Peter O’Bore’s Erroneous Comparison
Political discourse is full of unhelpful comparisons: shrieking keffiyeh wearing activists like to demonize Israel by comparing it to Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa and unlettered Eurosceptics (usually found skulking the Telegraph’s comments section) like to compare the European Union to the USSR. Pro-Iraq War Tories had the impertinence to dub Charles Kennedy ‘Charlie Chamberlain’ in the lead up to the 2003 invasion. And not to revert to easy-Lib-Dem-clap-on-Question-Time mode, we all know how that turned out…
So those uneasy with inappropriate analogies must have been taken aback by the Centre for Policy Studies publication ‘Guilty Men’ (if you don’t want to read the whole thing, you can view a brief précis at The Spectator website).
The term ‘Guilty Men’ of course refers to the classic text of 1940 that condemned fifteen British public figures for their appeasement stance against Germany throughout the 1930s. The journalist Peter Oborne and his colleague Francis Weaver have appropriated the term for their critique of British pro-Euro public figures of recent decades. Today’s ‘Guilty Men’ include Danny Alexander, Tony Blair, Paddy Ashdown, Ken Clarke, Will Hutton, Michael Heseltine and Nick Clegg amongst others.
In the foreword, Peter Jay justifies the title:
“In choosing the title of their book from that famous earlier study of national betrayal by the nation’s élite, the authors of this book have chosen well. Like the appeasers, those who after 1950 worked to deliver their country into the hands of a foreign power…” (piii)
Eurosceptics may have the upper hand given the current political and economic turmoil unfolding in the Eurozone but that is no excuse for historical ignorance by applying such a loaded term to Europhiles (even if they have indulged in some unsavoury character assassinations in the past).
All in all, there isn’t anything particularly revelatory in the book. We all know about the Beeb and FT’s pro-Europeanism just as we know that The Daily Express, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph and The Sun are not too keen on the whole project.
Oborne and Weaver’s work is also based around a number of counterfactuals such as:
“Mr [Danny] Alexander ran the pro-euro campaign, and had he had his way would have steered Britain directly to economic catastrophe.”
Yet it is just as easy to respond with another; that is, if the criteria set out at Maastricht had been adhered to, then the Eurozone would not have been in the mess that it is in.
Invoking Churchill in their final chapter, they call on a number of British politicians to come out and apologise: “Top of the list comes Tony Blair, who during his party conference speech of 1999 implied that Conservative euro-scepticism stood in the foul tradition of South African racism. There can be no place in our national debate for this kind of cheap and debased argument, which sadly poisoned so much of the British debate over the single currency.” (p65)
But come on Mr Oborne, just look at your title. Are Europhiles analogous to the Nazi appeasers of the 1930s? Really?
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Are Europhiles analogous to the Nazi appeasers of the 1930s? Really?”
No. Chamberlain realised his mistake and started rearming the UK in 1938 (I believe). It was he who declared war in ’39; it’s his voice pronouncing it on the famous radio clip.
Clegg in 2011, 2 years into the crisis, or “war” as Cable put it, can’t even say in an interview that joining the Euro would have been a mistake.
Chamberlain, for all his faults, was a better statesman than any of the Europhiles vilified above.
September 24th, 2011 at 9:01 am
I have always been surprised by Liberal Vision’s pro-Europeanism given that most libertarians tend to be very anti the whole EU project. Decentralise power and limit the upper layers of government – how is this not classically liberal?
Incidentally one can understand Eurosceptic anger given the attempts by “Europhiles” to claim Euroscepticism was based around xenophobia and racism.
September 24th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
@Richard Manns
British rearmament started in 1934, following advice from the Imperial General Staff (that is the military service chiefs) that war was likely within 10 years.
If you’re going to insist on making the historical comparison concerned, and display your patriotism, you might consider a bit more study of the history concerned. Anyway, none of this justifies comparing an attempt at monetary union now in crisis, with totalitarianism in the 30s and 40s. Hitler and his followers murdered 6 million Jews, if you think a comparison between such extreme evil and a treaty between European nations which led to the launch of the Euro is appropriate, then I have nothing to say except to invite others to form their own judgement.
@Richard
Thanks for a more considered response. However, you first sentence is contradictory. You say you are surprised by LV’s benign attitude to the EU and then say that *most* libertarians think differently. Well you accept that a minority of libertarians are benign towards the EU, so why the surprise? And what’s wrong with being in the minority? Isn’t respect for diversity of opinion a virtue for libertarians? Have you forgotten that, at least in the 1940s, Hayek was supporting European federalism. I haven’t seen any later statements by him on the subject. Hayek certainly meant something less top down, interventionist and homogenising than the EU as it is now, and so do we. LV is not a body which adopts policy statements, so I can’t give an exact idea of what an LV line on the EU is, but I think I can safely say that most people at LV want to see an EU more devoted to lifting barriers to trade and business, which fosters tax competition and deregulation. On the whole we want to see political co-operation, and even integration, to foster free markets, competition between nations and regions in creating business friendly environments and efficient institutions.
The hardcore Eurosceptic goal of unlimited national sovereignty is not a libertarian goal, libertarians are against unlimited sovereignty for any political body. It is very consistent with that principle to give some elements of sovereignty to a transnational federal union.
Your point about the kind of accusations made by hardcore EU enthusiasts and many who work for the EU is very reasonable. Their culture is one of snobbish complacency, in which any criticism of the EU can be dismissed as populism or something worse. At LV we are not happy with that sort of stereotypical bureaucratic/political elite attitude, which is certainly not unique to the EU. We want to contest it in the EU , in national governments, and everywhere.
September 25th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Are we going to discuss the contents of the essay or just the title?
Oborne accurately describes the majority mood in the ruling political class. Europe is just one topic where they are out of touch with ordinary people. They know they are out of touch and they are proud to be out of touch. Other topics like this are immigration, capital punishment, and greenery.
A lot of it is GroupThink. Their main loyalty is to their own careers, to each other, and to their own idea of “polite dinner-party” values. Much of their thinking is circular: opposing ideas are bad ideas. People holding bad ideas are bad people. Bad people hold bad ideas which makes the opposing ideas even worse and the opposing people even worse.
September 25th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
@Barry,
I find it hard to agree on your idea of a Libertarian giving “some elements of sovereignty to a transnational federal union”.
Can you give us an example ?
I’ll give you an easy example. My decision whether to have a first aid kit in my car is purely my decision. Do you think it should be the EU that forces me to have a first aid kit in my car? is that a Libertarian move?
September 29th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
@Jack Hughes
I’m talking about *state* sovereignty, not *individual self-sovereignty*. Since libertarians support limiting the state, it is surely not controversial to say that national state sovereignty should be limited by downward transfer of powers and by upward transfer of powers. Immanuel Kant who is generally recognised as a classical liberal was certainly arguing for a transnational authority back in the late 18th century, though restricted in its functions to preventing war, perhaps extending intı internal state affairs in so far as they might lead to war. There is certainly an argument to be had about whether the EU is a good transnational agency, but I see nothing controversial about the principle of a transnational authority, with effective democratic accountability and which enforces laws agreed on by the constituent nations of such an authority. Anyway, Hayek of the 1940s thought so, and possibly later.
October 3rd, 2011 at 11:10 am
@ Leslie Clark writes:
‘if the criteria set out at Maastricht had been adhered to, then the Eurozone would not have been in the mess that it is in’
= Quite, but it wasn’t was it and it was as usual Germany and France who first broke the rules when it suited them and set the tone for what followed. Nothing new there then. It’s absurd that Britain slavishly obeys ruyles and lets others get away with flouting them and equally absurd to believe that that will not remain the case in the future. It’s time we got out of the whole wretched mess.
@ Barry Stoker:
‘…in the 1940s Hayek was supporting European federalism. I haven’t seen any later statements by him on the subject. Hayek certainly meant something less top down, interventionist and homogenising than the EU as it is now, and so do we…I think most people at LV want to see an EU more devoted to lifting barriers to trade and business, which fosters tax competition and deregulation. On the whole we want to see political co-operation, and even integration. The hardcore Eurosceptic goal of unlimited national sovereignty is not a libertarian goal, libertarians are against unlimited sovereignty for any political body. It is very consistent with that principle to GIVE SOME ELEMENTS OF SOVEREIGNTY TO A TRANSNATIONAL FEDERAL UNION’
‘Immanuel Kant who is generally recognised as a classical liberal was certainly arguing for a transnational authority back in the late 18th century…I see nothing controversial about the principle of a transnational authority…Anyway, Hayek of the 1940s thought so, and possibly later’.
= Mr Stocker, I have long argued that there is actually something inherently treacherous in the viewpoint put into practice, however well-meaning the motives behind it, that a country’s national sovereignty be given away to or shared with foreign powers.
As for Kant and Hayek, so what? The European Union was I suspect always the aim of some, but it was certainly never mentioned when Britain had its referendum on whether to join the ‘Common Market’. I think if it was still simply that people would not mind so much, though of course it was always loaded in France and Germany’s favour and we paid a heavy price for membership until Mrs Thatcher won a rebate, since given up by the self-serving and dangerously ambitious hypocrite and pro-Euro Tony Blair with help from Peter Mandelson et al, cheered on from the sidelines by people such as yourself.
What the vast majority of British people today are clearly aghast at are the increasingly megalomaniac tendencies amongst faceless, often unelected European beurocrats and the most shocking obfuscation and downright denial as regards the folly of trying to create what is clearly meant to be a European empire with Germany at its helm and France in tow as a means it thinks of maintaining some control.
The level of denial is truly astounding. Yes, the rules of Maastricht were broken and that has had an effect, but it was France and Germany that first broke them when it pleased them and set the tone. Thank God the eurosceptics, who were not always portrayed as very pleasant people and amongst whom a few may indeed not be, won the argument in the UK. Imagine the disaster had people who adhere to the views of organisations like Liberal Vision managed to take us into the Euro and give away even more sovereign powers than New Labour did. As usual, being British, we would have adhered to the rules whilst others flouted them and stole a march on us, whilst being unable to set interest rates (see Greece, Ireland, etc) or devalue if necessary (see Greece, Ireland, etc) as our own personal situation demanded, instead dancing to the tune of the European Bundersbank, who set rates that are meant first and foremost to work for the German economy.
Mr Stocker, please stop dreaming and get with reality. Philosophy is all very well but it must always be grounded in the earth, in the truth of the way things are and not as we might imagine them or simply wish them to be.
You do not avoid conflict or being subsumed by another by constantly kow-towing and giving away powers to someone else. At best you defer what may be inevitable and increase the likelihood that should a falling out occur it is far more violent than might otherwise have been the case. France and Germany will fall out again. It is just a matter of time.
In the meantime Mr Stocker you and everyone else who argued that we should be ‘more’ integrated into the EU and should have scrapped Sterling in favour of the Euro for some years now ought to hang your heads in shame, apologise if you have slighted others of a different (and clearly correct) viewpoint and acknowledge your great, historical error. It will not be forgotten.
July 5th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
In the recent Guardian article & poll ‘EU referendum: vote right here, right now’ people were invited to vote simply ‘In’ or ‘Out’. Here I copy in the result:
42% I’m in
58% I’m out
This poll is now closed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/jul/01/eu-europe-news?commentpage=1#end-of-comments
And that is in a left-of-centre, pro-UE organ of the media like The Guardian!
Why on God’s green earth would anyone want still to commit to such a self-serving, navel-gazing supra-national organisation whose accounts have never been signed off by auditors for the simple reason that it is incredibly corrupt?
The EU is a gravy train for ideological conmen and criminals. Yet the Liberal Democrats – and The Guardian – remain as committed to it and presumably also its commitment to the creation of a single European super-state (which we may as well call Germania) as they ever were, despite abundant evidence of its ineptitude viz a viz the Euro.
One assumes in the absense of any statement to the contrary that the Lib Dems and The Guardian also remain committed to the Euro too!
All this ought to make any person who has not completely lost the ability to think as a normal human being question the credentials of such people to do much else than flip burgers. I say that despite the fact that I like and exclude Vince Cable, Lord Oakshott and one or two others from this general description.
July 5th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Here is an excellent & very telling Comment (No. 435) from the Guardian In ir Out EU poll (see prior post) by LucasFord, 1 July 2012 6:18PM, duly acknowledged with thanks which shows just how Emmanuel Kant’s philosophy was overriden and ignored by those who run the EU. No wonder it is a disaster! I wasn out, now. Here is that post in full:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘I’ve recently finished reading Slavoj Zizek‘s fantastic book, ‘Living in The End Times’, and I enjoyed one chapter a great deal more than the others (Crisis in a Multicentric World). The chapter contains a particularly fascinating essay entitled, ‘EUROPE:US = KANT:HEGEL’.
The essay notes the parallels between the thinking behind the European union (or project) and the thinking found in the works of the great 18th century philosopher, IMMANUEL KANT …The EU seems to ignore two extremely important tenants of Kantian thought. Both can be found in Kant’s remarkably prescient essay, Perpetual Peace – specifically points 4 and 5 of the first section of the essay.
I quote from the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophical Thought’s version of KANT’s political writings (omiting much text because both sections are big). Here Kant is describing what is required for a ‘PERPETUAL PEACE BETWEEN STATES‘.
To quote the first…
“4. No National Debt shall be contracted in connection with the external affairs of the states… Foreign debts must therefore be prohibited by a preliminary article of such a peace, otherwise national bankruptcy, inevitable in the long run, would necessarily involve various other states in the resultant loss without their having deserved it, thus inflicting upon them a public injury. Other states are therefore justified in allying themselves against such a state and its pretensions.”
And the second…
“5. No State shall forcibly interfere in the constitution and government of another state… the interference of external powers would be a violation of the rights of an independent people which is merely struggling with its internal ills. Such interference would be an active offence and would make the autonomy of all other states insecure.”
Perhaps Europe should have listened to Kant more closely? A lot of bother re: Greece, Ireland, and Spain could have been avoided.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I heartily concur with Mr Ford’s last line ‘Perhaps Europe should have listened to Kant more closely’. It’s time the whole Fourth Reich was dismantled, nations set free and the money used instead for the well-being of ordinary peoiple. The need has never been so urgent, nor the cause so just.