the" six "on the entry of England into the "Common Market", Lord Privy Seal E. Heath said that no other issue of post-war politics in England has caused a wider public discussion in the press, on radio and television. As you know, the first round of negotiations in 1961-1963, related to the attempt of England to join the EEC, was unsuccessful. Not having achieved concessions from the "Common Market" and not risking ignoring the public opinion of the country under such conditions, as well as taking into account the negative position

4 См. "U. S. News and World Report", 25.VI.1962.

5 See A. Brown. Conservatives in power in 1951-1962, Moscow, 1964, p. 213.

6 See U. Kitzinger. Diplomacy and Persuasion, How Britain Joined the Common Market. L. 1973.

page 82

In France, the Macmillan government aborted the negotiations in January 1963 .7 The decision to join the "Common Market" was the culmination of the integration policy pursued by the British ruling circles at that time. Its failure in the first half of the 60s revealed the bankruptcy of the Conservative Party and contributed to its defeat in the parliamentary elections in 1964. The XXVIII Congress of the Communist Party of Great Britain in April 1963 noted that "the failure of attempts to annex England to the 'Common Market', for which the British ruling class was ready to pay a high price, was the strongest blow that British imperialism has ever received. But it was a victory for the English people and the cause of peace. " 8
Considering the accession to the EEC as a kind of panacea for all economic ills and guided by political considerations, the British ruling circles did not abandon their intentions to join the country to the EEC. As early as the beginning of 1964, The Economist, the most influential business magazine, noted that "from the point of view of long-term prospects, the following economic task should be put first: which of the parties will have to introduce England into the European 'Common Market'. "9 During 1964 - 1965, the activity of supporters of British membership in the "Common Market" ("Europeists") increased. At the same time, the Labour Party, going to the 1964 parliamentary elections, promised not to allow the country to join the EEC, which, of course, made it easier for it to come to power.

In support of the" Common Market "at that time, representatives of both the conservative and liberal parties, the" unionist movement " (fascists), spoke out led by O. Mosley. In favor of joining the Treaty of Rome, some right-wing laborists also began to speak out. In June 1965, an influential Labour group was formed in Parliament, which aimed to promote the formation of a "wider Europe". One of the initiators of the creation of this group was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, P. Shor. A few months later, in March 1966, at an election rally in Bristol, the Labour leader, Prime Minister H. Wilson, declared that England would join the "Common Market" if sufficient guarantees were established for the interests of it and the Commonwealth countries. 10 This announcement signalled a review by the Labour leadership of its policy towards the EEC.

In 1967, as is known, the EEC merged with the European Coal and Steel Association, as well as with Euratom. The last measures of a customs nature were implemented, which were supposed to protect the "Common Market" from the outside world. In these circumstances, the Labour government began to accelerate preparations for a new attempt to join the "Common Market". In November 1966, the House of Commons announced the Government's intention to discuss issues related to the UK's attitude to the EEC. In May 1967, the Labour Government, with the support of the Conservatives, won Parliamentary approval for its decision to apply for membership in the "Common Market". The severity of this problem has affected the scale and activity of parliamentary debates. More than 120 members of the House of Commons expressed their intention to participate, and more than 200 parliamentarians were expected to ask questions to the Prime Minister. 35 leibori-

7 See for more information: I. I. Zhigalov. Great Britain and the "Common Market" (1961-1963). Voprosy Istorii, 1967, No. 1.

8 "Daily Worker", 13.IV. 1963.

9 "The Economist", 25.1.1964.

10 See also: A. Sampson. New Anatomy of Britain, Moscow, 1975, pp. 77-78.

page 83

Hundreds of members of Parliament voted against joining the EEC, despite threats of expulsion from the party .11
A second French "veto" in December 1967 ended the second round of fighting. However, the resignation of French President de Gaulle has revived the hopes of British monopolistic circles that they will be able to join the "Common Market", retaining the role of arbiter in relations between the members of this group and the hegemon in Western Europe, thereby strengthening their international position. 12 According to some English authors, the change in France's position regarding Britain's participation in the EEC was facilitated by the weakening of France's political influence after the events of May - June 1968, as well as its economic difficulties and the need to apply to the International Monetary Fund .13
The rise to power of the Conservatives in 1970 marked the beginning of a new stage in the struggle for Great Britain's membership in the EEC. 14 It is interesting that during the 1970 election campaign, the Conservatives, being ardent supporters of the EEC, but aware of the unpopularity of their "pro-European plans", avoided discussing issues related to the entry of England into the "Common Market". In the aforementioned Kitzinger's book, data shows that during the election campaign, only 2% of Conservative candidates strongly supported the country's accession to the EEC (11% were against, 62% did not mention this issue, 10% were in favor of joining if various conditions were met).

The immediate economic reason that prompted Great Britain to persist in seeking admission to the EEC was that by the end of the 60s, the country had become so far behind its main competitors in terms of basic economic indicators that the decisive positions and interests of the British monopolistic bourgeoisie were threatened. English big capital sought to join the EEC in order to protect its interests and global aspirations. The Conservatives managed to get the consent of the EEC members to join the "Common Market" in 1971, and after the signing of a special treaty in 1972, the official accession to the EEC took place on January 1, 1973. Together with England, Ireland and Denmark joined the community. The" six "of the" Common Market "became the "nine". Major bourgeois historian and sociologist R. Rose believes that from 1963 to 1971, the number of supporters of the "Common Market" among British politicians increased from 42 to 62%. These changes, in his opinion, led to the country's entry into the "Common Market" 15.

This step required the UK to restructure its economic structure and implement a number of financial reforms necessary to adapt to the requirements of the EAEU member states. Even on the eve of the official entry into the EEC, English capital flowed to the continent, including to the countries of the "six". As noted by a member of the Politburo of the Executive Committee of the CPV J. Waddis in his pamphlet " It's Time to Change Course. The position of the British Communists", published in early 1973, all the measures taken by the ruling circles of England before its accession to the EEC, including the Industrial Relations Act, the Immigration Act, devaluation and others, meant an attack on the vital interests of workers. Shifts, prois-

11 "Parliamentary Debates. House of Commons". May 8, 1967, col. 1061.

12 See for more information: I. I. Zhigalov. Political struggle in the UK in connection with the integration plans of monopolies. "Problems of British History", Moscow, 1972, No. 1.

13 See, for example, J Davidson. Britain and the Making of Europe. L. 1971, p. 150,

14 CM. "Comment", 21.11.1970, N 8, pp. 114 - 116.

15 R. Rose. Politics in England Today, An Interpretation. L. 1974, p. 32.

page 84

changes in the technical level of British industry led to an increase in labor productivity. If before the beginning of the 70s, Britain closed the list of leading capitalist countries in this indicator, then in the early 70s, in terms of labor productivity growth, it overtook Germany, Italy and the United States and was second only to Japan and France .16 "Common market" meant the abolition of customs duties between the countries of the "nine", subordination to some general rules in trade and economic policy. Large monopolies, namely for their sake the conservatives, drew England into the EEC, gained additional opportunities for trade and financial expansion in Western Europe, and therefore additional profits. The entry of England into the" Common Market " certainly brought certain benefits to the English monopolies. However, it immediately caused negative consequences, which were mentioned by opponents of EU membership. Trade with the "Common Market" countries has led to huge deficits. As noted in the progressive English magazine "Labor Monthly"in April 1977, if in the three years before joining the EEC the foreign trade deficit was 719 million pounds, then the three following years brought a deficit of 5547 million pounds. This amount was made up of the cost of food, cars, televisions, steel and many other goods imported from the EEC countries and far exceeding the value of what they imported from England.

The situation is compounded by the fact that the UK is the world's largest importer of food products (it itself can only feed half of the population), which must be paid for in foreign currency. According to the influential conservative newspaper The Daily Telegraph, in 1973, England imported 99.8% of non-essential oil (47% of all energy raw materials), 85% of timber, 62.6% of iron ore, 46% of livestock feed and 43% of food 17 . And if before joining the EEC, the bulk of these products were imported from the Commonwealth countries, which imported a wide range of English goods, now the EEC countries not only sell most of the food to England, but instead of buying its products, they also flood its market with their products.

English farmers hoped that the EEC's agricultural policies would help stabilize costs and set realistic prices for farm products. (English farms are among the most mechanized in the world, although they are more than twice as large on average as in the rest of the EEA - 30 and 12 hectares, respectively-and often employ only one or two people.) But in 1973, there was the biggest jump in the prices of raw materials and food. The "Common Market" guarantees, which are not yet fully valid for England as a new member of the EEC, have not protected English farmers from the associated significant price increases for the basic goods they need. A representative of the National Farmers ' Union of the country is known to have said that in 1973 the cost of livestock feed within the EEC increased only by 2%, and in England-by 80%.

The first year of being a member of the "nine" cost the UK 1 billion pounds. st. - such is the deficit of its balance in trade with partners in the "Common Market". English exports to France and Germany were twice as low as imports from these countries 18 . At the same time, the profits of monopolies increased 1.5 times in 1973 compared to 1972.,

16 "The Times". 7.XI.1973.

17 "The Daily Telegraph", 26.V. 1957.

18 "The Economist", 16 - 22.II.1974. p. 59.

page 85

or even 2 times (Lloyd's Bank-176%, Imperial Chemical Industry-200%) 19 .

In England, after its accession to the EEC, the general difficulties of the EEC were added to the internal problems. The transfer of agricultural prices to a higher level of prices of the "Common Market" (which are 20% higher than world agricultural prices) led to the fact that in the first half of 1974, compared with the same period in 1973, food prices in the country increased by 18.3%, and the cost of living increased by 14.4% 20 . The rise in agricultural prices did not benefit English farmers, because at the same time the prices of the industrial goods they needed were rising. As a result, their production costs increased by more than 60% in 1973 and 1974.

Opponents of the EEC in the British Isles see its mechanism as a tool for interfering not only in the economies of member states, but also in their political decision-making. As the influential left-leaning Labour weekly Tribune has pointed out, all the EEC's organs, rules and regulations are designed so that the freedom of national governments to regulate their economies is tightly regulated, while the freedom of giant international corporations to maneuver money and goods, determine price and investment policies is unequivocally confirmed. On the other hand, the political structure of the UES aims to prevent any of the community members from escaping from the clutches of the capitalist system, or at least limiting its actions to some kind of framework. British capital saw the EEC as its mainstay in the face of the growing strength of the English working class. As you know, one of the goals of integration was to try to more effectively counter the struggle of workers against capital. The progressive public of the country considered the campaign for the country's withdrawal from the UES to be an integral part of the struggle of democratic forces against the arbitrariness of monopolies. As Labor Monthly magazine noted, behind the hastily constructed camouflage of "Euro-patriotism" was the iron heel of multinational corporations, modern associations of industrial and financial power, the monstrous offspring of which in reality is the UES. By joining the EEC, the English ruling class hoped that the structure of the" Common Market", by increasing competition between states, would hinder the social reforms of the Labour government and discipline the British working class.

Given the dissatisfaction of large sections of the population and many Labour members with joining the EEC (and at the annual Labour conferences, resolutions against England's entry into the" Common Market " collected millions of votes)21 . The Labour Party leaders, in their election manifesto in early 1974, promised voters that if they won the election, they would hold a referendum after negotiations with the EEC to ease the conditions of England's stay in this community. In February 1974, a new foreword to the Labour Party manifesto, written by H. Wilson, was published: "Let's work together. Labour's solution to the crisis", which stated: "The Common Market" now threatens us with even greater increases in food prices and even greater loss of control over our own affairs. We will restore to the English people the right to decide definitively on the question of England's membership in the Common Market .22 Noting

19 См. "The Financial Times", 22.II.1974; "Business Week", 19.II.1974.

20 "Agra Europe", 27.IX.1974.

21 См., например, "Report of the Sixty Sixth Annual Conference of the Labour Party, 1967". L. 1967, pp 269 - 271.

22 CM. "British General Election Manifestos 1900 - 1974". Сотр. a. ed. by F. W. S. Crag. L. 1975.

page 86

features of the election campaign in England, the Paris "Le Figaro" pointed out on February 9, 1974: "The campaign will be conducted under the sign of passionate revisionism. Its target will be a joint agricultural policy. In order to benefit the farmers of the member states, it provides for contributions (to the EEC budget) proportional to the purchases of each country outside the community. This is a very heavy burden for the UK, which ranks first in the world in terms of food imports, especially from the Commonwealth of Nations."

Referring to England's participation in the EEC, the Morning Star noted that the issue of the Common Market "is now the most important one facing the English people", but that " Thorpe, like Heath, prefers to give the impression that the problem of the Common Market does not exist at all, and tries not to raise it as much as possible." for discussion in pre-election speeches " 23 . At a press conference on February 13, 1974, Wilson said that the Prime Minister would not be able to prevent the issue of the "Common Market" from taking center stage in the general election. E. Heath, for his part, said on the same day that the "Common Market" was "not a big issue". and the need to hold early elections was caused by the miners ' strike. The English way of life, he said, was being threatened by "communists and extremists" and this threat should be taken seriously, as it could lead to an economic crisis.

The Labour Party's rise to power in the spring of 1974 raised concerns at the EEC headquarters. EEC officials, unsure of the role that England would play in the EEC under a Labour government, were disappointed that the "Common Market" advocate, R. Jenkins, was not given a position in the government that would allow him to exert great influence on the affairs of the EEC (he was appointed Home Secretary). Many EU officials openly hoped that the Conservatives would win, that their pro-European mandate would be confirmed during the election campaign, which would allow them to take a more active position on the "Common Market".

The problem of negative consequences of membership in the EEC was also acute during the election campaign during the parliamentary elections - the second in one year-on October 10, 1974. The Conservative leader said the referendum would be a violation of the constitution. He also emphasized "national unity", promising to create a government that would overcome party boundaries and unite people of" talent and patriotism " from all walks of life if he won the election. Supporting the negative attitude of the Conservatives to the referendum, the chairman of the "European Movement" Zh. Ray demonstrated his contempt for public opinion by declaring on July 17, 1974: "The referendum... it would mean consulting with a people who don't know what the problems are. " 24 In the Queen's throne speech at the opening of the new Parliament on October 29, 1974, it was noted that the Wilson Government would negotiate a renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership in the EEC, and in 12 months the British people would be given the opportunity to decide whether, in the light of the outcome of these negotiations, the country should remain a member of the EEC.

The British Communist Party's organ, Comment magazine, noted: "The most incontrovertible fact about the negotiations on Britain's accession to the EEC, which ended in mid-1971, was that the Conservatives wanted to join the EEC at all costs. In a hurry, many pro-

23 "Morning Star", 24.II.1974.

24 Cit. by: "Comment", 24. VIII. 1974.

page 87

the problems remained unresolved." On September 27, 1974, the General Secretary of the CPV, J. R. R. Tolkien. Gollan, speaking to London voters, pointed out that participation in the EEC has exacerbated the economic crisis and spurred rising prices in England, and that the sovereign right to solve serious problems has largely been transferred to officials in Brussels acting in the interests of a handful of multinational firms that dominate Europe. He recalled that the CPV is the only political party in the country that has consistently warned the people about the dangers associated with the "Common Market"since 1957.

Sharp contradictions were observed in the ruling Labor Party. Its 73rd annual Conference, held in November 1974, took a position on membership of the Common Market that was at odds with that of the Labour leadership. So, despite objections from the party's executive committee, a resolution was approved by a majority vote, which sets strict conditions for negotiations with partners in the UES. The resolution demanded that the British Parliament should retain the right to repeal any legislation of the "Common Market", as well as determine the policy of England on such important issues as the nationalization of enterprises, the introduction of new taxes, trade relations with the countries of the Commonwealth of Nations. One of the external manifestations of internal party conflicts was the withdrawal from the Labour Party on the eve of the October 1974 parliamentary election of the former Foreign Minister in the Labour government, a strong supporter of England's membership in the EEC, Lord Chalfont25 .

On 7 December 1974, Mr Wilson set out the terms under which England agreed to remain a member of the EEC. These included important demands for a change in the common agricultural policy so that countries with low food production costs located outside Europe could have access to the UK food market, new methods of financing the EEC budget, ensuring that England's contribution was fair in terms of what other "Common Market" countries pay and receive.On December 16, 1974, Wilson announced in the House of Commons that these conditions had been brought to the attention of the heads of Government of other States, but acknowledged that the following provisions had been made: "To ensure that Parliament has the necessary powers to implement effective regional industrial and financial policies; to provide greater guarantees for the economic interests of the Commonwealth and developing countries, etc. The basic demands of England are still far from being met.

Meanwhile, important changes have taken place in the Conservative Party. After the defeat in the October 1974 elections, a meeting with the party's leadership and many members of parliament decided to hold a re-election of the party's leader (under E. Heath, it lost the parliamentary elections three times - in 1966 and twice in 1974). As a result, M. Thatcher, a representative of the right wing, was elected to this post. unlimited development of private entrepreneurship and against state interference in the activities of private capital. Thatcher is the first woman to lead a major political party in England and the first Conservative leader since Chamberlain to have no foreign policy experience. In the" shadow cabinet " of the Conservatives, R. Modling was appointed as the main speaker on foreign affairs instead of A. Douglas-Hume. Previously, he was not considered an active supporter of membership in the "Common Market", but, on the contrary, led the movement for England to remain in the EFTA. However, his position has changed, and now the Mod-

25 See G. Chalfont. Britain and the European Community. "Studia diplomatica" (Bruxelles), 1975, N 1.

page 88

Ling argued that he was a firm supporter of a" united Europe " and an opponent of Britain's exit from the EEC.

The next important step on the road to the referendum was the meeting of the heads of Government of the nine "Common Market" countries in Dublin on March 10-11, 1975, at which the terms of membership of the United Kingdom were finally renegotiated. The British government, as is well known, claimed that it contributes a disproportionately large share to the budget of the EEC compared to other members. There was also controversy over Britain's demand for additional trade preferences for New Zealand, providing it with better conditions for exporting dairy products to the British Isles. After lengthy and intense discussions, the meeting reached a compromise decision on the size of England's financial contribution to the Common Market budget and on guarantees for New Zealand. This compromise can be called forced, because the granting of some financial indulgences to London was caused by the upcoming referendum in England. In connection with the requirement that it contribute less to the budget of the UES (which in this period was estimated at 3 billion pounds. It was agreed on a so-called "corrective mechanism" and it was agreed that England would receive cash back if in the future it turned out to contribute an unfair share of the community budget (one country could receive up to £ 125 million back in one year). On the second issue, the high-level meeting agreed to meet the British demand to improve the conditions for exporting New Zealand butter to the "Common Market" countries after 1977 (in 1974, New Zealand exported 130 thousand tons of butter to England in the amount of almost 47.5 million pounds). No agreement was reached on the export of New Zealand cheese to the UK, but it was noted that under certain circumstances this issue would be given "due attention with due urgency" (in 1974, England imported 19 thousand tons of cheese worth almost 6 million pounds). As already noted, the most serious concern in England was the common agricultural policy of the EEC, but since world prices for food and raw materials increased during the negotiation period, the level of food prices in the country was relatively low.

The shadow of the referendum certainly lingered over the Dublin meeting. The French magazine "France Nouvelle" in its issue of March 24, 1975 emphasized: "The Dublin mock-up (where the bargaining escalated at a pre-agreed moment and ended in a compromise) cannot make us forget that the UK's partners sought above all to help the Wilson Labour government win the June referendum." The magazine went on to note that in this new "battle for Britain" it was unlikely that its monopolies would decide to remain in the shadows or take a secondary position. In support of this, the US has 2,468 multinational companies with branches in 75 countries, while England has 1,692 such companies in 50 countries (Germany and France, respectively -954 in And and 538 in 10).

Having received some concessions on some particular issues, Mr. Wilson hoped to present them as a major victory, although some of the conditions, such as the reform of the common agricultural policy, improved trade with developing countries, and the allocation of large funds for regional development assistance, could have been obtained in the normal course of the community's work. Similarly, assurances of sovereignty over regional and industrial policies were not much different from a simple affirmation of the existence of the United States.-

page 89

current practice in the UES. "The Observer" noted: "When they (other members of the community. - I. J.) became convinced that Wilson, who is negotiating to ensure that the UK remains in the Community, would speak out in favor of the agreed terms and would not continue to raise the price, they became more compliant with the UK's demands." 26
On 12 March, Mr Wilson told the House of Commons that, having reached agreement in Dublin on the budget and on New Zealand, the UK had moved as far as possible in its discussions on renegotiating the terms of its membership in the EEC. Thus, a series of negotiations on renegotiating the terms of England's membership in the EEC, which lasted almost a year, was completed. Proponents of the" Common Market " touted the Dublin agreement as a success for the Labour government. However, his opponents believed that the latter did not fulfill its promises to achieve a fundamental change in the terms of England's participation in the EEC, being satisfied with not very significant concessions. The Labour Party's election manifesto called for the development of new, fairer methods of financing the single budget of the UES. The nature of the Dublin agreement indicated that these methods remained largely unchanged. As the Morning Star pointed out, under the terms of the Dublin compromise, the UK will have to transfer significant amounts to the "Common Market", regardless of its financial situation. In assessing these new conditions, the newspaper believed that they would only strengthen the shackles of the "Common Market" that the country already finds itself in and that deprive the English people of the right to determine their own destiny.

The Labour-left weekly Tribune also did not believe that the agreement reached in Dublin was fully in line with the promises of the Labour Party's election manifesto. He stated that, in fact, the situation in the country has not changed. Anticipating the Cabinet's decision, opponents of British membership in the Common Market, led by former Labour Trade Minister D. J., published a pamphlet on the alternatives available on March 17, 1975. They argued that it would be better for the country, both economically and politically, to leave the EEC and join an industrial free trade area operating between the EFTA and the EEC. E. Heffer, the Minister of State for Industry and a prominent representative of the left wing of the Labour Party, strongly opposed staying in the EEC. While in 1967 some left-leaning Labour members expressed support for the EEC, in 1975, when the question was raised whether or not England should remain in the "Common Market", not a single member of the Tribune group felt that this was necessary .27
In general, the reaction to the outcome of the Dublin agreement showed that the struggle for the country's exit from the EEC is far from over, and that the new conditions will be rejected not only by a significant number of parliamentarians from the ruling party, but also by a number of cabinet members, members of the Labor Party and the trade union movement, and The Morning Star editorial called for "wasting no time in launching a' no 'campaign in the referendum." 28
On March 18, Mr Wilson told the House of Commons that the Government had decided to recommend that voters have their say at the upcoming general election in June.

26 "The Observer", 9.III.1975.

27 E. Heffer. Socialism and the Common Market. New Statesman, 16. V. 1975, pp. 647-648. The Tribune Group is a group of left - wing Labor MPs united around the Tribune newspaper. Their number in the study period was approximately 80 people.

28 "Morning Star", 12.III.1975.

page 90

this year's referendum for the country's continued membership in the"Common Market". This decision provoked widespread opposition in the country, within the ruling party and even the government itself. Immediately after that, at its meeting, seven members of the cabinet, that is, almost a third of its composition, spoke out against membership in the "Common Market" on the terms agreed in Dublin. Immediately after Mr. Wilson's speech, five members of the Government officially declared their opposition to the EEC (Minister of Industry A. Benn, Minister of Commerce P. Shore, Minister of Social Services B. Castle, Minister of Employment M. Foote, Minister of Planning and Local Self-Government J. Smith). Silkin). They presented an Exit Strategy document outlining the parliamentary measures that would be required for the country to leave the EEC, if the English people so desired. 120 members of the House of Commons signed a resolution protesting against the new conditions of England's membership in the EEC. The words of the Minister of Industry A. Benn that membership in the "Common Market" cost Great Britain the loss of about 500 thousand jobs made a great impression.

The internal political situation became even more tense when 18 of the 29 members of the national executive committee of the Labour Party signed a resolution demanding the country's exit from the"Common Market". The resolution recommended that a special conference of the party, scheduled for April 26, reject the terms reached in Dublin. In other words, the majority of the party's governing body opposed itself to the government. The Conservative Daily Mail noted these days that "civil war has broken out" within the cabinet and the Labour Party and that "for the first time a split in the government has been publicly announced", while The Times expressed concerns that "the outcome of the referendum is not at all decided".

Tensions were further heightened by the Labour Party's special conference decision to withdraw from the European Economic Area at the end of April. This decision was supported by delegates representing 3,724,000 members of local party organizations and trade unions, against 1,986,000. The vote was preceded by a heated debate. H. Wilson urged delegates to advocate that England should continue to remain in the EEC, arguing that the future of the country largely depends on continuing to stay in the "Common Market". The Prime Minister was supported by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States of America, John Kerry. Callaghan, who argued that membership of the EEC was beneficial to the British people and that the government had achieved a fundamental renegotiation of the terms of England's participation in the"Common Market". However, most of the speakers, including cabinet members, members of Parliament, and leaders of major trade unions, expressed their opposition to the"Common Market". The speeches of the Minister of Trade P. Shor and the Minister of Employment M. Foote were very impressive. General Secretary of the largest trade union of transport and unskilled workers, J. R. R. Tolkien. Jones, General Secretary of the Association of Scientific, Administrative and Technical Workers, K. Jenkins, a member of the national executive committee of the Labor Party B. Stanley and others noted that the Labor government failed to achieve a fundamental revision of the terms of Britain's participation in the" Common Market", and called on the population to vote in a referendum for breaking with the EEC.

The results of the conference undoubtedly intensified the struggle not only within the Labour Party, but also in the country as a whole over the issue of whether or not England should join the EEC. In an unusual situation, the ruling party opposed its own Government on this issue. It is significant that the conference ignored the Prime Minister's call to support the Cabinet's position. By their decision, the delegates of the conference convincingly refuted the attempt to represent the-

page 91

to lead the opposition to the " nine "as a result of the activity of a small group of left-wing figures. The Conference demonstrated that the broad masses of the party are demanding Britain's withdrawal from the EEC. The National Executive Committee of the party, in which opponents of the "Common Market" formed the majority, demanded that the party apparatus abandon the position of" neutrality " and insisted on fulfilling the will of the majority by organizing mass rallies, preparing leaflets, brochures and other printed materials, and supplying such materials to local organizations. However, the decision of the conference did not mean that the English electorate would vote in the referendum in the same spirit as its delegates voted. The opponents of the" Common Market "were opposed by an impressive front of supporters of England's stay in the" nine", which united in its ranks representatives of big capital and banks, conservatives, liberals, part of the ruling party, including two-thirds of the cabinet, and the entire bourgeois press. The organizations that were engaged in processing the population on the eve of the referendum had impressive financial capabilities, and they had a powerful propaganda apparatus on their side. All the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth of Nations issued a special document at their 20th session in Kingston, Jamaica, in May 1975, in support of England's participation in the EEC.

Published on May 16 by the Economist magazine, the results of a survey showed that 95% of 523 British firms believed that England should remain a member of the" Common Market", and 73% of these companies assumed that they would suffer if the country leaves the EEC as a result of the referendum. According to a survey conducted by the National Institute of Public Opinion, two out of three Englishmen were in favor of England remaining a member of the EEC (55% in favor, 28% against and 17% did not want to speak out).29 . As The Guardian reported on April 1, 1975, opponents of British membership in the Common Market believed that various groups of supporters of the country's membership in the EEC could spend up to 5 million pounds - presumably 20 times more than its opponents could get for their national campaign. The chairman of the Movement for Britain's Exit from the Common Market, K. Frere-Smith, in a letter to the director of the movement for England in Europe, O. Neil, called for full disclosure of the sources of income and amounts received from multinational companies, which, as stated in the letter, "do not have to be loyal to our country." The call remained without consequences.

The country is actually split into two camps: supporters and opponents of the "Common Market", and not at all along party lines. Both groups have united people of very different views, beliefs, and party affiliations. The dispute over the "Common Market" has caused divisions not only between parties, but also within traditional party boundaries. A. Sampson, a well-known expert on the internal political life of England, wrote that the issue of the EEC was more at odds with belonging to a particular party than any other. 30 G. Wilson even stated that the line of demarcation was drawn not only in parties ,but also in every family. 31
The ranks of opponents of England's participation in the" nine " united communists, many Laborists, Scottish and Welsh nationalists, some conservatives and some entrepreneurs, workers, farmers, employees, and students. There were various formations and movements such as the "Campaign for the withdrawal of England from the "Common Market"," League against the "Common Market" and others. As the reference deadline approaches-

29 "Daily Mail", 5.V.1975.

30 A. Sampson. Op. ed., p. 54.

31 "The Financial Times", 12.V. 1975.

page 92

duma unifying tendencies have increased among them. Many groups that opposed the EEC joined the "National Movement for a Referendum". Its chairman, a Conservative Member of Parliament, N. Martin, said that the revised terms do not solve the fundamental problem of membership in the EEC, and therefore the movement he leads calls on the population to vote in the referendum for England's exit from the "Common Market".32 A clear position regarding the participation of Great Britain in the EEC was taken by the British Communists. In early March 1975, the CPV Executive Committee called for an urgent activation of the campaign for leaving the UES. Head of the Press and Propaganda Department of the Executive Committee of the CPV, J. Matthews said that the campaign for the country's exit from the EEC involved only a small part of the huge potential strength of the labor movement, and this situation should be changed. He said that the CPV has already taken active actions and distributed more than 800 thousand leaflets demanding the withdrawal of England from the"Common Market". In connection with the decision of the special conference of the Labour Party, the new General Secretary of the CPV, G. MacLennan, in his first public statement, noted that the Communist Party would do everything possible in the time remaining before the referendum to inform the English people about the important issues facing them. 33 ^ He said at the end of April that the party had already issued 2.5 million He is preparing a leaflet on the issue of the " Common Market "and is preparing to publish his brochure "Leave the" Common Market" - join the whole world". G. McLennan announced the readiness of the CPV to cooperate with all groups that. T. Bell, General Secretary of the Komsomol of Great Britain, made a statement that the Komsomol will campaign for the >withdrawal of England from the EEC, since the country's stay in the "Common Market" is detrimental to the future interests of young people. The National Union of Students, representing 650,000 people, also decided to vote for the withdrawal of England from the EEC .34
A national referendum was scheduled for June 5, 1975, and the results were to be announced on June 8. At the end of April, the House of Commons discussed a bill on holding a referendum. Back in late February, the Government published a White Paper containing a number of recommendations regarding its implementation. In this policy document, for the first time, the Cabinet set out arguments to support the negative consequences that, in its opinion, the withdrawal of England from the EEC will entail. The White Paper emphasized that the referendum is a vote on a national issue. The outcome of the referendum will be decided by a simple majority vote, with all eligible voters and members of the House of Lords participating .35 There were disagreements on the principles of counting votes in Parliament and in the country. The nationalist parties of Scotland and Wales have insisted, for example, that the counting of votes in these areas of the UK should be carried out separately from the rest of the country. Some members of Parliament suggested counting votes by electoral districts. According to the White Paper, the Government rejected these proposals. The day after publication

32 See: B. Pearce. Get Britain Free From Common Market Chains. "Labour Monthly", April. 1975.

33 "Morning Star", 11.III.1975.

34 D. Cook. The Student Movement, Left Units and the Communist Party. "Marxism Today" (L.), 1974, N 10.

35 In England, the right to vote is granted to British citizens over the age of 18 who are permanently resident in a given constituency, with the exception of those serving sentences in court, the mentally ill and members of the House of Lords. "England". 1975, N 55, p. 64.

page 93

The Times ' White Paper stated in an editorial that the referendum is a completely undesirable innovation, which is completely out of line with the political procedures and traditions of England and can have harmful consequences. 36 The conservative opposition also opposed the referendum in principle. Conservative Party publications have argued that the referendum system jeopardizes parliamentary powers and reinforces the Prime Minister's ever-increasing power. Parliament ignored the government's warning that the announcement of the results of the vote in the country's districts would cause discord and bitterness, and on April 23 decided that the results of the referendum should be announced separately in the counties of England and Wales, in Greater London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

In late May and early June, fierce political battles reached their limit. Through all the means and channels of the powerful propaganda machine, the bourgeoisie imposed on the English electorate the conclusion that remaining in the European Economic Union was the only way to heal Great Britain. Just before the end of the political campaign, the Government repeated its appeals to voters to vote in favor of the"nine". The "heavy artillery" - multinational companies, big business-joined the fight. The Confederation of British Industry, in addition to allocating significant amounts of money to produce literature in support of participation in the EEC, created a special office that provided free information to firms and organizations on all issues related to the presence of England in the "Common Market". On the eve of the referendum, pressure on the British turned out to be on all lines. They were strongly encouraged to believe that leaving the UES was too risky for a country with a seriously disrupted economy. At the same time, the concept of "Common Market" was intensively replaced by the concept of "Europe", although the "nine" is not the entire European continent. There have been warnings from major international companies that capital investment may be cut and that there will be a shortage of jobs if Britain leaves the EEC.

The Labour government has named some of the biggest US, Dutch and Italian companies that have warned that they could look to new operations in other areas if England leaves the "Common Market". R. Hattersley, the Minister of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in charge of European affairs, named six such international companies, while others did not want to be disclosed. Among the six companies mentioned were the American Monsanto Company, the Dechter Corporation , the oldest state-owned company in the United States, the Montadison company, which has an Italian controlling company, and others. Pressure on English voters also came from Brussels, from the headquarters of the European Economic Community, as well as from overseas. The Home Secretary, R. Jankins, declared with pathos that the greatness of England can be restored only in the case of its continued membership in the EEC. The "Europeists" argued that, since the treaty on England's membership in the EEC had already been signed and entered into force, its termination would undermine international confidence in the country.

On the eve of the referendum, a national debate about Britain's continued membership in the EEC also raised the issue of control over the recently discovered most valuable oil deposits at the bottom of the North Sea. Energy Secretary E. Varley, one of seven Labour ministers who wanted the country to leave the "Common Market", warned that if Britain remained in the EEC, it could lose full control of its vast oil reserves. Meanwhile, it is estimated that they

86 "The Times", 27.II.1975.

page 94

We could have fully met the country's oil needs by 1980, and the UK would have become a major oil-producing country. He also expressed concern that the decisions taken on the basis of the Treaty of Rome might violate the British requirement that oil and gas produced in the North Sea should first flow to England, that is, affect its control over the distribution of oil. oil production and marketing". On June 3, 1975, in the run-up to the referendum, The Times published an interview with French Foreign Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. The Council of Europe said that the renegotiation of the terms of England's membership in the EEC had put its partners in a difficult position and that they had shown good will by "agreeing to make great sacrifices" and "reached the limit of what is possible".

On the eve of the referendum, both supporters and opponents of the EEC stressed that whatever the outcome of the vote, the complex economic problems facing the country will remain in their current form, and, therefore, the outcome of the referendum will have more political significance. The" Europeanists " from the conservative camp did not miss the opportunity to draw on this time. light was the scarecrow of the communist threat. Former Prime Minister E. Heath titled his article in the Sanday Express: "Will you vote for the Russians to defeat us?" Not far behind him were other prominent Conservative figures - former Prime Minister A. Douglas-Hume and others. M. Thatcher made her first speech in the rank of Conservative leader in Parliament precisely on the issue of the referendum. It questioned its necessity and accused the Government of shifting responsibility for its decision onto the shoulders of the people. 37 There were direct attempts to revive the theme of "Red under the bed", which the reaction usually used before the parliamentary elections.

Polls conducted on the eve of the referendum by the Public Opinion Research Center showed that 73.7% of respondents supported the "Common Market". This center then interviewed 10,000 voters at polling stations and predicted that 68.3% of the electorate would vote for the UES. All major public opinion polling organizations predicted the victory of supporters of the country's membership in the"Common Market". Gallup estimated that 68% of the electorate would vote yes, while the L. Harris Service and Marplane put the figure at 61%. On June 3, Lad Brooks agreed to wager more than £ 25,000, assuming that the electorate would vote yes.

Since the morning of 5 June, voting stations have been issuing ballots with one question: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain in the European Community ("Common Market")?" The voter had to cross out an empty square before the word "yes" or the word "no". Of the 40 million citizens of the United Kingdom who are eligible to vote, 25,800 thousand people took part in the referendum, or about 63% (in the national elections held twice in 1974, 72 and 78% of voters participated, respectively). Of the total number of people who voted "for" the "Common Market", 17,378,581 (or more than 67%) voted "against" - 8,470,073. All four parts of the United Kingdom - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland-supported membership in the EEC. The largest percentage of those who voted for the "Common Market" was in England (about 70%), the smallest - in Northern Ireland (52%). Among Conservative voters, the votes "for" and" against " were divided in the proportion of 85 to 15, the Liberals 70 to 30, and the leu-

37 R. Lewis. Margaret Tatcher. L. 1975, pp. 142 - 143.

page 95

boristov 52.5 to 47.5 38 . The results of the vote make it possible to conclude that staying in the EEC was actually confirmed by a minority of the adult population of the country, and every third person who took part in the referendum spoke out against the UK staying in the "Common Market". The highest percentage of those who voted against (47.9%) was in Northern Ireland 39 .

On June 9, Prime Minister H. Wilson made a statement in Parliament on the results of the referendum. For the first time in history, a parliamentary session was broadcast on radio. Mr Wilson called on the English people to fully engage in the European "Common Market" and expressed the hope that the House of Commons and the country as a whole would follow the example of the government, which is determined to put aside previous differences. As expected, the Conservative and Liberal leaders unanimously supported the Prime Minister in assessing the results of the referendum. The leadership of the Common Market, encouraged by the results of the referendum in England, announced a two-month campaign of "focused catch-up". The success of the pro-European coalition of bourgeois parties in the referendum encouraged monopoly circles: at the news of the results of the vote, shares on the London Stock Exchange rose sharply.

However, even after the referendum, the country's fundamental problems remained unresolved. Inflation, rising cost of living, unemployment, the threat of new strikes - all these problems did not disappear after the vote. And the very question of attitude to the UES continued to be quite acute. Already on June 9, S. Bidwell, chairman of the Tribune group, warned the Prime Minister: "Some debates are over, but others will inevitably begin." He said that it will focus on steps towards creating an economic and monetary union, which is the goal of the"Common Market". Immediately after the referendum, the chairman of the Movement to Leave the Common Market, C. Frere-Smith, told his supporters: "Our work is not over yet - be vigilant." 40
The analysis of the background, course and results of the referendum gives grounds to draw some general conclusions and observations. The first-ever UK referendum on a vital issue was held in a complex and acute domestic political situation. The country is actually split into two camps. The dispute over the "Common Market" has caused divisions not only between parties and non-governmental organizations, but also within traditional party boundaries. The ruling circles did not dare to act contrary to the trade unions, although the position of the latter was clearly at odds with the aspirations of monopolistic circles. The Government's consent to the referendum was actually the result of pressure from broad sections of the working people. At the same time, the holding of a referendum under state-monopoly capitalism and the results of the vote show how the ruling political groups use the democratic aspirations of the working people. The government's appeal to voters was aimed at revising the decisions of the special conference of the Labour Party and the Congress of trade unions, smoothing out class contradictions.

The holding of the referendum had painful consequences for the ruling Labour Party. 7 out of 23 government ministers, half of the Labour MPs in the House of Commons and the main trade unions opposed Wilson's efforts to keep Britain in the "Common Market". During the campaign before the referendum, an alliance of right-wing Labor, Conservative and liberal leaders was actually formed. It is precisely this kind of coalition - formal or informal - that the RAS has formed.-

38 "The Economist", 14.VI.1975; "The Guardian", 7. VI.1975, p. 20.

39 "Journal of Common Market Studies", N 4, June 1976, p. 298.

40 "The New York Times", 7.VI.1975.

page 96

it was considered by the ruling circles as one of the possible variants of the political machine with which big business expected to conduct its offensive. It is no coincidence that immediately after the referendum, former Tory leader Mr Macmillan broke his 13-year silence by calling for a "government of national unity" composed of representatives of various parties (excluding, as he said, "extremists") and supported by "moderate" trade union leaders. Such a government, in his opinion, could go to the most drastic and unpopular measures, which no one-party government would dare to resort to. Although the Labour and Conservative leaders opposed a coalition government, this idea was based on practical precedent that took place during the preparation of the referendum. After all, it was precisely such a center-right bloc that opposed the left forces at that time. The experience of the referendum (when the Conservative Heath, the right-wing Labor Jenkins and the liberal Thorpe were at the same time) suggested to the ruling circles ways to "improve" the two-party system and strengthen it by consolidating the "moderate forces of the center".

Television, radio, the bourgeois press - all the mass media were purposefully and actively processing the population in favor of the country's participation in the EEC, using arguments from "the greatness of England" to "beware of the reds". Considerable efforts have been made by the member States of the European Economic Community, the largest international monopolies, to influence English voters in a way that suits them. In these difficult circumstances, many British people who were not supporters of the" Common Market " were confused and voted in favor of membership in the EEC. The outcome of the referendum was also influenced by traditional British conservatism. Many voters said they were voting for the "Common Market" because England is already part of it, adding that if there was a question of joining the EEC, they might have voted differently.

The struggle before the referendum also demonstrated a new level of unity on the left. In fact, in the run-up to the referendum, the left wing of the British Trade Union Congress, the left-wing Labour party activist group (the Tribune group) and the Communist Party took the same positions. The results of the referendum put on the agenda the need for further consolidation and activation of the left forces, because, as noted at the plenum of the National Executive Committee of the CPV in January 1976, the entry of Great Britain into the" Common Market " further aggravated the problems facing the country .41 In an interview with L'Humanite on June 26, 1976, the General Secretary of the CPV, G. MacLennan, noted that the party's program of activity included the struggle for a break with the UES.

In a speech to the conference of the Communist and Workers ' Parties of Europe in Berlin, he said:"We have spoken out and continue to oppose the participation of Great Britain in the EEC, which has further aggravated the serious problems of our country." 42 The results of the referendum have raised fears in leftist circles that big business will try to put even more pressure on the labor movement and shift the burden of the economic crisis entirely to the shoulders of workers. Using the results of the vote, right-wing forces both in the ruling Labour Party and in the country as a whole can try to use the laws and practices of the "Common Market" to prevent the implementation in England of those progressive measures that were contained in the election promises of Labour .43
After the referendum, the fight against the negative consequences of England's stay in the EEC did not stop. At the beginning of 1976, it became more active

41 "Morning Star", 12.I.1976.

42 "Pravda", 1.VI. 1976.

43 "The Guardian", 7.VI. 1975.

page 97

The "Secure England" movement, led by the Labour MP B. Gould, created to coordinate the efforts of opponents of the "Common Market", continues its work. As The Economist, an English weekly magazine, stated in its August 7, 1976 issue, the last community opinion poll conducted in May 1976 showed a sharp decline in enthusiasm for the EEC. In England, the balance of public opinion in favor of the" Common Market " has fallen from 26% registered in the autumn of 1975 to 4%. In one of the last polls in mid-1977, 53% of respondents said that if the referendum were held today, they would vote against England's membership in the EEC .44 This was clearly felt in the EAEU member states. In connection with the visit of the French President to the UK, the Financial Times newspaper noted:: "There is a widespread perception in France that, despite the overwhelming majority of votes cast in last summer's referendum for UK membership in the Common Market, UK officials and the public are still quite lukewarm about Europe." 45 England, as a member of the "Common Market", sought to play a special role in the EEC. As the well-known American publicist S. Sulzberger wrote, " the well-worn pound sterling has recently discovered a certain flexibility... London is the capital of the Euromarket and hosts more American banks than New York. " 46 Britain's demand (made shortly after the referendum, in mid-July 1975) to grant it a separate seat at the world conference of oil-producing and consuming countries in Paris made its eight partners in the EEC, as noted by the Irish Foreign Secretary, H. Fitzgerald, like a bombshell. This was a vivid example of competition within the UES and the opening of another front of inter-imperialist contradictions.

According to progressive circles, it is not just a matter of Britain leaving the "Common Market" (as a capitalist country with a chronically crisis economy, it will not be better off outside the EEC). The question is to present a positive alternative. It is seen (after the country leaves the EEC) in the development of trade in manufactured goods with the Community, in the freedom to determine external tariffs, in trade with the rest of the world, and in maintaining and resuming preferential ties with the Commonwealth countries. Leaving the EEC will help England save on contributions to the budget of this community and reduce the import of expensive food from the countries of the "Common Market", restore ties with other foreign food suppliers. However, the main result of leaving the EEC, according to representatives of the left, is that England will regain the right of free control over its national economic activity .47
The workers of the "Common Market" countries, including Great Britain, are waging a struggle against the socio-economic and political consequences of imperialist integration, against inflation, unemployment, rising prices, etc. It gives new impulses and opens up new opportunities for raising the role and political consciousness of the British working class and all working people, which is the most important condition for the progressive development of England.

44 "Morning Star", 13.VIII. 1977.

45 "The Financial Times", 21.VI. 1976.

46 "The New York Times", 7 VI. 1975.

"7 CM. "Morning Star", 2.IV.1977; 11.III.1975.

page 98


© elibrary.org.uk

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elibrary.org.uk/m/articles/view/THE-ONLY-REFERENDUM-IN-THE-HISTORY-OF-GREAT-BRITAIN-POLITICAL-STRUGGLE-RESULTS-SIGNIFICANCE

Similar publications: LGreat Britain LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Dora ConnorsContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://elibrary.org.uk/Connors

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

I. I. ZHIGALOV, THE ONLY REFERENDUM IN THE HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN: POLITICAL STRUGGLE, RESULTS, SIGNIFICANCE // London: British Digital Library (ELIBRARY.ORG.UK). Updated: 18.01.2025. URL: https://elibrary.org.uk/m/articles/view/THE-ONLY-REFERENDUM-IN-THE-HISTORY-OF-GREAT-BRITAIN-POLITICAL-STRUGGLE-RESULTS-SIGNIFICANCE (date of access: 19.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - I. I. ZHIGALOV:

I. I. ZHIGALOV → other publications, search: Libmonster Great BritainLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Dora Connors
London, United Kingdom
49 views rating
18.01.2025 (32 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
M. E. ORLOVA. THE BRITISH WORKING CLASS AND THE IRISH PEOPLE'S LIBERATION STRUGGLE
Catalog: History 
18 days ago · From Dora Connors
BOOK "PIRATES" OF ENGLAND AT THE END OF THE XVI-BEGINNING OF THE XVII CENTURY
Catalog: History Bibliology 
18 days ago · From Dora Connors
THE STRUGGLE OF ENGLISH TRADE UNIONS AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE "TAFF AFFAIR"
20 days ago · From Dora Connors
ENGLAND BETWEEN TWO REVOLUTIONS (1660-1688)
Catalog: History 
20 days ago · From Dora Connors
CONVOY "AB-55"
20 days ago · From Dora Connors
FASCISM IN ENGLAND BETWEEN THE WORLD WARS: GENESIS, CHARACTER, SPECIFICS
Catalog: History 
21 days ago · From Dora Connors
SOVIET-BRITISH RELATIONS AT THE TURN OF THE 70S AND 80S
21 days ago · From Dora Connors
OIL FOR THE BRITISH NAVY
21 days ago · From Dora Connors
E. V. GUTNOVA. CLASS STRUGGLE AND SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE PEASANTRY IN MEDIEVAL WESTERN EUROPE (XI-XV centuries)
Catalog: History Bibliology 
22 days ago · From Dora Connors
BRITISH NUCLEAR POLICY (1979-1984) Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences
25 days ago · From Dora Connors

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

ELIBRARY.ORG.UK - British Digital Library

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE ONLY REFERENDUM IN THE HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN: POLITICAL STRUGGLE, RESULTS, SIGNIFICANCE
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: UK LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

British Digital Library ® All rights reserved.
2023-2025, ELIBRARY.ORG.UK is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of the Great Britain


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android