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.















