LITTLE ENGLANDERS OR GREAT BRITONS?
by Henry Gilmore
[This
article appeared in edition No.22 of the influential Conservative magazine RIGHT
The Millennium is approaching. It
will prove to be the most significant psychological landmark in world history
since the Second World War.
Few can doubt that the period between the end of
World War II and the present day has been one of the most sorry eras in British
history. We started with a mighty Empire, but have finished as little more than
a province of a federal Europe. Even more worrying, however, the very existence
of the United Kingdom itself is now threatened by devolution in Scotland and
Wales, and by sell-out in Northern Ireland. These two retrograde developments
are not unrelated. It is the intention of Federalist forces in Europe to
destroy the great nation states not only by concentrating over-riding power at
the top, but also be establishing enhanced regional centres of power as
secondary tiers of authority.
The more rabid apologists for Euro-federalism (the
Heaths and Jenkins of this world) are extremely fond of describing those
opposed to European integration as "Little Englanders". Not only is
this a lie, it is actually the complete antithesis of the truth. It is those
who lack confidence in our country to exist outside a European "super
state", yet who simultaneously wish us to think of ourselves as
"English" (or "Scottish" or "Welsh") rather than
as British, who are in reality the "Little Englanders".
But what of the future. All the signs are that the
EU is heading for troubled times with the coming of the Millennium. The common
currency is being rushed into operation amidst fudge and false-accountancy
which threatens total chaos; the global economic recession will spell disaster
for all those economies that can't control their own interest rates; and
(perhaps as a result of these previous factors) Euroscepticism is on the
increase throughout the EU - not just in Britain. A doomsday scenario therefore
looms. Britain must get out, and get out quickly.
To withdraw, however, there must be a clear
alternative. Many more "purist" opponents of the EU state simply that
the UK should leave and become totally "independent" of all
international links - a sort of large-scale Switzerland. Such a policy may be
possible, but it isn't practical. The lack of any "big idea" as an
alternative will not only fail to galvanise majority support in the electorate,
but also ignores Britain's historic and natural attributes as a great global
power.
The idea of the UK joining NAFTA is also being
increasingly suggested as an alternative. Such a development has much to be
said in its favour. NAFTA has no political agenda and there is no talk of a
common currency. Furthermore Britain has closer traditional and ethnic ties
with Canada than with any continental country, and our links with the United
States are also natural, strong and long-standing. There is one major problem
with NAFTA however: Mexico.
The other and perhaps more viable alternative is
far more visionary, and entails that enigmatic and often derided institution,
the Commonwealth. When Britain surrendered her Empire and opted instead for the
Common Market it was probably the most ludicrous example in history of swapping
a treasure chest of wealth for a constant drain on the national coffers - but
that potential treasure trove is still out there waiting. It must be
emphasised, however, that we are not talking about that farce of the
current-day Commonwealth - that warped institution where civilised and
democratic Britain is scolded by blood-stained third world despots - but rather
the possibilities that such a grouping of nations and territories might still
offer us.
There are, moreover, already some most encouraging
straws in the wind. It shouldn't be forgotten that the initial break-up of the
United Kingdom actually preceded the collapse of Empire, when the 26 counties
of Southern Ireland were allowed to secede in 1922, and it is here where
ironically some of the most significant signs of Britain's restoration as a
larger world player have surfaced. Despite the current concentration of
attention on political changes in Northern Ireland, one far more important
development has been overlooked - the growth of pro-Unionist sentiment in the
Republic of Ireland. A vibrant Unionist Association has been in existence at
Trinity College Dublin for some time, and out of this has grown the nationwide
pro-re-unification Reform Movement. In April of 1998 for the first time
since partition an overtly Unionist candidate, John McDonald, stood in an
election for the Dail in a Dublin constituency, and obtained a surprisingly
respectable number of first-preference votes. Support for the more limited idea
of the Republic of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth is even greater however,
with former President Mary Robinson even voicing her approval. It should also
be borne in mind that were the UK to leave the EU then for geographical,
cultural and economic reasons it would be difficult to imagine the Republic of
Ireland not following.
We must continue to look west however. Canada is
probably the most obvious and logical nation for Britain to establish an
integrated market with, and here the growth in support for the French-speaking
Quebec separatists has caused a natural pro-British backlash amongst the
country's Anglophile majority. Similarly every advance by Australia's (mainly
immigrant-descended) pro-Republican campaigners only increases the backlash of
pro-British sentiment in that country.
But it is not only to the old Dominions of the
Commonwealth where Britain should be looking for a new (or revived) global
role. If they are honest most of the ordinary citizens of the third world
Commonwealth countries would also look back to the era of British colonial rule
as a golden age. In Hong Kong, just prior to the unnecessary handover of that
little pot of gold to the tender mercies of Communist Chinese rule, Kowloon was
festooned with wall graffiti saying such things as "Long Live British
Martial [sic] Rule", sentiments which were confirmed by opinion polls
showing over 70% of the population would prefer to remain a British colony.
During a recent visit to London Ian Smith told how he was constantly being
approached by Blacks in the former Rhodesia who told him that they wished he
was still in charge, and a recent television documentary dumbfounded liberals
when a number of Blacks in South Africa openly state that life was far better for
them during the days of White rule.
Of course at this stage it would be a mistake to
theorise upon the precise nature of this "new" Commonwealth. It would
not, however, simply be a replica of the previous British Empire; after all we
are now living in the age of the Internet, not the sailing ship - but the very
nature of the modern "global village" means that inter-continental
alliances and single markets will be far more practical in the twenty-first
century than they were in the nineteenth. It will probably evolve as a
"core" Commonwealth revolving around the UK, the original dominions
(including Southern Ireland) and Britain's existing overseas territories, but
it will not be solely restricted to them. Certainly most Caribbean nations (who
have suffered so much from Britain's membership of the EU) would find it most
advantageous to become involved, as also will certain South-East Asian
countries, for recent history has proven that they still have closer economic
dependence upon the UK than most people realise. An added advantage to this
potential future dispensation is that voluntary repatriation of third world
residents from the UK would become far more practical.
Although the United States itself would undoubtedly
not join any formal structure , the future even so omens well for a closer and
more mutually-advantageous relationship. The two probable leading Republican
candidates in 2000, Newt Gingrich (a firm Thatcherite, who moreover wrote his
academic thesis on Belgian colonial history) and George Bush jnr. (whose
father, of course, was probably the most pro-British American president in
history, and who certainly didn't "go wobbly"), are both enthusiastic
Anglophiles. The coming of the new Millennium could well herald America's
largest potential "ethnic lobby" - those of British descent - at last
asserting their ascendancy.
There are those isolationists, devolutionists and
"Little Englanders", of course, who would claim that Britain no
longer has the ability to be a great global power. They ignore a very important
fact however, that twice during our nation's "dark era"
(1945-1999) - during the Falklands and Gulf Wars - Britain has proved that our
latent greatness still remains undiminished.
With the coming of the Millennium, and the
undoubted problems which will be facing the EU, Britain will be at a
cross-roads. It will be time for a new agenda for a new era. We will have to
decide whether we wish to be "Little Englanders" or "Great
Britons". It will be a choice between looking east to continental Europe
where we have little in common traditionally and few economic advantages - or
west towards Ireland, the Americas, and the open seas.
Henry Gilmore worked in