A Reply to Buller
| Date | 01 February 1995 |
| Author | Stephen George |
| Published date | 01 February 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9256.1995.tb00019.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Politics
(1995)
15(1)
pp.
43-47
A
Reply
to
Bder
Stephen
George’
In
this reply to Buller’s article, Stephen
George argues that although the comments
made about the awkwardpartner thesis’ are
a valid critique
of
some common assump-
tions found
in
the media, they do not repre-
sent his position accurately;
also
that Buller’s
critique
of
explanations
of
British govern-
ments’ attitudes to the
EC
which concentrate
on
institutions cannot be made
of
the domes-
tic politics approach that he has adopted
Jim Buller’s article is not specifically aimed at
my
own
book
An
Awkward Partner
(George,
1990):
he is criticising what he believes
to
be
a general
set
of
assumptions about Britain’s
relationship with the European Community
(EC), and now the European Union
(EU).
However, many of his criticisms are illustrated
by reference
to
George
(19901,
and
to
a
book that
I
edited (George,
1992).
My reply
is
primarily
to
the criticisms Buller makes
of
these
two
books, as
I
cannot answer for any-
body else’s views.
Buller essentially makes
two
points. The
first is that what he calls the ‘awkward partner
thesis’ concerning Britain’s relations with the
EC
is
of
limited use in explaining that rela-
tionship. Secondly, he raises doubts about the
underlying argument that the awkwardness
can
be
explained by reference
to
the effects
of
domestic political institutions.
The
awkward partner
thesis
On the first point, that the awkward partner
thesis is
of
limited use in explaining Britain’s
relations with the EC,
I
would
like
to
say at
the outset that
I
agree with Buller that Brit-
ain’s relationship with Europe has often been
misrepresented. The picture of Britain out
of
step with
the
other eleven member states is
simply not an accurate portrayal
of
the com-
plex diplomatic bargaining that goes on
within the EC. In
so
far
as
he
is
criticising an
assumption that is often implicit in press
reporting
of
Britain’s relations with the
EC,
I
have no argument with Buller. However, he
explicitly accuses me
of
the same error, and
this
I
deny.
Part
of
the problem is that Buller con-
structs an ‘awkward partner thesis’ to which
he says
I
subscribe, but which does not accu-
rately reflect my position. His justification for
constructing this thesis himself is that
I
do
not do
so
explicitly.
As
he says,
I
provide no definition
of
‘awk-
wardness’; but the reason for this is not just
sloppy scholarship,
it
is that
I
have not used
the term in any special or unusual way.
It
is
used as a piece
of
plain English, for which
the dictionary definition will suffice.
Buller quotes the
Collins
definition as ‘dif-
ficult
to
deal with’. The
Concise Oxford
says
‘clumsy, bungling’.
Yet
Buller goes on to sug-
gest ‘frequently out
of
step or in a minority
of
one’.
I
cannot find this definition in either
dictionaly.
I
intended the
title
of
my book
to
convey nothing more than that Britain had
proved a difficult partner for the other
member states
to
deal with, and that British
governments had often been clumsy in hand-
ling their relationships with
other
members.
Buller also makes a great deal
of
the point
Stephen
George,
University
of
Sheffield
Q
Political Studies Association 1995. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4
UF,
UK
and 238 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142,
USA.
43
To continue reading
Request your trial