Airstrip One

Thank You Reagan

If you were to press a right wing Conservative why if they are in favour of withdrawal from the EU (and how many nowadays are not, in private?) whey did/would they have voted Yes in 1975 they go away puzzled. Even the growing number of Eurosceptics too young to vote know in their hearts that they would have voted Yes. So why?

Similarly go to the same right wing Tory, who is likely as not to support British membership of NATO, what problem NATO is trying to solve - he will also stutter and stammer. Britain can obviously be subservient to the US outside NATO, as she has been in Iraq - what useful purpose does it serve?

Well the answer is obvious. The Cold War. British involvement in these institutions made perfect sense if you believed that Russia was posed to take over Western Europe and use that as a launch pad for invading Blighty. Some rather right wing people, like Enoch Powell or General De Gaulle, were sceptical of this and so tended to be more sceptical of these institutions than there more credulous (and I do not mean this in a derogatory way) right wing colleagues.

Which brings us to Reagan. Reagan's arms build up bankrupted Russia and forced her to drastically cut back on her overseas military presence and her attachment to Marxism. Russian aggression in Chechnya is not as frightening as Russian aid to the Vietcong. Whatever one's view of the Cold War, one can agree that it is over. And that is thanks to Reagan.

So back to NATO and the EU. These two institutions made plenty of sense when Russian tanks were on the Oder and Danube. They don't make sense now. This seemingly obvious statement has massive implications for the British right. It is not good enough to point to cultural comminalities and a roughly equivalent language and hope that these will override strategic realities. Nor is it to look longingly at America's greater economic freedom and make the leap that this must mean that she has the same national interests as we do (come to think of it, how many British Anglospheracists aren't also recognisable Thatcherites?). Nor can we accept, however naturally it comes to a conservative, that what worked well in the past should not be disturbed.

Ronald Reagan bequeathed a world where Britain can again be independent of America. It would be churlish not to accept that present.

Vote YanKIP

Advising Airstrip One readers how to vote is probably one of the least effective things one could ever do. Firstly you are a rather, ahem, select bunch. I prefer to think of you as the remnant, others would be more vulgar and just say that we have a small readership. The other reason is that the sort of people who not only understand the importance of British independence, but can also follow the argument tend to make up their own minds when voting. I'm glad this is not Samizdata, but I do have my regrets.

However, I will still go ahead and say who I will vote for and why I have reservations about my choice. Firstly however I will say who I will not vote for. Labour has been a disaster for this country and it's independence. With Blair it's not even been the competing treachery argument of whether our independence should be given away to Europe or America, they've done both. They deserve to be punished.

On the competing treachery question I don't think that there is one contributor to Airstrip One who does not see Europe as a more invasive and immediate threat than America. On that basis the Liberal Democrats - and various Celtic nationalists - are also out (although they are better than Labour).

RESPECT are laughable, and if they were to get an MEP then the anti-war movement would be stuck with this albatross of socialism and America hatred forever.

The BNP should be ruled out for different reasons. As both BNP sympathisers and opponents of this blog have pointed out their foreign policy is hostile to Europe and America. However I disagree strongly with their flat earth trade policy (and general ignorance of the benefits of a market economy) and their immigration and repatriation policy manages to be both vindictive and daft. There's also a sneaking feeling that while they have certainly cleaned up their public act there are still the same old boneheads - and should the cause of British Independence be linked with the fash? Try arguing for tighter immigration controls and count the number of sentences before you are accused of supporting the BNP, and you will see what I mean about the danger of the BNP hijacking the case for a patriotic foreign policy.

So the choice is between UKIP and the Tories. Both parties are too close to America, so I will come on to this subject later. On Europe the Tories actually deserve a lot more credit than they are getting. They are actually calling for repatriation of European powers, although as these are fishing policy and foreign aid where only a European Commisioner could pretend that Europe has succeeded in these areas. The government is also proposing repatriation of powers, on the more radical area of regional policy. However repatriation of powers is being publicly broached, and the Tories deserve credit for this.

The Tories also deserve credit for blocking the constitution. IDS's supposed obsession with this meant that Blair found himself with little other option than to concede this point (after Howard took over) before the Euro elections.

However the question is whether the Tories go far enough when there is a perfectly acceptable and electable alternative. The Conservatives still wish to remain in the EU (although they avoid saying "forever") while UKIP doesn't. The Tory representatives will still sit in the European People's Party, an avowedly Federalist party, despite earlier efforts to extricate themselves from it - and Michael Howard is now a patron of the Federalist Tory Reform Group. It is not unfair to say that UKIP would not exist if Ken Clarke were retiring - so why is Howard bringing him forward.

The Tories have brought on themselves. In this election it is UKIP that deserve's your vote. They will fight like ferrets as soon as this is over, they are far too pro-American (there is a good - but sadly off line - article in the New Statesman about their commitment to America, there's also a back handed compliment from pro-war Nick Cohen saying that little Englanders provide the "only unanswerable" antiwar case) and they won't win in Westminster. But the European Parliament is a joke that's elected by Proportional Representation.

They deserve UKIP.

Fat Pang of the Remove

With his owlish features and acknowledged desire to reinforce the low opinion held of him in Britain, Chris Patten has decided to respond to the mocking remarks that almost propelled Jack Straw into the Eurorealist camp.

After spending so many years away from home, he appears to have developed the thin skin that you expect from the proselytisers of victimhood, rather than an ex-Tory Minister. He has taken up his pen and written a response to Straw explaining that his words are "inappropriate" and have caused offence. Who ever said that Europeans didn't have a sense of humour!

The Guardian article is green stuff, as their recycling mentality has been extended to the news and the environment. Thankfully, Euractiv had more detail on the missive. Chris Patten praises the efforts of the Euro-pygmies in bringing the benefits of Yoorp to natives crying out for subsidies and a dependency culture:

While underling that there is no Commission ambition to become "some sort of twenty sixth Member State", Patten goes on to praise the work that the 123 Commission delegations carry out in "detailed trade and other negotiations [...] high quality political and economic reporting [...] delivering over 5 billion Euro's of external and development assistance in support of the EU's agreed goals [...] in places as far-flung and as difficult as Afghanistan, Somalia and New Guinea".

Patten has demonstrated that his antennae no longer follow British politics. Ensconced in Europe for too many years, he cannot recognise the flanking rhetoric of a Europhile government. Unless he longs for Charles Kennedy as PM, he has long drifted away from the orbit of the Tory party.

What is more shameful: the sight of a former Tory gone native, reduced to ridicule; or the mugging of Eurosceptic discourse by a government that wants to be a part of Europe and propagandise a myth of sovereignty on the home front. Patten is a disgrace to all former Tories, amongst whom, I include myself.

(22.50, 9th May 2004)

He's done a Hutton on the pavement

The Guardian is currently publishing a series of strong articles on Britain's place in the world. Disagreeable they may be, but worth reading. The latest is an extract from Timothy Garton Ash's "Free World: Why a Crisis of the West Reveals the Opportunity of Our Time", to be published in July.

Garton Ash, a liberal whose reportage on Eastern Europe is always worth reading, argues that Britain should find a new role by balancing the best of the Old World and the New. The whole piece is laminated with a patina of idealism that leavs you thinking Garton Ash lives behind a rose-tinted mirror looking out at the world. Who else would write this:

We need a revolt of the politicians, who should finally summon the courage to face down the media barons. But we also need a revolt of the journalists. After all, journalists, not proprietors, actually write and edit these papers.

A Britain thus politically focused, educated and informed would have notable strengths. Being so intimate with Europe and America means we have the chance to take the best of both.

The concept that our politicians and journalists are revolting is quite common; unique is that perception that this quality may have positive consequences.

Garton Ash falls into the post-imperial trap of viewing Britain as a far more influential and powerful player than we actually are, based upon the foundations of our influence in Europe and America. In reality, the article becomes an apologia for Blairite strategy in Europe, the new Third Way clothed in the ideology of Europe.

Tony Blair has grasped and articulated this British national interest, role and chance better than any of his predecessors.

What we need is nothing less than a historic compromise with our ancient enemy, France. Britain alone is too small and weak to be a major partner for the US, especially since American leaders generally feel they can take the British for granted.

Crucial to this new understanding will be the voice of Germany. In its own enlightened self-interest, Germany should play the role of "honest broker" between France and Britain. This alone will allow it to continue its own balancing act between Paris and Washington, which has served the Federal Republic so well. America, too, should support this reconciliation in its own enlightened self-interest.

When the structural mist is deciphered, Garton Ash has written an article explaining why he thinks Blair's approach is best. This is probably expanded upon with historical argument and example in his new book.

What if France doen't wish to compromise? What if Britain, home of chavs, declines to follow the path of self enlightenment as plotted by Garton Ash? What if the Germans prove duplicitous? With so many unknowns, Garton Ash unwittingly exposes the flaws in Blair's foreign policy.

(23.06, 7th May 2004)

Remembrance and Reconciliation

As I mentioned in yesterday's posting, the historical events surrounding D-Day have been subject to a revisionist retelling of teh Second World War. In its milder variant, it is a self-congratulatory extension of the European ideology, where 'liberation' is a European, rather than a purely national experience. Freud would be delighted to learn that even the Germans were liberated from themselves.

Denis Boyles in the National Review chronicles this move of D-Day into an artificial story where the victors and the defeated stand together. The French are embittered:

Le Monde took advantage of an arte television documentary showing D-Day from the German perspective to explain that the Allies in Normandy were slipshod and mismanaged because their leaders were inept, a point of view that suggests to the French a certain similarity to Iraq.

The Germans are more admiring:

The most influential media are contributing strongly to the generous mood by avoiding national self-pity and voicing admiration for the allies, dwelling on the awesome logistics and statistics of D-day.

The public TV channel ZDF is screening a five-part documentary series called simply Liberation.

The news magazines Stern and Der Spiegel have the D-day landings on their covers this week, contrasting the heroics of the longest day with the dysfunctionality of the Nazi regime - Adolf Hitler slept through the invasion at his Berchtesgaden eyrie, his aides too frightened to wake him. And Erwin Rommel, the "Desert Fox", who was in charge of organising the defence of France, spent D-day in the forests of south-west Germany celebrating his wife's 50th birthday.

Should we support this narrative if it obscures the sacrifices and deaths that the Allies suffered in order to snuff out the Nazi regime? That is irrelevant. This whole concept of the Grand Crusade has proved colossally damaging to the realist cause, since rose-tinted glasses and moral ballast have prevented many from critically assessing what happened to bring us to where we are now.

(00.07, 5th May 2004)