sexta-feira, 6 de junho de 2014

Why Britain still wants to fight Europe on the beaches




Why Britain still wants to fight Europe on the beaches
As D-day reminds us, the EU was born out of war, and Britain's heroic view of that conflict shapes its hostile attitude
Jonathan Freedland
Follow @Freedland Follow @guardian
The Guardian, Friday 6 June 2014 /



 The beaches are quiet now, every last trace of blood washed away. When I covered the 60th anniversary commemorations of D-day in 2004, it was that contrast that struck me most. How rapidly the earth had healed, how quickly the calm and beauty of Normandy – once noisy with the clamour of war, the soil once sodden with blood – had been restored.

Today I watched the 70th anniversary events from afar, on television. I was moved once more by the sight of the remaining veterans, fewer this time, come to say thank you, or goodbye, to the comrades who fell at their sides – friends for ever frozen in youth.

Watching on a news channel, it meant I also saw the news ticker crawling along the bottom of the screen, bringing word of events elsewhere. The result of the Newark byelection, won by the Tories but with a majority slashed by Ukip; the rumbling row over Jean-Claude Juncker's ambition to be the next president of the European commission, escalated by his refusal to get on his knees to secure British backing. There was a mention of President Obama's announcement of a $1bn fund to boost the US military presence in Europe. The ticker is usually a distraction from the main story on the screen. But not this time. Because these events are connected.

The extent to which the politics of 2014 is still shaped by the events of 1944, and attitudes to Europe were formed in the shadow of the second world war, is most obvious in Britain, but it is not peculiar to these islands. Both the historical pro-Europeanism of the continent and the British scepticism that opposes it are, in part, the consequences of that epic conflict.

It's true that anti-EU parties fared well in last month's European elections, but in most cases that success came in nations long committed to the European project – with the triumph of Marine Le Pen's Front National in France the most obvious example. Ukip's 27% in Britain represented far less radical a break, for this country has only ever been ambivalent at best about Europe.

France's former prime minister Michel Rocard put it starkly when he wrote that Britain should leave the European Union – "go before you wreck everything" – but he put his finger on something real. "You do not like Europe," he argued, all but adding the words "and you never have". He explained that when Britain joined, 41 years ago, it was on a misunderstanding. "You never shared the true meaning of the project which Winston Churchill, speaking on your behalf, set out in Zurich in 1946 with his incredible words: 'We must build a kind of United States of Europe …'"

Rocard was surely right on this point – and right to trace Britain's ambivalence all the way back to the immediate aftermath of the war. For Britons never felt the urgent need for "ever closer union" that brought the first European dreamers together. Britons had not seen their land invaded and occupied; indeed, they were proud that the boots of no foreign army had trodden British soil for a thousand years. Though the hunger for a new political settlement was severe in Britain – severe enough to sweep away the great war leader himself in Labour's 1945 landslide victory – the country did not see itself as one that had to be rebuilt from scratch.

Put simply, Britons saw "Europe" as the solution to a problem Britain didn't have. It was a remedy for others, nations whose previous order had been utterly discredited, like France, or whose very national identity had to be reconstituted, like Germany. Churchill's call for a United States of Europe sounds like federalist fanaticism of a kind that would see him expelled from today's Conservative party, until you read the quotation in full – and realise that he excluded Britain from this grand design. Britain would stand alongside the Commonwealth, the US and the Soviet Union as "friends and sponsors of the new Europe" – but would not be in it.

Of course, there are other causes for British Euroscepticism, but it is the war that forms its bedrock. Both 1940 and 1944, the twin pillars of the creation myth of modern Britain, established a national narrative of apartness – of the solitary Tommy declaring "Very well, alone" before riding to the rescue of continentals who could not be trusted to defend democracy.

There are few more seasoned observers of this complex relationship than Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform. He's asked all the time to explain Britons' tepid attitudes to the EU. Part of it, he says, is that we "had a jolly good war and think all the others were either on the wrong side or ran away and were defeated".

This is the gap between us and our European partners. As Rocard wrote, for Britain Europe was always about trade and not much else. But for a continent ravaged by war twice in 30 years, and for centuries before that, the European project was a matter of life and death – of replacing bloody conflict with co-operation, allowing dilution of national sovereignty to be the price.

This is why we're so often stroppy and difficult, the irritant and naysayer – why we're the ones now leading the opposition to the arch-federalist Juncker. The former Luxembourg PM, who once talked of his fondness for "secret, dark debates", rails against the Euro-hating British press, and while we might accuse him of being over-sensitive, we can hardly say he's wrong.

The British media – and not just the spittle-flecked mouth-foamers on the right – do indeed reserve a special disdain for the Eurocrats of Brussels. It's not just Charles Moore referring to "a fat Belgian" to describe a past European eminence. Take the BBC coverage of the battle to fill the commission presidency: Jeremy Paxman introduced a Newsnight item on the contest this week with a sarcasm striking even by his acid standards, while Today delegated the task of assessing the candidates to … Terry Wogan.

Sem comentários: