PJC Journal – Original

The following is republished from EU Referendum, a blog that I fear we will be losing over the next few days. I would like to thank Dr Helen Szamuely and Dr Richard North for their tireless work in exposing the lies, deceit and corruption that is the EU.

The parallels drawn between the events in Europe today and those of nearly 70 years ago are not lost on everyone, and I for one will not forget those who fought and died in those dark years so that we could enjoy our Sovereign rights and freedoms that no politician has the right to surrender.

Retreat to victory

In an earlier post, I promised a series of essays exploring why euroscepticism failed and what we need to do about it. This is the first.

Before embarking on the subject, though, I must thank all the forum posters, those who e-mailed us and Daniel Hannan, Tim Montgomerie and Tony Sharp for their good wishes and comments.

I should stress, though, that while we are considering winding up EU Referendum,
that is because that issue – the idea of a referendum – is dead and
buried. This means our title is confusing and misleading, which also
suggests it is time to move on. We are thus thinking in terms of a
name-change and a change of style, widening our scope beyond EU issues.

As
to the thesis of this post, based on the premise that “euroscepticism”
is dead, we really need to define the term. For the purposes of our
argument, we take the “extreme” view that this encompasses those who
wish to extract the United Kingdom from the European Union.

There
is no equivocation here: we use the term to describe those who want to
leave the EU – not those who would want to “renegotiate” our position,
or who would like to see the EU “reform”, reshaping itself in a way
that is more acceptable to the British, or some such. Neither, in our
view, are in any way likely or even possible. The guardians of the
“project” have not come all this way to water down their creation, or
give up their hard-won creations.

And, if “renegotiation” was
ever on the cards, a necessary precursor would have to be a commitment
to leave the EU, which means that those who are really serious about
seeking a new relationship with the EU though this means must first
accept the essential precondition. Leaving the EU would, in any case
then require a negotiation – or “renegotiation” if you prefer – in
order that we are able to maintain relationships with our neighbours,
which rather makes arguing for renegotiation redundant. It follows
necessarily, but only if we quit.

Addressing now the chosen
thesis, I would maintain that, in the foreseeable future – and for many
years to come – there is no prospect whatsoever of the UK leaving the
EU. I see no likelihood of a newly elected Conservative government
seeking to do this, and of course, there is absolutely no possibility
of the Brown government even thinking about it.

To that extent,
euroscepticism is dead. It is a movement without an achievable goal
and, furthermore, the goal itself does not have any widespread popular
support. Put the in/out question to a referendum and the near certainty
is that the vote would favour staying in.

One of the reasons why
the majority of people would most likely decide for the EU is the
famous TINA – there is no alternative. Like it or not, the EU provides
innumerable “services”, without which the UK could not have difficulty
functioning. Furthermore, outside the EU, it would have enormous
difficulties rebuilding and establishing working relationships with the
rest of the international community. For better or worse, most would
say, we are stuck with our current arrangements.

Another reason is relates to the “teaser” offered in the earlier post. Big business, I asserted, loves the EU. In evidence, two links were provided. The first reported: “UK businesses back EU expansion”.

This
piece retailed that “some of Britain's biggest companies are backing
the enlargement of the European Union”, arguing that the economies of
Eastern Europe provide lucrative growth opportunities. These businesses
included, the advertising giant WPP, life assurer Aviva and steel group
Corus.

The other link
referred to a report of a conference where “European power companies”
called for harmonised EU safety rules on nuclear power plants.

Any
amount of evidence can be produced to the effect that “big business”
supports our membership of the EU. For sure, some would like to see
“reform”, or “tweaks” that would adjust its rules in their favour but
none would support the proposition that we should leave the EU. And, of
course, big business equals big money – and influence. In any
referendum campaign, or generally, money talks. The money would be
talking for continued membership.

One more reason why sentiment
would not favour the exit route is the extraordinary level of ignorance
about the EU – and in particular the amount of damage it does –
contrasted with those who believe, that for all its disadvantages, the
EU does offer the UK some advantages.

Typical of the latter
genre are many Conservatives, who sincerely believe that the Single
Market is “a good thing”, entirely unaware or unwilling to accept that
this is a major instrument in the process of economic integration – the
essence of the “Monnet Method” from which stems political integration.

Much
of this fantasising about the Single Market rests on the uncomfortable
fact that it was on Margaret Thatcher's watch that the Single Market
Act was passed into UK law, the Thatcher worshipers having difficulty
coming to terms with the fact that she was responsible for one of the
most important steps towards integration the Community has produced.

Serious
students of EU history will know that, in accepting the Single Market
Act, Thatcher was comprehensively hoodwinked, and that the treaty
itself was part one of two, the latter part being the Maastricht Treaty
– the genesis of modern euroscepticism. If you are against Maastrict,
however, to be intellectually consistent, you must also oppose the
Single Market Act. They are but one, in the march to political
integration, of which the constitutional Lisbon treaty is the latest instalment.

Yet, such is the profound, wholly untutored ignorance of the reality that we can read
of “the moderate Euroscepticism of Thatcher 1979-86 – which was very
productive from the British point of view, delivering us a rebate and
the Single European Act.”

Against such ignorance, there is no
defence – it is no absolute that it could not even begin to understand
how wrong it was. It is complete in itself, needing no sustenance or
evidence, and brooks no counter-argument. It is beyond rationality,
reflecting an article of faith which drives much of the Conservative
tribe, sustaining its “soft” Europhilia which masquerades as
Euroscepticism.

Yet, unfortunately, it is to the Conservatives
that we must turn for any hope of leaving the EU – and hope there is
none. And here, the most powerful reason comes into play.

Returning
to TINA, what few people even begin to realise is the depth and
complexity of our entanglement with the EU. After 36 years of
membership, imbibing fifty years-worth of integrationist measures, the
administrative and legislative systems of are so interwoven with the EU
that, to remove them would be equivalent to dealing with a metastatic
cancer with a surgeons knife. In theory, it could be done – but it
would almost certainly kill the patient.

This is actually the reality which presents itself to anyone who has seriously examined the reality
of leaving the European Union. And if team Cameron ever get down to
such an examination, its thinkers will come to the same conclusion.
They would also discover that, such would be the complexity and
political capital expended, that it would neutralise the political
process for years to come, entirely frustrating any attempts the
Conservatives might have to develop a distinctive domestic agenda.

So
fraught with risk would be such a process that, wisely, any sensible
political (i.e., one who wishes to remain in office) would run a mile
from it.

That is not to say that the complexity could not be
addressed and overcome, but the word means what is says. Complex is, er
… complex. To come up with a well-founded strategy for leaving the EU –
and thus replacing the web of EU policies with distinctive national
policies of our own – would take a massive amount of work, requiring a
huge team of experts familiar with every aspect which the EU touches.

That
work has not been done – there is no likelihood of it being done in the
immediate future. Yet, unless and until the British public (and the
polticians) can be offered a reasoned and better alternative to the EU,
like it or lump it, TINA lives.

For sure, we can continue with
our work of telling everybody how ghastly the EU really is. But those
who care enough about the subject know that already, or believe it even
if they do not know it as fact. The majority of people, though –
confronted with the reality of leaving the EU, and what that entails –
would accept what is, simply on the premise that any (unformed and
unspecified) alternative could only be worse – and infinitely perilous.

It
is in that context, that Euroscepticism has met with the poison which
will finish it off. We have spent decades telling everybody how awful
the EU is. Most probably, the bulk of people believe us – even the soft
Europhiles of the Conservative Party. But we do not have the capability
to take the next step – to push the intellectual boundaries and offer a
realistic, fully developed alternative. Worst still, most do not even
accept that there is the need to do so.

To conclude this first
part, therefore, I will refer to what I would aver is essential reading
for anyone with any interest in military history – but with surprising
relevance to contemporary politics.

This – is a new(ish) book by Major General Julian Thompson. Simply called “Dunkirk”,
its sub-title is “Retreat to Victory”, which is also the theme of this
post, the relevance of which can be drawn from this quotation dealing
with General Gort, commander of the BEF in France in 1940. Thompson
writes:

Gort's
decision to evacuate his army at Dunkirk saved the BEF. He may not have
been a brilliant army commander … But he was able to see with absolute
clarity that the French high command were utterly bankrupt of realistic
ideas and that consequently Allied plans would lead nowhere, and he had
the moral courage and unwavering willpower to act in the face of
censure and criticism, thus ensuring that the BEF was saved. There are
few occasions when the actions of one man can be said to be
instrumental in winning a war. This was one of those. Had the BEF been
surrounded, cut off and forced to surrender, it is inconceivable that
Britain would have continued to fight without an army.

Faced
with an unwinnable battle, therefore, Gort did the only sensible thing.
He cut and ran – the precursor to rebuilding and re-equipping a damaged
army. With new allies and against a weakened enemy, his successors were
thus able to return to Europe and comprehensively defeat the Nazis.

I have in my mind's eye a parallel between Dunkirk and the constitutional
Lisbon treaty. Both represent major defeats, the one for the BEF and
Britain, the other for Euroscepticism. In the former event, the defeat
was turned to victory by Gort's retreat. My thinking is that we must do
the same – retreat, rebuild and rethink, ready for the long battle that
our successors must fight. We are not going to win it, and if we
continue the way we are doing, we risk the same fate that would have
befallen the BEF had it been rash enough to stand and fight.

If
Sun Tzu and Clauswitz both maintained that one of the most important
military rules is, “Don't reinforce failure,” I am merely following
that advice. We need to retrench and rebuild. We need to “retreat to
victory”.

Precisely what we need to do to, I will discuss in Part II.

The following is republished from EU Referendum, a blog that I fear we will be losing over the next few days. I would like to thank Dr Helen Szamuely and Dr Richard North for their tireless work in exposing the lies, deceit and corruption that is the EU.

The parallels drawn between the events in Europe today and those of nearly 70 years ago are not lost on everyone, and I for one will not forget those who fought and died in those dark years so that we could enjoy our Sovereign rights and freedoms that no politician has the right to surrender.

Retreat to victory

In an earlier post, I promised a series of essays exploring why euroscepticism failed and what we need to do about it. This is the first.

Before embarking on the subject, though, I must thank all the forum posters, those who e-mailed us and Daniel Hannan, Tim Montgomerie and Tony Sharp for their good wishes and comments.

I should stress, though, that while we are considering winding up EU Referendum,
that is because that issue – the idea of a referendum – is dead and
buried. This means our title is confusing and misleading, which also
suggests it is time to move on. We are thus thinking in terms of a
name-change and a change of style, widening our scope beyond EU issues.

As
to the thesis of this post, based on the premise that “euroscepticism”
is dead, we really need to define the term. For the purposes of our
argument, we take the “extreme” view that this encompasses those who
wish to extract the United Kingdom from the European Union.

There
is no equivocation here: we use the term to describe those who want to
leave the EU – not those who would want to “renegotiate” our position,
or who would like to see the EU “reform”, reshaping itself in a way
that is more acceptable to the British, or some such. Neither, in our
view, are in any way likely or even possible. The guardians of the
“project” have not come all this way to water down their creation, or
give up their hard-won creations.

And, if “renegotiation” was
ever on the cards, a necessary precursor would have to be a commitment
to leave the EU, which means that those who are really serious about
seeking a new relationship with the EU though this means must first
accept the essential precondition. Leaving the EU would, in any case
then require a negotiation – or “renegotiation” if you prefer – in
order that we are able to maintain relationships with our neighbours,
which rather makes arguing for renegotiation redundant. It follows
necessarily, but only if we quit.

Addressing now the chosen
thesis, I would maintain that, in the foreseeable future – and for many
years to come – there is no prospect whatsoever of the UK leaving the
EU. I see no likelihood of a newly elected Conservative government
seeking to do this, and of course, there is absolutely no possibility
of the Brown government even thinking about it.

To that extent,
euroscepticism is dead. It is a movement without an achievable goal
and, furthermore, the goal itself does not have any widespread popular
support. Put the in/out question to a referendum and the near certainty
is that the vote would favour staying in.

One of the reasons why
the majority of people would most likely decide for the EU is the
famous TINA – there is no alternative. Like it or not, the EU provides
innumerable “services”, without which the UK could not have difficulty
functioning. Furthermore, outside the EU, it would have enormous
difficulties rebuilding and establishing working relationships with the
rest of the international community. For better or worse, most would
say, we are stuck with our current arrangements.

Another reason is relates to the “teaser” offered in the earlier post. Big business, I asserted, loves the EU. In evidence, two links were provided. The first reported: “UK businesses back EU expansion”.

This
piece retailed that “some of Britain's biggest companies are backing
the enlargement of the European Union”, arguing that the economies of
Eastern Europe provide lucrative growth opportunities. These businesses
included, the advertising giant WPP, life assurer Aviva and steel group
Corus.

The other link
referred to a report of a conference where “European power companies”
called for harmonised EU safety rules on nuclear power plants.

Any
amount of evidence can be produced to the effect that “big business”
supports our membership of the EU. For sure, some would like to see
“reform”, or “tweaks” that would adjust its rules in their favour but
none would support the proposition that we should leave the EU. And, of
course, big business equals big money – and influence. In any
referendum campaign, or generally, money talks. The money would be
talking for continued membership.

One more reason why sentiment
would not favour the exit route is the extraordinary level of ignorance
about the EU – and in particular the amount of damage it does –
contrasted with those who believe, that for all its disadvantages, the
EU does offer the UK some advantages.

Typical of the latter
genre are many Conservatives, who sincerely believe that the Single
Market is “a good thing”, entirely unaware or unwilling to accept that
this is a major instrument in the process of economic integration – the
essence of the “Monnet Method” from which stems political integration.

Much
of this fantasising about the Single Market rests on the uncomfortable
fact that it was on Margaret Thatcher's watch that the Single Market
Act was passed into UK law, the Thatcher worshipers having difficulty
coming to terms with the fact that she was responsible for one of the
most important steps towards integration the Community has produced.

Serious
students of EU history will know that, in accepting the Single Market
Act, Thatcher was comprehensively hoodwinked, and that the treaty
itself was part one of two, the latter part being the Maastricht Treaty
– the genesis of modern euroscepticism. If you are against Maastrict,
however, to be intellectually consistent, you must also oppose the
Single Market Act. They are but one, in the march to political
integration, of which the constitutional Lisbon treaty is the latest instalment.

Yet, such is the profound, wholly untutored ignorance of the reality that we can read
of “the moderate Euroscepticism of Thatcher 1979-86 – which was very
productive from the British point of view, delivering us a rebate and
the Single European Act.”

Against such ignorance, there is no
defence – it is no absolute that it could not even begin to understand
how wrong it was. It is complete in itself, needing no sustenance or
evidence, and brooks no counter-argument. It is beyond rationality,
reflecting an article of faith which drives much of the Conservative
tribe, sustaining its “soft” Europhilia which masquerades as
Euroscepticism.

Yet, unfortunately, it is to the Conservatives
that we must turn for any hope of leaving the EU – and hope there is
none. And here, the most powerful reason comes into play.

Returning
to TINA, what few people even begin to realise is the depth and
complexity of our entanglement with the EU. After 36 years of
membership, imbibing fifty years-worth of integrationist measures, the
administrative and legislative systems of are so interwoven with the EU
that, to remove them would be equivalent to dealing with a metastatic
cancer with a surgeons knife. In theory, it could be done – but it
would almost certainly kill the patient.

This is actually the reality which presents itself to anyone who has seriously examined the reality
of leaving the European Union. And if team Cameron ever get down to
such an examination, its thinkers will come to the same conclusion.
They would also discover that, such would be the complexity and
political capital expended, that it would neutralise the political
process for years to come, entirely frustrating any attempts the
Conservatives might have to develop a distinctive domestic agenda.

So
fraught with risk would be such a process that, wisely, any sensible
political (i.e., one who wishes to remain in office) would run a mile
from it.

That is not to say that the complexity could not be
addressed and overcome, but the word means what is says. Complex is, er
… complex. To come up with a well-founded strategy for leaving the EU –
and thus replacing the web of EU policies with distinctive national
policies of our own – would take a massive amount of work, requiring a
huge team of experts familiar with every aspect which the EU touches.

That
work has not been done – there is no likelihood of it being done in the
immediate future. Yet, unless and until the British public (and the
polticians) can be offered a reasoned and better alternative to the EU,
like it or lump it, TINA lives.

For sure, we can continue with
our work of telling everybody how ghastly the EU really is. But those
who care enough about the subject know that already, or believe it even
if they do not know it as fact. The majority of people, though –
confronted with the reality of leaving the EU, and what that entails –
would accept what is, simply on the premise that any (unformed and
unspecified) alternative could only be worse – and infinitely perilous.

It
is in that context, that Euroscepticism has met with the poison which
will finish it off. We have spent decades telling everybody how awful
the EU is. Most probably, the bulk of people believe us – even the soft
Europhiles of the Conservative Party. But we do not have the capability
to take the next step – to push the intellectual boundaries and offer a
realistic, fully developed alternative. Worst still, most do not even
accept that there is the need to do so.

To conclude this first
part, therefore, I will refer to what I would aver is essential reading
for anyone with any interest in military history – but with surprising
relevance to contemporary politics.

This – is a new(ish) book by Major General Julian Thompson. Simply called “Dunkirk”,
its sub-title is “Retreat to Victory”, which is also the theme of this
post, the relevance of which can be drawn from this quotation dealing
with General Gort, commander of the BEF in France in 1940. Thompson
writes:

Gort's
decision to evacuate his army at Dunkirk saved the BEF. He may not have
been a brilliant army commander … But he was able to see with absolute
clarity that the French high command were utterly bankrupt of realistic
ideas and that consequently Allied plans would lead nowhere, and he had
the moral courage and unwavering willpower to act in the face of
censure and criticism, thus ensuring that the BEF was saved. There are
few occasions when the actions of one man can be said to be
instrumental in winning a war. This was one of those. Had the BEF been
surrounded, cut off and forced to surrender, it is inconceivable that
Britain would have continued to fight without an army.

Faced
with an unwinnable battle, therefore, Gort did the only sensible thing.
He cut and ran – the precursor to rebuilding and re-equipping a damaged
army. With new allies and against a weakened enemy, his successors were
thus able to return to Europe and comprehensively defeat the Nazis.

I have in my mind's eye a parallel between Dunkirk and the constitutional
Lisbon treaty. Both represent major defeats, the one for the BEF and
Britain, the other for Euroscepticism. In the former event, the defeat
was turned to victory by Gort's retreat. My thinking is that we must do
the same – retreat, rebuild and rethink, ready for the long battle that
our successors must fight. We are not going to win it, and if we
continue the way we are doing, we risk the same fate that would have
befallen the BEF had it been rash enough to stand and fight.

If
Sun Tzu and Clauswitz both maintained that one of the most important
military rules is, “Don't reinforce failure,” I am merely following
that advice. We need to retrench and rebuild. We need to “retreat to
victory”.

Precisely what we need to do to, I will discuss in Part II.

Scratching my head over the EU

This
blog doesn't post much about the EU. Between Richard North's scholarly
mini-essays and Open Europe's blogs of media coverage there is very
little for the ordinary blogger to add.

This doesn't mean I
acquiesce in the EU. But government carefully denies us the chance to
vote against the Lisbon treaty, merely because Herr Brownmeister is
sure we will reject it. Nor will the country will ever vote in numbers
for the inadequate clowns who have a stranglehold on UKIP. But that
doesn't mean voters want more integration with the EU and the
government knows it.

Armageddon Ambrose-Pritchard has another of his excoriating pieces in the Telegraph
today. It includes numbers, so it's in the business section, and on the
inside pages at that. He is stressing the undemocratic nature of the
Lisbon process, explaining that Ireland is sleep-walking into economic
trouble it will be helpless to prevent, and most importantly explaining
the fundamental changes to which we are being exposed -

Our
shared Anglo-Celtic culture has long been a well-spring of free
enterprise (with Dutch, Swedish, and Hanseatic help in fighting
European absolutism along the way), and that is what is so threatened
by the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty to end all EU treaties.

The
text strikes the words “free and undistorted competition” from the core
objectives of the Union. Corporatist aims will enjoy a higher legal
status at the European Court (ECJ) and must prevail if the two clash.
The Rhineland Model has locked in a permanent advantage.

Euro-creep
is already eviscerating the Common Law that underpins the British and
Irish way of doing business. Lisbon quickens the pace. It upgrades the
ECJ to a de facto supreme court, with broader jurisdiction. It will
have the last say on a raft of new economic and social rights. Who can
stop them imposing a Colbertist agenda by court rulings, if they so
choose? The ECJ is beyond appeal.

Euro-judges will decide how and when to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now made legally-binding.
Article 52 allows the “limitation” of all liberties in the “general
interest” of the Union. This is the old Reich clause. Such
justifications for state coercion have been illegal in Europe for 60
years. Now they return, by the back door.

For instance, German leaders are to propose a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators.
And the perpetual Jean-Claude Juncker, leader of Luxembourg since 1995
with a population of 467,000, wants an upper limit on salaries.

And
he concludes that “a British prime minister slinks away to a private
room to commit Britain to an arrangement that alienates the powers of
Parliament – in perpetuity and perhaps illegally – knowing that his
people would vote 'no' by crushing margins if given a chance”.

Now,
we know that most politicians give no sign of understanding anything
about economics at all, here or in the rest of the EU. I am no
flag-waving Jerusalem singer harking back to the grand old days of the
British Empire. I just don't get why the political class wants to give
our freedom away – and indeed their freedom too – and condemn us to the
likelihood of gradually pauperising foreign rule.

Silence is not consent.

Original at – Purple Scorpion

Scratching my head over the EU

This
blog doesn't post much about the EU. Between Richard North's scholarly
mini-essays and Open Europe's blogs of media coverage there is very
little for the ordinary blogger to add.

This doesn't mean I
acquiesce in the EU. But government carefully denies us the chance to
vote against the Lisbon treaty, merely because Herr Brownmeister is
sure we will reject it. Nor will the country will ever vote in numbers
for the inadequate clowns who have a stranglehold on UKIP. But that
doesn't mean voters want more integration with the EU and the
government knows it.

Armageddon Ambrose-Pritchard has another of his excoriating pieces in the Telegraph
today. It includes numbers, so it's in the business section, and on the
inside pages at that. He is stressing the undemocratic nature of the
Lisbon process, explaining that Ireland is sleep-walking into economic
trouble it will be helpless to prevent, and most importantly explaining
the fundamental changes to which we are being exposed -

Our
shared Anglo-Celtic culture has long been a well-spring of free
enterprise (with Dutch, Swedish, and Hanseatic help in fighting
European absolutism along the way), and that is what is so threatened
by the Lisbon Treaty, the treaty to end all EU treaties.

The
text strikes the words “free and undistorted competition” from the core
objectives of the Union. Corporatist aims will enjoy a higher legal
status at the European Court (ECJ) and must prevail if the two clash.
The Rhineland Model has locked in a permanent advantage.

Euro-creep
is already eviscerating the Common Law that underpins the British and
Irish way of doing business. Lisbon quickens the pace. It upgrades the
ECJ to a de facto supreme court, with broader jurisdiction. It will
have the last say on a raft of new economic and social rights. Who can
stop them imposing a Colbertist agenda by court rulings, if they so
choose? The ECJ is beyond appeal.

Euro-judges will decide how and when to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights, now made legally-binding.
Article 52 allows the “limitation” of all liberties in the “general
interest” of the Union. This is the old Reich clause. Such
justifications for state coercion have been illegal in Europe for 60
years. Now they return, by the back door.

For instance, German leaders are to propose a worldwide ban on oil trading by speculators.
And the perpetual Jean-Claude Juncker, leader of Luxembourg since 1995
with a population of 467,000, wants an upper limit on salaries.

And
he concludes that “a British prime minister slinks away to a private
room to commit Britain to an arrangement that alienates the powers of
Parliament – in perpetuity and perhaps illegally – knowing that his
people would vote 'no' by crushing margins if given a chance”.

Now,
we know that most politicians give no sign of understanding anything
about economics at all, here or in the rest of the EU. I am no
flag-waving Jerusalem singer harking back to the grand old days of the
British Empire. I just don't get why the political class wants to give
our freedom away – and indeed their freedom too – and condemn us to the
likelihood of gradually pauperising foreign rule.

Silence is not consent.

Original at – Purple Scorpion

Daily Mail

24.05.2008

By PETER HITCHENS

To the secret horror of the real rulers of Europe, one tiny country
is letting its people vote on whether it should give up its
independence for ever.

The other 26 members of the Franco-German Empire have meekly agreed to accept their new status as provinces.

But
Ireland, which fought so hard to break away from Britain less than a
century ago, is obliged by its cunningly-drawn constitution to put the
issue to a referendum. The Irish government hates this but must allow
it.

It is hopeless, of course. Even if the Irish do as they
have done before over the Nice Treaty and chuck the wretched thing out
when they go to the polls on June 12, they will be made to vote again
and again until they give in.

Since the 2001 Nice rebellion, the rules of referendums in Ireland have changed, making it far harder for the No side.

That
is the nature of 'democracy' in the EU. You can vote for anything you
like, but it will always be difficult to oppose them – and in any case
the result won't count unless the authorities agree with you.

Yet
it is also wonderfully gallant, and a bitter reminder to the passive,
wilfully ignorant people of Britain – who have never really thought
about the EU, who dumbly allowed themselves to be bamboozled into
voting for it the one time they had a real chance to escape – that
resistance is both possible and thinkable.

And how
enjoyable it is that the one challenge to Europe's most dishonest and
greedy seizure of power should be happening in Ireland, the spoiled
child of Brussels, soothed with flattery and sprayed with subsidies.

For
the EU, like every other continental great power in history, knew all
too well how to play on the old rivalry and hostility between our two
amazingly different islands.

What joy there has been in
EU headquarters to have one Englishspeaking country that happily
embraces the Euro, that flies the Euro flag with enthusiasm, scraps
miles for kilometres on its signposts and generally lies back and
enjoys being ravished by the new superpower.

What a contrast with the sullen, slow and grudging acquiescence of Britain.

What
fun to annoy London by favouring Dublin. What a good wheeze to make
former Irish Premier John Bruton the EU ambassador to Washington, so
emphasising in a dozen different ways the diminished and altered status
of the UK.

Millionaire Declan Ganley is leading the No campaign

And how altered it is. Crossing our country's only land frontier has always been an odd experience.

There were never any fences between our bit of Ireland and the other, and there still aren't.

But
there are quiet differences which symbolise the current state of
relations. You need to know what to look for to be sure you have
crossed.

Now it is strange in a new way. I can recall
when there were still rusting Customs barriers on the platform of Newry
station, and the way everything was much poorer and greyer in the
South, from the rougher roads to the hopeless public telephones. It was
also much more Roman Catholic.

Now you can tell you are
in the Republic because of the fat and wealthy look of the countryside,
planted thickly with showy houses, and the new motorways filled with
cars – each with European-style number plates, deliberately unlike the
UK's.

To the north of Dublin, smart trains serve enormous
new commuter suburbs of overpriced box homes, with hardly a church in
sight.

The old greyness is almost gone. And of course you must use the European Union's occupation money, the euro.

The
capital itself has been transformed almost as completely as Moscow,
with the same feeling that somebody has exploded an enormous money-bomb
just overhead, raining down glass-fronted office blocks, mobile phones
and cocktails on a grateful populace.

Old brown bars have been replaced with funky nightclubs throbbing with blondes.

You
can still see the ghost of a distinctly British city beneath the
change, but Dublin is now emphatically European in style, right down to
its excellent trams.

Most Irish people believe their new
prosperity has come from Europe. They are partly right, though much has
also come from Ireland's very low business taxes.

Doubters
will point out that it is hard to work out a balance between forfeiting
£150billion in lost fisheries and gaining nearly £50billion in
subsidies for new roads.

But the roads, and the flashy new wealth, are easier to see than the vanished fishing fleets.

As
a result, the EU has a kind of cargo cult status here. It is the source
of great gifts from above, and the idea that Ireland might be better
off out of it (which it would be) is never spoken out loud even by
those who believe it.

That
will change because the cash has already stopped. Ireland is now a net
contributor to the EU by most calculations, and certainly will be once
great slabs of 'peace money' – the cross-border pay-off for giving in
to the IRA – have run out, as they soon will.

Ireland is also suffering from the same raging increase in the cost of living as Britain.

When I apologised to a Dublin cafe owner for paying for my €10 breakfast with a
€50 note, worth almost £40, he said: 'Don't worry. Inflation's so bad that's becoming the most common note in use.'

But
right now the pro-EU consensus is as bad as it was in Britain 30 years
ago. Every major political party is united in favour of the Lisbon
Treaty (formerly known as the Constitution).

There are
various rather noble but tiny organisations producing clever anti-EU
posters. The best shows three unhelpful EU monkeys – 'They won't see
you, they won't hear you, they won't speak for you'.

The
fiercest pictures the 1916 independence proclamation made during the
Easter Rising, which is Ireland's combined Trafalgar, Dunkirk and
Battle of Britain.

It points out uncomfortably that:
'People died for your freedom. Don't throw it away.' Another, aiming
lower, simply warns: 'It'll cost you.'

These are hopelessly outnumberedby the bland and smiley Yes placards that decorate every Dublin street in their hundreds.

With impeccable logic, Sinn Fein ('Ourselves Alone') is the only remotely significant party prepared to say No.

Which
would mean a pretty unbalanced battle if it weren't for the slightly
mysterious multimillionaire, Declan Ganley, who has flung his great
energy and wealth behind a one-man No campaign that has obviously
infuriated the Dublin establishment.

I watched Mr Ganley debating with the spokesmen of the two main parties, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.

They
didn't have a chance. Most people don't have a clue what the Lisbon
Treaty is about so Mr Ganley, who does have a clue, tells them in
fierce, forceful English that the government is lying.

And
when I say English, I mean English. Mr Ganley was born deep in Galway
but he speaks in the unromantic accent of Watford, where his parents
emigrated to find work in the hard times.

I'm not sure this helps him, but he insists it signifies nothing.

Time
and again, Irish unemployment forced him to live and work in England,
until he made his fortune trading aluminium in the collapsing Soviet
Union. Now he sells communications equipment to the US National Guard.

Last
week a pro-EU Dublin newspaper tried to suggest there was something bad
about this, trumpeting portentously that Mr Ganley's Libertas group has
' military links'.

This sort of stuff is easier than
taking him on. EU documents are notoriously tangled, but I think time
will prove him right and Lisbon will leave Ireland even more powerless,
isolated and vulnerable than it will leave Britain.

Like
us, Dublin will lose its permanent member on the Commission and, with
its tiny voting strength, this is a much graver loss than it will be to
Britain.

The new powers of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg could one day be used to override Ireland's unique laws.

Nobody really knows how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be interpreted.

And
Ireland's crucial 12.5 per cent tax rate on company profits (compared
with Britain's 28 per cent) could be vulnerable to new rules on
'distortion of competition'.

Ireland was told in the past that its fishing and sugar industries were safe from the EU, and then saw both devastated anyway.

Ganley's
rhetoric is tough and he takes meetings by storm. In the debate I
watched, the chairman couldn't stop him, and when Ganley decided his
Sinn Fein ally on the panel wasn't up to much, he simply took over,
leaving the man opening and closing his mouth silently like a fish.

His
rhetoric has a directness you don't often find in crabwise Irish
politics. For example, he has described the Common Agricultural Policy
as 'a weapon of mass destruction'.

He declared that 'after Lisbon there will be nothing left of our benefits from the EU except a piece of dental floss'.

His
sharpest opponent, Fine Gael's Michael Creed, meanly suggested Ganley
was 'the West Wing of British Euroscepticism', a sly attack that may do
damage since any link with British conservatism is poison here.

The Fianna Fail government simply denies all Ganley's claims. But what does it know?

You
sense that many of these people simply take the EU on trust, regarding
it as an unstoppable natural force, and enjoy the prospect of having
more power and less responsibility.

I watched the Deputy
Prime Minister, Mary Coughlan, floundering helplessly as she revealed
her own ignorance of the thing she was defending. She claimed that the
bigger EU countries still each had two Commissioners, which hasn't been
so for years.

Even so, the pro-EU politicians have fear
on their side. They often speak of how Ireland will lose the 'goodwill'
- that is, the special favour it has been shown – if it votes No.

And there has been talk of 'reaping the whirlwind' if one small country falls out of step with the other 26.

The
best riposte to that, surprisingly enough, came from Killian Forde, a
bright and witty Dublin councillor who is a prominent member of Sinn
Fein.

I didn't want to like him, regarding his party as a front organisation for the IRA. But he talks intelligent, patriotic sense.

I
asked him why people who had fought so hard for independence, and gone
to war over the wording of a treaty, now seemed ready to give that same
independence away again and leave a far more important treaty unread.

He
says people don't realise how much the EU menaces their liberties
because it has crept up on them. 'They started on the soft stuff and
only now are they getting to the sovereignty issues.'

He
points out sarcastically that the mainstream parties all go on about
how much the EU has done for equality. 'Why could we not have done that
ourselves if we wanted it?

Were we so stupid and backward that we needed the enlightened Europeans to tell us what to do?'

Forde
also suspects that many Irish leaders have deliberately courted the EU
to annoy Britain and rejects the idea that Ireland should be grateful
for what it has got. What about the future?

'If it
doesn't work out and we end up as an economic backwater on the edge of
Europe, our children are not going to thank me for voting Yes.'

I
don't know how this vote will go. The polls say that the Yes campaign
is winning, but they said the same thing at this stage in the campaign
over the Nice treaty and that went the other way.

Declan
Ganley's intervention has upset a lot of calculations, and as another
No campaigner said to me: 'When all the fat-cat politicians are agreed
on something, surely you'd think that people would smell a rat?'

Well,
I hope they do because if Ireland votes No it will hurl a small but
dangerous spanner into the whirling, roaring innards of the European
project, possibly causing an uncontrolled explosion of bile, rage and
frustration that will not make it any easier to persuade Ireland to do
as it is told.

What concessions can the EU bosses give that will make a difference? In reality, none.

Can they abandon the treaty? Not without abandoning the whole scheme for 'ever greater union'.

Can they allow others to do the same? I don't think so.

It
would be pleasing to think that the courageous, resourceful and
determined Irish people, whose unembarrassed love of their country puts
us to shame, could unhorse the mighty European empire, as they once
humbled ours.

But, since the last thing the No campaigners need is a British voice on their side, I wouldn't dream of saying so.

Full Article