You are the only New Zealand correspondent to have witnessed Britain’s entry into the EU and also Britain’s departure from the EU. What difference did the EU make to everyday life in Britain?There was this curious reverse process in which the United Kingdom’s main components clung to their traditions with accelerating determination. The English became more English, the Welsh more Welsh and the Scots more Scottish.
In what way was this most evident?In England the refusal or incapacity to handle the French language continued unabated. In contrast, in France, especially in Northern France, it is commonplace to hear locals speaking perfectly adequate English. In Britain meanwhile French remains pretty much confined to upscale restaurant tit bits. Also the French dropped their ban on English words. From the beach head Le Weekend and Le Camping English words and terms are now commonplace. Baby-sitting and Fair Play are just two examples that come to mind.
What about Wales and Scotland?Britain’s entry into the EU coincided with a totally unexpected renaissance of nationalism that had lain dormant in Britain for several centuries. Initial concessions were made notably in official encouragement of native languages. Then as pressure grew Wales was given its own play-parliament, and Scotland was given its own parliament too. But one with much more clout.
In terms of impact on Westminster?The EU began to exercise a quite unexpected reverse leverage on Westminster, and even more unexpectedly on the Tories. It was in large measure responsible for the end of the Thatcher era, and then that of her chosen successor John Major’s era as Prime Minister. Equally unexpectedly it is now tearing apart the Labour Party and has rendered it quite simply powerless.
These were genuine shocks, black swans?The most wrenching and serious of these shocks was and remains the immigration one. We are talking here of two immigrant categories: Refugees from the Middle East and workers from Eastern Europe.
How did this sunder the Labour Party?The last British Prime Minister to have a strong handle on the EU was Harold Wilson and this was characterised by his standing aside at his own referendum, the first, in 1975, on Britain’s membership. Harold Wilson was also the last Labour leader to have had in his ranks a quota of truly working class MPs. This contingent saw the value in the EU’s investment in Britain’s old rust-belts in these early days of membership.
What has changed?The Labour Party is now comprised of doctrinal Members of Parliament. They were and still are pulled in several different directions. There is their face-value loyalty to those who still make a living moving material in relation to the earth’s surface, the real workers. Then they have this doctrinal commitment, an intellectual one, which has been made so manifest over Europe.
It was Prime Minister David Cameron who fell on his sword.Cameron was obliged to hold the referendum. He had the Scots one under his belt. It was much more serious in terms of outcome than the EU one. It was also a more close run thing than anyone in Westminster cares to admit. He made the mistake now of taking an active part in the EU one, as he had done in the Scots lead-up. Had he stood aside from Brexit, he would not have had to resign.
In New Zealand, for example, many looked at Britain’s unemployment figures at the time and they were comparable to ours, very low at five percent.This was the arc-light that blinded most of the UK’s political class, pro-Europe wing. If we look at the immigrant issue which swung the vote pro-Brexit, it is divided into two parts. There remains the Middle East one which centres on security. Then there is the Eastern Europe one centred on low pay through an influx of workers bringing down wages. It was not unemployment that was at issue. But the quality of the work available and the remuneration thereof.
This sank the Labour Party?They failed to realise that in the UK nowadays there are two types of jobs. There are the high paying ones in the services sector, notably finance. Then there are the low-paying ones of the type taken by for example, Poland’s willing workers in what then become still lower paying jobs. The Labour MPs are drawn from the service and professional sector of course. Even if they saw the problem they were checkmated by their doctrinal allegiance to Europe.
This seems hardly enough to capsize a major European political party?Their problem in the Brexit build up was the irreconcilable difference contained in the Labour Party face value determination to improve the lot of the British working class while at the same time having to convince their service-sector and professional doctrinal adherents of the Labour Party’s enduring faith in diversity and multiculturalism. Codes for immigration.
This could also apply to the Tories, the Conservatives?The Tories do not have this doctrinal commitment to Europe. It is enough for the Tories that it is good for business.
What is it specifically about Europe that so enchants Labour?The doctrinal high octane horse power of the various European versions of the Labour Party. Look at France’s Socialist Party President Francois Hollande for example. He will have more in common with such potential Republican challengers as Alain Juppe or Francois Fillon than with anyone on his own left. Or more in common with David Cameron or Theresa May, for that matter.
You have stated that the United States was the unseen presence at the Brexit build up?The United States became a very visible presence when President Obama announced that Britain would go to the back of the queue if it quit Europe. David Cameron was like a man with several wives whose existence must be hidden from each other. He had his loyalties pulled three ways: by the United States, the government which he led, and by Europe itself.
Who did you meet in connection with the UK and Europe who impressed you the most?Ted Heath. It is hard to think of any Westminster zone statesman today who has been so ill-served by history. Nobody can say of him that he had no guiding strategy other than to win elections. His purpose was to get Britain into the Common Market. He succeeded. For a while it worked. There was, as he had promised “A better tomorrow.”
What were the circumstances of your meeting Edward Heath (pictured)?It was at a social at someone’s house. I had heard that he could be dismissive. But I went ahead and introduced myself anyway. When I said that I was from New Zealand he became genuinely interested, especially in discussing Chris Bouzaid and the One Ton Cup, a largely forgotten precursor to the Antipodean Americas Cup fever. As he departed the gathering, he made a point of seeking me out and farewelling me by name. A mark of the true leader, I thought. The big guy making a gesture to an everyday visitor.
From the MSCNewsWire reporters' desk - Monday 22 August 2016