Malcolm Turnbull’s shilly-shallying before deciding to go ahead with the gay “marriage” plebiscite is what we have come to expect from a prime minister whose bumbling, if it continues, will soon deserve the epithet Gillardian, but worse than that it was anti-democratic. We need more plebiscites and referendums, not fewer.

Democracy, said Winston Churchill in 1947, is the worst form of government except for all the others. Leftists and other authoritarians tend not to like it because it gets in the way of their social engineering schemes and “world action” on climate change. But the real problem with democracy has always been how to include the entire demos. We can’t all fit into parliament.

It was hard enough in the Greek city-states. When Anglosphere democracy evolved in the thirteenth century it was still only democracy of a sort. The propertied classes sent one of their number to London to represent their interests in a leisurely sort of way, not minding much whether he lined his own pockets in the process. The unpropertied didn’t get a say until Australia led the way in the nineteenth century, but the enfranchisement of the whole adult population was not universal even here until 1962. Yet still now, under what the Soviets used to sneer at as our “two-party dictatorship”, not every voter who cares about an issue will necessarily have his opinions represented in parliament. Until recently there was nothing that could be done about that. Democracy was imperfect. But now we do have a way.

The difficulty with referendums and plebiscites in the past has been that they were cumbersome to organise and costly to implement. Information technology shows that they need no longer be. With social media you know overnight what large numbers of people think on any public issue, without the taxpayer spending a cent. Is it beyond the wit of man to adapt this technology to the process of voting in a referendum? In a sense a start has already been made with the collection of census information online. That this was hardly a spectacular success is no refutation of the principle.

But aren’t decisions on national or state policy what we elect parliaments to take? Of course they are, and it would be chaotic to delegate all the minutiae of decision-making to a technological public consultation. But referendums and plebiscites have traditionally been reserved for issues of such moment that elected representatives themselves feel that the whole electorate should make a decision, not they alone as its delegates. Conscription, the republic, constitutional change and now something as fundamental to civilisation as the nature and definition of marriage - these are decisions not for MPs who are here today and will be gone tomorrow but for the whole nation that will have to live with the consequences.

The nation is not only people who are interested in politics. Here is another flaw in parliamentary democracy. People elected to parliament tend to be people who like playing politics. They like the sound of their own voice, they were good at debating at school and in university political clubs, they enjoyed the scheming and intrigue of backroom union and party deals, of jockeying for influence and power, of pushing themselves ahead. Naturally, they do it with the noblest of motives and probably persuade themselves that their ascent to parliament is an unalloyed benefit bestowed on their fellow-citizens. But they are interested in politics, as people are interested in stamps or the novels of Jane Austen; politics with a large or small p is their pastime in a way that it is not for the vast majority they aspire to represent.

Generally, this majority can live or put up with, even be unaware of, the decisions taken in parliament by the politicophiles. But certain issues will affect them more than others and it is to decide on these that true democracy demands that the unpoliticised should be roused from their indifference. Referendums and plebiscites take the temperature of a nation in a way that transcends party politics.

The fact that there is such strident opposition to the same-sex marriage plebiscite from one side confirms the democratic desirability of going ahead with it. The gay and lesbian lobby wants to deny a voice to anyone who disagrees. The plebiscite will give them one. This is essential because the Left-liberal media, which increasingly means the commercial media and not just Fairfax and the ABC, don’t give much space to the arguments against same-sex marriage, choosing instead to babble on about equality and justice. They were just as unashamedly one-sided before the republic referendum, cheering for a republic as though there were no intellectually respectable arguments against one. It turned out that the nation at large, whose opinion would never have been known without a referendum, thought differently.

The real reason for opposition to the plebiscite is that the proponents of gay marriage fear they will lose it. All the talk about the pre-plebiscite campaign becoming a forum for “hate speech” and of adolescent gays committing suicide because of the shocking things they will hear said about themselves by the “No” campaign is humbug. Judging by public and social-media utterances already made, the really vile nasty things will be said by gay-marriage supporters about their opponents.

A second reason gay-marriage activists oppose the plebiscite is because they know it would be much less troublesome to have the change enacted in parliament. They could easily have the legislation rammed through on a conscience vote by browbeating wavering MPs and threatening to denounce them as “homophobic” or worse. Even middle-of-the-road Coalition MPs are sensitive to that sort of accusation. But put the decision to the whole nation and the outcome is less certain. Anecdotal evidence suggests the proposal will pass, but that’s no guarantee. Anecdotal evidence convinced David Cameron that Britain would vote to stay in the European Union, otherwise he wouldn’t have called the referendum; no serious commentator expected the Leave side to win, neither did the polls. It could be the same with gay marriage. The same-sexers’ worst fears about the plebiscite might actually be confirmed.

Of course a “No” vote would be received with the usual ill grace but at least the plebiscite is to be held. It is in the interests of widening participation in democracy that it should be. Having at last taken one contentious decision, the federal government might now invest some time and effort into working out how the nation as a whole can be given a say, efficiently and cheaply, on a wider range of divisive issues. 

17 September 2016

Published in The Spectator Australia


We all know, because we have been told a thousand times by authoritative publications such as The Age’s “Epicure” and the Gourmet Traveller, that Australian restaurants are the best in the world. Forget Paris, New York, Rome etc. Nowhere overseas offers an excellence of cuisine to compare with Australia’s or such a variety of culinary traditions. That’s not just the standard ones – the tiniest and remotest place on the globe seems to be represented somewhere in Australia by a restaurant where you can, in theory anyway, enjoy its cuisine.

Food is food, not history, and any unsavoury associations the country of origin might have is no reason not to appreciate its cooking. Australians blithely ingest the cuisine of a country that, if it had had its way, would now be ruling them from Tokyo. The millions slaughtered by Mao cause no loss of appetite to the antipodean connoisseur of the various cuisines of China. German food is less popular, but that is not because of the horrors of Nazism but rather to its being seen by the self-obsessed as stodgy and unhealthy. Nachos and paella are consumed with no qualms about their origins in Spain and its brutal empire. Mussolini might not have existed for all Australia’s spaghetti-eaters care. As for Pol Pot – have you heard about the really groovy little Cambodian place down by the harbour?  

Food is not history, except in the case of one country, which a certain loud minority of Left-leaning, Twitter-babbling Australians is incapable of regarding with the sane cosmopolitan detachment they imagine themselves to show towards the rest of the world. That country is Great Britain, fons et origo of Australia’s national institutions and of the forebears of most of its population and still, to the chagrin of the Leftist, seat of its monarchy.  

Great Britain has on its history the indelible stain of not only having had an empire like the Germans and Japanese, but of having had an empire that thanks to two generations of Marxist-derived indoctrination in schools and universities is now known to have been just about the greatest force of evil in the history of the universe. There’s no point in saying other empires have been worse. Australian Leftists can’t argue rationally where the British are concerned. The  detestation of “imperialism” instilled by post-colonialist history courses is compounded by the chippy republican anti-Britishness long present in this country, inherited from Irish immigrants of the nineteenth century.

So when, in the course of widening ever further the horizons of our national culinary outreach, a restaurant opens in Brisbane calling itself the British Colonial Co. and announcing as its inspiration “the stylish days” of the British Empire, there are shrieks of protest from the self-appointed sages of social media. The offence is compounded by the new restaurant’s description of its cuisine as reflecting the  exotic” dishes brought back by “imperial travellers” “from the Caribbean, India, the Far East and Africa.” “Racist”, that portmanteau term of Leftist disapproval, leaps from a thousand keyboards. By choosing a colonial theme, according to one historically illiterate user of the restaurant’s Facebook page, the restaurant has “romanticized colonization with no respect to the fact that generation (sic) greatly suffered in Australia because of it." A wit chimed in, suggesting a visit to the restaurant if you are “in the mood for imperialism and genocide for dinner". Someone called Reuben Acciano, a “social media manager”, boasted, “I fixed British Colonial Co.’s ad for them.” Like a street graffitist, his infantile intervention consisted of daubing words such as “genocidal” and “enslavement” over the restaurant’s home page, and adding the phrase “plundered culinary traditions” – that’s pretty rich in a country like ours with no national cuisine of its own (and have a look at Reuben’s Instagram page).

The British Colonial Co., as is always the way, has caved in to these bigots, replacing its website text with some blather about “the adventure of east meets west” and saying it is “upset and saddened” that its “brand is causing offence and distress to some members of the community.” This is touchingly naïve. These “members of the community” take offence in their sleep. They don’t really care about anyone who has “greatly suffered” under colonialism or any other oppression, past or present. Many are themselves keen restaurant-goers Leftists love exotic food, a) because of their commitment to multiculturalism and b) to show their disdain for the boring British diet of two chops, watery vegetables and rice pudding they allege everyone ate in Australian till migrants with more exciting cuisines turned up to show us how to eat decently. Feeding their well-fed faces on the recipes of the world (not “plundered” when they’re doing the eating) chardonnay sophisticates of tis sort spend hundreds of dollars on a meal and when they leave the restaurant step over people sleeping in the street. You only have to look around you in any large Australian city.

The British Colonial Co. should have the courage of its convictions and carry on as it began. There are still plenty of people in Australia, a majority even, who admire Britain and its traditions. "Nothing wrong with being proud of the Empire. Britain did more to elevate the standard of living in more places around the world than any of the natives ever did," said one brave soul on Facebook, impervious to the risk of vituperation.

The sound and the fury will soon subside as the offence-takers transfer their outrage to something else as easily as they move from cuisine to cuisine. History too has moved on from the empire at the heart of the fuss. Someone once called it the empire on which the sun never sets. Whoever it was could have not foreseen that half a century later it would not be on the empire but on inarticulate Leftist hatred of it that the sun doesn’t set.

28 September 2016

Published in a shortened version on The Spectator "Life" site


Who’s out to get George Pell? It looks as though someone is. Just when it seemed that the media’s obsession with Pell had run out of steam, along comes the ABC with another of its fearless investigative exposés of the Cardinal’s alleged misdemeanours, all sepulchral emotion-choked “victims’” voices and sympathetic interlocutory concern. Some of the programme was a rehash of what we’ve been told a thousand times but there were with several new dramatis personae thrown in and the allegations against Pell were direct rather than by association. For the media Pell is the gift that keeps on giving. Is anyone orchestrating this ongoing pursuit?

Once, say 100 years ago, a possible answer would have been international anticlerical Freemasonry. But the Craft is not what it was and seems unlikely these days to have the resources or motives for masterminding an anti-Catholic conspiracy.

The police? Probably not, at least on their own initiative. In persisting with its investigation into Pell, secretly until some one leaked it, the Victoria Police is in part demonstrating that a lot of thick coppers have signed up to the prevailing orthodoxy that Catholic priests must have some guilty sexual secret because celibacy, so out of tune with the mores of our age, denies them a “normal” outlet for their physical desires. (The same orthodoxy decrees that householders should not band together to protect their homes from marauding gangs and that anyone sought in connection with an offence must not have his racial appearance included in the description unless he is unequivocally white.)

Anyway, in the Pell case the police are not the organ grinder but the monkey. The officers investigating Pell belong to a department enquiring into allegations referred to them from the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sex Abuse. Is it then the Royal Commission, Julia Gillard’s parting bequest to the nation, the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce de nos jours, that is still hoping to get something on the Cardinal? 

Again, highly unlikely. The commission did the best it could to nail him in four days of interrogation by video link from Rome (with the addition of some direct questioning by “survivors” on a crowd-funded trip to the Eternal City). Nothing has come of this in terms of further action against Pell and it’s hard to see how it could. Presumably, when the commission’s various functionaries eventually decide that their accumulated remuneration has reached a satisfactory level – sorry, that their investigation is complete and it’s time to shut up shop, a report will be placed before Parliament in which, inter alia, Pell’s evidence will be platitudinously assessed (“hard to credit that such a senior cleric was not better informed”, “unfortunate that the time lapse has rendered fuller confirmation of victims’ testimony impossible” etc.). But one suspects that if there had been going to be charges we’d have had them by now (and wouldn’t the media have been ecstatic? They’d have thought all their Christmases, or perhaps one should say holidays, had come at once).

How about Pell’s enemies in the Vatican? He’s put some noses out of joint there, with his commission to “clean up” the Holy See’s finances. The Vatican bureaucracy is a series of little empires, some less than thrilled at having the clear light of day shed on their bookkeeping, especially when personal expense accounts are involved. If Pell were charged with child abuse the Pope would have no alternative but to sack him. But it seems improbable that even in the noble cause of ridding themselves of this intrusively troublesome priest the monsignori could somehow manipulate the Australian media 16,000 kilometres away into continuing its anti-Pell campaign. 

Did the ABC act on its own then in launching new accusations of abuse against Pell, small-time though they are compared with what Ballarat’s proven abusers are known to have got up to? In a sense probably yes. But here we must say a word about the climate in which the national broadcaster operates.

Anti-Catholic sentiment has long been present in Australia, mainly because of old unhappy far-off things in the British Isles, but anti-Catholicism has changed. It is no longer the fierce sectarianism, the Protestant complaints about Catholics colonising the public service or getting all the best sites for their churches, that it was up until the 1950s. The Protestant-Catholic stand-off of that era has died away, largely because the descendants of all those Scotch Presbyterians and low church English Anglicans who couldn’t abide Roman Catholics have given up on their religion. Traditional Protestantism in Australia is close to being a spent force, as will be underlined when the census results are published.

On the other hand, though starting a little later in time, Catholics have given up on their own faith. This falling away began in the 1970s when, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council’s “engagement with the world” and “child-centred” secular educational theories, Catholic schools stopped teaching Catholic doctrine and replaced it with woolly benevolence. Whether the students preferred this or not is neither here nor there. Once out of the classroom, they gave it all away.

But where lapsed Protestants simply lost interest in religion, large numbers of young lapsed Catholics became actively anti-religious. They have given up on Catholicism but for some reason (suppressed guilt at apostasising?) they are angry with it. Just look at the Catholic-sounding names in any pressure group that opposes the teachings of the Catholic Church – all those Carmels and Brigids and Damiens and Pauls, all part of the new PC establishment, all firmly integrated into the secularist zeitgeist of contemporary Western society. This is a generalisation but anyone with the time to look up a few websites on “safe schools” or gay marriage or abortion will see it is not an exaggeration.

And they still enter the public service, those young and hostile lapsed Catholics, and one of its branches they go into is the ABC. How many practising Catholics are there in the ABC? Probably quite a few among the tea ladies, but in news and current affairs?

It’s this zeitgeist that’s out to get Pell, not an individual but lots of individuals, of whom a not insignificant component are lapsed Catholics or liberal, still-practising but so-called “dissenting” Catholics the kind of Catholics acceptable on ABC panels, who loathed the previous Pope (they like the present one but are beginning to suspect that behind the shrugging “who am I to judge?” routine is an old-fashioned, believing-in-the Devil type of Catholic) and can be relied on to take a Leftish line on any social issue. Indeed, the older members of this group have been gunning for Pell for years. The first waves of the anti-Pell movement came not from secularists but from among his fellow Catholics, who dubbed him “Pell Pot” for his alleged authoritarianism when he was appointed rector of the Catholic seminary in Melbourne and dismissed a phalanx of openly or covertly dissenting lecturers.  The secularists were not slow to follow in taking up this jibe.

Pell represents just about everything the modern left-liberal establishment dislikes. Can you imagine this witch hunt being waged against Bill Morris, the Catholic bishop in Queensland the Vatican sacked in 2011 for being too liberal? The ABC and the rest of the Left rose to his defence as with one voice in a hymn of secular canonisation. Yet long before the paedophilia saga got into its stride those same voices that petitioned the Vatican to reinstate progressive Bishop Morris were petitioning the Vatican not to make the conservative Pell Archbishop of Melbourne. It was even more horrifying for them when he went on to Sydney, traditionally the top job for Australian Catholic prelates.

Pell is a thorn in the side of the leftish-minded within and without the Roman Catholic Church. I have heard people who wouldn’t know what a cardinal was sounding off against him. He is an orthodox Catholic who is not fuzzy or wishy-washy in expounding his faith. He has the additional stigma of being sceptical about man’s role in climate change. All in all, he’s out of step with the prevailing ethos of moral relativism. He has to be brought down.

8 August 2016

Published on Quadrant Online.


Since he retired from the leadership of the Army, our esteemed “Australian of the Year” General David Morrison has shifted his theatre of operations from the defence of the nation to the defence of “diversity”. His new enemy is “discrimination” in all its hydra-headed forms. With the gallant General on watch, toilers in the field of gender redefinition, multicultural “inclusion” and the rest of the ever shifting fixations of the Left can surely sleep easier in their beds.

In the course of his campaigning General Morrison recently issued the hold-the-front-page announcement that he is giving up using the word “guys”. He didn’t seem to have a very clear idea of why, to judge by his waffly explanation, except that he thinks he’s striking a blow against “exclusion” of some sort. "Exclusive language, gender-based language or inappropriate language, has as much a deleterious or disadvantaged effect as something where you're saying something blatantly inappropriate to another human being," he burbled into an ABC microphone, before declaring that he himself is trying to give up saying “guys” and has removed the word “from my lexicon as best I can.” (Surely it can’t be that hard. How long has he been saying it? “Guys” in its present sense only became widespread in Australia a decade ago.) One pictures the General telling himself over and over again: “I must not say guys, I mean that word,” perhaps giving himself a little punishment every time the proscribed noun slips out. You can hear him asking his wife, “Who are those guys on Australian Story, Gayle – oops” (self-inflicted pinch) “those persons?” as they enjoy the national broadcaster together on one of their evenings when he is not out at some right-on function lecturing us non-Australians of the Year on the benefits of diversity. As he told the assembled worthies of “Diversity Council Australia”, the “workplace diversity advisor” of which he is chairman, sorry, chair, when launching a video guide to approved non-exclusive speech (the selfsame gathering where he revealed the pruning of his lexicon): “… it's a proven fact that more inclusive [and] more diverse workforces create real diversity of thinking and are more productive, more effective."

This sounds more like an economic than a social justice argument but whatever it’s supposed to be or mean it illustrates that as a verbiage generator this very model of a modern Lieutenant General is gold-plated. And of course the Left loves verbiage. Usually though it doesn’t love generals and caricatures them in Dr Strangelove fashion as sinister manipulators of the industrial-fascist war machine itching to nuke someone. General Morrison is clearly an exception. The Aussie Left adores him (otherwise he wouldn’t be Australian of the Year): at the ABC he is said to be regarded as “a great bloke”. And, like a man running to catch a bus, he has exerted himself since retiring from the armed forces to climb on board the fast-moving bandwagon of the anti-discrimination industry with its eclectic repertoire of obsessions. He has learned to talk the talk. While opposing the use of “guys”, he told reporters, he was “not trying to become the ‘language police’.” This is pure Leftist double-speak, since it is perfectly obvious that he is.

General Morrison must know full well that while “guy” in the singular is male, in the plural it is not “gender-based” but super-inclusive. It is what waiters call you in restaurants whether you’re a mixed group or not. I’ve heard mothers summon their children with it – “Come on guys, time to go” – and in domestic situations it can even include the cat or budgie, like those “My Family” figures you see on cars. In Safe Schools classrooms it would certainly be prescribed instead of “Boys and Girls”, which as we all know is conducive to bullying and not conducive to a required fluidity of identity. It has replaced “Ladies and Gentlemen” in addressing the audience at less formal public occasions and may well have found its way into welcomes to country (“You whitefellas invade our land, but on this occasion, guys, for the opening of the new CSIRO facility, make yourselves at home. That will be $500”).

In fact, it is the very inclusiveness of “guys” that is the real reason for the opposition to it. Feminist influence is never far away from any lobby group with “diversity” in its title and feminists hate being included in a masculine word. Look how they’ve managed to get “his” as a collective pronoun (“each citizen must do his duty”) effectively banned in favour of the clumsy “their”. Similarly, says the Diversity Council, women feel “excluded” when they are bracketed with men as “guys”. This is nonsense. Women, particularly younger women, use the term among their friends of either sex every day. No, the ones who don’t like it are not women in general but the coven of feminists self-appointed to speak on their behalf, who have now found a champion in what would once have been considered the unlikely person of a retired army general.

Yet there is a reason for objecting to “guys” and a number of other words and it has nothing to do with the General’s. “Guys” is a self-conscious copying of American usage not found in traditional Australian (or British) speech. There is an irony here. Leftist writers and educators are usually to be heard bemoaning the displacement of elements of Australian culture by American “imports” but they have done nothing to impede the Americanisation of ordinary speech. Apart from its infatuation with Obama or Sanders, the Left loathes America and yet it is perfectly observable that it adopts American speech habits just the same as everyone else. The list of these has been getting longer for years, from back in the days when universities acquired “campuses”.  Football crowds no longer exhort their teams to victory with the demotic “Carn ..!” but yell the American “Go!” “Your” ABC regularly employs American-use transitives such as protest a decision or appeal a judicial sentence (the latter invariably symbolised on television news by an image of a gavel as used in American but not Australian courts). “Railway station” has given way to “train station” even in official transport notices. “Guy” itself, in the singular, has replaced “bloke” and the posher “chap”. And so on.

I know that language must evolve and that no particular period has a monopoly of “correct” usage and, yes, just think of the cultural enrichment new usages bring, but even so is it not strange that these days we are all for the preservation of traditional “culture” except when it’s our own? Though many people seem neither to notice nor to care, you might expect the usually very vocal group for whom the thought of, say, Aboriginal culture disappearing under the weight of national homogeneity is tantamount to genocide to leap to the defence of threatened linguistic elements of Australian speech. Current indications are that you will expect in vain, probably because the generations of Australians who didn’t say “guys” don’t fit the Leftist paradigm of victimhood.

So here’s a task worthy of an Australian of the Year. Throw away the Diversity Council’s grievance manual “Building Inclusion through the power of language”, tell them to find another “chair” and seek to build national inclusion through encouraging us to stick to the language we inherited. By all means give up “guys” but give up some other words and constructions too, before we are completely absorbed under the onslaught of TV and Hollywood into one international wodge of speakers of globalised English with hardly even our accents to distinguish us. You don’t need to be a language policeman. Just set an example.

8 June 2016


Britain’s engagement with Europe is heading for the rocks.

 Britain’s days in the European Union are numbered, whatever the result of next month’s “Brexit” referendum.

British withdrawal will annoy, apart from the British government itself, our own foreign minister, who has informed the United Kingdom that Australia would “prefer” it stayed on in the EU. In this she is simply echoing her master’s voice, since a preference for supranational conglomerates lording it over individual nations is part of the package deal of opinions held by the leftish liberal establishment to which Malcolm Turnbull belongs

We might liken the EU debate in Britain to the republic debate in Australia. Voters rejected a republic in the last referendum, but the result was close, as it seems it will be with Brexit. Yet no one believes the possibility of an Australian republic has gone away. It still simmers, and could flare up to the point that no number of nostalgic visits by King Charles III to Timbertop or future royal babies blinking from the cover of the Women’s Weekly can reverse it.
So it will be with Britain and the EU. If David Cameron and his “Remain” buddies, in motley alliance with high finance and the anti-nationalists of the Guardian Left and the BBC, get their way and the referendum opts for staying in the EU, it will not be a final answer. Relations between Britain and the EU can only get worse, as the EU pushes its legislative ambitions deeper into the domestic affairs of its member nations, further restricting the already limited say national governments have in the running of their own countries. If, after 43 years of Britain in the EU, so many Britons wish to be out of it, how many more will come to this view after a few more years of increasing EU meddling? The referendum itself is proof of this dissatisfaction. The British economy is doing better than EU states, yet the better it does the more Britain’s net EU contributions go up, currently to about around $8.5 billion a year. Brexit supporters point out how much more usefully this money could be spent at home.
You can understand why European togetherness seemed a good idea back in the days of the Cold War, with Europe a huddle of smaller nations stuck between a grim and threatening USSR and the mighty if not universally loved USA. But the USSR is gone now and it was NATO, not the EU, that saw Europe through the Cold War. In a globalised world the notion of a “third bloc” is out of date.
Yet the EU programme towards greater integration grinds on regardless. Except on the Left, this doesn’t go down well in Britain, even in these days of muted patriotism. There are still many Britons who take a pride in their country and its constitutional record. Some of the crowds who celebrated the ninetieth birthday of the Queen last month will have noted the irony that as long as Britain is in the EU she is not really a sovereign at all. She, like them, is a citizen of a European superstate in gestation (she’s also Australia’s EU citizen head of state: there’s a nice thought for lovers of multiculturalism if not republicans). The EU was sold to the British as a “common market” but its subsequent conduct has brought home to voters what was always intended, that trade was only a first step to a united states of Europe.
For all the jibes of the “Remain” lobby, opponents of the EU can’t all be little Englanders and in 2016 there can be few nostalgics for empire among them or old codgers still fighting the Battle of Britain. Many “Brexiteers” have grown up with Britain part of the EU. That they should be dissatisfied with the EU is in part the EU’s own fault. While its market component declines its bureaucratic aggrandisement becomes more shameless. EU regulations intrude into every Briton’s lives – one more level of government to be funded by the taxpayer, and a level of government that, unlike national and local administration, the taxpayer can’t vote out of office.
It is this so-called democratic deficit that will drive Britain out of the EU, either next month or in the foreseeable future. Britain is the only major country in the EU in which the accountability of government is non-negotiable. Since 1660 no Briton has known any form of government except democracy. In continental Europe the democratic deficit weighs less, because democracy, especially in the last century, has not been the norm. Germany, Italy, and Spain have all been governed by dictatorships, and France under De Gaulle was hardly an example of democracy in full flower. European citizens with a tradition of being pushed around by dictators are less likely to notice, or object to, the high-handedness of unelected Brussels commissars. For the British it goes against the grain. David Cameron’s strategy is to play it down, and talk up the alleged benefits of EU membership and the frightful things he says will happen to the British economy if Britain leaves.
Nothing foreseeable will make the EU more popular in Britain. And as its capacity as a market for British exports shrinks, the EU will come to be seen more as a hugely expensive millstone, a solid platinum trough for the snouts of an army of apparatchiks – for what in return? For a treaty that allows Britons to travel around Europe without visas? They were able to do that without an EU before the First World War. More seriously, for a treaty that inter alia ties Britain’s hands in regulating unprecedented immigration and obliges a trading nation not to enter into bilateral trade agreements with countries such as India and China where economies are growing, and even with Australia and the rest of the “old Commonwealth” with which Britain once traded to much mutual advantage.
If Britain doesn’t vote on 23 June to leave the EU the tide of anti-EU sentiment cannot but swell. Politicians with prime ministerial potential such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have staked their careers on British withdrawal. If the referendum decides in favour of staying, they and the millions of other people who will have voted to leave will manage to ensure that every subsequent EU crisis and jurisdictional pretension becomes a rallying point in a continuing campaign for Brexit, until a national majority demands that Britain renounce its EU membership. Other EU nations may well follow. The tide against the EU is also the tide of history.
14 May 2016
Published in The Spectator Australia