The closest targets are the easiest to hit, which is why jaundiced fogies like me mostly save their slings and arrows for currently active politicians.
But Sir John Major has inadvertently elucidated the historical continuity of woolly political thinking and self-destructive political action.
Sir John, whose towering intellect and steely character are only matched by his taste in women, hails Dave for his ‘courageous’ support of homomarriage. ‘Every couple should have the opportunity and the right to formalise their relationship,’ says Sir John.
Surely not every couple? What if, as a purely hypothetical example, a married man has a protracted bit on the side with a female colleague? One could argue they are a couple, and they may even be a happy couple, yet their relationship can’t be formalised this side of a Muslim harem or a Mormon church, as it used to be.
This isn’t in any way to question Sir John’s expertise on relationships. Actually, what interests me more is his take on courage. After all, when once asked to name a role model among his predecessors, he unerringly chose Neville Chamberlain, that notorious paragon of political courage, especially in foreign relations.
Emulating his paper-waving idol, it was Mr Major, as he then was, who in 1992 so bravely put his signature on the Maastricht Treaty, inaugurating 20 years of courage and intellectual honesty in our politics.
You may think I’m being facetious, but actually I do believe it takes a lot of nerve to mouth arrant nonsense with a straight face. No issue highlights this brand of courage as vividly as the EU, and we must thank Sir John for setting up this litmus test two decades ago.
One current example: Boris Johnson crossing his heart and swearing to die in support of his assertion that Dave will soon be offering ‘broadly an in/out referendum on the new terms.’ Since Johnson isn’t a stupid man, it must have taken a lot of courage for him to utter this obviously meaningless drivel.
What does ‘broadly’ mean? Or ‘the new terms’? Why such qualifiers? An in/out referendum can only be straightforward, with the people asked the simplest of questions: Do you wish to get out of the EU or not? An honest question requiring an honest yes or no answer, and Bob Schuman’s your uncle.
‘Broadly’ and ‘on the new terms’ only come in when the government wishes to con the people, not ask what they think. Exactly how the con job might work was hinted at by the former minister Dr Liam Fox, widely regarded as a ‘eurosceptic’.
Dr Fox insists that his party must offer a ‘settled position that is clear, concise and consistent’. Now what exactly might that position be?
‘If the choice is between a looser, more economic relationship and leaving, then I would choose to stay,’ explains Dr Fox. ‘I, for one, hope to see “back to a common market” as the Conservative slogan on Europe at the next general election.’
The Common Market was a ruse, Dr Fox, and every ‘eurosceptic’ ought to be aware of this. It was conceived and put into effect by the likes of Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet as a step on the ladder leading up to a single European state.
The previous step was called The European Coal and Steel Community, and its founders made no bones about its true purpose. Thus, for example, Schuman:
‘This proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation, imperative for the preservation of peace.’
One may argue that pooling the production of essential commodities was a good idea, and the subsequent creation of a free trading zone even a better one (this, assuming that the Common Market was indeed such a zone, rather than essentially a protectionist bloc). But such an argument is irrelevant in view of what these steps really were: tricking Europeans into accepting a gradual back-door entry of a single Leviathan dominated by Germany, with France as her stooge.
Is this what Dr Fox wishes to go back to? If so, he lacks the most basic knowledge of the process about which he’s allegedly sceptical. And his grasp of economics is hardly more secure.
There is no need to ‘stay’ in the EU to have ‘a looser, more economic relationship’. That’s not what the EU is for, as its own founders explained to us all those years ago. Dare one say it, a nation can trade with other nations without belonging to even a quasi-state union with them. Britain did reasonably well in that department before the EU and would do just as well should she leave it.
That continental Europe would stop doing business with us should we leave is a lie, and not a particularly clever one. Our politicians like to put on all-knowing faces and declare that the EU accounts for 40 percent of our trade. Full stop. They don’t feel they have to complete the thought by saying that, should we leave the EU, that trade would discontinue. Supposedly this goes without saying.
Hats off to them: it does take much bold-faced courage to utter or even imply such idiocy. The UK is the second biggest export market for the EU. Do our courageous politicians really think that the present economic situation would encourage the Germans to stop selling their BMWs to us, or the French their clarets?
Really, John Major ought to re-enter active politics – we’re lost without his courageous presence. And Dr Fox may yet find himself back on the Tory front bench if he isn’t careful.