Drowning in Europe
In the wake of the recent European elections,
which produced a stinging and unexpected defeat
for socialist parties in almost all of the 15 member-states
of the European Union, a British “Euroskeptic”
takes stock of the political situation on the continent.

By Alberto Carosa

During a Parliamentary debate in May 1997, the newly installed British Prime Minister Tony Blair received a memorable warning from a member of the opposition. Bill Cash, a Conservative MP from the constituency of Stone, told Blair, “You are walking on water now, but you will drown in Europe.”

Cash, who is a leader of the “Euroskeptic” bloc in Great Britain and in Europe at large, had not hesitated to oppose his own government when the Maastricht Treaty came up for approval; he argued that the treaty should not be approved, because it compromised national sovereignty. In addition to his duties as a Member of Parliament, Cash is also chairman of the London-based European Foundation, a think-tank which coordinates a network of offices in 23 different countries, all dedicated to the fight against the construction of a European political federation.

How would you evaluate the European elections results—in the United Kingdom and elsewhere?

Bill Cash: First of all, it is a very considerable success for the Conservative Party, because we’ve got 34 seats in the European Parliament and the Labor Party have only got 26. It is a reflection not of apathy or fatigue—which is what some people have been trying to say from the Labor side—but it is actually a protest vote, against the way Europe has been going, and also against the European Commission, which collapsed in ignominy, against the high unemployment in Europe, against the weak Euro, against the lack of democracy and accountability. There is also a general feeling that Europe has been taken into European government, and the British people insist on governing themselves. The balance of opinion in the Conservative Party is to say: what we want is to be in Europe but not run by Europe. So we want to have a degree of involvement—trading, a single market, all those sort of things—but not to have all our laws and Westminster democracy bungled up.

There was a low turnout—around 50 percent of the eligible voters, as an average figure—virtually all across Europe. What does that suggest?

Cash: I think it is not only in Britain that people are dissatisfied. The evidence is that they are beginning to see the constraints that are imposed on their right to have expenditures on health and on social services and on defense and on education—expenditures which are being held back at the insistence by the Central European Bank, whose directors are unelected and unaccountable. There is a reaction against that, and also against the enormous amount of over-regulation. Then, of course, businessmen want to be able to trade more freely. The whole thing has turned into a bureaucratic nightmare, and people are fed up with it. The farmers are fed up with the way which they were given such a raw deal.

Of course the move toward majority voting for a common defense policy is a very, very sensitive question. And it is a very bad move, because I don’t believe that any country in Europe would really want to have their young generations sent to wars over which they as a country have no control.

So there are lots of reasons why the people of Europe as a whole are now beginning to have second thoughts, because it is not just a rosy picture. The European Commission have their propaganda units all over the whole of Europe. If you read their propaganda material, you would think that Europe is working wonderfully. But then how does the European Commission collapse in ignominy, amid allegations of fraud and corruption? It is a systemic problem and the people are waking up to it. People like myself who for the best part of 15 years have been campaigning for a Europe that works better—for a Europe that is democratic and accountable, because people can make choices in their own countries as to what kind of government they have—are now beginning to win the argument. We are winning the argument and the evidence is that this is not just in Britain.

The leaders of the international Left appear to favor a vaunted “third way” that is neither socialist nor capitalist. In the run-up to the European elections—and probably in anticipation of a landslide victory—Prime Minister Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder even wrote of this “third way” in a formal accord which was signed in London. What is the significance of this effort?

Cash: The “third way” is “no way.” It is simply a public relations exercise.

There are very clear issues which confront all the people of Europe, and individual countries in particular. And the idea that there is some new way called “a third way” is not the answer. The real challenge is not to go by slogans, but to look at the individual issues, relate them on a common-sense basis to the practical requirements of the people who are living in the democracies in question, and ensure that they have the right to be able to make proper choices—some of which are quite hard choices.

It’s not possible to come up with a “third way” when in fact the difference between the way in which things are done and the way they used to be done is a yes-or-no situation, which has to be resolved by arguments and by debate and not by slogans. The “third way” is just a slogan. It is all part of the process of “dumbing down,” of reducing the controversy and argument which is inevitable and necessary in a proper democracy. The idea that you can resolve everything by consensus, and starting with consensus as the means of achieving an objective, is a completely false way of looking at politics. You have to arrive at an agreement after a proper discussion, a proper debate; you don’t start with a “third way” which avoids the debate between the two alternatives that are presented in a democracy.

Recently a number of key figures in the British establishment have converted to Catholicism: Conrad Black, the editor of the Daily Telegraph; the Duchess of Kent; the famous writer, Samuel Johnson. Most of these people are also Euroskeptics. Is that a coincidence, or part of a trend?

Cash: This is a very interesting situation, because many of the leading Euroskeptics are indeed Catholic. I think that is because more and more people are asking fundamental questions about the kind of world that we live in, and the Catholic Church has a very long history of asking fundamental questions about the purpose of life, what is right and what is wrong. The more thoughtful people are, the more important it is to be able to draw the line between what is right and wrong.

We are also human beings. You have to have confession; you have to have humility, which enables you to be able to start again if you go wrong. At least you should know what the difference between right or wrong is.

The Church’s teaching is very clear on most “big” issues. There is a very strong, powerful argument against abortion, for example, because it is fundamentally wrong to kill innocent children. There are, therefore, more and more people who are, I think, turning in this very chaotic and fast-moving world to look for the teachings of Christ, as seen through the eyes of those who have been the leading advocates of Christianity since Christ’s birth and death, with coherence and clarity. There is a general recognition these days that the Church has always been striving to do the right thing.

With regard to the European issue—the Euroskeptic aspect of all this—we Catholics understand the nature of hierarchy and subsidiarity as theological concepts. In a nutshell, we know perfectly well that when you try to apply subsidiarity to European government, what you are really doing is creating a hierarchy in European government and pretending that there is subsidiarity.
I heard that your family was involved in the establishment of the Tablet, the oldest Catholic journal of the United Kingdom.

Cash: My great-grandfather’s first cousin—his name was Lucas—founded the Tablet—I think in 1845 or something like that—and I must say I am very proud of that. It is a very important and distinguished Catholic journal which has established itself over 150 years, and I am very glad that my family contributed to that. I ought to add that at the same time another cousin of my great-grandfather was John Bright, who fought the campaign to relieve poverty, campaigning to have the Corn Law repealed and also to achieve democracy in Britain, which was achieved in 1867. So we have a long tradition.

But my ancestors were Quakers, and the interesting thing is how Lucas became a Catholic. He was a Quaker; then he became an Anglican under the influence of Newman, and then when Newman became a Catholic, he became a Catholic. He also was a Member of Parliament, and took up the cause of the Irish peasantry very strongly indeed. So it is a very honorable tradition.
Today the Tablet is perceived to be quite progressive-orientated, isn’t it?

Cash: Yes, that’s perfectly true. I am much more of a conservative, I am much more of a traditionalist. But I go to the Tablet and take part in their debates, particularly on the European issue, from time to time.

Back to Catholic Information Center on Internet's Main Periodical Page

Back to Catholic World Report - August 1999 - Table of Contents