Tag Archive for: EU

YOU WON’T GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK WITH BREXIT by Jon Danzig

→ 4-years ago – my warning about Brexit

YOU WON’T GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK WITH BREXIT

Just ten days before the EU referendum, on 13 June 2016, I wrote an article for Independent Voices with the headline, ‘You won’t get your country back if you vote for Brexit. You’ll give it away to the most right-wing government in recent history.’

And so, it has come to pass. My article was shared by Independent readers a record 67,000 times, but Brexit went ahead.

Today, I am re-publishing my article from four years ago today. Not everything I predicted came true – but too much of it has:

▪ “WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!” is the clarion cry of many who want Britain to leave the European Union.

But whose country do they want back exactly? Your country? My country? Or really, just their country?

Before we leave the European Union and possibly change our country forever, we need to have an idea what country we’d leave behind, and what country we’d get instead, if we vote for Brexit on 23rd June.

Look carefully at those Tories who are running the ‘Leave’ campaign and calling for Britain to completely change direction outside the EU.

What could be their real motive?

Those leading Tories – Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, John Whittingdale, Priti Patel, and others – have in this campaign viciously attacked their own government and Prime Minister.

It’s been a nasty and sustained ‘blue on blue’ offensive.

Do they know what they’re doing?

Presumably, yes. The referendum presents for them a possible once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win power for their style of right-wing Conservatism.

So when they say, “Let’s take back control”, they really mean, “We want to take control”.

When they say “Bring back power from Brussels”, they really mean, “We want that power”.

And when they say, “We want our country back”, they really mean their country. The true-blue right-wing Tory Britain of the past that they sorely miss.

These Conservatives have taken a calculated but clever risk. They know that if the referendum results in Brexit, it will mean the end of David Cameron’s premiership and those now in government who support his Remain campaign.

Then what?

There would be resignations and a new leader of the Conservative Party would be elected by the party’s membership.

According to YouGov, Boris Johnson would be front-runner by far to become Tory Leader. On Brexit, we could have a new brand of Conservative government, with Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

Another election would not legally be required until 2020. (Now the end of 2024)

The country we’d be “getting back” on Brexit would be run by possibly the most right-wing Tory government anyone of us can remember.

Instead of our current alliances with Europe, we could be back to Rule Britannia with orthodox Tory Eurosceptics as our new political masters. They could have uninterrupted power for almost four years.

Opposition? What opposition? Labour and the Lib Dems are in disarray.

If these Tory hopefuls get “their country back” on Brexit, what could Britain become?

For an answer, take a close look at what these right-wing Tory Brexiteers stand for. Here are some brief examples:

▪ Iain Duncan-Smith: Long-term Eurosceptic and former Tory leader, he was until recently the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions.

The social policies he proposed were described by the European Court of Justice as “unfit for a modern democracy” and “verging on frighteningly authoritarian”.

▪ Michael Gove: He was last year appointed as Secretary of State for Justice, with a mandate to scrap the Human Rights Act – which might only be possible if Britain leaves the European Union.

As Education Secretary, Mr Gove was widely criticised for his heavy-handed education reforms and described as having a “blinkered, almost messianic, self-belief.”

▪ Boris Johnson: He’s the ‘poster boy’ of the Leave campaign and the likely new Prime Minister if Britain backs Brexit. His buffoonery and gaffes delight some, but horrify others.

He once joked that women only go to university to find a husband. He has often dithered on big issues, wavering last year on whether to return to the House of Commons while still London Mayor. Some have criticised him for allegedly joining ‘Leave’ only because of the opportunity to become Prime Minister.

▪ Priti Patel: She’s the Minister for Employment. In a pro-Brexit speech last month she said, “If we could just halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to our economy and 60,000 new jobs.”

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady responded, “Leave the EU and lose your rights at work – that’s the message that even Leave campaigners like Priti Patel are now giving.”

▪ Chris Grayling: He’s the Leader of the House of Commons and previously Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He provoked the first strike by barristers and solicitors for his cuts to legal aid. He backed reforms to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights. He caused outrage with his comments that Christian owners of bed and breakfasts should have the right to turn away gay couples (he later apologised).

And waiting in the wings is Ukip leader Nigel Farage who said he puts victory in the referendum above loyalty to his party. Farage also said he would back Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister if Britain votes for Brexit – and could see himself working for Boris’s government.

Imagine our current Tory government morphing into a new government consisting only of right-wing Eurosceptic Tories, with the softer pro-EU Conservatives disbanded because they lost the referendum.

A new Conservative government that wouldn’t be subject to the progressive rules and safeguards of the European Union – such as on workers’ rights, free movement and protection of the environment.

Then imagine that we might not have an opportunity to vote out such a new government until 2020. (Now, the end of 2024.)

If you’re one of those who say “We want our country back”, have a think about what country you’d be getting back if we left the EU, and who’d really be in charge of it. Would they represent you?

Is the EU so bad – and the alternative so good – that we’d want to risk exchanging what we’ve got for what we’d get?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ My video, ‘Why Remain lost’ facebook.com/watch/?v=791752647903656http://facebook.com/watch/?v=791752647903656

▪ Please re-Tweet: https://twitter.com/Jon_Danzig/status/1271850531766632450https://twitter.com/Jon_Danzig/status/1271850531766632450

▪ Link to my original article published by Independent Voices on 13 June 2016: independent.co.uk/voices/you-wont-get-back-your-country-if-you-vote-for-brexit-youll-give-it-to-the-most-right-wing-uk-a7079581.htmlhttp://independent.co.uk/voices/you-wont-get-back-your-country-if-you-vote-for-brexit-youll-give-it-to-the-most-right-wing-uk-a7079581.html

▪ Tags: #Brexit #EU #EuropeanUnion #EUReferendum #BorisJohnson

My Telephone Conversation with Johnson by Robert Braban

NewPolitical Mafia

“Hello – Before I start I just want to make sure that it’s definitely you Boris, not Bolsanaro or Trump”.

“Ah it is you! I can hear you banging your spoon on the plastic tray of your high chair trying to get someone to feed your ego”.

“ Now Now Boris! When you calm down I want to ask you some of the questions you’ve dodged in Parliament, at the briefings or to which answers have been fuzzy because they were made from inside a fridge”.

“ Bolsanaro and Trump? I’ll tell you what they have to do with you. You’re like a limited company: Johnson, Trump and Bolsanaro. CEO’s of failing companies responsible for the deaths of thousands but with liability limited through the ability to hide the truth”.

“Yes I know Boris. For God’s sake stop crying. I know that when you trampled over bodies to become PM you didn’t realise you’d get the blame for things you’re responsible for but that happened whilst you were on holiday, in hiding, playing tennis or simply shagging at an away fixture”.

“I know. Of course it’s unfair. Life’s unfair. When you write your memoirs you can leave all the unpleasant/unfair bits out. There won’t be much left, but surely you can invent some good bits. That’s not new to you”.

“Yes, exactly like that. Those water cannon were a great buy. Pity you sold them, you could have used them on gammons who refuse to pick and pack vegetables”.

“No, now you’re being too hard on yourself. Not everything you touch turns to shit; just most of it. If it’s too much to remember, don’t worry, other people have it well documented. After all, one of the nation’s favourite pastimes is writing Boris obituaries”!

“Whilst we’re on the subject of cock-ups Boris, I must raise the question of Brexit. I see the border controls aren’t ready. That’s a simple infrastructure job, of the sort given to a junior officer in the Royal Engineers. I assume you’ve been let down by Tory Remoaners whilst you have personally been doing brilliantly with all the more difficult stuff”.

“You’re What? Going for no deal? Surely you’re not going to drop that ‘ready to go ‘oven ready’ deal’? You know, the one with no checks at the border down the Irish Seal”.

“The Bastards turned the oven off when you weren’t looking? I can’t help you there Doris . It could have been one of many. According to Amazon, sales to government ministers of the ‘Magic Gammon Slicer’ kitchen stiletto are up 200% over the past month”.

“I know you’re meeting Van Leiden next week. I see your logic Boris, but it won’t work. It’s a ‘virtual’ meeting so you can drop the thought of trying to get your leg over. Anyway, does she look as if she goes for badly dressed racist slobs with chipolata sized external brains?”

“No they won’t accept that Boris. They have all the cherry pickers. Don’t you get it, like you, all of our cherries are rotting on the ground”.

“Yes, you are rotting Boris. I know you think that the Brexit catastrophe will pale into insignificance along side the killing of more than half of the Covid 19 victims through your personal negligence, but Brexit will be your lingering leprosy. Bits will be falling off your rotting carcass for years”.

“Sorry, no. I didn’t say ‘rutting carcass’. And yes, that will fall off first!”

“Yes, I’m well aware that you want to go off for a few hours tennis after your afternoon nap, but I have got a couple more things to cover. And you can stop banging that bloody spoon. It was your fault”.

“I know you were on holiday, but you’ll just have to get a mobile like other people”.

“Well it’s your own bloody fault we are losing the roaming rate: you’ll just have to pay the extra like everyone else”.

“Something that everyone wants to know is what Dom has on you that you’re so scared of? He can’t be threatening to expose you as a liar or a racist, or putting a foreign prostitute down to expenses, or even someone who knows how to get someone beaten up: everyone is already in the picture on those issues”.

“You’re frightened of him! FFS we know you’re frightened of him. Why?”

“Of course I’ve read about Rasputin and you’re right, he did have funny eyes like Cummings, but really! Listen, he can’t do spells and potions. You saw him at his news conference, he can’t even lie without tripping himself up. And whatever you’ve been told he’s not a Shaman”.

“I don’t care who told you he was. Bridgen will tell you anything. What he probably said was: “He’s away man” – As in: ‘he’s pissed off to Durham for an eye test’!

“Finally, just a timely warning that you ignore at your peril. You want to be thought of as a modern Churchill. Well it’s happening. They’re going to board you up and stand you on a street somewhere so that the pigeons can shit on you. See you in a couple of weeks”

Robert Braban
14th June 2020.

Public Inquiry into the 2016 Referendum

I know many of you are sceptical of petitions but at least with parliamentary petitions the Government has to respond when a petition receives over 10,000 signatures. This petition calls for an inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 referendum.


Let’s put some pressure on Johnson and Cummings and let them know we are still here! They broke the law and lied.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300473

→ Democracy is a continuous process…by Jon Danzig

LOSING A VOTE DOESN’T MEAN HAVING TO GIVE UP

This time last year, Nigel Farage and his new Brexit party wanted Britain to leave the EU without any deal, and without the British public having any further say.

But that’s not what Mr Farage said just one month before the EU referendum of 2016.

On 16 May 2016, the then UKIP leader told the Daily Mirror that if Remain scraped through with a narrow win, he’d want another referendum.

In those circumstances, Mr Farage predicted, there would be growing pressure to re-run the vote.

Just 38 days before the referendum, Mr Farage told the Mirror’s associate editor, Kevin Maguire:

“In a 52%-48% referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.”

On the other hand, if Remain won with a decisive victory, such as happened in the first referendum in 1975, the game would be over.

Said Mr Farage, “If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third, then that ends it.”

BBC News also reported at the time, ‘There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.’

It was obvious that before the referendum, Mr Farage thought that Remain would win by a narrow margin.

Just before polls closed on 23 June 2016, Nigel Farage said, “It looks like Remain will edge it.”

After the polls closed, he told a party of Leave.eu supporters that Remain had probably won. He added, “I hope I’m wrong.”

But even in the face of defeat, Mr Farage assured his supporters that the Brexit campaign would continue.

“Win or lose this battle, we will win this war,” said Mr Farage.

It’s clear that if Remain had won the referendum, Mr Farage and other Brexiters would not have given up. They would have carried on campaigning and called for another referendum.

Just as Eurosceptics did after they lost the first referendum in 1975 – by a landslide.

There is no shame in Remainers now continuing to argue the case for Britain to re-join the EU.

Just as there would have been no shame in Brexiters continuing their campaign for Britain to leave the EU if they had lost the referendum.

Democracy is a continuous process, in which no vote is ever permanent, and any vote can be changed by a new vote in the future.

Whatever side you are on, Remain or Leave, Labour or Tory, one thing is clear: losing a vote does not mean you have to give up what you believe in.

Isn’t that a message we can all agree with?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ Please re-Tweet: twitter.com/Jon_Danzig/status/1265958988132294656

▪ Link to Daily Mirror story of May 2016: mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

BRITAIN CUT-OFF FROM THE MAINLAND by Jon Danzig

→ From 1 January access to Europe will be more difficult

BRITAIN CUT-OFF FROM THE MAINLAND

‘Visit Europe from 1 January 2021’ is the title of the UK government website which ironically tells you how much more difficult visiting ‘Europe’ will be from next year.

Yes, we’re getting our country back (really?) but instead, we’re losing our continent, or at least, easy access to it.

Among some of the key points for travel throughout the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein from 1 January 2021:

▪ You may be refused entry if your passport only has 6 months left
▪ The guarantee of free mobile phone roaming ends
▪ Your EHIC health card is only valid until 31 December
▪ Use separate lanes from EU/EEA arrivals when queuing
▪ Visa requirements for long stays, business travel, work or study
▪ Your pet passport will no longer be valid
▪ Extra documents to drive
▪ Customs declarations for business goods

Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. More restrictions are likely, especially – as anticipated – we don’t get a deal this year covering our new relationship with the EU.

Brexit means ending free movement between us and our continent.

▪ Oh, how the people of the former Communist countries would have cherished ‘free movement’ instead of being trapped behind their Iron Curtain.

▪ Oh, how Winston Churchill would have been amazed – shocked – that the people of Britain would volunteer to end easy access to the European mainland.

It was he who wrote to his foreign secretary, Anthony Eden, on 21 October 1942, after the first British victory of the Second World War at El Alamein:

‘Hard as it is to say now.. I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible.’

And it was he who said in his famous speech on 5 March 1946 at Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri:

“The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast.”

▪ And yet, it’s Britain that is maximising the barriers between European nations and restricting travel.

▪ And yet, it’s Britain that is shunning unity in Europe by making ourselves a permanent outcast.

What have we done?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ Please re-Tweet: twitter.com/Jon_Danzig/status/1262369715953025026http://twitter.com/Jon_Danzig/status/1262369715953025026

▪ Government website: ‘Visit Europe from 1 January 2021’ www.gov.uk/visit-europe-1-january-2021

WHEN DID BRITAIN VOTE FOR A NO-DEAL BREXIT? By Jon Danzig

→ Brexit crash on top of a pandemic crash. You really want that?

WHEN DID BRITAIN VOTE FOR A NO-DEAL BREXIT?

A no-deal Brexit now looks almost certain, with the latest round of talks between the UK and the EU ending in stalemate, and the negotiations by all accounts turning acrimonious.

It’s almost as if the British government wants a no-deal, even though the Withdrawal Agreement, approved by the UK Parliament, called on both sides to achieve:

“a free trade area…underpinned by a level playing field”

Both sides are far away from achieving a ‘level playing field’ – with Britain insisting on retaining some EU benefits, with the EU saying you can’t pick and choose, or enjoy EU benefits without agreeing to our rules.

▪ Yes, the country voted for Brexit – albeit by the slimmest of margins, and with only a minority of the electorate voting for Leave

(Just 37% of the UK electorate voted for Leave – in all other mature democracies across the world that hold referendums on key issues, that would not have been enough for Leave to have won. A super majority endorsement of at least 50% of the entire electorate, and often at least 60%, would have been required before a big change could go ahead.)

▪ Yes, Leave was on the ballot paper, and Leave won.

But when did Britain vote for a No-Deal Brexit?

We’ve never been given any say on what type of Brexit we’ll get – and still we don’t know what Brexit we might get.

That’s like saying to the estate agent, ‘We agree to sell the house. But we’ll leave it up to you what our next home will be.’

The current transition period runs until 31 December 2020, during which time the UK continues to follow EU rules.

After that? We don’t know.

The government responded bluntly last month to an online petition requesting a Brexit transition extension:

“The transition period ends on 31 December 2020, as enshrined in UK law. The Prime Minister has made clear he has no intention of changing this. We remain fully committed to negotiations with the EU.”

As reported by The Week magazine:

‘The EU wants the UK to agree to follow its rules on fair and open competition so British companies given tariff-free access to the EU market can’t undercut their European competition.

‘The EU has warned that the UK won’t be allowed a “high-quality” market unless it signs up to EU social and environmental standards.’

If a deal can’t be agreed with the EU, then the UK will default to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms from 1 January 2021.

Every WTO member has a list of tariffs and quotas that they apply to other countries.

As The Week outlined in stark terms:

‘That means the UK would be hit by big taxes when it tried to sell products to the EU market. The bloc’s average WTO tariffs are 11.1% for agricultural goods, 15.7% for animal products and 35.4% for dairy.

‘British car makers would be hit with a 10% tariff on exports to the bloc, which could amount to €5.7bn per year. That would increase the average price of a British car sold in the EU by €3,000.

‘Currently, trade between the UK and EU is tariff-free. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) predicts that no-deal would mean that 90% of the UK’s goods exports to the EU would be subjected to tariffs.

‘WTO “most favoured nation” (MFN) rules mean that the UK couldn’t lower its tariffs for any specific country or bloc, such as the EU, without agreeing a trade deal.’

The EU is the UK’s biggest export and import market by far – almost half of ALL our exports go to the EU and just over half of ALL our imports come from the EU.

Even the UK government, in it’s ‘secret’ but leaked Yellowhammer report last year, detailed how a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for the UK, including delays at ports and food and medicine shortages.

And that’s before the government knew anything about the Covid-19 pandemic, which is sending the UK into recession, with unemployment predicted to spiral.

Back in the day, before the referendum campaign, when the Conservative government was pro-Remain, they presented the three main Brexit alternatives – all of which, said the government then, would cause damage to Britain.

① THE NORWAY OPTION – means Britain would leave the EU but still have free and frictionless access to the EU Single Market, by far Britain’s most important and lucrative export and import market. But this option would mean Britain continuing to pay the EU and obey its rules – including free movement of people – without any say in them.

② THE CANADA OPTION means Britain would have tariff free trade with the EU, but not the highly cherished and valuable frictionless trade. And there would only be limited access for our services sector, which makes up almost 80% of our economy.

③ THE WTO OPTION (often referred to as ‘no-deal’) means relying on World Trade Organisation rules. But that would mean new tariffs and complicated, costly procedures on UK trade with the EU, hurting British consumers, businesses and employment. It would also suddenly and catastrophically end all EU membership benefits, affecting all our daily lives.

None of these options were presented as choices in the referendum that voters could opt for. The only option was for Remain, or an undefined Leave.

Before the referendum, Jacob Rees-Mogg proposed a second referendum if Leave won. He said in 2011, when he was campaigning for a new referendum on Brexit:

‘We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.’

It makes sense now to give people a vote on the type of Brexit we want. Of course, the Tories won’t give us that.

But do remember that when, early next year, the country is likely to be in the middle of two catastrophes: Covid-19, and a no-deal Brexit.

One on top of the other will cause us deep pain.

Given a choice, wouldn’t you vote to avoid the second pain, since unlike Covid-19, it is entirely avoidable?

▪ Commentary and graphic by Jon Danzig

▪ The Week report theweek.co.uk/fact-check/95547/fact-check-what-a-no-deal-brexit-really-means

▪ The government’s three different versions of Brexit, published in March 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504604/Alternatives_to_membership_-_possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf

▪ Video about the Yellowhammer report: business.facebook.com/watch/?v=382640305714554

Winston Churchill’s, United states of Europe speech delivered at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946

Winston Churchill’s, speech delivered at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946

I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great
parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of
most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe
were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the
happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet
it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by
the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our
own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed
made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry,
careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and
scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the
victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is
all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the
Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide.
Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or
enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of
succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor.
They may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by
the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene
and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as
Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or
as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace,
safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will
hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life
worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions
of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of
cursing.

Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union, which
owes so much to the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that
immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War –
the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It
failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being,
because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained.
This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with
which to build and also bitter, dearly bought experience to spur.

There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the
world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis
can only survive if it is founded upon broad natural groupings. There is already a natural
grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations.
These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact
its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of
enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent?

And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the
honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of
faith in which the millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two World Wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain
passion of Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and
massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of
the 13th century, no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished.

Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when
all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to
retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called a “blessed act of
oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future. We
cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come hatreds and revenges which have
sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed
from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion
against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the
soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have
been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been
endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that
mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to
will it and all will achieve their heart’s desire.

I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the
European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can
France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe.There can be no revival of Europe
without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United
States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important.
Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the
common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual
convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of
Europe.

But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The
cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we
are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In
these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say
protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a nation which,
we know, will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom, but it may well be that in
a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and that the catastrophe
following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call
civilisation but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.

I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and
fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-
create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of
Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States
of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble
and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race
and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be
created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British
Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America – and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all
would be well – must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its
right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”.

TURNING BACK THE CLOCK ON PEACE IN EUROPE by Robert Braban

Although I first wrote this in 2016, the deteriorating situation and the 75th Anniversary of VE Day makes it appropriate to restate the indisputable case for supporting the EU.

TURNING BACK THE CLOCK ON PEACE IN EUROPE

As we face exit from the European Union, thus contributing massively to the USA and Russian objectives of its destabilisation, we should reflect on the folly of what we do.

It took more than one thousand years for the many nations of Europe with their constantly changing borders to get together and come up with a formula to bring stability to the continent and consign war, as a way of settling disputes, to the dustbin of history. It has taken just one dubious referendum to place it in jeopardy.

During the campaign leading to the referendum on 24th June 2016 a great deal of attention was given to the economy, the myth of sovereignty, immigration and a number of other topics that are really peripheral to the consideration that should have been at the centre of every discussion: the important imperative of peace in Europe. From 1189 until the formation of the EU, seven years was the longest period of peace between nations currently in the EU!

Without peace there is no economic progress nor is there any quality of life. Without peace, all other considerations are simply wishful thinking. A major attribute of the European Union is that it has always been a force for peace.

From the EU’s inception, Europe has enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace among members of the EU and those nations aspiring to membership. The force for peace has been that EU members have pursued a common purpose and have worked as a team for the progress of all. There have been many disagreements but they have always been settled across a table and not a battlefield.

If validation of common purpose as a force for peace is required, one need look no further than the former Yugoslavia. Since the 18th century, the states that eventually formed the Yugoslav state were periodically linked in loose confederation. They were volatile states with more to separate than combine. Despite this, these states were eventually to conjoin in a rough form of European Union.

The Yugoslav state existed from its foundation in the aftermath of World War II until its dissolution in 1992 amid the Yugoslav Wars. For those not familiar with Yugoslavia, it was a socialist state and a federation made up of six socialist republics: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. In addition, it included two autonomous provinces within Serbia: Kosovo and Vojvodina. It was held together by common purpose and by settling differences across a table.

The striking lesson in validating ‘common purpose’ as a tool for peace is the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia after the death of Marshal Tito.

As a cohesive nation under Tito, Yugoslavia was arguably like the European Union where common purpose inter alia, fostered peace among the severely disparate nations. When the cohesive alliance ended, so did peace. The same logic can be applied to the EU which has several nations that are certainly not natural allies. Peace among EU nations, now most of continental Europe, depends a great deal upon the EU remaining intact.

Britain should cherish that peace and Members of Parliament who place nation before party interests will view the Brexit vote of 38% of UK electors as ill-founded advice, the acceptance of which is damaging to the national interest. Tory Party unity is not more important than peace in Europe!

Those who attribute peace in Europe to NATO betray their total lack of understanding of NATO, it’s constitution and its purpose. NATO is a currently powerful force but as growing nationalism makes it ever more essential, that same political trend threatens its existence. It’s a deterrent force, but it’s also a reactive and not an initiating force. It has virtually no role in the maintenance of peace and good relations between EU members. It cannot and does not prevent local conflict. Moreover, serious political instability in the USA threatens the very existence of the alliance. A part of US motivation in supporting NATO has been a preference to fight their wars on someone else’s turf. That aspiration can no longer be fulfilled.

Of course NATO was instrumental in preventing Soviet aggression but it’s also true that NATO’s contribution to the period of peace between European nations was mostly restricted to the simple fact that some of the member nations were also members of the EU. Friends with a common purpose.

There are a lot of things in the EU that need reforming, but seventy years of peace alone would be worth every disadvantage the biggest Eurosceptic could list.

RL Braban
Wg Cdr Ret’d (RAF 1955-1990)

May 2016 (Rev January 2020)