Britain’s reluctance to accept supra-national authority and its insistence on maintaining its own unique adversarial (rather than consensual) political culture is not admired in Europe. Its pride in the longevity of its particular democratic institutions is regarded as arrogant and reactionary. It has always been the bloody-minded, uncongenial member of the family. The unmentionable subtext is that so many of our EU partners have democratic histories which are, to put it bluntly, patchy...
Eurocrats are ashamed of their history – so they cannot forgive Britain for being proud of its own
Janet Daley
1 April 2017
The Telegraph
254 Comments
Thousands of American soldiers march along the Champs Elysees, on Aug. 29, 1944, four days after the liberation of Paris Credit: Peter J Carroll/AP Photo
Even adamant Leavers must have been affected by Donald Tusk’s obviously genuine emotion when he accepted that letter announcing in final but emollient terms that we were off. “We miss you already,” he said. It was a great line – and all the more moving because it seemed unrehearsed.
The thought may have struck you that had there been more talk like that, all this might have ended differently. Just imagine if during the referendum debate there had been an unstinting flow of admiration and affection from Brussels and Strasbourg. What if, instead of a barrage of bloodcurdling threats and obnoxious bravado (those strangely contradictory warnings that we would be punished for this even though by leaving we would only be damaging ourselves), there had been a chorus of regard and regret?
Could none of those belligerent official spokesmen have managed a speech that would have been easy enough to write? “The British have the longest tradition of unbroken democracy in Europe. We have the greatest respect for the integrity of your institutions and your historic understanding of the relationship between government and people. Your experience and your knowledge are vital to us in the great task of evolving a successful confederation of modern countries.” Etc, etc.
Just think: what if they had all been reiterating that theme, instead of veering between vindictiveness and insulting our electorate’s intelligence? Might that, even if you had been pretty squarely in the Leave camp, have given you pause?
Not that such words, had they been uttered, would have affected any of the real contingencies of our membership. They could have been seen as cynical tosh designed to suit a short-term diplomatic purpose. But the point is that nobody – or hardly anybody – ever thought of offering them. This was not a coincidence.
Britain’s reluctance to accept supra-national authority and its insistence on maintaining its own unique adversarial (rather than consensual) political culture is not admired in Europe. Its pride in the longevity of its particular democratic institutions is regarded as arrogant and reactionary. It has always been the bloody-minded, uncongenial member of the family. The unmentionable subtext is that so many of our EU partners have democratic histories which are, to put it bluntly, patchy. Which brings us back to Mr Tusk who, being Polish, might well feel a rather special bond with Britain.
There has been a good deal of attention paid to his personal memory of growing up under Soviet domination and his particular reverence for the EU, which is often credited with guaranteeing security and freedom to Eastern Europe after the Cold War. This is not true, of course. It was the collapse of Soviet communism that accomplished that. The EU with its unlimited right to travel in Western Europe may seem like heaven on earth to Eastern Europeans, but it was not responsible for liberating them. Nor would it, on past form, be much use if they were (as indeed they are) under imminent threat from a newly resurgent Russia.
But Poland has other reasons to hold the British in special regard: this country did, after all, declare war in response to its invasion – by Germany. Now I do realise that it is tactless to bring this up. Germany is now one of the least bellicose countries in the world and its determination to avoid anything resembling domination of its neighbours, while not always one hundred per cent successful, is genuine and admirable.
But that very determination – that diffidence about its own dominant position – is a product of its history. Germany knows that its own competence and national character raise suspicions and resentments that hark back to its 20th-century experience. (It was striking how quickly such resentment sprang to life in Greece when the austerity policies dictated by Germany were imposed.) So Germany has atoned and rebuilt its institutions in ways that are designed to guard against any relapse, even if the realities of the eurozone present a constant danger.
If Britain is self-regarding, or “arrogant” as Brussels would have it, that is because its 20th-century experience was the opposite. It is not triumphalist or jingoistic to point this out. It is a necessary condition for understanding why the British are justifiably proud of their national sovereignty and have good reason to fight for its preservation – in a way that many other European populations do not. The history of a people is central to its idea of itself.
Thousands line The Mall in central London to watch the 2012 Diamond Jubilee Concert
The bullying and the threats – when flattery and appreciation might have been more helpful – were not simply a mistake of judgment. This was no accidental lapse of tactical wisdom. The EU commissioners who competed to give the most uncompromising, intimidating ultimatums – just like the absurd Project Fear concocted in the same spirit by British politicians – were of the essence. The European project is about obliterating the shameful past – which is what they mean by “preserving the peace”. This requires compulsion and conformity to rules devised by an establishment that is out of the reach of the people, who have an alarming tendency to go off the rails. Whereas the British stayed firmly on the rails during the last century, a fact for which they are unlikely to be forgiven.
The fond bereavement which was embodied in that Tusk moment survived for about five minutes. Then it was back to business as usual with predictable relentlessness: threats, ultimatums, a refusal to consider the British request for “parallel” negotiations over post-Brexit trade until certain levels of progress (to be determined by them) had been made on withdrawal, the latest round of nonsense over Gibraltar and even a warning not to cut taxes and regulations after we leave.
Confusingly but unsurprisingly, there are contradictions in the messages: on the one hand, we are threatening the stability of the entire global economy, but on the other British withdrawal, according to Giscard d’Estaing, was “not a worry” for the eurozone since the UK would be the “main losers”.
In the frenzy of accusation that followed, there was a particularly arresting comment from the European Parliament’s chief negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, warning the UK not to “go behind our backs” and try to deal with member states individually. This is tantamount to saying that the elected national governments are – and should be – powerless to make deals of their own, even if they believe that such arrangements would benefit their own electorates. Does the idea of democratic accountability come in to this at all? If an elected government has no power to deliver what would be advantageous to its own people, what is the point of it?
I can’t recall a more explicit statement of the principle that the EU has eliminated the function of national governments and undermined their relationship with their own populations. Mr Verhofstadt compounded this by denying that the warning was any sort of “revenge” or “punishment” for the UK. It was, he said, just “the logic of the European Union”. You can say that again.
The premise with which this column began was a ruse. The EU officials and all those assorted blowhards in the more excitable European capitals who are busy hurling threats could not really have behaved otherwise. It was not within their remit to offer a gracious plea to the UK to remain within what they call their “club” but which is actually more like a coercive cult. The EU has demonstrated once again in the past week that it is inherently authoritarian, rigidly conformist and deliberately undemocratic. It is, in other words, the opposite of Britain. There can be little doubt now that we are better off out.
Eurocrats are ashamed of their history
Eurocrats are ashamed of their history – so they cannot forgive Britain for being proud of its own
Janet Daley
1 April 2017
The Telegraph
254 Comments
Thousands of American soldiers march along the Champs Elysees, on Aug. 29, 1944, four days after the liberation of Paris Credit: Peter J Carroll/AP Photo
Even adamant Leavers must have been affected by Donald Tusk’s obviously genuine emotion when he accepted that letter announcing in final but emollient terms that we were off. “We miss you already,” he said. It was a great line – and all the more moving because it seemed unrehearsed.
The thought may have struck you that had there been more talk like that, all this might have ended differently. Just imagine if during the referendum debate there had been an unstinting flow of admiration and affection from Brussels and Strasbourg. What if, instead of a barrage of bloodcurdling threats and obnoxious bravado (those strangely contradictory warnings that we would be punished for this even though by leaving we would only be damaging ourselves), there had been a chorus of regard and regret?
Could none of those belligerent official spokesmen have managed a speech that would have been easy enough to write? “The British have the longest tradition of unbroken democracy in Europe. We have the greatest respect for the integrity of your institutions and your historic understanding of the relationship between government and people. Your experience and your knowledge are vital to us in the great task of evolving a successful confederation of modern countries.” Etc, etc.
Just think: what if they had all been reiterating that theme, instead of veering between vindictiveness and insulting our electorate’s intelligence? Might that, even if you had been pretty squarely in the Leave camp, have given you pause?
Not that such words, had they been uttered, would have affected any of the real contingencies of our membership. They could have been seen as cynical tosh designed to suit a short-term diplomatic purpose. But the point is that nobody – or hardly anybody – ever thought of offering them. This was not a coincidence.
Britain’s reluctance to accept supra-national authority and its insistence on maintaining its own unique adversarial (rather than consensual) political culture is not admired in Europe. Its pride in the longevity of its particular democratic institutions is regarded as arrogant and reactionary. It has always been the bloody-minded, uncongenial member of the family. The unmentionable subtext is that so many of our EU partners have democratic histories which are, to put it bluntly, patchy. Which brings us back to Mr Tusk who, being Polish, might well feel a rather special bond with Britain.
There has been a good deal of attention paid to his personal memory of growing up under Soviet domination and his particular reverence for the EU, which is often credited with guaranteeing security and freedom to Eastern Europe after the Cold War. This is not true, of course. It was the collapse of Soviet communism that accomplished that. The EU with its unlimited right to travel in Western Europe may seem like heaven on earth to Eastern Europeans, but it was not responsible for liberating them. Nor would it, on past form, be much use if they were (as indeed they are) under imminent threat from a newly resurgent Russia.
But Poland has other reasons to hold the British in special regard: this country did, after all, declare war in response to its invasion – by Germany. Now I do realise that it is tactless to bring this up. Germany is now one of the least bellicose countries in the world and its determination to avoid anything resembling domination of its neighbours, while not always one hundred per cent successful, is genuine and admirable.
But that very determination – that diffidence about its own dominant position – is a product of its history. Germany knows that its own competence and national character raise suspicions and resentments that hark back to its 20th-century experience. (It was striking how quickly such resentment sprang to life in Greece when the austerity policies dictated by Germany were imposed.) So Germany has atoned and rebuilt its institutions in ways that are designed to guard against any relapse, even if the realities of the eurozone present a constant danger.
If Britain is self-regarding, or “arrogant” as Brussels would have it, that is because its 20th-century experience was the opposite. It is not triumphalist or jingoistic to point this out. It is a necessary condition for understanding why the British are justifiably proud of their national sovereignty and have good reason to fight for its preservation – in a way that many other European populations do not. The history of a people is central to its idea of itself.
Thousands line The Mall in central London to watch the 2012 Diamond Jubilee Concert
The bullying and the threats – when flattery and appreciation might have been more helpful – were not simply a mistake of judgment. This was no accidental lapse of tactical wisdom. The EU commissioners who competed to give the most uncompromising, intimidating ultimatums – just like the absurd Project Fear concocted in the same spirit by British politicians – were of the essence. The European project is about obliterating the shameful past – which is what they mean by “preserving the peace”. This requires compulsion and conformity to rules devised by an establishment that is out of the reach of the people, who have an alarming tendency to go off the rails. Whereas the British stayed firmly on the rails during the last century, a fact for which they are unlikely to be forgiven.
The fond bereavement which was embodied in that Tusk moment survived for about five minutes. Then it was back to business as usual with predictable relentlessness: threats, ultimatums, a refusal to consider the British request for “parallel” negotiations over post-Brexit trade until certain levels of progress (to be determined by them) had been made on withdrawal, the latest round of nonsense over Gibraltar and even a warning not to cut taxes and regulations after we leave.
Confusingly but unsurprisingly, there are contradictions in the messages: on the one hand, we are threatening the stability of the entire global economy, but on the other British withdrawal, according to Giscard d’Estaing, was “not a worry” for the eurozone since the UK would be the “main losers”.
In the frenzy of accusation that followed, there was a particularly arresting comment from the European Parliament’s chief negotiator, Guy Verhofstadt, warning the UK not to “go behind our backs” and try to deal with member states individually. This is tantamount to saying that the elected national governments are – and should be – powerless to make deals of their own, even if they believe that such arrangements would benefit their own electorates. Does the idea of democratic accountability come in to this at all? If an elected government has no power to deliver what would be advantageous to its own people, what is the point of it?
I can’t recall a more explicit statement of the principle that the EU has eliminated the function of national governments and undermined their relationship with their own populations. Mr Verhofstadt compounded this by denying that the warning was any sort of “revenge” or “punishment” for the UK. It was, he said, just “the logic of the European Union”. You can say that again.
The premise with which this column began was a ruse. The EU officials and all those assorted blowhards in the more excitable European capitals who are busy hurling threats could not really have behaved otherwise. It was not within their remit to offer a gracious plea to the UK to remain within what they call their “club” but which is actually more like a coercive cult. The EU has demonstrated once again in the past week that it is inherently authoritarian, rigidly conformist and deliberately undemocratic. It is, in other words, the opposite of Britain. There can be little doubt now that we are better off out.
Eurocrats are ashamed of their history
Last edited:
