Article in the Mail on Sunday, 26th November 2000 by Stewart Steven.
Click on the red text for amplification.
Sometimes I wonder whether the time has come to pull out of the European Union, there will be, as I know from the many who write to me, a sense of celebration at the very thought. For myself I regard such a prospect with the deepest gloom.
It would be a political and diplomatic defeat so
disastrous
that we would immediately plunge down into the third division of world
powers.
We would survive as a trading nation, of course, but only if we embraced a coolie economy, condemning our fellow citizens to a sweatshop
existence.
I think we'd find it hard to sustain our position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security
Council,
the Group of Seven would bounce us into touch pretty
smartish
and, in my judgment,
the United States of America would waste no time in transferring what residual affection it still feels for us to Berlin, Paris and
Brussels.
So, why do I say it may be in our interests to leave? Because the debate on our future relations with the European Union has so soured the politics of this nation that it is actually affecting the kind of people we are. We, once the most outward-looking, and spirited of people, are becoming, and I hate to say this, among the most xenophobic and timid. It grieves me to see that happen and if Europe has done this to us, why bother with Europe? Is genteel poverty not better than living in the political cesspit which we have dug ourselves, and in which we have taken to conducting our
deliberations?
It is now customary in even the most august of publications to dismiss any pro-European sentiment as anti- British. Even the slightest bow to European opinion is a sell-out: it is a sign of weakness to agree to any proposition by a European politician. Ministers who go along with Europe on any issue have failed to 'stand up for Britain' or they have surrendered. Pro-Europeans like Tony Blair are "out to destroy our national identity". Those who agree with him are 'quislings'. Anyone who dares write in favour of the European Union is a 'lackey of Brussels'. Senior politicians are no longer permitted to have an honest point of view. Nothing is taken at face value. If Peter Mendelson makes a pro-European speech, no one bothers with the argument All that apparently matters is whether it is a coded attack on Gordon Brown. Ken Clarke has virtually been silenced because every time he opens his mouth on Europe, he is accused of trying to destabilize William Hague. Lady Thatcher says Tony Blair has, by signing up for the new European Defence Initiative, 'imperiled our national security' and he has done so out of pure vanity. She stopped just short of calling him a traitor. When he replied, as surely he was entitled to, he was accused of lashing out and being intemperate. William Hague claims he is a poodle of Brussels and when Blair responds in kind, he accuses him of having a temper tantrum. I seriously don't know how long we can go like this. I do not for a moment dispute that these issues are all worth debating and indeed ought to be, but how can they be if the language is so over-heated that nobody listens any more?
Whenever anyone opens their (sic) mouth, less light rather than more is shed upon events and it has been going on for too long. 'It becomes hard', a senior Minister in John Major's Cabinet told me years ago,' when you fight for your country and yet your love for your country is constantly questioned.' All right, I'll name my source. It was honest John himself. It is an approach to politics as dangerous to the long-term interests of our country as it is contemptible. We all have our differences and always have had. We have often got very cross with each other. But what marked this country out was that it observed the basic decencies. We may have questioned each other's sanity but we never doubted our opponents' integrity. That made discussion possible. It was that tradition, and mark this well my Europhobic friends, and not the green benches and all that gorgeous flummery that made our Parliament truly the envy of the world. We were a mature country and give or take the odd bit of grandstanding we enjoyed a long period of fiercely fought yet mature political arguments. We have regressed and the European debate (not Europe) has done this to us. That's why I wonder whether the debate is any more worth the candle, however valuable that candle might be. Take the European Defence Initiative, the European Rapid Reaction Force. A lot of old soldiers have been brought out of retirement to say how wicked all this is. I don't take much notice of them. The great American Second World War soldier, General Omar N. Bradley got it right when he said; 'I am convinced that the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his uniform and mothball his opinions.'
There's a lot to be said on both sides of the argument,
but from Day
One
the antis have simply heaped so much vile abuse upon the Government and its supporters that the discussion, which they say they want, is hardly possible. Its not a debate they're after but a firing
squad.
What is the truth? As I see it, we do not have here a new European army or anything like it. Nato will not disappear overnight. The Americans are not going home. Our security has not been imperiled. And the Rapid Reaction Force, currently looking more formidable on paper than it does in real life, will either not get to first base at all or the countries of Europe will learn the bitter lesson that if they want to play with the big boys then they have to start putting big money where their machismo is. Not bad at
all.
For years Americans have been complaining that European taxpayers have been getting their security on the
cheap.
However there's always been a danger that if Europe began pulling its weight, the Americans might feel they could start withdrawing. Serious Americans welcome Europe's initiative but have worries about the future. They're right, and if we were all mature people, which we are not, we'd be talking about those worries
now.
Someone doing just that is David Owen, one of the few honest antis around. He is hostile to the whole thing but, unlike the impression given by others, he knows we are not facing the end of civilisation. Instead he warns that within ten to 15 years the new European force might seriously jeopardise America's involvement in Nato. Maybe he's right but who knows what the next ten or 15 years will mean for any of
us.
Nobody knows how Europe will then be shaped. We don't know what our position will be and we certainly can't sentinel predict the temper of the United States of America. Life changes and so do countries. We must stop assuming that somehow we can stand like sentinels at the gateway of history constantly shouting
'Stop'.
I would'nt be at all surprised to discover that some time in the next 20 years the USA will cease to exist and in its place will arise Los Estados Unidos de las Dos
Americas.
I'm not being altogether serious but we can never assume anything about the future. If America were to change, which it seems to me it inevitably will, where would that put the special relationship? Where would that put Nato? And where would that leave Great Britain? Playing a blinder within the European Union, I hope but I'm no longer betting on
it.
Overall this article gets a bilge rating of 8 out of 10.