Two weeks after the Foreign Affairs Committee produced a unanimous report on the implications for Britain’s Role in the World of the EU referendum decision, its Chairman, Crispin Blunt, MP for Reigate, has declared his choice in the referendum campaign. The Committee of 11 had been split 5-5 with the Chairman’s position being the only one undeclared. The Committee agreed an analysis, providing a definitively unbiased presentation of the consequences for the electorate.
Crispin Blunt made his personal position public in an interview on Andrew Neil’s Daily Politics at lunchtime and this will be reinforced in an article for the Evening Standard. A longer draft of this article is reproduced below.
Crispin Blunt, commenting in the wake of the Prime Minister’s speech on the security implications of leaving the EU, said as follows:
“The Prime Minister might have a point if we were actually committed to the EU having a defence identity. The reverse is the case. In fact it is British neuralgia about the EU advancing its own defence identity that is actively slowing to a crawl any progress about intelligent defence integration between the states of the EU. The interests of the Eurozone members are now so closely intertwined that it makes no practical sense not to defend them collectively. It is in our interest for the EU to have a much stronger defence capability, the issue is whether it is in our interest to be part of it. If Britons felt sufficient commitment to the European ideal it would be right to join it and encourage it. But the difficult truth is our geography, history, culture and economic interest produce a much more qualified commitment to that ideal than that of our continental partners.
“I want my country to have a positive role in the world, not a negative one. The only positive role on offer is a global internationalist one. Let’s take it, embrace our unique global advantages and assist our European neighbours with resolving the politics and democratic accountability of ever closer union, rather than obstructing them.”
As a new MP nearly 20 years ago I wrote a pamphlet calling for the UK to make its mind up about the EU. Finally we have that chance. Once the country decides its path on 23rd June it should be much easier to have a clearer national strategy and a better sense of our role in the world. It was my view then, and is still now, that making a decision matters more than which choice we make.
I had just spent nearly two years as a special adviser in the Foreign Office. I witnessed the all-consuming defensive battle to protect our view of the EU against those of our partners, who were really committed to the project and the idealism of ever closer union in Europe. Those countries that on occasion agreed with us gratefully allowed British ministers and officials to make the arguments, so that they weren’t seen as “uncommunitaire”, and risk annoying the preeminent driving forces of the Union, Germany and the Commission.
This long defensive bureaucratic battle has been draining. It consumes the energy of ministers and officials, even if our position has been defended over 3 decades with typical British grit and determination and quite a lot of skill. Bit by bit we have been driven back from our restricted vision of what the EU should be. In the renegotiation, preceded by the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon, our partners have allowed us to carve out this isolated “special” status, whilst the project remains intact. This is the redoubt we now defend.
The soaring idealism of the project, planted in the ashes of post war Europe, today is reinforced by political necessity. Now we have the Euro we, or at least the Euro area, must to move towards some kind of United States of Europe or it will collapse. An accountable body will have to vote the common tax and benefits across Europe to support the common currency area. Unsurprisingly many of our partners also want a common defence capability, which makes complete sense if your interests are so closely aligned that it's bizarre that you should not defend them together.
For Britain our position is all so negative. This is reflected in this referendum campaign. The positive arguments for peace and security in Europe, cloaked in the idealism of Europe’s founders, are almost completely absent. Instead we trumpet our semi-detached status. Like a racecourse bookie or a market trader with the best pitch we gloat in our “deal”. Except our deal will either in the long run be unpicked, or our refusal to allow the others to sort their collective position out will bring the whole business crashing down.
18 years ago I wanted us to make a choice between two ideals. Britain as a committed member of a great project to deliver peace and cooperation in Europe. A sense of European identity to complement our national (in my case English) and British identities. Or the alternative global vision. Britain with its unique history, culture and connections, reinforced by national economic strengths that are global not regional, could embrace a truly international identity. Yes we would lose the benefits of being part of a slowly emerging superstate, but our vision would be global, our role truly international as we have the weight to count, if not to command, alone.
Regrettably there is only one positive future role for our country on offer. The other role is a grimmer, enervating, and ultimately small minded defence of our “deal”. We would be working to stop our partners developing the shared sovereignty they need to deliver the ideal in practice.
Therefore I will be voting to leave. I believe it is in the long term interest of both Britain and the EU to do so. I also want us to have a role as a country that is positive and a national strategy that is consistent with our history, culture and population.
I will be accused of being a naïve idealist. However I'm convinced long term practical considerations buttress the leave case. Shackling our nation to a part of the world in relative historic decline when we have a realistic global option could be seen as quixotic. We also aren't prepared to fully commit to our neighbours’ interests when they face a wholly predictable existential crisis.
The economic arguments are even softer. Like all predictions they depend on their assumptions. There are usually short term costs of any change. This would undoubtedly be the case if we leave, but the opportunities beyond, and the potential to unleash the creativeness of our globally aligned population on a world market strike me as potentially tragic to imperil within a protectionist bloc in a world of growing global interdependence.
The remain campaign is reducing its arguments to “Do you want to be poor?” Quite apart from their veracity, can't we do any better than this? Do you want to be free? Do you want your nation to have a positive role in the world? Britain is uniquely blessed with our people, history and culture. Let's put them to the global test, pursuing a positive role not grim defence of our special status within a declining bloc.