By Douglas Murray
Monday, June 06, 2016
For at least a quarter of a century, there was no greater
bore in British politics than the Eurobore, who warned against Britain’s loss
of sovereignty to Brussels. From the moment the House of Commons narrowly
passed the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s, turning the European Economic
Community into the European Union, the species could be sighted around
Westminster. But its natural habitat became sparsely populated meetings of the
already converted. Occasionally an overreach by Brussels would find the Eurobore
staring into the bright lights of the nation’s broadcast media, there to answer
a few hostile questions while demonstrating an unappetizing combination of
monomania and over-fondness for detail. But for at least a generation, people
said to be “banging on about Europe” suffered from the political equivalent of
halitosis.
And then things began to change. Of course, nobody wanted
to credit the fact, but over the course of recent years the wilderness dwellers
began to assume the mantle of prophets. The backbenchers in Westminster and the
MEP (Members of the European Parliament) flotsam in Brussels who had kept a
flame of British independence alive became politically palatable again. Their
knowledge of the minutiae of EU laws and regulations proved useful. Soon bigger
political beasts found the courage once again to join this renegade band.
Today, with a vote on Britain’s remaining in or leaving the EU taking place on
June 23, Britain’s Euroskeptics are not just back in the mainstream but at the
helm of the most important decision facing the country in decades. Indeed, they
may soon be running the country. With the polls currently showing “Remain” and
“Leave” tied, an entire political establishment is now angrily trying to work
out why Leave is doing so well. Why has wheeling out every other expert and
authority in the land not browbeat the British people into overwhelmingly
voting Remain? Why, indeed, does it seem to be pushing them the other way? Sad
to say, the explanation is the facts — and two very large facts in particular,
both of which have long been visible from Britain, even if not from Brussels.
The first is the legacy of the endless euro-zone crises.
For years, British Euroskeptics argued that currency union, or the euro, could
not possibly work unless the countries that participated in it gave up all
remaining sovereignty. How, they asked, could Greece and Germany share a
currency if they did not share fiscal habits and constraints? How the
Europhiles scoffed at this! From different political sides, the former deputy
prime minister Michael Heseltine and the über-Blairite Peter Mandelson
pooh-poohed all such complaints. Indeed, these grandees insisted that Britain
would regret not joining the euro zone. Such men may still pretend to sail on
as though nothing ever ruffled this core argument, but for seven years the
nightly news has torn it to shreds.
The euro-zone crises that have battered the Continent
since 2009 vindicated every British Euroskeptic fear. As one southern European
country after another found itself unable to refinance its debts, the euro zone
became a raft of the Medusa. In an
effort to impose fiscal restraint on the southern European countries, northern
European countries, especially Germany, not only imposed further financial rules
on their neighbors but ousted their elected leaders, imposing bureaucrats to
run things on Brussels’s behalf. Even now, youth unemployment in these
countries sits between 25 and 50 percent, blighting an entire generation.
As events in Greece keep showing, these southern
countries retain the ability to crash the entire continent at any moment. After
lying their way into the euro zone (they cooked their books to mask the
weakness of their financial state) and then refusing to impose sufficient
austerity while inside it, the Greeks unwittingly demonstrated what the
Euroskeptics had long warned about. In any ordinary financial arrangement, a
country such as Greece should have been thrown out of the union and allowed to
return to its own currency, devalue, and then climb its way out of recession in
the usual manner. The EU’s refusal to allow Greece to do this was just one
reminder that the euro project — like everything else the EU does — was never
about economics so much as it was about politics. The economics could not be
allowed to fail, because the political project could not be allowed to fail. A
Greek exit from the euro zone risked pushing other countries to exit. So
despite its failure, the euro zone stays together even now, with the effects
felt even outside it. The EU today, as IMF figures show, remains the only
region of the world to be consistently experiencing zero economic growth.
***
But it was the security disaster added to this economic
disaster that helped bring the Euroskeptic case back. The questions of
sovereignty and accountability seemed arcane for a time. But the EU’s
disastrous handling of what is now known as the great migration crisis brought
such matters to the political fore. Last year the European Commission and
German chancellor Angela Merkel effectively opened the doors of Europe to the
entire Third World. A migrant flow had persisted across the Mediterranean for
years, but it now became a flood. By the German government’s own private
figures, in 2015 alone around 1.5 million migrants, in addition to those
visiting workers who had already been expected, entered Germany. That is around
2 percent of the German population. Similar numbers entered Sweden and other
countries. Experts expect a similar flow this year, and the summer rush has already
begun. In anticipation, Merkel arranged billions of dollars in bribes from the
EU to the Turkish government to stem the flow through Turkish territory. Along
with the European Commission, she also agreed that, to keep out several million
refugees this year, the EU would award visa-free travel inside the EU to
Turkish citizens, who number 75 million.
Meanwhile, the Schengen arrangement — a central pillar of
EU progress, which allows citizens of EU countries to enjoy borderless travel
in Europe — began to break down. After hundreds of thousands of undocumented
people walked across the territory of Hungary and other countries, and even
more so after the terrorist attacks in Paris and Belgium this past year,
Europe’s borders have begun to go back up. Now even Frans Timmermans, vice
president of the European Commission, admits what everybody with eyes could
tell: that most of the people — his figure is 60 percent — who arrived last
year came from countries where there is no conflict. They are not refugees but
economic migrants with no right to claim asylum. They have no more reason to be
in Europe than does any other non-European in the world. What is one to do with
an entity able to make such historic missteps and so unable to correct them?
The EU might have dodged the logical conclusion of one of
these mighty blows, but not both. For these are not quibbles over EU
overregulation of the size of cucumbers or the shape of bananas. They are blows
to the foundation, vision, and purpose of the EU itself. The principle of “ever
closer union” was enshrined in every major treaty of the EU and its predecessor
organization, from the Treaty of Rome (1957) onward. It was meant to lead to
the breaking down of borders, the pooling of sovereignty, and the harmonization
of economic activity across the Continent. The plan was the nearest thing that
post–World War II Europe had to a religion.
It is worth recalling how explicit these Europhiles used
to be. At Louvain, Belgium, in 1996, German chancellor Helmut Kohl said, “The nation-state
cannot solve the great problems of the 21st century.” European integration was,
he said, “a question of war and peace in the 21st century.” In the 1990s, when
the great push to turn a trading bloc into a single political union began, this
was a common enough sentiment. Around the same time, the leader of the German
Greens claimed that after Auschwitz it was no longer possible to be “against”
the EU, and a member of the Bundesbank directorate, Helmut Hesse, declared that
monetary union was “the last step in a process of integration that began only a
few years after the Second World War in order to bring Europe peace and
prosperity.” When the British Euroskeptics opposed ever closer union, they were
told that they were “little Englanders,” opposed in fact not only to the
Continent but to the inevitable course of history and to peace itself.
Even ten years ago this argument was still being made by
EU elites. When the Dutch went to the polls in 2005 to vote on the latest EU
constitution, the European Commission ran ads featuring footage from the
Holocaust and urging the Dutch to approve the document. The insinuation was
that the sole alternative to ever closer union was a return to Auschwitz. EU
elites professed to be liberals in favor of further integration, out of
optimism for the Continent. In fact, whenever they seemed under pressure, they
showed fear of the people. So it was hardly surprising when they increasingly
took steps to bypass the people altogether. In 2005 the Dutch and French
populaces rejected the new constitution. The EU authorities forced the publics
to vote again, until they came up with the “correct” answer, and then stopped
having referendums.
It is worth remembering this not-so-distant history in
order to understand why feelings about Europe go so deep in British politics,
especially on the right. For decades, the conservative Euroskeptics warned
everybody who would listen that there were consequences to dissolving your own
national bonds and giving up sovereignty to an unelected foreign bureaucracy.
Only among politicians did this become an unusual position, furthering a
growing disconnect between electorate and elected.
***
Over recent years, Conservative MPs got around this by
flagrantly pandering to their Euroskeptic voters. They would pretend to be mad
as hell about Brussels even when they were, like current prime minister David
Cameron, increasingly relaxed about it. And this is just one of the reasons
that, whatever happens in the referendum, the Conservative party is going to badly
need stitching back up afterward. It will be hard for many voters to forgive a
prime minister who spent his life posing as a Euroskeptic only for the
referendum to have turned him into one of the EU’s greatest advocates. The same
will go for many of his ministers. In six years in office, Home Secretary
Theresa May has failed to meet every immigration target — a reduction of annual
net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands — she has
announced. Each time she blamed that failure on constraints imposed by the EU.
Now she is campaigning for Britain to stay in that same EU, in order to meet
immigration targets. The level of careerist-driven dishonesty is enough to make
you give up on politicians entirely. That people have partly done so will be a
strong reason for the outcome of the election if the vote is for Britain to
leave.
Although the bureaucrats of Brussels like to summon the
specter of the conservative Euroskeptic to explain every strange behavior of
the British, when it comes to this referendum they do for once have a point,
because the fact that the vote is happening at all is one of the few victories
the Euroskeptic movement can claim for itself. Conservative-party dynamics have
played a large part in the process the country is now voting on.
At the last election, Cameron promised a referendum on EU
membership for the sole reason that he was trying to regain votes from the
United Kingdom Independence party (UKIP) and win a majority for the
Conservatives. Suspecting that he would not get a majority but would most
likely have to form another coalition, he must have expected that he would
never have to keep his promise. When he did get a slim majority in May of last
year, it became clear that he would have to deliver. In preparation, he went
through the charade of making “demands” of Brussels, returning with what even
his political allies recognized as crumbs, though they were presented as major
changes. He then asked the British people to vote on approving those changes or
getting out altogether. By rushing the vote as he did, the prime minister hoped
to beat a likely repetition of the alarming scenes of last summer’s migrant
rush, and by making it a stark, in-or-out question, he hoped to rely on the
innate conservatism of the British voter to reject such a profound change.
Unfortunately for the prime minister’s plan, he promptly
lost some of his closest colleagues to the Leave side. Former London mayor
Boris Johnson gave the Leave campaign popular heft, while Justice Minister
Michael Gove gave it serious intellectual weight. Priti Patel, Iain Duncan
Smith, and many others made the Leave camp look mainstream and respectable, as
did the respected Labour MPs Frank Field and Gisela Stuart. Perhaps it was
because his opponents looked so strikingly reasonable that Cameron’s immediate
strategy was to forget every shade of EU gray he had previously recognized and
paint the alternative to his own deal in blackest black.
In the campaign to date, the prime minister has informed
the British public that the vote he has offered, should it go the “wrong” way,
will lead to global recession, a simultaneous rise in mortgage payments and
slump in housing prices, the invasion of Europe by Vladimir Putin, the end of
peace on the Continent, and the arrival of at least three out of the four
horsemen of the Apocalypse. Of course, if these really were the consequences of
a “wrong” vote, then it was jolly silly of Mr. Cameron to risk a vote in the
first place.
***
Every day Downing Street releases another joint letter
signed by select industry heads, former intelligence and military chiefs, and
foreign dignitaries to try to persuade the British public that doom awaits it
outside the EU. President Barack Obama came to declare that, notwithstanding
its shared history with America, Britain had no more claim on U.S. affections
when it came to trade deals than did Papua New Guinea. Canadian prime minister
Justin Trudeau swung by to say that trade with his country also could not be
taken for granted. To the consternation of Downing Street, this strategy, which
media have dubbed “Project Fear,” appears not to be shifting the British
people. Nor are the endless bribe campaigns whereby Brussels tries to stop
Britons from getting back their sovereignty, promising, among other things,
lower mobile-phone tariffs and cheaper holiday flights should they stay in.
That isn’t to say that the Remain side has no arguments.
Its strongest argument is that the aftermath of a Leave vote would be
uncertain. Remain proponents are right about that, and the extent to which they
can terrify the public with that uncertainty will decide whether they will
prevail on June 23. The nearly 300 actors and others who in mid May published a
letter urging a Remain vote said that “leaving Europe would be a leap into the unknown
for millions of people across the UK who work in the creative industries.” It
is true that for any two members of the Leave side whom you ask to detail which
“option” (Switzerland and Norway, for example, are not EU members but
participate in different functions of the European Union) they would prefer
once Britain leaves the EU, you will get two different answers. But neither is
the “stability” argument on the Remain side in such a good state as its
exponents seem to think.
Because if you believe that the EU has indeed brought
peace and security to a continent, you should find it strange that the
Continent is in such a mess. From north to south, west to east, every country
in Europe is now experiencing an upsurge of populist revolt. From Marine Le Pen’s
Front National to the Sweden Democrats and Austria’s Freedom party, all are
objecting to the lack of democratic accountability in the EU, the dissolution
of European culture by mass migration, and the destruction of national identity
by an entity that believes national identity is the problem. If getting out of
the EU is a “leap in the dark,” as the prime minister likes to say, why is that
worse than locking yourself into a room that is clearly getting darker, with
phantoms whose outlines are already clear? To be fair to it, the EU was always
remarkably forthright about what it wanted to be when it grew up, and many
British people regard the EU as, at best, an answer to a problem that is not
theirs.
Of course, for years Americans of right and left have urged
Britain to stay in whether they like it or not, in the belief that Britain can
have a free-market, Atlanticist influence on what might otherwise be a
socialist juggernaut. All one can say is that anybody who thinks Britain can
perform that task has never studied the workings of the European Commission. No
country has been voted against more. No country has been listened to less. The
promise that it will be different tomorrow will not do. There are those who
say, “But that is because you never really wanted it.” And it is true that
Britain has always been suspicious of what its Continental friends were
actually up to with this project. Which is one of the best reasons for Britain
to let them get on with it but to remove itself from the path of their “progress.”
If on June 23 Britons vote to stay, they will lose the
only leverage with Brussels they ever had — the possibility that they might
walk at any moment. That will mean inexorably closer union for Britain, too. A
mandate for Brussels from the British people will mean that from now on Britain
will just have to suck up its European Commission refugee quotas (they vary
among EU member states and in any case are inadequate to the numbers arriving)
and pay its financial dues like everyone else — and accept that from now on
British influence in the world is primarily exercised not through the
historical, political, and military might of the fifth-largest economy in the
world but through an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy, in Brussels, that
is failing before everyone’s eyes.
For years, the leadership in Brussels and Berlin summoned
the presence of the conservative Euroskeptic as a definition of the Continent’s
problem, something that held everyone else back from the sunlit uplands. As
Britons look across the Continent today, with those uplands looking ever
dimmer, not the least of the year’s amusements is that the people who were most
reviled and ridiculed for the span of a political lifetime turned out to be the
only people in Europe to have been right.
No comments:
Post a Comment