When is a country not a country?

[This article by C.Desmond Greaves, which was written in response to a BBC broadcast on the subject of  “Europe”, was carried in the March 1988 issue of the Irish Democrat, five months before its author’s death. He wrote it under one of his favourite pseudonyms, “Feicreanach”, meaning “insightful”.  The article was written between the period of implementation of the 1986 Single European Act, which gave what became the European Union its single internal market, entailing a great increase in qualified majority voting for making European Community laws, and the  1992 Maastricht Treaty on European  Union, which  set out a time-scale for bringing the euro-currency into being. Neil Kinnock was British Labour Party leader at the time.  The reference to Mrs Thatcher’s “collapse” was to her agreeing at a recent European “summit” to maintain the EC’s Agricultural policy as part of moves towards a European Union.] 

–   –   –

On Monday mornings BBC Radio 4 runs a “phone-in” that frequently covers contentious matters and opinions not often allowed on the air.

It is an ideal agency for a bit of Government kite-flying. On Monday February 15 the subject was “Europe”.

The announcer was brutal and perhaps dedliberately provocative to make sure there was a wind. The British people were “bored” by the EEC. But as far as Europe was concerned they’d “seen nothing yet”.

In a month’s time the British Government intended to spend taxpayers’ money on a propaganda campaign in favour of European Union and, the gentleman explained, listeners had to be prepared to stop thinking of themselves as British, but just as Europeans, for by 1992, there would be no boundaries, just one combined country, “Europe”.

We’ll comment on the irony first. In the 19^th century the Irish were told not to think of themselves as Irish, but as “West British”. When English capitalists pushed the railway on from Berwick to Edinburgh they called it not the Scottish Railway but the North-British, and if memory doesn’t fail me, there is still a “North British Hotel” in Edinburgh. And – bearing in mind that only the Scots, Welsh and Cornish have the historic right to cause themselves Britons –  today those who gave up their good national name to embrace a concoction, are being told to forget about it and be European!

I don’t think it will sell. But that was not what the phone-in was designed to discover. 

Those who telephoned – not all asked questions –  were of two kinds, British people living at home and British people living abroad. Not a single one living at home supported the move. One woman in Bristol bitterly complained of the filching away of her national identity by no visible democratic process. Of British people abroad about 50% supported the merger of Britain into a European Union, but another 50% deplored it.

To an anti-EEC speaker from Paris, the Market man on the panel said, “But just see how good it is. You’re the sign of its success. You’ve got a job in Paris.”

“I don’t want a job in Paris,” he replied  – I think he was a Scot. “I want a job where I was brought up.”

I believe the Government is entering a very dangerous path. I think they may slip. And I don’t care if they do. For up to now Irish, Scottish and Welsh nationality was expendable, English was inviolable even under the title British.

Now the rulers of Britain are in danger of throwing away the pepper pot with which for generations they have thrown dust in the eyes of the English people, thir pretence to represent the nation. It may prove the most fatal event in 20^th century English history.

A few general comments. First why are they doing it? The motive is revealed in the replies to the objection that British industry is to be further sacrificed. “What’s wrong with a service economy?” asked the radio Market-man. Indeed what?

There is little question that the most powerful section of British capitalists is composed of the banks, insurance companies and the other financial institutions of the City of London. The London financiers think they can become the financial masters of Europe. Broadly speaking, the deal that has been struck is that London should process an increasing proportion of European financial transactions, and in return for this, British industry will be sacrificed to the so-called West European “golden triangle”.

There is no question however that following the projected establishment of a European Bank an effort will be made to bring the City under European control. There’ll be easy pickings for a time, that’s all.

This throws light on Mrs Thatcher’s ignominious collapse. She’d like to save money on agricultural expenditure. But of all Prime Ministers she is the one most vigorously identified with the interest of the City. With the glittering prize of financial hegemony in danger of being snatched away, what could she do but collapse?

It was James Larkin who said that the English workers never react except under the direct impact of experience. Well, it looks as if the impact is not far off. And already the most forward thinkers are sensing the transmutation of the age. Different interests are being affected in different ways. But some react by preparing to resist. Others prepare to climb down. The logic of the European process is to leave Westminster with no more power than a County Council. Judging by the speed with which he is adapting Labour policy to the degree of freedom permission by the EC, one would say that Mr Kinnock would accept a prison as long he was the chief trustie.

But see how much is involved. The EC is to have an army linked to NATO. The peace movement is involved. The aim is to subvert Irish neutrality.  The Irish movement is involved. Civil Liberties are involved. Cultural autonomy is involved. One can foreshadow a massive future movement in which previously separate organisations will come together – taking a leaf out of the book of the Irish Sovereignty Movement? Indeed why not a British Sovereignty Movement to fight Tory treachery step-by-step?

One final comment for our Republican friends. Without a moment’s disparagement of the worthy aim of a united Ireland, what will be the good of letting off bombs to unite two parts of a country that isn’t a country any longer, and which will have no more freedom of action joined or sundered? Need to think over that one!

• Feicreanach