As a 21-year-old student, I stood in the Great Hall, Bruges, in September of 1988. I was at university there. Along with 10 other Irish students, I was a postgraduate at the College of Europe. The College of Europe is the West Point or Sandhurst of the EU. It is charged with training the next generation of European officials and, indeed, most of the friends I made there have become senior apparatchiks in the European bureaucracy.
Back then, Margaret Thatcher represented everything that was wrong with politics for us. Her policies had framed our political consciousness, not only in Ireland, but in England too. We had all worked during our summers in London. England was our closest neighbour. It was the source of our music, our culture and our worldview. We listened to the anti-Thatcher lyrics of The Specials, Elvis Costello and The Smiths. She was the enemy and her thinly disguised anti-Irish rhetoric infuriated us. Quite apart from popular culture, we had our views on the miners’ strikes, the City, the North and the “loads of money” culture in the south of England.
Mrs Thatcher was also anti-European and this, to us, the foot soldiers of the European movement, was also unforgivable.
Little did I know that the speech I was about to hear would constitute the opening salvoes of a battle that would culminate with the UK’s vote on the EU next year, known as Brexit.
It is interesting today to go over that speech to see the points Mrs Thatcher raised, how prescient she was and how in touch she was with the feelings of the average English person.
The first thing she did was outline a vision that could have been described as British ‘Gaullism’ in the face of those who want ultimately to see a united states of Europe.
Mrs T followed Charles de Gaulle by asserting that the best way to build the European Community was “willing and active co-operation between independent sovereign states”. She dismissed the idea that the United States might be a model for the future of Europe. At the time, lots of Eurocrats were talking about the “embryo” of a European government emerging through the single currency. Indeed, this all came to pass with the loss of sovereignty of a number of EU countries and the pooling of sovereignty of so many.
She warned against a EU superstate by saying famously: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at a European level, with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.”
At that speech in 1988 she also said that there could be no question of totally abolishing frontier controls because states had “to protect our citizens and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists, of illegal immigrants”.
Now, it is easy to pick selectively from a speech and conclude that it was prescient in the extreme. However, the Bruges speech more or less outlined the position of the Cameron government more than 25 years later.
In short, Mrs Thatcher’s concerns were bang on the money as far as Britain is concerned.
The question we need to apply ourselves to in 2016 is whether Britain will leave the EU, and will it matter?
Well, of course it will matter, but maybe it will matter more to the EU than to the UK. The EU without the Brits will lose a certain appreciation of sovereignty and of the domestic parliament and will become much more regulated and much less tolerant of countries with low tax rates!
I’m in London as I write this, and it seems to me the idea that the UK will suffer isn’t shared by many. Most British people are not too worried about it. While people are afraid of change – and this is a change – for most Brits, it’s not really a big deal.
They know that they will still be able to trade, travel, watch the Champions League, sign continental players and enjoy all the “normal” benefits of being part of Europe, but they don’t have to be lectured by the insufferable French, don’t have to take in migrants they don’t want and don’t have to feel that their sovereignty is being constantly eroded.
The truth is the Brits – along with the Swedes and Danes – have been semi-detached Europeans since they refused to join the euro. All new EU members are obliged to join the euro at some stage, and therefore none of the three countries mentioned above have truly signed up to “more Europe”, which demands having the euro as currency as being one of the basic rules of the club. The Scandinavians have been more diplomatic in their opposition to a German/French dominated Europe than the Brits, but the only Scandinavian country in the euro, Finland, is in the third year of recession. This is enough to validate the decision to stay out for Denmark and Sweden.
Yesterday morning, I had discussions with British investors on Brexit and all seemed to be reasonably sanguine on the path to exit. They still believed that the vote would be close but they suggested four key reasons why this vote would be much closer than the last vote on Europe in 1975.
First, as Mrs Thatcher warned, the political integration of Europe has gone further than many voters would like. Second, the introduction of free movement of labour has led to increased concerns over immigration, which are being exacerbated by the ongoing refugee crisis. Third, the press is significantly more Eurosceptic than it was in 1975. Fourth, the UK economy is not in the parlous state it was relative to Europe in 1975 – so they feel they don’t need Europe so much.
It’s 50/50 now, but the more the establishment comes out in favour of Europe, the more a cussedness on the part of the average guy will emerge. Referendums, as we know in Ireland, are strange things and the mainstream political players can lose control of the message and the electorate very quickly. Mrs Thatcher understood this.
There is no reason to believe the UK can’t prosper outside the EU. The economy is big enough, globalised enough and flexible enough. And what happens to us when the UK cuts its corporate tax to 12.5pc? Official Ireland’s default position on all this is that the UK economy will suffer; I am not too sure. And if it prospers outside, ploughing its own Atlantic, English-speaking furrow, what does that mean for us?
Answers on a John Hinde postcard please!
Subscribe…
A UK departure from the EU would be a wake up call for our own Europhiles. The cap-doffing toads we send to Brussels would very quickly find that being the only English speaking contingent in the corridors of Europe would soon lead to Paddy becoming even more of a whipping boy for Angela without Auntie Britain to back him up…
Hi,
You say the UK economy is not in a parlous state but I thought the UK was in more debt than ever?
Meanwhile gold continues to sink like a stone. 2 plus 2 equals 5, black is in fact white…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJthB9mKwcI
“Mrs Thatcher was also anti-European and this, to us, the foot soldiers of the European movement, was also unforgivable”
Maggie was never anti-European, she believed in a single European market, but did not want the Federal or Monetary union that was on the agenda. She saw it for what it has become, an undemocratic, bureaucratic ‘gravy train’, with little or no net gain for the UK.
She was also not anti-Irish, just anti-IRA … people seem to forget that it was her signature that initiated the Anglo-Irish agreement.
In retrospect we were brainwashed by a certain mindset to refuse to learn from Thatcher, where we needed to learn. And that was in respect of making the overall economy efficient. Ireland in 1979 was also ruled over by trade union politicians. And like Britain it was in a resulting state of lethargy. Unlike in Germany, the unions in Ireland had a childish irresponsible attitude. Though it was not as absurd as that which prevailed in Britain at the time. Thatcher’s key message to Britain at the time was “grow up and become responsible”. In many respects we waited until… Read more »
[…] Read more from David McWilliams on “How the Iron Lady drew up the original blueprint for a Brexit” […]
The entire European centralization project is being exposed by incomptetence. The Soviet Bloc showed us that it is not possible to have one Politburo/Commisariat in charge of hundreds of millions. The current replacement effort, is telling us the same thing. What will really get messy, is when Northern European countries like Sweden start having banking/real estate crisis. Since 2007, we have listened to repeated propaganda about there being a problem with people in the Latin countries. The problem was not the European centralist project, and it’s institutions. No. The problem was that the people were inadequate. It reminds me of… Read more »
Very good piece of writing, David.
Would you, or anyone else on here, like to offer a prediction on the result of the Brexit vote next year?
So will it be in or out In or Out?
( Straw poll? with no explanation necessary! )
Britain is strong enough, and intellectually sovereign enough to think for Britain. Ireland’s leadership is waiting for instructions from an increasingly incmpetent, clueless, meandering, undiplomatic, all-over-the-road ruler in Berlin. Here is an interesting question – when Gerhard Schroeder was BundesKanzler, was he telling even one other ruler in the EU how to run their affairs ? The problem is not the Germans. The problem is that one person has decided to go on an mission, to the great consternation of everybody (Germans included). Germany does not want to rule Europe. Even the Russians do not want to do it. A… Read more »
[…] Read more from David McWilliams on “How the Iron Lady drew up the original blueprint for a Brexit” […]
“Back then, Margaret Thatcher represented everything that was wrong with politics for us.” It was opposite with us kids – Thatcher for us represented everything that was right with politics (anti-communism, economic and political; she was also one of the few leaders to come to Poland and express clear support for the suppressed opposition, spending lots of time with them despite gen. Jaruzelski’s discontent – while at the same time today’s current and former luminaries of the Irish Labour were licking the arses of people in the Soviet Embassy in Dublin, some of them taking money – do you read… Read more »
Chicken & Egg
Before we decide to talk about the original blueprint for exit we first need to know how the original meeting commenced begun to create the EU and who was the innovator .
St Columbanus was the original initiator and Luxeuil is the original location in recent times immediately after the war and everything else only followed after that .
Those who whinge about the prospect of Brexit are suffering from the Pollyanna syndrome and really need to realise that the over-bearing shadow that the UK casts on Ireland economically and culturally is not in our interest. I don’t blame the UK for this but rather the insecure cohort of commentators here in Ireland that think, Chicken-Licken like, that the sky is falling. Ireland should focus on the real opportunity this will bring and prepare to deal with any of the inevitable, but manageable, downsides. Our trade with the UK is heavily skewed towards imports i.e. 60% of our trade… Read more »
Eton -v- ENA
This is the appropriate context of ‘Brexit or Remaining inside ‘ if you use old school ties and clubs as a metaphor . Recently the Seigneur in Ireland under the local tutelage of the Central Bank namely Cyril Rouge from the ENA ( Enarchy) ie Ecoil Nationale Adminsistrif announced that more national budget supervision will now be completed in Brussels and not Dublin .
Step two now in transit of our fiscal controls delegated to Europe having already last our bank regulations to the ECB .
I am with Maggie Thatcher with the concept of sovereign states doing business with each other.
I never agreed with Britain joining the common market.
Centralised authority and control is always a disaster in the long term.
Ireland should dump the Euro and take control of their own destiny
[…] Read more from David McWilliams on “How the Iron Lady drew up the original blueprint for a Brexit” […]
This is very entertaining. Denis Thatcher interviewed by his daughter Carol (whom I remember on LBC Radio).
The last story is particularly good (16mins), but it’s all good and throws a new light on the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfWc-HVSpM0
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.”
I linked this before but it is excellent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY_BgnZdwko It was odd how Labour switched to being pro-Europe at the same time as the Conservatives (or rather Thatcher’s wing) went the other way. I agree with Grzegorz that the result will be to stay in. I agree with Hitchens that Cameron and his colleagues are only play acting in their opposition to Europe (winning trivial ‘concessions’ from Europe) and that the referendum promise was made in the reasonable expectation that the Conservatives wouldn’t be elected with an overall majority and so wouldn’t have to keep their promise. The political establishment… Read more »
Thatcher may have opposed Europe after the Bruges speech (Christopher Booker by the way is prominent in the Bruges Group) but she was very much in favour of Europe earlier. Perhaps she realized what was happening, albeit much too late (and this was the reason she was ejected from the Tory leadership). Figures such as Heath were also very enthusiastic about Europe, but it is often forgotten that he and his ilk (unlike the would-be Churchills of this our finest hour) had actually fought a war. David is right that she was in touch with the ordinary English but we… Read more »
Pat I don’t know why you are telling me this. Of course every country *should* seek its own interests. Problems arise when their elites (ie govt, media, academia etc) don’t, as was recognized by Crotty when he campaigned against Irish membership of the EU. I think it is reasonable to expect that patriots in any country would have goodwill towards their like in others. The EU won’t be ‘successful as a super-state’ as ‘a union of individual, proud, willing, patriotic nations’. It is hostile to the idea of independent ‘nations’ and encourages the fragmentation of Europe into regions and mini-nations,… Read more »
The Irish Banking ‘Inquiry’ haha – what a joke.
Why do it the right way, when you can do it the Irish way? – arseways.
Thick as pig shit, ignorant peasants.
Looking forward to your article on this debacle David.
[…] Read more from David McWilliams on “How the Iron Lady drew up the original blueprint for a Brexit” […]
[…] Read more from David McWilliams on “How the Iron Lady drew up the original blueprint for a Brexit” […]
As a first step in Ireland’s preparations for a Brexit, Enda should pick up the phone and ask David if he wouldn’t mind extending an invitation to the next meeting of Common wealth leaders as we are a republic in name only.
Somewhere along the way “for the people and of the people” got lost.
Thank you very much for sharing. Your article was very helpful for me to build a paper on gate.io. After reading your article, I think the idea is very good and the creative techniques are also very innovative. However, I have some different opinions, and I will continue to follow your reply.
Your point of view caught my eye and was very interesting. Thanks. I have a question for you. https://www.binance.info/en/join?ref=W0BCQMF1
Can you be more specific about the content of your article? After reading it, I still have some doubts. Hope you can help me. https://www.binance.com/sv/register?ref=PORL8W0Z