June 29, 2004
FOR WANT OF NIALL A NATION WAS LOST:
Europe gets my vote: As a Thatcherite, I support this constitution, which puts power back where it belongs (Niall Ferguson, June 29, 2004, The Guardian)
Is the new European constitution a blueprint for a United States of Europe - a fully fledged federation like the US on the other side of the Atlantic? Many of its continental proponents would say that is precisely the aim of the "treaty establishing a constitution" for the EU agreed by European leaders at Brussels last week.Unfortunately for the constitution, that is a view currently shared by the large proportion of British voters who have no desire to become just one of 25 states in a USE. If they vote against ratification in the referendum Tony Blair has promised, then one of two things will happen. Either the constitution will be a dead letter and the enlarged EU will muddle along under old rules. Or - as a growing number of British voters seem to wish - Britain will leave the EU. Suddenly, a great deal hinges on Blair's ability to persuade voters that the new constitution is not a federalist document.
As someone who is routinely labelled a "rightwing historian" in the British press, I am probably one of the last people Guardian readers would expect to take the prime minister's side in this debate. But I do. Yes, I was a young Thatcherite in the 1980s, passionately agreeing that we had to stand up to the Soviet Union, Britain's over-mighty unions and the French socialists like Jacques Delors, who had retreated to Brussels having failed in Paris. Yes, I think she was right to be nervous about British membership of the exchange rate mechanism, and to be hostile to the idea of our joining European Monetary Union. If all that still makes me rightwing today, then I plead guilty (though I have always preferred to think of myself as a 19th-century liberal).
But there was never a time when I regarded departure from the EU as a serious option - provided, of course, that it remained a confederal structure primarily concerned with economic integration, in which the nation states retain power on non-economic matters. Does the new constitution change that? No. Indeed, the constitution changes very little about the way the EU works.
There seem two possibilities with regard to the EU: it will either be too weak to be a threat to national sovereignty, in which case there's no sense in it; or it will be strong enough to matter and will start aggrandizing power to itself, in which case no patriot, and certainly no conservative, should support it. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 29, 2004 8:54 PM
"Retain power on non-economic matters"?
Yes, and all the Congress has the power to do is regulate interstate commerce...
Posted by: mike earl at June 29, 2004 9:35 PMMr. Ferguson is a brilliant scholar with more than a few wonderful histories and terrific insights to his credit. He is also a good example of why intellect and scholarship alone are dangerous, even among conservatives. I vote we raise money to take him out for a ripping good time among ordinary people.
Posted by: Peter B at June 29, 2004 9:49 PMSo, the main reason to be in favor of the EU is that it is not what it claims to be? Europeans must know that granting power will result in the granting of power. Since the Brits are clearly against giving the EU power over British affairs, it is really funny to watch them go through the motions.
It will be even funnier if they actually go through with it.
Posted by: Michael Gersh at June 30, 2004 7:56 AMRest assured that the EU will start aggrandizing power as soon as it is able as did the U.S. federal government. If Britons want their autonomy, they better get out of the EU now.
Posted by: Tom Potter at June 30, 2004 1:15 PM