Last week, Ming Campbell sidled up to the British electorate last week and made an improper suggestion:
“Psst, fancy a referendum?”
Well, a referendum would be lovely, in particular the one we were promised on the proposed EU constitution – now repackaged as the so-called “Reform Treaty.” However, the item on offer from Mr Campbell was something else altogether; namely, a referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. As a proposition, it doesn’t even have the virtue of originality – Labour’s Keith Vaz, another EU enthusiast, was flashing it around earlier this summer.
If you ask me, the federalists are up to something. Indeed, one could say the whole business smells fishier than the Common Fisheries Policy – except that wouldn’t be very fishy at all, on account of there being no fish left. So let’s just say Ming’s idea of an all-or-nothing referendum stinks to high heaven.
It’s long been a federalist tactic to conflate anti-federalism with anti-Europeanism. But in this regard, they’ve had a great deal of inadvertent help from their bitterest enemies:
Though I consider myself a staunch eurosceptic, I can’t help noticing that some of my fellow sceps are a couple of paragraphs short of an EU directive. Now I don’t just mean the out-and-out loonies, the sort who equate Brussels with the ten-headed beast of Revelation. No, I mean those otherwise sane individuals whose principled scepticism is tainted by some very odd and deeply unhelpful misconceptions.
Foremost among these notions is what I call the ‘bad fantasy novel view of history’. Aficionados of fantasy fiction will be familiar with the make-believe maps that grace the opening pages of many sub-Tolkeinesque works of, ahem, literature. Usually, the heroes of the story live in the west of the imaginary continent thus depicted, while the east is home to sundry orcs, hobgoblins and other bugaboos – which just about sums up the mental map that many people in this country have of the real world.
To some extent, it is an understandable delusion. As a prominent Eurosceptic once explained to me at some length, just about every external threat to the British way of life has come from the east i.e. from the Continent. I could hardly disagree with him, but then again, what other direction could such threats have come from – Atlantis? It is also the case that the British – along with the other English speaking peoples – have a particularly strong tradition of liberty. However, this isn’t entirely homegrown; many, if not most, of the elements that make up our culture are Continental in origin – or at least came to us via the Continent. Indeed, Englishness and the English language were born on the eastern shores of the North Sea. Even today, we have much to learn from other European nations – such as diversity in the provision of public services, the localisation of decision-making power and support for the institution of the family.
This is not to say that “ever closer union” is the best way of sharing the benefits of European identity and diversity. On the contrary, it is a tragic distraction, a project driven forward by political vanity and misplaced idealism. Nevertheless, I believe that there is room for well-placed idealism in regard to Europe, basing my optimism on three key assumptions:
To start with, the politically incorrect, but objective undeniable, premise that European civilisation is the greatest mankind has ever known. This is not to ignore the achievements of other, older civilisations – such chauvinism would be absurd given that so many fundamentals, from mathematics to monotheism, have origins beyond the Bosphorus. Nevertheless, it is Europe that took all of these and made the modern world.
My second assumption is that Europe’s days of glory are not all gone. Europe has survived the shattering of the 20th Century; it is united as never before and yet retains the richest cultural diversity on the face of the planet. In an age of unparalleled peace and prosperity, it is only the dead of mind and spirit that could not make something glorious of that.
My third assumption is that just as Britain is our country, so Europe is our continent – and that our future, as with our past, is bound up with that of our neighbours. Yes, we are also part of the Anglosphere, but why should that imply any contradiction? In a Europe that makes the most of its diversity, Britain’s unique global perspective shouldn’t be anything other than a boon to all.
Sadly, what the federalists seek is a Europe of uniformity. Not that they’d put it so bluntly – they have prettier words to dress up their project. In previous decades they emphasised an end to divisions, whether of world wars or the Cold War. Now, as these memories recede, their language is increasingly one of contrast – especially with the United States.
Here’s a good example from Jeremy Rifkin, a former advisor to Romano Prodi, who speaks of a “European Dream” defined by “harmony, not hegemony.” The EU, he says, “has all the right markings to claim the moral high ground on the journey towards a third stage of human consciousness. Europeans have laid out a visionary road map to a new promised land, one dedicated to reaffirming the life instinct and the Earth’s indivisibility.”
I wonder to what or whom Mr Rifkin credits this moral high ground. Is it to Europe’s arms manufacturers, who hawk their wares from one killing field to another? Or to its security services who collude with despotic regimes around the world? Or to its trade negotiators, those smooth-tongued betrayers of the planet’s poorest people? I’m not saying that Europe is worse than the US on these counts, but it is not noticeably better – despite all the talk.
Then there’s climate change, where European hypocrisy is match for American shamelessness. And as for “harmony, not hegemony” tell it to the people of Bosnia and Kosovo, where it took the Americans to stop the stop genocide on European soil.
I’m not sure if the federalists even admit to these colossal failures. Certainly, they cannot explain how federalism would improve matters. One only has to look at where it is already in operation – i.e. agriculture, fisheries, monetary policy and trade – to see that federalism is part of the problem, not the solution.
So the question before us is this: Do we dare imagine what our continent could be without the encumbrance of federalism? Or must our response be one long list of negatives?
Whilst I disagree with some of the article's assertions, the implied direction is correct.
It is right in principle and for practical success that euroscepticism focuses on offering a positive vision of a world without the EU, rather than in either talking only about the past or trying to scare people into scpeticism.
The fact is that the 21st century is less and less eurocentric than the 20th - culturally, politically but especially economically.
The EU offers a protectionist, inward-looking, negative response to this future. The alternative response has to be one of a free-trading, outward-looking, democratically accountable future - one that by necessity will be without the EU.
There are those that will tell you that everyone who supports the EU project is driven by sinister and wicked motivations. In reality, whilst the practical results (especially of protectionism on the third world) are often horrendous, most pro-EU people are driven by a genuine idealism, however misguided.
The EU might have been a nice if impractical idea in the 1950s. Now is the time for sceptics to lay out our positive and practical vision for the 21st century - that has to be the platform from which to counter the EU.
Mark Wallace,
Campaign Manager,
Better Off Out
www.betteroffout.co.uk
Posted by: Mark Wallace | September 19, 2007 at 09:57 AM
Britain belongs to the world - not to a shrinking protectionist power bloc run by a corrupt and undemocratic bureaucracy. It is not only the fish which are gone. So are belief, hope and trust. Moving on...the world awaits a Britain that has the curage to free itself from this unhappy EU marriage.
It's time to get down to the divorce lawyers and talk terms. Life beyond the grip of Brussels has far more potential.
Posted by: Tapestry | September 19, 2007 at 09:58 AM
The EU is corrupt (no audited accounts)
The EU does not believe in equality before the law (the bureaucrats have given themselves immunity).
The EU is not democratic (the people cannot vote out the Commission).
The British people believe in the rule of law. They also believe in freedom and democracy. We fought two world wars to defend these things. Governments do not have the right to give them away.
Throughout Europe the people are being betrayed by a self-serving political class.
Posted by: Frank McGarry | September 19, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Peter gets there in the end – as Mark Wallace has already suggested - but en route he has touched a lot of buttons marked ‘muddled’.
Of course Peter is right that many of our ideas of freedom came from the Continent of Europe – the Saxon mete is the forerunner of our parish councils - and at a stretch the localism promoted by some on this site.
But it is also pretty self-evident that the full range of political models from communism to fascism has also come from the Continent. The British triumph it can be argued has been to resist the extremes and promote freedom of the individual and a free society – and that not without many bloody fights internally and externally.
In short Peter is wrapping up over 2,000 years of the ebb and flow of ideas and people into a quick sentence, which commonsense suggests will lead to a dog’s dinner of an argument.
I am more surprised by Peter’s suggestion that we have much to learn from other European nations – such as diversity in the provision of public services, localisation of decision-making power and support for the institution of family. I have no idea what is meant by ‘diversity of public services’ but it does tick all the current jargon boxes.
Localisation of decision-making powers? Well it depends which country in Europe you are talking about – France? And arguably the broad statement about the family has an awful lot to do with Catholic Church.
While I agree with Peter that ‘ever closer union’ or one country is a bad idea he then assumes that European civilisation is the greatest mankind has ever known –try asking the Egyptians for one - but what does he mean by European? There has never been a Europe – but there have been lots of different countries with as many different attributes.
And what does ‘Europe is united as never before’ mean? Simply the diktats of the EU. Is that ‘glorious’? One could argue that a greater unity was achieved by Germany under Hitler so even the first part of the premise is suspect.
To pick up on a key point from Peter last paragraphs, that of the EU and trade. The EU is at heart a protectionist bloc – what has so far prevented it from going the whole hog has been the US – from the Kennedy Round onwards. Every WTO negotiation is blighted largely by EU officials. Get rid of the EU and the world would be a more prosperous place - and the poorest counties of Africa would have much to be thankful for. So thank God for America but it could be a lot better.
Again Peter raises an important issue of the wars in the former Yugoslavia - but let us ask which country lit the blue touch paper for its own economic ends? Germany.
In short Peter is right that EU ‘federalism’ has produced colossal failures but he has a funny way of showing it! So Better Off Out!
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | September 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Who knows? In a future parliament, even if the Liberal Democrats are not part of the government; a combination of Euro Realist Labour, Conservative and UKIP MPs with Liberal Democrat support could force a referendum - it would be rather ironic and rather amusing if the main Liberal Democrat political achievement was to effect the machinery under which the UK withdrew from the EU.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 19, 2007 at 02:46 PM
Thank you Editor for allowing an article on this topic - the elephant in the room.
I will not support the Conservative Party, indeed am looking forward to standing against it again at the GE, until it agrees that we are Better Off Out.
Then we can all get down to sorting out schools, Welfare and all the rest of it. Until then, Dave, this is the number one issue for your correspondent.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - Ukipper | September 19, 2007 at 03:25 PM
Amaze yourself. Vote already about the EU at www.FreeEurope.info.
Vote YES (or No) to Free Europe Constitution!
Posted by: William Humbold Jr | September 20, 2007 at 07:50 AM