Hobsbawm’s account of history at the Cold War’s end makes for stark reading now in 2019 – our world being the one that this old one birthed. American hegemony is not secured, economics is no less clear and international relations have melted from their bi-polar “Communist/Capitalist” freeze.
The European Community, originally created in the 1950s because of the mutual fear of communist overrun in the minds of US technocrats and Western European elites, made its effective declaration of independence from the US in the Dutch city of Maastricht in 1992.
At the same time an unknown Tory member supported a group of rebels who tried to “bind the hands” of their own Prime Minister. This close shave on the treaty’s ratification nearly brought down the government and entrenched the Tory Euro-vision drama for the next 25 years.
The unknown member went on to join the new and equally unknown UK independence party – his name was Nigel Farage. He did not see independence from Cold War certainties as a chance for European Unity. Rather he saw it as a chance for a so called ‘renewed Britain’ and has since frequently cited US centric bodies such as NATO as being ideal models for international co-operation.
His gravitation towards the emergent US “alt-right” and dog-whistle support to continental populists (deciding that Le Penn was not successful in his ideological litmus test and was too extreme for even old Nigel) is a by-product of his political origins and natural tendency to support Atlanticism over Europeanism.
This is why Farage and the Brexiteer movement is nothing new. It is a natural tension that I even witnessed myself in Washington DC, where an increasingly isolationist US feels as though it has not collected its dividends from ‘saving Europe’ (we all know people here who think similarly).
Kenneth Clarke recently plotted the history of this Euro-sceptic blue-blooded Toryism to its origins in the “imperialist wing.” Enoch Powell represented the epoch, to men like him and Farage the spoils of World War 2 should have been the re-establishment of British Status.
Being in the political wilderness for so long blinded both men to the realties of economics and the link between global affairs; as Britain in 1945 was broke. Though Powell may have thought politics was broken, he did not think it was ‘broke’ as there was still plenty of political capital for him to play with – not least by running in plucky old Ulster (history seems to rhyme here with the DUP’s ERG love in a few months ago).
Farage later proved that by embracing the more useful elements of the new era – i.e. US hegemony that is unchallenged in English speaking countries he could force an agenda of renewing “British Status” above all else. He did this by latching onto the external ‘threat’ while Powell simply ranted against our internal (and popular) multiculturalism. The external ‘threat’ was the EU, an organisation that increasingly challenged US hegemony and the notion of British status in the world.
Lest we not be fooled into any notion of a “Europe of nations” that Farage and the neo-imperialists bluster about creating. They seek only to re-create a world in their narrow image and care little for European affairs. No single withdrawal treaty will get in their way, they want to use America to drive a diplomatic wedge into the heart of Europe and unilaterally reduce tariffs in the hope that Commonwealth nations will think again in their economic drift. Farage has achieved more than Powell, but he can still be stopped and thrown into the dustbin of history.
“Imperial Federation, map of the world showing the extent of the British Empire in 1886” by Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the BPL is licensed under CC BY
Jay is a Derry native now living in south Antrim and working in Belfast. His writing spans Law, Economics and International relations.
*He writes in a strictly personal capacity*
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
