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 Southern Africa for 14 years and also has
firsthand experience of Hong Kong,