I'm going to give a go
at explaining why I'll be voting Leave in the EU referendum. It's a
strange thing – a bit of a coming out, because the vast majority of
my online acquaintances are liberal left-wingers who are
wholeheartedly voting Remain. Indeed, for some time I had assumed I'd
vote Remain. There are any number of comprehensible reasons given for
voting Remain, which I had long accepted – easier trade, being part
of a nascent superpower, sticking one to the extreme xenophobes and
hard Thatcherites who form a large proportion of the Eurosceptic
leadership, and so forth.
But none of that stuck.
None of that has, in the final event, mattered. I'm voting Leave, and
am as confident as I can be that that is the right and proper move
for the United Kingdom. I'll try to explain how I've come to that
conclusion – for what it's worth to anyone reading this – under
four headings, four “Ideas”: the Idea of Decision, the Idea of
Europe, the Idea of a Nation, and the Idea of Britain.
The Idea of Decision
The
first thing for me to note is that this is an enormous, generational
question. People have to make their own minds up. If you can't make
your own mind up, don't vote. That implies other things, too; not
making up your mind based on unproven fears, based on authorities
telling you to vote in a particular way, or whatever else. The fact
the Government officially favours Remain, or the fact the Queen
privately favours Leave, are not finally relevant. Each person must
consider the various arguments on their own merits and come to a
conclusion that rests easy with their conscience. The first thing I
want you to draw from the Idea of Decision is this: don't listen to
me. Listen to my arguments, and the arguments of every side, and
judge for yourselves.
The
second thing to draw from the Idea of Decision relates to the idea of
democracy. Our nation has a representative democracy utilising a
First Past The Post system. This allows us, every five years, to kick
out the current fools entirely – look at the devastation of the
Liberal Democrats in 2015 for the proof of that. Our national
policies are determined by our Parliament. We vote on the net effect
of those policies and on the proposed new policies every five years.
This is the current form of a system that has largely functioned and
succeeded since 1341 – not far off 700 years.
Referenda
are not part of this system. Referenda are not, of course, a form of
real direct democracy; we do not participate as legislators, but
rather vote on carefully worded questions. These carefully worded
questions are only presented to us when our elected Parliament has no
political will to pursue a specific course. Despite around half of
the country wanting to leave the European Union, the three
traditional largest parties and two of the three most significant
“minor parties” support staying in the European Union. This
should be the clearest proof necessary that this referendum is an
abnegation of responsibility; rather than any major party seeking to
represent 50% of the nation in Parliament, they have shifted the load
directly to us. Some may be excited by that and think it excellent –
they may want more plebiscites. I don't. Referenda do not permit
serious and careful consideration; they are, even more than General
Elections, exercises in propaganda and whipping up emotion. You need
only look at the hysterically deceitful propaganda sent out (at the
cost of £9m) with the official imprimatur of Her Majesty's
Government.
Referenda
are not only exercises in demagoguery, they are also essentially
fixed; they have correct answers. Look at the Scottish referendum:
though Alex Salmond said that the “No” vote closed the question
for a generation, within months Nicola Sturgeon called for another
referendum. No-one has told her to stuff it, despite the 11-point
loss her cause suffered in 2014. Similarly, Northern Ireland has a
law which means that a single “Leave” result in a referendum –
even by one vote – automatically leads to permanently leaving the
UK. A single “Remain” vote in such a referendum would not mean
the opposite – permanently remaining in the UK. There is one
correct eventual answer for Northern Ireland, according to those that
negotiated the Good Friday Agreement, and it is enshrined in law via
the use of referenda. One more example: when the Republic of Ireland
rejected the Lisbon Treaty (which dealt with further integration into
the EU) in a referendum, they were simply asked again. The right
answer was yes, and like recalcitrant children they were asked the
question again until they gave the right answer.
If
(unlikely as it is) the UK votes to Leave the EU, it will take 10
years to do so; in that time, we will be asked again (and again, if
necessary) over the exact terms of negotiation, until eventually we
vote Yes to a deal essentially equating to Remaining in the EU.
All
that should be enough for all of us, whatever our view on the
question, to be deeply suspicious of the put-on that is this
referendum; however, it should not, I think, stop us voting. This is
a generational question; my own conviction is that it represents the
death knell of a decent and beautiful nation that has been chiefly a
blessing to its inhabitants and the world for the last 1000 years.
Despite my cynicism about the referendum, marking the ballot paper in
a month is a statement of belief and, in part, an act of eulogy. I
cannot in good conscience fail to utilise the only means available to
declare my love for my country and to defend it in its most dire
strait.
What
might that mean for you? Whatever your own decision is, you must be
aware that this referendum is a farce, perpetrated by an insincere
ruling class for whom there is only one possible answer; knowing that, I
believe it is still your civic responsibility to vote in it.
The Idea of Europe
Now
I have addressed the very basis of the discussion – how one should
deal with voting in a referendum – I'll turn to the issue of
Europe. Europe is in large part a wonderful place; I've been blessed
to visit it twice this decade, and were money no object I'd certainly
visit it more. It has a complicated and often sad history, but has
emerged from two World Wars and the Cold War as a largely united
nascent superpower. That is both admirable and worrying.
The
European Union (or rather, the European Communities) was essentially
formed as a means of 1) keeping (West) Germany and France at peace;
and 2) presenting a united front to the Warsaw Pact. The United
Kingdom was not a founding member – indeed, it was not wanted as
one by President de Gaulle, who correctly understood the EU as a
Franco-German union. The European Union was founded, essentially, on
the understanding that Germany was the pre-eminent Continental power
and had been since Prussia's defeat of Austria, Denmark, and France
in the mid 1800s. Even two World Wars and partition did not entirely
change that. Only by sharing economic control over key resources like
coal and steel could peace be retained; France would accept being in
reality the junior partner in the new alliance because it was the
best way to retain some degree of security and prosperity as France
slowly accepted the loss of its superpower status.
This
was and is an admirable basis for a political organisation. However,
the end of the Cold War fundamentally changed the fabric of the
European Union forever. A newly united Germany could not help but
become not just pre-eminent in Europe, but actively the ruling power
of the European Union. A nation so wealthy, industrious, and
innovative is a natural leader. German reunification permitted the
continuation of an old rivalry – the rivalry between Germany and
Russia which led to World War 1 and which was the chief ideological
crusade of World War 2. The two great Continental powers resumed
their struggle for supremacy – and Germany has been winning with
the support of its allies, as former Warsaw Pact nations join the EU
as soon as they can. This was, of course, the reason for the
suspiciously idealistic political intervention in the Ukraine,
leading up to some very dicey brinkmanship – the EU managed to draw
the Ukraine away from its post-Wall neutrality and into the Western
European sphere.
But
this very issue highlights two very different ideas of Europe: one, a
geography, of which Russia is the largest nation; two, a political
union, of which Germany is the leader, and from which Russia is
disbarred. Can you imagine what would happen if Russia wanted to join
the EU? They would be laughed out of the door. Liberals will, I'm
sure, say the real reason Russia would not be allowed to join the EU
is because of how mean Putin is – I point you to Greece as to how
mean Merkel is. The reason Russia cannot join the EU is because the
EU is a Franco-German alliance, and Russia joining the EU would
undermine its current reason for existence – as a German-led
political union.
Now,
we may of course choose to be part of that political union, for any
number of reasons. One of the key reasons offered why we might choose
to part of that union – and I have believed this before – is that
Britain will be more influential as part of a nascent superpower than
on its own as a former superpower. This, of course, shows that those
arguing for Remain do realize in part the real purpose of the EU. It
is the beginning of a federal state which seeks to influence world
events with one will – and it is better to be inside that helping
steer that will. Putting aside how foolish it is to think that
Britain has or can influence European policy, I must draw attention
to the fact that this argument – and any argument relating to power
and importance gained from being in Europe – is an imperialist
argument, and not a noble one. Not only does it prioritise power and
influence over liberty, but it seeks that power and influence not by
main force but via an active surrender of liberty. I can almost
admire someone who (ridiculously) suggests that Britannia still rules
the waves, or ought to try to do so; I find it contemptible that
someone could suggest that we seek power by losing who and what we
are by further integration into Europe. Britain's day in the sun is
done; it is over, and there is no regaining it. We may either sell
what little remains of our heritage and culture to try to buy some
scraps of influence in Europe, or we can accept that we are no longer
a superpower and settle into being ourselves. As I will discuss
later, being British has little or nothing to do with being an Empire
or having power.
And
what, at any rate, would be the cost of this scrap of influence? What
already has been the cost of the benefits we accrue by membership in
the European Union? Let me give one example: the Metric Martyrs.
The
Metric Martyrs were a series of grocers who, in the early '00s, were
prosecuted for various misdemeanours relating to not displaying
metric weights for their products. Most of them were convicted and
received fines or conditional discharges. The law they had breached
was a European directive that products must me weighed and displayed
in metric units; though British law provided for Imperial units to be
displayed, it was concluded that this could only be simultaneously,
not solely. European law was superior in this instance.
This
is, of course, ridiculous and pernicious; it is also the kind of
supervention of sovereignty that will never be reformed. It is the
precise aim of the European project to create peaceful uniformity in
line with Continental norms. If you needed any further proof,
consider the sequel: the investigation in 2008 of a restaurateur in
Doncaster who sold beer only in litres. This breached British law
which required that beer be sold in pints. The restaurateur's
argument was that EU law (providing for displaying in metric) was
sovereign over British Law, at least in this case; this was
essentially accepted, and he was not prosecuted. No requirement for
simultaneous display was made.
These
relatively minor but exceptionally telling incidents should also tell
the would-be Remain voter all they need to know about the prospect of
reform in Europe; if they doubt further, they can turn to the sale of
Greece perpetrated by Germany, or the comically poor “concessions”
won by David Cameron ahead of the referendum. He who believes serious
reform or change of the EU possible is of one opinion with Canute as
to the tide; the European Union is a desperately unaccountable,
wasteful, and centralizing body, and will not be changing any time
soon. It may well be good for the peace of Europe. It certainly
allows Germany to (perfectly properly) advance their self-interest.
But
the European Union is not Europe. The idea of Europe – of the home
of Rome and Athens, of Aquinas and Anselm, of the Renaissance, of the
Industrial Revolution – is a troubled but beautiful one. The idea
of the European Union has none of the philosophy or architecture of
Rome, Athens, Florence, or a continent of cathedrals; it certainly
has none of the historic faith of those cathedrals or Aquinas. The
European Union intentionally excludes the largest European nation.
The European Union has the imperial instincts of Rome and the
industrial power made possible by the Industrial Revolution, but it
is not gentled by any kinder instinct. The European Union in its
current form is in many ways a stain upon the idea of a free Europe.
It may be a necessary evil to preserve the peace of Europe, but that
does not mean Britain must be a part of the European Union to be a
part of Europe – a Europe of nations, not a European nation.
The Idea of a Nation
Because
what is at stake is not whether the United Kingdom has slightly more
or slightly less advantageous trade deals, or whether you have to get
a visa to travel to France. Of course there will be things lost by
leaving; the question is whether leaving saves or gains anything of
commensurate value. I believe it does, because what is truly at stake
in the referendum is this: is the United Kingdom a nation state, or a
federal state? The joke has long been that we are the 51st
State of the USA; what Barack Obama's speech over the referendum
makes clear is that we have been demoted from that status, and are
encouraged to become a federal state of Europe.
You
see, nations have quite distinctive features: in their Platonic ideal
form, they have control over their laws, their borders, their
finances, and their foreign policy. It became clear that Britain no
longer had control over their foreign policy in 1956 when US
battleships were prepared to fire upon British and French vessels on
their way to the Suez Canal. This was not simply the decision of
another nation to oppose us; it was the action of an imperial
overlord. Very well, then – the chief result of the two World Wars
for Britain was that we became a client state of the USA. We did not,
however, cease to be a nation – just a minor one with an inflated
sense of self-importance. We technically could defy our master, at a
price paid in blood.
The
European Union has achieved more than those US battleships. It has
abolished borders between its constituent nations; it has asserted
itself as supreme in all matters of law; it has functionally unified
the finances of all but two of its members; and it has increasingly
formed a unified foreign policy. Let me address the first three of
those issues point by point.
A
nation has borders. It has these not because nations are somehow
metaphysical racists; it has them because control of who is in the
nation and who is not has obvious benefits. Security is one, but it
is a relatively minor one; one strange absorption of some in the
Leave camp is in the idea that Syrian suicide bombers are queuing up
to sneak into the country via the Schengen Agreement. If there is a
real and present threat from Islamic extremism, it will largely be
from doped-up losers already in the United Kingdom.
Which
leads us on to a key function of borders. Borders demarcate cultural
standards as well as legal authority. The hysterical attitude taken
to immigration by some xenophobes and racists does not obscure the
fact that immigration is an exceptionally serious issue. At a
conceptual level, one purpose of borders is to permit immigration in
such a way that cultural integrity is not threatened. Minorities
immigrate and integrate whilst retaining some of their distinctive
flavour and offering it to the host culture. Now, the enormous net
migration from the EU is plainly something of a threat to that –
but is really missing the point. The chief unintegrated minorities in
the UK are from former Empire territories. A combination of foolish
immigration policy and foolish social policy have led to large
ghettoized populations of West Indians, Africans, and Asians in our
cities; this has fuelled racism and social deprivation, and is the
soil into which Al Qaeda sows. This, however, is not the fault of the
European Union.
What
is the fault of the European Union is the other purpose of borders –
control of labour. We have two million unemployed in this country, a
million of which are young people; the large majority of these people
are British by birth, many of them part of the ghettoized minorities
we have already failed, and many more of them part of the white
working class destroyed by Thatcher. The first duty of a nation is
to those who constitute it, its citizens. Freedom of movement in the
EU is not idealistic internationalism; it is chiefly to the benefit
of the capital class, who benefit from cheap and mobile labour. Open
borders depress wages and keep millions of natives unemployed. Of
course we need to import certain skills; we do not need more
unskilled or semi-skilled labourers or technicians. We have the
resource pool for that and ought to train it up, rather than
oppressing millions by denying them opportunity to affirm their
inherent dignity through work and participation in society.
Now,
we do have an absolute border – with those outside the EU. Our
borders are those of the European Union. The UK has a partial
exception, with passports required across borders – but this is a
formality, as they aren't even stamped with entry visas.
Fundamentally, however, we have given up one marker of a nation – a
concrete border – and accepted the border of a supranation, the
European Union.
The
European Union has also achieved supremacy in law. We have discussed
this above, with the Metric Martyrs, but it bears repeating. Nations
choose which laws bind their citizens and residents. This is another
way of determining who is a citizen or resident – those obligated
to its laws. If the European Union's laws are sovereign over our own,
it is because in many respects it is a proto-United States and we are
a proto-federal state; US states can pass laws, but if they breach
the Constitution, they are illegal and overruled.
Now,
I've heard a lot of rot about how the EU has done wonders for our
legal code. I do not recall the European Union's contribution to the
most important legal landmarks in our national history – from Magna
Carta to the Bill of Rights to the Reform Acts to the establishment
of the Welfare State to the introduction of a national Minimum Wage.
It should be obvious to anyone but an idiot that the majority of
beneficial laws brought in under the EU's aegis shall be retained –
but this does bring up an interesting argument used in favour of
granting the EU supremacy over our laws.
“If
we leave the Tories will be allowed to do what they want.” The
wailings of some of my left liberal friends are physically audible
here in Durham; their cries of outrage are certainly very visible
online. Apparently they have not noticed that the Tories have been
doing what they want for 6 years, except where they have been stalled
in Parliament by a particular softly Eurosceptic party leader. The
reason the Tories have been doing what they want is because we as a
nation voted them in to do so; a clear plurality of the electorate
voted for them in 2015, granting them an absolute majority in
Parliament. Arguments about electoral systems aside (as I say above,
I favour First-Past-The-Post because it allows us to kick parties out
of government entirely, where PR doesn't), this is how our electoral
system has fundamentally worked for 300 years or so. It has generally
worked well in that time period. Governments elected in that way have
led Britain to greater prosperity, security, equality, and peace over
that period. Currently, we have a Government in who I think is pretty
dreadful – but it IS our Government. We as a nation decided that.
To argue that remaining in the EU allows us to very slightly
undermine our Government, and that this is a good thing, is either a
proof of immense hypocrisy or a proof that the speaker has no love
for their nation.
The
preference shown by left liberals for unaccountable European
oversight and overruling of our laws over and above the expressed
will of the people via their representatives in Parliament should
give pause for thought. No-one who argues that can claim to really
believe in democracy. No-one who argues that, having been shown the
contradiction, can claim to love Britain. One cannot love Britain by
surrendering it to another power; it is no love of democracy that
favours the entirely unaccountable European Commission and the
essentially unaccountable European Parliament over the people we have
actually elected to govern us.
Of
course, all of this really relates to the fact that most left
liberals do not really like the people they claim to represent. The
dirt-poor, racist, ill-educated working class are really the fly in
the ointment of the left liberal's European dream; never mind that
they are dirt-poor because of the depredations of Free Trade upon
British industry, or that they are racist because of the failed
integration of minorities and the usurpation of the British job
market by immigrants, or that they are ill-educated because of the
destruction of the education system by the liberal left. They have
the temerity to vote Tory or UKIP or fail to vote at all rather than
turn out to vote for Labour or other leftist parties who, we are
assured, have their best interests at heart, even though the working
classes themselves are foolish enough to disagree at nearly every
point!
Which
brings us to the third way in which the European Union has absorbed
its members – financially. We may quickly dispense with the issue
of currency – most current members already use the Euro, and only
two nations (the UK and Denmark) have opt-out clauses. The remaining
non-users will in theory adopt it once they meet the conditions, and
all new members must agree to its eventual use. The idea of nations
having distinct currencies should be obvious – it gives them fiscal
independence. Nations which do not control their own currency are
either bankrupt (as with Zimbabwe when they temporarily adopted the
US dollar), occupied (as with Palestine), or in the process of ceding
their sovereignty to another state – as with the EU. Currency also
has a symbolic importance – the European Commission itself states
that the Euro “acts as a tangible symbol of European
identity”, whilst the presence of Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace
of God Queen and Defender of the Faith on one side of our currency –
on ALL currency in this nation – is an important statement about
the nation we are.
But we do not use the
Euro (yet). This has proven much to our advantage, and means if
nothing else that we share none of the direct blame for the
destruction of Greece as a sovereign nation effected by German
control of the Euro. What is more significant is the way in which
Free Trade, as effected by the European Union, has been the final
nail in the coffin of British manufacturing and industry – the
natural home of the bulk of unskilled and semi-skilled labour, as
well as much skilled labour. Yes, Free Trade means we get cheap
package holidays and cheaper foreign food; it also means that German
steel naturally outcompetes British steel for a number of reasons,
and it means that there are severe limitations on wise
nationalisation, and it means that that the European Union's adoption
of the exceptionally damaging TTIP is forced upon us. How many
Britons noted not just that President Obama advocated staying within
the EU, but used TTIP as a primary benefit of staying in the EU? How
many left liberals posting vehemently against TTIP realise that the
European Union is the body which will ensure we accede to it?
That Thatcherism
favours freedom of movement and Free Trade should not be surprising;
it's 19th century Liberalism dressed up with a Union Jack,
entirely in service of the capital class. That liberal leftism
favours both, actively or passively, is more surprising. However,
that the liberal left is chiefly an extension of the capital class
should become apparent by another hackneyed argument trotted out as
to my own part of Britain, North-East England – the North-East
apparently receives more subsidy from the EU than it pays in, due to
its poverty. Wonderful; let us keep the poor on a drip-feed of
benefits rather than permit them to work. It economically suits
metropolitan London to retain close links with the EU, and on that
basis it is (ultimately) fine for British steel to go under. The
leftist may cock-eyedly say that we should subsidise British steel
even when it's economically unviable (as it is) – the solution is
to make it viable again by protecting its market.
Of course, the true
internationalist will simply say: I'm not a citizen of Britain. I'm a
citizen of the world. I don't care about borders. The poor in this
country are important, but only as important as those in Poland or
India. Very well, then; first of all, feel free to surrender your
passport and renounce your British citizenship and see what benefits
the concept of “the world” has for you. After that, I have every
respect for your view. It is coherent; it is, however, so alien to my
own it's hard to know how the conversation can proceed. I not only
believe in nations, but I specifically believe in the nation of
Britain. For a cultural and political Britain to survive, it must be
a nation; the two are intrinsically linked. Those regions which are
most culturally and politically distinct are generally those that
tend towards overall national independence – think Quebec or
Scotland or the Basque Country. No-one thinks of French Flanders or
German-speaking Belgium as particularly culturally or politically
distinct, even where some recognition is made of their distinct
heritage. But what is the idea of Britain that is already being lost,
and will be further lost by remaining in the European Union?
The Idea of Britain
In
an essay on “The British Character”, the Spanish philosopher George Santayana says much about the “English” which is of great
importance to us (“English” and “British” were for some
centuries interchangeable because Britain was the land defined by the
culture of the English language). Santayana says:
“Instinctively the Englishman is no missionary, no conqueror. He
prefers the country to the town, and home to foreign parts. He is
rather glad and relieved if only natives will remain natives and
strangers strangers, and at a comfortable distance from himself. Yet
outwardly he is most hospitable and accepts almost anybody for the
time being ; he travels and conquers without a settled design,
because he has the instinct of exploration. His adventures are all
external ; they change him so little that he is not afraid of them.
He carries his English weather in his heart wherever he goes, and it
becomes a cool spot in the desert, and a steady and sane oracle
amongst all the deliriums of mankind.”
Now
this is not intended as a description of every individual psychology;
it is a rhetorically polished description of a national character. A
measure of how you might vote: if you respond with loathing and
shock, you will certainly vote Remain. If the above description
resonates, some part of you will desire to Leave the noisome and hot
European Union. I am afraid if you feel the former, I can only add
what Santayana says of the end of Britishness: “It will be a
black day for the human race when scientific blackguards,
conspirators, churls, and fanatics manage to supplant him.” It
feels in many ways as if that day has come.
Let me offer another
quote, from Orwell's “The Lion and the Unicorn”:
“The clatter of clogs
in the Lancashire mill towns, the to-and-fro of the lorries on the
Great North Road, the queues outside the Labour Exchanges, the rattle
of pin-tables in the Soho pubs, the old maids hiking to Holy
Communion through the mists of the autumn morning – all these are
not only fragments, but characteristic fragments, of the
English scene. How can one make a pattern out of this muddle?
But talk to foreigners,
read foreign books or newspapers, and you are brought back to the
same thought. Yes, there is something distinctive and
recognizable in English civilization. It is a culture as individual
as that of Spain. It is somehow bound up with solid breakfasts and
gloomy Sundays, smoky towns and winding roads, green fields and red
pillar-boxes. It has a flavour of its own. Moreover it is continuous,
it stretches into the future and the past, there is something in it
that persists, as in a living creature.”
Much of the above could
be summed up by saying that Britain is distinctively a nation of
strangers bound to a land. Santayana says “England is the paradise
of individuality, eccentricity, heresy, anomalies, hobbies, and
humors”; Orwell that “We are a nation of flower-lovers, but also
a nation of stamp-collectors, pigeon-fanciers, amateur carpenters,
coupon-snippers, darts-players, crossword-puzzle fans”. We are the
most assorted collection of oddities, each living in their own little
world. Our great communal acts are not official, but private – the
crowds of a football ground, community-organised street parties, the
maintenance of gardens and landscapes. Even our greatest
working-class organisations are not tribal or familial, as in many
southern European nations; they are (or were) formed around the
workplace, that classically private-public place. I speak, of course,
about our Trade Unions – our Trade Unions which marched far more
often with brass instruments beneath imagery from the Bible than
under the faces of foreign philosophers and revolutionaries, singing
the Internationale.
To
reiterate: we are distinctively a nation of strangers bound to a
land. How are we a nation of strangers? Surely that proves we aren't
really a nation? Hardly. It is a peculiar distinction of Britain that
we are a nation of strangers. We have generally peacefully co-existed
for a millennium – marred by only one great civil war and a series
of rather smaller affairs caused by the machinations of princes. We
have done this not by either strong tribal links nor by a rational
written code of law. Our law, in fact, is as eccentric and private as
ourselves; our common law is not merely those things written and
accreted over the years, but the principles behind them, which lie
there to be discovered by judges. The half-hidden logic of our common
law is what enabled a British judge to declare that slavery had no
basis in British law even before the American Revolution. It works
not based on abstract rationality, but a principle of reasonability;
is a thing a reasonable or decent? Does it cohere with our settled
body of law? Now, there is nothing wrong with rationality, but it is
not really a British property. The Code Napoleon and its descendant,
the law of the European Union, are terribly rational; these are the
sorts of laws that believe Imperial measurements ridiculous and are
willing to punish those that are foolish enough to enforce their
eccentricity upon the rest of us. That's all well and good, but it
runs directly counter to the instinct of British law. The very basis
of our national peace is the national privacy undergirded by common
law; this cannot survive further integration into the European Union.
We
are not only a nation of eccentric strangers, but we are one with a
distinctive love of a land. Ask most Britons about their home
country, and they won't speak highly of the national character (even
at the height of Empire, Britons were often shy of boasting of
that!), or even the great achievements of the nation; they will speak
of their landscapes. The true idea of Britain is not warlike
Britannia, but mystical and green Albion. Tolkien's Shire was a love
letter to his rural southern England and its inhabitants, of whom he
says: “where our hearts truly lie is in peace and quiet and
good, tilled earth. For all hobbits [southern English!] share a love
for things that grow. And, yes, no doubt to others, our ways seem
quaint. But today of all days, it is brought home to me: It is no bad
thing to celebrate a simple life.” When I think of “home”, I
don't think of Shakespeare or Wellington, as much as I have great
interest in them, as much as they are expressive of home; I think
rather of my grandfather's allotment, and of the eccentricity of an
industrial chemist renting a patch of land from the council to grow
potatoes; I think of the barren pikes and fells of the Lakes, and the
wet wooded valleys of Wales, and the piercing blue Viking air of the
North; most of all, I think of stiles and gentle rolling hills,
permissive access to sheep pastures, bits of council lawn with
flowerbeds cut into them by locals, eccentric little humpback bridges
over brooks in the middle of fields, Britain in Bloom awards, Working
Men's Clubs holding vegetable competitions, low-slung farmhouses with
azaleas by the door – I think of the humanised landscape of
Britain, of this strange land of strangers bound together in peace by
the unalterable wisdom of the law and a love of this land. We love
our land so much we have laid waste to it, building trackless wastes
of suburbs in an effort to give each man his own castle and fiefdom.
Rather than rationally building upwards as in many European cities,
we have built out, ever looking for the sacred green that sings to
our heart.
This Britain has long
been under threat from a metropolitan class who see the countryside
as an opportunity for holidays, and latterly, Instagram; the Britain
of eccentric strangers has long been under assault by a rationalist
ruling class seeking to demolish every arch and replace it with a
line of perfectly spaced pebbles; but one great threat that we can
actually make a decision about next month is over our continued
membership of the European Union. I believe that the European Union's
continued and increasing usurpation of our borders, of our law-making
powers, and of our fiscal independence are the greatest single threat
to the idea of Britain. On that basis, I will be voting Leave on June
23rd.
No comments:
Post a Comment