• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Jan Techau"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "blog": "Strategic Europe",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom",
    "Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "EU"
  ]
}
Strategic Europe logo

Source: Getty

Commentary
Strategic Europe

Britain Needs to Go Beyond Its Inner Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher’s Euroskepticism still overshadows the British debate on Europe. The UK needs to move beyond Thatcher’s legacy to enable a more reasonable discussion.

Link Copied
By Jan Techau
Published on Jan 21, 2014
Strategic Europe

Blog

Strategic Europe

Strategic Europe offers insightful analysis, fresh commentary, and concrete policy recommendations from some of Europe’s keenest international affairs observers.

Learn More

In Britain’s poisonous debate on Europe, many Euroskeptics from inside and outside the ruling Conservative Party still take their cues from former prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But while her status as an untouchable conservative heroine might be justified on economic grounds, it is utterly overrated when she is judged on her record as a strategic thinker. She faced two major geopolitical challenges during her tenure, and she was wrong on both: Britain’s role in the EU, and German reunification.

Thatcher’s biggest failure was to overlook the geopolitical potential of EU integration. In her later years, all she ever saw when she looked at Brussels was a bureaucratic monster that threatened British sovereignty. Many of her criticisms of the EU were and still are justified (yes, the Common Agricultural Policy is an abomination). But it is troublesome that she lacked the farsightedness to understand that if Britain wanted to matter in a globalized world, it needed to be part of a Europe that was sufficiently united to compete on the world stage.

Thatcher was a significant reformer at home. She modernized the British economy—though not without inflicting enormous pain—and forced the political Left to embrace the Third Way. She unleashed the positive powers of the market and ended the British malaise of the 1970s. She also showed strong leadership during the 1982 Falklands War, albeit primarily for domestic reasons at a time when she needed to save her first term from early collapse.

She still is heralded as a freedom fighter in Central Europe, even though she played the realpolitik game with the Soviet Union just as well as any Western leader, but is not remembered as a freedom fighter in South Africa or Chile. Her record remains disputed, and her name and personality still polarize opinion today.

Thatcher’s most lasting legacy, however, is that she established the parameters of the British debate on the EU—parameters that still apply today. As her conservatism morphed into obstinacy, she presented the EU as a concept that was hostile to the UK. Large parts of the Conservative Party have never recovered from this view.

The problem with this legacy is that it cuts Britain off from a reasonable debate about the EU. Instead of talking about Europe’s most important geopolitical project of the twenty-first century, the discussion in Britain is about a bogeyman.

Never was a positive British contribution to the EU debate as sorely needed as it is today. The European integration project has long turned from guaranteeing internal peace to building an entity that can provide peace and stability in Europe’s neighborhood and beyond. Instead of leading on this issue as the European country that is best prepared to do so, Britain undermines what it likes most about the EU—the single market—by challenging one of its cornerstones—free movement of EU citizens.

The UK is also turning its back on EU enlargement, a policy it once championed. And it fights any progress to make the bloc a more effective foreign policy enabler for its member states.

It is true that the EU is not in good shape today. It is far from being the actor it needs to be to protect the interests of 500 million people in a globalized world. It is not yet the hard-nosed power player that it must become in the face of turmoil in the South, unfinished transition and Russian bullying in the East, and China’s emerging clout in the world.

But closer European cooperation is the only answer to increased instability, competition, and challenges to the liberal world order. The future of EU integration will not be based on the treaty-enshrined idea of “ever closer union” or on a United States of Europe. Yet closer cooperation it will be, some of it through the central institutions, some through intergovernmental decisionmaking.

The great debate on the EU’s future shape and its role in the world has only just started. In that debate, Margaret Thatcher’s strategic recipes will not suffice. Ultimately, her approach to Britain’s role in Europe was too small-minded. Unlike former German chancellor Helmut Kohl, whom she famously disliked and with whom she shared a hardworking, petty-bourgeois background, she could not escape her small-mindedness on questions of geopolitics.

Kohl, when history allowed it, understood the size of change and set out to shape it. Thatcher holed herself up and wanted to preserve the status quo. In her view, freedom was great for Central Europe, but not for those East Germans who wanted to join the West German democracy after 1989.

For too long, Thatcher’s legacy has been cited as an excuse for what is wrong with Prime Minister David Cameron’s EU policies. For too long, the bookkeeper’s approach to Europe has been great at pointing out the EU’s many mistakes, but it has made Britain too blind to see the bigger picture.

The EU has its profound weaknesses. But it is also Europeans’ last best hope if they want to retain their freedom, affluence, and cultural wealth at a time when the United States is less and less interested in subsidizing those benefits. The world has changed. Ever closer union is dead, but so too is Thatcherite parochialism. Britain needs to move beyond its inner Maggie to help create the Europe it needs.

About the Author

Jan Techau

Director, Europe Team, Eurasia Group

Techau is director with Eurasia Group's Europe team, covering Germany and European security from Berlin. Previously, he was director of Carnegie Europe.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Can Europe Trust the United States Again?

      Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau

  • Commentary
    Pre-Reformation Europe and the Coming Schism

      Jan Techau

Jan Techau
Director, Europe Team, Eurasia Group
Jan Techau
EUWestern EuropeUnited KingdomEurope

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Strategic Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?

    French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Global Instability Makes Europe More Attractive, Not Less

    Europe isn’t as weak in the new geopolitics of power as many would believe. But to leverage its assets and claim a sphere of influence, Brussels must stop undercutting itself.

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe on Iran: Gone with the Wind

    Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.

      Pierre Vimont

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Can European Defense Survive the Death of FCAS?

    France and Germany’s failure to agree on the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) raises questions about European defense. Amid industrial rivalries and competing strategic cultures, what does the future of European military industrial projects look like?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.