A (Partial) Manifesto for Brexit Britain

It's going to take me a while to process everything to do with this referendum. As I write this, I feel happy, excited, anxious, sad. However, as what is needed now is some degree of boldness and vision on behalf of our nation's leaders, it's surely right for me to contribute in my own very small way.

Now, one side effect I hope for from this referendum is a serious shake-up in the two main parties. Both have been shown to be desperately out of touch with their socially conservative bases; it turns out the Labour Party now only represents London, and the Conservative Party now only represents a particularly leafy set of dormitory towns. I suspect this is a particularly grievous blow for the Labour Party; in two referenda, now, it has turned out not to know its base anymore, and furthermore to be unable to communicate to them its own values. The academic models which predicted Brexit vote in different places accurately described most Tory areas; it significantly underestimated the Brexit vote in Labour areas. The Labour Party cannot claim this is solely because of the last 6 years of Tory government – it had 13 before that to change things, and whilst Blair and Brown achieved some admirable things, their continuation of essentially Thatcherite, globalist policies left the people of Torfaen and Teesside in the dirt.

So here is my manifesto for a Labour Party representing and helping its base. It draws upon the diverse tradition of the Party – from Bevan to his arch-rival Gaitskell, and in the present day from McDonnell to Glasman. It is, broadly, Keynesian economically and socially conservative. It operates on the basis that the market is a useful tool for the protection of liberty and the creation of new solutions, but is not in and of itself a moral force; Parliament, as the representative body of the people, may enact laws to intervene in the economy where appropriate. It believes that the problems which led Labour voters to vote Leave are not fictional or got-up by newspapers they do not read; it believes that the relentless obsession of successive governments with London and with globalism have crippled and abandoned Britain's industrial communities, and the members of those communities have had enough. This is offered as one set of thoughts as to how the Labour Party (or a hypothetical new party) might actually address their problems and truly represent them. Not all of it will be practicable, and I am avowedly not an expert; however, I am, so far as I can tell, a well-informed layman, and other laypeople might appreciate one vision of how Britain might look after Brexit.

I will begin with a general point, before addressing a series of major policy areas, starting with the most pressing ones coming out of the referendum result.

A General Point – Tightening Our Belts

It may well be that the economy is hard-hit by Brexit; my general judgement is that it is unlikely to be a catastrophe, but if there is an economic crisis, a party representing the poor and downtrodden of our nation must ensure the burden is spread fairly. We are told this is our greatest crisis since World War 2; if so, we must take the same attitude economically as we did in 1945. We must build. Those more able to to bear the brunt of recession must do so. They have benefited most whilst the sun is shining; now they must accept that their largesse must cover us whilst it rains. George Osborne once cynically declared that “we're all in this together”, and was correctly derided for it; a worthy government will ensure that that happens.

Immigration

We need economic migration – and a reasonable amount of it. We have a growing and aging population. We need a solid tax base. However, we can and should be able to judge what economic migration is needed. Did anyone see the strange “debate of the people” on one channel? I saw a few clips of it. In one, a black Londoner called Clem, who had scraped his way up from unskilled labour to doing a part-time degree, observed that his wages had always been rock-bottom and working conditions had always been very marginal due to the sheer glut of labour available – much of it from outside the UK.

Now, no-one should sniff at the desire of any man or woman to travel elsewhere for work; however, that does not make it incumbent on any individual or nation to provide it. We need skilled workers in a variety of industries, and should continue to recruit them. What our next government must do is calculate the tax and skill needs this nation has, and encourage immigration in accordance with that.

Meanwhile, we should continue to accept refugees, perhaps in increasing numbers. It should be obvious that where a nation in crisis has peaceful, stable neighbours, those neighbours should bear the brunt of a refugee crisis; however, our nation is very wealthy, and must be willing to extend that opportunity to those who have had their own chances ripped away by war and environmental disaster. The right government post-Brexit will be a job creating government; there will be work for refugees, and a chance to participate in our peaceful and decent civil society.

The (Dis)United Kingdom

Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, and Scotland all voted to Remain in the European Union – Gibraltar in absolutely overwhelming numbers. How best may we both understand and respect their desire? Each presents a slightly different problem with different solutions.

Gibraltar has an easy solution (though Spain will deny it) – Gibraltar should do a “reverse Greenland”. Denmark is a member of the EU; its dependencies, Greenland and the Faroe Isles, are not. Gibraltar should remain a member of the EU/EEA. There should be no brooking of joint sovereignty with Spain – the inhabitants of the Rock decisively rejected that a decade ago.

Northern Ireland is a powder keg. I do not believe in referenda on the whole; I especially do not believe in them in volatile, violent situations. Northern Irish affairs should be determined through the normal process of elections in that nation. If Unionists continue to gain a majority vote and representation, then Northern Ireland should remain united to Great Britain and leave the EU. If Republicans win, then it has the right to decide on independence or Irish union. In the meantime, a loose border arrangement with the Republic of Ireland must be negotiated, allowing the present free movement to largely continue; a special arrangement should be sought with Eire, based on our cultural and historic ties and the practical requirements of a shared border. Irish citizens should continue to have the opportunity freely move within the British Isles.

Scotland is another problem again. I would argue now (more than ever) that Scotland is better off in the United Kingdom; I am absolutely certain that the SNP has no solutions to the problems of the disenfranchised poor of Lanarkshire and Lothian. I don't believe in referenda. However, if the Scottish people, via their elected government, desire independence and union with the EU, that must be their decision. A referendum any time soon seems like a poor idea; the Scots have voted twice this year already. Let us see how things shake out. If Scotland does leave the United Kingdom, some special border arrangement must be made, as with the Republic of Ireland. It should also be a “no hard feelings” independence – even making the proviso that Scotland may happily return at any time to the United Kingdom, within reason. Let us not take the bullying, hectoring tone of Juncker et al; the Scots are true Britons, with a British culture and a British history, and if they find the EU as unpleasant as England and Wales have, they should be welcomed back with open arms.

Trade

I really want to research even more than I have before I say I have the answers as to trade; this is partly because what happens next is pretty unknown! Do we need preferential access to the EEA? Some people say so. A negotiation including membership of the EEA (ala Norway), whilst giving up important things (control of economic migration, notably), is not incompatible with once again being a sovereign nation – indeed, it will be the contingent decision of a sovereign Parliament, retractable by later Parliaments. However, if – as several economically knowledgeable writers have suggested – a 3% tariff is the likely result of leaving the EEA, that may be bearable, and in my judgement would be preferable. Trade both ways truly is beneficial; if the EU were to demand a 10% tariff, for instance, they'd simply have one thrown back at them, which would be quite undesirable for them too. Indeed, even the 3% tariff should be variable – our government should happily agree on protectionist tariffs for strategic industries whilst agreeing on tariff-free or low-tariff trade on other goods.

Industry

Two things come under this heading: “industry” itself, and the rights of workers.

As for industry, the great gap in the British economy has been for traditional working-class jobs. The systematic, politically-motivated destruction of British industry and manufacturing by Thatcher and Major – aiming to bless globalism and destroy the Labour Party – was a great crime; it must in part be reversed. I don't mean we should have enormous nationalised, inefficient industries – though nationalised industries are an option. I mean that the government, via grants, tax breaks, import tariffs, and the development of a social market, should encourage the success of British industry and manufacturing.

Some things this could mean: using a weaker pound to encourage investment; the renationalisation of British steel and the reopening of recently closed plants; a percentage of startup capital and tax breaks being offered to manufacturing projects in those sectors where we currently lean on EU trade, with a particular emphasis on these projects starting up in deprived, post-industrial areas; the development of new technologies giving the UK industrial specialisations, such as high-grade steel recycling, or the reclamation of metals like magnesium; an official Government prioritization on using British-made goods, to create a guaranteed market. Jobs are the real solution to the bloated benefits bill and anaemic tax revenue; investing in industry post-Brexit is one of the best budgetary decisions a government could make.

Secondly, as to workers' rights: of course all beneficial rights first provided by the EU must be retained or put properly into law. A large scale reindustrialization will also provide grounds for revitalized trade unions, with workers no longer relying on casual work in poor conditions. Additionally, a market effect of reduced low-skilled immigration will almost certainly be a rise in wages and a drop in living costs in costly urban areas.

Health

First of all, significant extra funding must be guaranteed to the NHS, to cover its increasing costs – one thing I agree with the (otherwise lamentable) Leave campaign is that any money saved on the EU should go towards key services. However, there must also be serious reform of the Byzantine back-end systems of the NHS – procurement must be simplified and layers of management must be reduced. Money can and should be found through the repudiation of the disastrous PFI policies of Major and Blair; the expensive contracting out of services to companies without an interest in patient welfare must also cease. This may well mean a significant amount of the social care sector coming under direct government control.

We must continue to seek key workers overseas, but the next Government should fund the foundation of further medical schools, training both extra doctors and nurses. Indeed, let us look in the long term to be a nation that exports medical skill; let Britain serve the world by investing in training healers.

Defence

Well, one white elephant we can scrap to save money is the outdated Trident programme, which is functionally under the control of the United States anyway. If we need a nuclear deterrent, let it be a new, far cheaper land-based one.

Where can that money saved go? Partly to “other things” - perhaps particularly the industrial plans mentioned above. Partly, within the context of our defence policy, ensuring we can protect our dependencies (particularly the Falklands) and also participate in peace-keeping and rebuilding programmes worldwide. So that means aircraft carriers and the relevant planes, infantry, and engineering.

We should also see Brexit as partly a response to the incessant adventurism of British leaders over the last 15 years. The British people do not see themselves as international policemen, and do not believe financial, political, and human capital should be spent on failed attempts to prop up Western hegemony, most of which only result in more lives lost and more instability.

Education

This is the only point I will address that does not directly relate to leaving the European Union. I raise it because a cornerstone of a worthwhile Labour Party ought to be genuinely meritocratic education systems. The key is a return to Grammar Schools. I was a long-term believer in the comprehensive project until, amongst other things, a key statistic shook my confidence in it to the core. Currently, under serious state pressure, Oxford accepts 55% of its pupils from state schools, the other 45% from private schools. Let's consider this in historical perspective: in 1938-39, Oxford accepted 62% of its pupils from private schools – another 13% went to Direct Grant schools (publicly funded private schools where the pupils came from poor backgrounds) and 16% from other state schools, nearly entirely grammar. In 1958-59, private schools accounted for 53% of Oxford entrants, whilst 15% were from Direct Grant schools and another 30% from state schools – again, overwhelmingly from grammars. In 1964-5, independent schools provided 45% of students, Direct Grant 17%, and state schools 34% The final year with official records – 1965-6 – gives private schools as providing 41%, Direct Grant 17%, and state schools 40%. One former Oxford principal claims that by the early 1970s state schools were winning 70% of Oxford places.

Severe state pressure has got Oxford to accept 55% state school pupils – still very heavily recruited from surviving grammars and posh comps, which select by house prices or church attendance. The previous system – whose destruction was started by in the mid '60s by Tony Crosland, who had argued that comps were more effective social engineering than nationalisation of industries – achieved, without severe state pressure, something like a 58% entry rate of students whose parents had not paid fees. Indeed, if the final statistic above is accepted, that was more like 70%. Now, if such a system were to return, there would have to be changes to ensure the new secondary moderns are viable schools and children are not simply left behind – both an 11+ and a 13+ test, carefully modelled curricula and work-entry plans, and so forth. But one of the best ways the “left-behinds” of post-industrial Britain can be served post-Brexit is via an education system that gives their children a chance of achieving their potential.

Environment

We should here consider three points: environmental legislation, energy policy, and farming.

Much EU environmental legislation has been positive – think clean beaches – and ought to be retained. Furthermore, a priority of a post-Brexit Britain ought to be continued and further co-operation with our European and global partners in dealing with the effects of human activity on the environment. We cannot allow leaving the EU to mean leaving the facts of geographic reality – Europe (including those nations not in the EU, which /= Europe) shares many climate challenges together and must face them together.

Of course, we must be willing to use our political independence to make decisions on environmental policy (and related areas) that helps our nation. Energy is an obvious one here: this referendum vote was a bodyblow to the globalist consensus, and a sign that we must, for instance, take project ownership of the next generation of nuclear reactors; we must work out effective ways of using our large stocks of yet-unmined coal to tide us over until nuclear fusion and reliable, efficient renewables are available; we must use our escape from EU rules limiting nationalisation to renationalise the inefficient, money-gouging energy industry.

Another area where leaving the EU can benefit us is in how our farmers – particularly those with smaller holdings – are supported and encouraged by the government. This is a particularly urgent area for a new government to deal with because of the loss of the infrastructure the CAP provides. Removing the EU's current three-crop rule for smaller holdings (I would retain it on larger holdings, at least in some form) allows those with less room to compete to solely grow crop that the market wants; encouraging a social market preferencing British farm goods will provide a price buffer for farmers, many of whom struggle at present with supermarkets driving down buying prices. A post-Brexit government will also need to work out which parts of the CAP were a necessary safety net (guaranteeing that the majority of current CAP payments go to continued subsidy, for instance), and what they need to add – lending into post-farm manufacturing projects (like dairy plants), for instance.

Fishery quotas will need to be retained, though perhaps altered to match our particular situation; the chief benefits accruing to the fishing industry by leaving the EU are giving British fishermen a monopoly over British fishing grounds, and incentivizing the purchase of British-caught fish via tariffs and social market initiatives.

Communities

The vote by the Labour North is also a wholesale rejection of a policy favouring urban centralization and especially the political establishment's absorption with London. A government seeking to make the best of Brexit must take the opportunity to return dignity and importance to the many abandoned communities of Britain, especially rural and semi-rural ones. This may be via diverting money directly from London, Birmingham, and the rest to the deprived small towns and villages of the Midlands and North; it may be via the encouragement of large-scale private philanthropy, and the reclamation of a tradition of those who have much directly providing amenities to communities. Let the government build community centres, let revitalized trade unions rebuild demolished Working Men's Clubs, and let industrialists fund mobile libraries in rural Britain. Let this be a joint effort of a united nation.

Some Miscellaneous Points

There are other legal and political benefits to leaving the EU. We should ensure we avoid any further entanglement in the European Arrest Warrant; that British citizens accused of crimes in other nations can be forcibly extradited and imprisoned without any pre-trial is a grievous breach of Habeas Corpus. Our courts' right of constitutional interpretation will no longer be superseded by the European Court of Justice on the 20% or so of our legal code which is presently Brussels-tied. We will be able to intentionally orient ourselves to the Anglophone and Anglophilic parts of the world, especially within the Commonwealth.

But above all this, we will have a truly sovereign Parliament, accountable chiefly to the people who elected it rather than any supranational body which actually holds the reins; it will be a Parliament capable of making decisions (good and bad ones) on its own. It will be the same Parliament that – stumbingly, sometimes recklessly – has asserted its supremacy in this nation for centuries. If you are not familiar with that history, feel free to ask four generations of Stuart lairds who at Preston, Reading, Sheriffmuir, and Culloden found their pretensions crushed. Sometimes that Parliament will be full of men and women with views I cannot stand; sometimes my own views will (perhaps!) be in the ascendant. It will get things wrong. But – to paraphrase Orwell – it will be our Parliament, right or left.

Conclusion

I have not addressed any number of policy points which do not relate directly to the EU; a bold, visionary manifesto for a socially conservative, economically Keynesian party must also address our awful transport policy, the disintegration of law and order in our cities, and the destruction of the family as a key social unit, amongst other things. However, I hope that the above will do for now, in the face of the vote to Leave the European Union.

There is future after Brexit. There is even the possibility of a bright and prosperous future. There could be a Britain with jobs for the currently dispossessed post-industrial working class of the North; there could be a Britain which is known once again for making products of quality, and for producing people of quality from all backgrounds to serve both their own nation and the world; there could be a Britain which welcomes refugees with open arms but protects the living conditions of its own urban proletariat; there could be a Britain which rejects a focus on urbanization and the city, instead preferring a “mixed economy” of Town and Country, investing in all of its communities and believing they all have something to offer; there could be a Britain which engages in peacekeeping and rebuilding but not reckless military action; there could be a Britain where a sink comprehensive isn't the best education many of our poorer kids can hope for; there could be a Britain which works with other nations to protect the environment but which adopts sensible energy and farming policies which suit our specific context.

There could be a Britain.

Why I Will Be Voting Leave on June 23rd

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 51^st 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 19^th 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 23^rd.