What if we had lost?

It’s now over 10 months since the referendum. After the initial euphoria at the result, we enjoyed a brief and well-deserved break before plunging in to the next campaign – ensuring that we end up with the best Brexit deal possible. With Article 50 now triggered, however, the negotiations about to begin in earnest and memories of the referendum itself beginning to fade, it’s easy to forget how hard we had to work to achieve last June’s result.

Suppose, however, that it we had lost.

David Cameron had spelt out in no uncertain terms that this referendum, like Scotland’s vote in 2014, was a “once in a generation” decision. Admittedly, Nicola Sturgeon is straining every nerve to try to engineer a second vote on Scottish independence, but given that it was 41 years since our previous referendum on EU membership, we all knew that if our countrymen had voted to remain in the EU last June, we would have faced many more years of campaigning before a third vote would ever become even a remote possibility.

But just suppose a further vote had eventually been held in, say, 2025, what sort of state would our country – or indeed, the EU – be in by then?

We know that there was a great deal of unease on the Continent following the Conservatives’ 2015 General Election victory, which meant Cameron was going to have to make good his promise to hold the referendum. Laurent Fabius, France’s Foreign Minister, called his pledge “dangerous”. Until last June, Cameron had been described as a “lucky” Prime Minister, winning the 2015 General Election when many pollsters were predicting a hung parliament and securing the results he wanted in both the AV and Scottish independence referendums. Perhaps his track record helped calm nerves in Brussels and Berlin. After all, if remain had won, the implications for the EU would have been enormous.

A vote by the most consistently eurosceptic member state to remain in the EU would have been a green light for a further push towards federalism. Such a move may have initially been focussed on the Eurozone, especially given the victory of the enthusiastic federalist Emmanuel Macron in last Sunday’s French Presidential Election, but we would have inevitably found ourselves swept along in the federalist slipstream. Furthermore, even if voters in other EU member states voted the “wrong” way in any subsequent plebiscites, the EU could have pressed on confident that opposition could be muzzled. If even the truculent UK ultimately had decided to submit to the yoke of Brussels, the EU would have felt emboldened in the pursuit of its objective of creating a superstate. To put it another way, all 28 member states would have themselves been locked into an EU where the Jean-Claude Juncker mindset would have reigned unchallenged. “’If it’s a Yes we will say “on we go”, and if it’s a No we will say “we continue””, he famously said.

Now, however, there will be much nail-biting whenever a new treaty is put to a popular vote. The Brexit vote has shown that electorates are happy to defy a powerful combination of their own political leaders, businessmen and senior figures from both Europe and the wider world. The results of the Dutch general and French presidential elections may have been greeted with huge sighs of relief in Brussels, but it is worth remembering that in the first round of the French elections, 46% of voters opted for an EU-critical candidate. Macron’s victory does not imply a renewed love for the EU in France.

A remain vote would have bolstered the EU’s credibility in the wider world. It is doubtful whether it would have altered the course of events in Turkey, where accession to the EU now looks highly improbable following President Erdogan’s revisions to his country’s Constitution. It would, however, have strengthened the pro-European forces in Norway and Iceland. Maybe even the Swiss would have felt that sooner or later, they would have to join up. Instead, our vote to leave essentially buries the prospect of membership for Western Europe’s non-EU members and also makes the EU a harder sell in the Balkans and the former Soviet republics.

After all, although many of us are aware that one country, Greenland, had earlier left the EEC (as it then was), how many of us can actually remember it happening? It was a pretty minor piece of news at the time whereas the Brexit vote was splashed over front pages across the world, complete with pictures of either Donald Tusk or Angela Merkel looking distinctly gloomy.

The EU was never going to be the same after our referendum, however we voted. Its credibility would either have been boosted or dented.

As for how our country would have been affected by a remain vote, as Rupert Matthews pointed out, defeated leavers would have accepted the result with far more grace than the appalling behaviour we have witnessed from remainiacs like Gina Miller, Richard Branson and Tony Blair. We would have vowed to continue the fight but would not have accused voters in the opposite camp of being stupid. Nor would we have been cry-babies saying that the people didn’t know what they were voting for.

However, within a matter of only a few years, we would have seen much of our remaining distinctiveness gradually eroded. How long would we have been able to remain outside the single currency? How long before our armed services would have been absorbed into an EU army? What of the safeguards of our common law-based criminal justice system, so superior to the Napoleonic inquisitorial system of continental Europe, which the EU eventually would have replaced with a single criminal justice code? Would metrication have been pushed with renewed vigour?

Thankfully, instead of this nightmare scenario, we voted to leave and in so doing, besides the eventual benefits to our own country, we may well have put a big spanner in the works to the whole federalist project, for the good of the whole continent. As William Pitt the younger famously said 200 years ago, “England has saved herself by her exertions and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

Brussels’ provocations

By Horst Teubert

German business associations are calling on the EU Commission to end its Brexit provocations. A disorderly Brexit would entail enormous costs for the German economy, the President of the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK) warned; therefore an amicable Brexit agreement with London must be reached. The Federation of German Industries (BDI) expressed a similar view. The head of the EU’s Commission’s recent audacious financial demands and deliberate indiscretions have stirred massive resentment in the United Kingdom and were rightfully considered an attempt to influence Britain’s upcoming parliamentary elections. Observers attribute these indiscretions to EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker’s German Chief of Staff, Martin Selmayr (CDU), who is currently playing a key role in the Commission’s Brexit negotiations’ preparations. The German Chancellery is now calling for restraint in view of the severe damage a hard Brexit could entail for the German economy.

The Commission’s Indiscretions

German businesses are complaining about the EU Commission’s recent provocations: On the one hand, the deliberate indiscretions concerning confidential talks on April 26 in London between the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, the President of the EU Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, and their respective closest collaborators in preparation of Brexit negotiations. The alleged contents of the talks were leaked to a German newspaper, which published a detailed report, spiked with assessments, presenting the British government as blind to reality, uncompromising and disunited.[1] Juncker’s statements, reproduced in the report, are rightfully regarded in Britain as an attempt to tarnish Theresa May’s Conservative government and thereby reinforce EU-oriented forces, particularly among the Liberal Democrats and segments of the Labour Party during the election campaign – apparently to no avail. The obvious attempt to interfere in the country’s internal affairs has stirred massive resentment in the United Kingdom. In last week’s local elections in various parts of the country, all pro-EU parties, except the Welsh Plaid Cymru, lost mandates, whereas the conservative party made substantial gains. In spite of the significance of particularities in local elections, this is regarded as an expression of the wide approval for May’s political course.

Berlin’s Special Role

London has taken note of the special role Germany is playing in this affair. The indiscretions were published in a German newspaper and were probably leaked by the German EU official Martin Selmayr, a member of the CDU. Selmayr is Commission President Juncker’s Chief of Staff, and, according to reports, he is closely allied with Chancellery Minister Peter Altmeier. He is considered to be Juncker’s most important prompter, having a “tight grip” on the Commission, according to observers. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[2]) He also holds a prominent position in the Brexit negotiations: Last October, Juncker mandated him to conduct regular preliminary talks on the Brexit negotiations with London. In the meantime, Selmayr has repeatedly announced that “Brexit will never become a success,”[3] thereby following Berlin’s suggestion that the Brexit could possibly have a deterrent effect on EU critics in other member countries. Selmayr is suspected of having leaked the recent indiscretions, because they contained also those parts of the confidential talks in London, in which only he and Juncker had participated on behalf of the EU. Michel Barnier, the chief Brexit negotiator, and his deputy, Sabine Weyand, joined the talks only later on April 26th. Alongside Selmayr, trade expert Weyand is the second German in a decisive procedural position in the Brexit negotiations.

100 Billion Euros

Alongside this indiscretion, the most recent hike in the amount Brussels is demanding that London pay for its exit from the EU is being met with resentment in Great Britain. Even the 60 billion euros, mentioned a while back must be seen – to put it mildly – as an unrealistically exorbitant starting point for the negotiations. Last week, the commission increased the amount even further, to €100 billion, according to which, two years after its exit, the United Kingdom is to pay, for example, agricultural subsidies for other EU countries, as well as EU administrative costs, alongside co-financing both the European Central Bank (ECB) and the refugee agreement with Turkey. On the other hand, London would not be able to lay any claims to its share of the EU’s assets.[4] Observers suppose that these unorthodox demands have been ultimately raised to increase pressure on London’s government and lower its re-election possibilities in favour of EU-oriented forces – until now, to no avail.

More Strain on Germany

Instead, Brussels’ provocations are now leading to public complaints from the German economy. Britain is its third largest sales market for the highly export-dependent German industry and its second largest foreign investment site. At a time when business with important business partners is suffering – due to sanctions (Russia) or political tensions (Turkey), when trade with its most important ally, the United States, has become unreliable with the recent change of government and its number one sales market – the Euro zone – remains deeply embedded in a crisis, German business associations are adamantly refusing to take on any more risks.[5] “Now, it is important not to smash any more porcelain during the talks,” warns Dieter Kempf, President of the Federation of German Industries (BDI), in reference to Brexit negotiations. “Reason and pragmatism” must be the guidelines for “both” negotiating partners.[6] One should not forget “that the Brexit will come at high costs, also for the German economy,” warned Eric Schweitzer, President of the German Chambers of Industry and Commerce (DIHK). A disorderly Brexit, in which merely WTO standards apply between the EU-27 and Great Britain, trade between Great Britain and the EU would engender trade tariffs of around twelve billion euros. Because of the extensive exports to the United Kingdom, this “would engender an enormous additional strain, also on German enterprises.”[7]

Calls for Restraint

Over the weekend, the first calls for restraint had been heard in Berlin because of complaints from within business circles, and the fact that the EU’s provocations seem to be backfiring in the United Kingdom. Chancellor Angela Merkel made known that she is “upset” about Commission President Juncker, because “his failed Brexit dinner” has only made the climate worse between Brussels and London.[8] The German MEP Ingeborg Grässle (CDU), chair of the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee, criticized Juncker in the name of the European Parliament. “It is time that the EU Commission presents a bill comprehensible for everyone,” she demanded in view of the sum London has to pay for the Brexit. “We want to maintain good relations with the British.” The most recent demands – a good example of the EU Commission’s dealing – are “completely exaggerated.”[9]

The original was published by german-foreign-policy.com and is used with permission

[1] Thomas Gutschker: Das desaströse Brexit-Dinner. www.faz.net 01.05.2017.
[2] See Eine nie dagewesene Machtkonzentration.
[3] Florian Eder, David M. Herszenhorn: Brexit will never be a success: Juncker’s top aide. www.politico.eu 05.05.2017.
[4] Hendrick Kafsack: Ich will mein Geld zurück. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 04.05.2017.
[5] See A Dangerous Game and Auf brüchigem Boden.
[6] BDI fordert Pragmatismus im Brexit-Poker. www.handelsblatt.com 06.05.2017.
[7] DIHK warnt vor hohen Brexit-Kosten. www.dihk.de 04.05.2017.
[8] Merkel verärgert über Juncker nach Brexit-Dinner. www.spiegel.de 06.05.2017.
[9] Andre Tauber: Wie hoch ist der britische Anteil am EU-Vermögen? www.welt.de 07.05.2017

Silliness or spite?

The latest antics of Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission President, will do nothing at all to improve the atmosphere for the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. In a speech in Florence, he claimed that “slowly but surely English is losing importance in Europe.” He then switched into French and drew applause from his audience of EU officials, local leaders and Italian students.

This follows on from claims made a few days after the Brexit vote last June by Danuta Hübner, a Polish MEP who was formerly a Commissioner, that English will lose its status as an official EU language after Brexit.

“We have a regulation…where every EU country has the right to notify one official language,” she said. “The Irish have notified Gaelic, and the Maltese have notified Maltese, so you have only the U.K. notifying English. If we don’t have the U.K., we don’t have English.”

Is this pure silliness or spite?  Given she is Polish, Hübner’s claims are particularly daft. The UK joined the EU in 1973 and although English then became an official EU language, French continued to be the principal language within the institutions. Not until 2004 when Poland, along with nine other countries, joined did English then take its place alongside French in official communications. In other words, it was not because of us but because many of the staff and MEPs from the new accession countries who spoke very poor French but spoke English pretty well. There is therefore a strong irony in especially an Eastern European seeming so keen to rob English of its official status given that its higher profile in the EU came about for the benefit of her countrymen and women.

As a former employee of the European Parliament myself, I can vouch for the excellence of language tuition in the EU’s institutions and no doubt the many Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and others will end up speaking good French after two or three years at these classes, but however spiteful, the EU may feel towards us, any attempt to squeeze our language out of the corridors of Brussels is as futile as King Knut’s alleged attempts to stop the tide coming in. English is the language of IT, the language of world trade and the second most widely spoken language in the world after Mandarin Chinese. No amount of hostility towards our language on account of its associations with Brexit, is going to change this one iota.

As for Mr Juncker, he has been playing the old game popular with British Europhiles of confusing the EU and Europe. I doubt if he will ever manage banish English from the EU’s institutions, but even if I am wrong here, that is as far as I will go. English will not lose its importance in the classrooms and the TV channels of the real world beyond the European Quarter in Brussels. After all, most people do not want a job in this strange parallel universe and whatever the citizens of EU-27 may think of our decision to leave, they are far too pragmatic. They will not be as stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face – or should I say, pace Mr Juncker, “couper le nez en depit de leur visage?”

Mayday, Mayday! Brexit Mayday!

Be not intimidated…nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice. ― John Adams, 1765, British Citizen, Founding Father and 2nd President of The United States of America

It’s over! It’s over, bar the ridiculous charade of ‘tough negotiations’. The thoroughly nasty and vindictive European Union (EU) has won. And gallant, heroic and duped Mrs May and her negotiating team have already lost. We can forget a fair deal on Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and a free trade agreement.  And, unlike in normal divorce proceedings, there is no independent arbitrator to ensure something approaching ‘fair play’ where differences are irreconcilable.

In any negotiation the parties have to progress in good faith because each knows things the other cannot know; privileged information that could be used by the unscrupulous to exploit the situation.  Our contract law consequently places obligations on the parties and means of redress through the courts when one party abuses its position.  Unfortunately the EU, so far, appears to be negotiating in bad faith, not telling the full truth about what can and cannot be negotiated, and the UK is buying the deceptions considerably weakening our position; the EU are effectively ‘laying down the law’ and simultaneously getting us ‘over a barrel’.

Ambassador (rtd) Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos (Former Secretary General of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization) was on the inside of the Article 50 negotiations when it was included it in the Lisbon Treaty. He has revealed that Article 50 was only intended to cover financial arrangements for a Member State leaving the EU. The remaining conditions now being set out by the EU are outside its scope and can only have been included to pressurise us, exact a far heavier price and coerce others into not leaving the EU.  It is one thing freely to negotiate issues that are outside the scope of Article 50 but quite another dishonestly to hold a sword of Damocles over Mrs May’s head that ‘everything must be agreed before anything is agreed’.   Obviously Europhiles on the inside are not going to own up to this subterfuge; they haven’t up to now have they?

Then there is the misinformation about the Single Market, free movement of people, costs of Single Market membership and the jurisdiction of the EU’s European Court of Justice (ECJ) etc. Different arrangements are open to members of EFTA; the European Free Trade Association who are also members of the Single Market, (the European Economic Area (EEA)) but not Member States of the EU and its Customs Union. They can and do negotiate free trade agreements with other countries. Free movement can be unilaterally suspended by any member of EFTA by invoking Article 112 (the Safeguard Provisions) in the EEA Agreement. The UK as a member of EFTA would be able to do the same, if we chose to leave the EU and join this trading association of independent European countries to remain in the EEA.  Also, it costs the EFTA countries little financially to be members of the EEA although Norway does separately contribute towards EU facilities or services used and to development funds.  The ECJ only has jurisdiction over the EU Member States and hence over part of the EEA, but not over EFTA (i.e., non-EU) countries.

There is also increasing evidence that the EU is out to punish us for the temerity of Brexit. Their ‘negotiating position’ is hardening and the language becoming ever more strident.  For example, see Britain needs fighting ‘Plan B’ for trade as EU turns screws on Brexit by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard first published in the Daily Telegraph 26th April 2017. They can also be very obstructionist. For example, see The six Brexit traps that will defeat Theresa May by Yanis Varoufakis, former finance minister of Greece, published in The Guardian 3rd May 2017. Perhaps worse, the EU knows how to inflict real damage on our economy in the event of us leaving the Single Market (EEA) and becoming a ‘third country’ with or without a trade deal.  On the outside, we would face external tariffs, non-tariff barriers (such as special rules, standards, certifications, approvals and inspections) and a massive expansion of Customs Clearances both here and in the protectionist EU (which they might want us to pay for as well).

What we are seeing is a well-established modus operandi for the EU which can be explained in a few quotes from Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission:

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.

Article 50 negotiations as they now appear can’t achieve a reasonable outcome in our interests (we are being misled) and who would actually choose to touch these EU people  – gangsters more like – with the proverbial barge pole?  We need a plan to out-manoeuvre them, a strategy to ensure they cannot hurt us and to avoid any negotiating except where we are the visibly stronger party; money and concessions invariably flow from the weak to the strong.  These are high stakes and if we get it wrong the EU will likely exact a price worse than they’ve inflicted elsewhere, notably upon Greece.

We could ‘weaponize’ our ingenuity, industry and research to redress the balance of negotiating power, for example, by investigating background facts, intelligence gathering and analysis; something akin to the backroom work of Bletchley Park. There are obvious skeletons in the EU cupboard and some that need digging much deeper, such as the sinister origins of the EU and long-standing anti-British sentiments.  The earliest predecessor of the EU (the European Coal and Steel Community) was profoundly anti-British and had an aim to damage our then industrial power. We were saved by the then Prime Minister Clement Attlee from this calamity, only to have later Prime Ministers and British civil servants collude in the EU’s ‘management of our decline’.  Former EU insiders ‘coming clean’ could be goldmines of information.

We could cultivate allies and build alliances with those we can do business with to mutual benefit.  The obvious ones are EFTA, probably by becoming a (temporary) member. The media here and overseas, up till now mainly Europhile could be another ally. Communications to influence public opinion are essential, otherwise the EU’s propaganda arm and fellow travellers will use it against us.

There are other things that can also be done to defend our national interests once it is recognised that the EU’s actions relating to Article 50 are part of a major scam.

England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example. William Pitt the Younger 1805

The plan for a new EU Constitution proves Britain is right to get out now

In Japan, so I am informed by people who know these things, there is a genre of activity known as Tamakeri.

Readers are advised not to Google that on their office computer: it involves individuals getting pleasure from being kicked in their chestnuts, or watching that happen to some other poor unfortunate individual.

Each to their own. But it appears that despite the obvious risks and consequences, some in the EU are determined to engage on their own political equivalent.

Supporters of continental integration have already forgotten the lessons that led to Brexit, and are determined to push ahead with further trips to referendum A&E. On go the sturdy boots. A new EU Constitution is now doing the rounds.

Of course, no one in their right mind could possibly revert to a concept that was so beyond the pale it caused two of the founding EEC states to reject it in a referendum. So, naturally, there is a draft which is even more integrationist instead. Like a classic Hammer Horror, the undead Constitution has risen for the sequel, and this time it means business.

We explore the background (less the Tamakeri) in a new paper for the Red Cell, The Ljubljana Initiative. In short, some old school academics in the Balkans have latterly drafted a text that borrows heavily from the US constitution. It might have stayed on Slovenian shelves gathering dust and waiting for the planets to align, but they have got their President on board, who is even now touring chancelleries pushing the document as the hard text of the ‘more integration’ option recently mooted by Jean-Claude Juncker.

It thus appears to be the only one of his five options that has a concrete set of proposals to go with it. Even if it doesn’t get selected as the Council’s preferred route, it shifts the fulcrum: it will make all the other models that will emerge seem perfectly modest and acceptable by comparison.

So why is it such a shocker? Well, as our paper explores in greater depth, there are three core issues: things that get changed in how the EU works; things that get changed in what the EU does; and the creation of a fast lane for further integration.

Let’s start with functionality. The constitution becomes openly federal so the EU becomes a sovereign government and an international player in its own right, and Brussels formally becomes Europe’s Washington DC. Power shifts from member states, as the Council becomes QMV-driven. The Delors proposal is adopted that made Thatcher say “No! No! No!”: power shifts massively away from governments towards MEPs in the model of the US Congress.

Meanwhile, the Euroquangos become subject to the souped-up President, who can make new ones whenever he wants. As for the European Court of Justice, it formally becomes the EU Supreme Court, subject to MEP – and not national – oversight.

The two big winners are the MEPs, and the lucky new occupant of the EU Presidency. The EU President gets to run international affairs and defence just like the US President does. He appoints ambassadors and judges. Particularly controversially, and ideal given the track record in Brussels, he gains the right to grant Presidential pardons (so, plenty of scope for replays of Nixon after Watergate). A new system meanwhile sets up a Security Council made up of representatives from other EU institutions at times of crisis – generating a ‘War Cabinet’.

These are radical proposals. Realistically, it’s unlikely that member states will be willing to all go along with this, though it would be informative to see the haggling. In any case, we turn to the division of competences (i.e. powers) and this is where the drafters’ prospects start to improve.

Under the text, Foreign Affairs becomes an EU competence. The EU gets its own European Defence Forces (Army, Navy, and Air Force). Even Juncker’s proposals to reduce the role of Brussels included creating a Defence Union, so this certainly has legs.

A new EU territorial police force is also created. Because everyone is such a fan of Casablanca, obviously that means that a new EU Intelligence Agency Service (an EU CIA) needs to be formed too.

Emphasising the complete failure to learn from June 2016, a new Common European Asylum System is also set out, which is intended to share out asylum seekers.

Then on top of these measures, there are also the proposals intended to make EU integration easier in the future.

There is a new ‘passerelle’ clause, so that if MEPs want the power to do something, and don’t have the express legal right in the treaty, but the general objective is mentioned in the treaty, then MEPs can grant themselves the power to do it. To grapple with the consequences of that, consider for a moment what MEPs might choose to legislate on in order to ‘bring peace to Europe’.

On top of that route, there are clauses for fast tracking widespread constitutional change. MEPs can decide they want more powers, summon a Constitutional Convention, and vote themselves those powers. A referendum failure in several member states during ratification still doesn’t veto the result.

Separately, a new Article 50 also incidentally makes it harder for states to leave in the future by transferring the key negotiating role to MEPs.

Some will say that these are merely proposals, and they will be right. These are ideas that are simply being put forward by a Head of State, who is looking for (and incidentally, so he says, winning) support from his counterparts. But let us not forget either how many items now contained in the EU treaties were themselves once dismissed as whispered follies, or on a par perhaps with, say, the Beano, scant years before they indeed came to pass.

So it is important to take note and not to dismiss such plumb lines out of hand. Even if only a part of this new draft EU Constitution happens, the inescapable nature of ever-closer union (contained, incidentally, within the recent reaffirmation in Rome) means that it maps the long term direction of travel. We are at the same time prompted yet again that those engaged in running the EU are incapable of adapting from past mistakes, learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

All told, it proves that the United Kingdom was right to vote to get out when it did. Consider for a moment that, if Brexit is difficult now, what it would be like after another thirty years of plug hole suction on our sovereignty, and matting of our economy’s paperwork.

But above all, the existence of this new EU Constitution alerts us of the importance of strategically thinking ahead.

Theresa May, David Davis, and all ministers and team leaders across Whitehall need to plan over the long term. They need to look at what the EU will over future decades become, rather than think about how they want to associate with the structures that are in place today. That way, they can avoid creating new institutional ties that are so close that they mire their successors as the EU construction site continues to fill with cement.

(this article first appeared on Brexit Central and is used with permission.)

The tyranny of the majority

(This letter was sent by our Chairman to several local papers in the Midlands)

6th December 2016

Sir,

“The Tyranny of the Majority” is Sir John Major’s complaint of the EU referendum result. He, Tony Blair and friends are seeking to overturn it by the old EU trick of sending people to vote again until they give the “right” answer – that is, one favourable to the EU, which then becomes our lord and master for another forty years or so.

Looking across the Atlantic, we see the remarkable victory of Mr. Trump. The Albany Atlas and Argus once described a presidential candidate as “a slang-whanging stump speaker of which all parties are ashamed”. But that was Abraham Lincoln!

Mr. Trump won in spite of such widely held opinions about him. He did not win a majority of popular votes but a majority in the Electoral College where votes are apportioned to states so that the influence of the most populous states is moderated in this enormous country. It is one of the checks and balances which the Founding Fathers built into the constitution. They also provided that each state should have two Senators – from the smallest to the largest.

Considering all the fuss which the Americans have since made about spreading democracy around the world – often at the point of a gun – it is remarkable how little their Founding Fathers had to say about it. They were classically educated men and knew that all previous democracies had ended in dictatorship or disaster.

So to them “democracy” was a politically incorrect word, meaning more or less what “populism”means to Guardian readers today. As John Smith of Roanoke Virginia put it “Too democratical a constitution and we have but exchanged King George for King Numbers” . Sir John Major appears to agree. Except he does not want King George but Emperor Jean-Claude Juncker, his heirs and successors to rule over us.

Most people agree that Tony Blair politicised the civil service. He also did the same to the administration of justice to fit the EU mould. Nobody was clamouring for a Supreme Court but our previous arrangement with Law Lords, who also sat in the House of Lords, did not fit the Napoleonic model. New Labour aspired to “ continental-style Ministry of Justice” and simply imposed it. But our Supreme Court is, in fact, subordinate to the so-called European Court of Justice.

Long live Emperor Jean-Claude! His predecessor, Senhor Barroso ( the erstwhile Marxist now promoted to glory with Goldman Sachs) said the EU was an empire and he was in a position to know! Major, Blair and company are its faithful subjects.

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton