UK Conservatives: Death of a European vanguard

Once upon a time, there was a group of Conservative politicians and officials, resolutely pro-European in their outlook. These figures stood out as leaders for the formation of a new, united Europe. They pushed for the creation of a European project that would bring together the hearts and minds of millions across the continent. A dream of a Europe that was civilised, unified and peaceful was shared among these people. They supported the actions of the 6 founder nations creating a European community to strive for 'ever closer union'. While perhaps reticent at first, when the changing nature of the world came and the Empire was brought to a close, they promoted Britain's own participation in this project. They helped create and write the European Convention of Human Rights. This group campaigned against left-wingers who sought to bring the UK out of the European Community. They believed firmly in 'Europe' as a single bulwark against the Soviet Union. They understood that in an era of superpowers, the individual countries of Europe would have to look to one another and to share sovereignty if they were to retain any independence at all, lest they fall under the sway of a far more powerful bloc or state.

Or so the tale goes.

Because nowadays it would be a struggle to remember that there was such a time and every day, as the Conservative Party stubbornly continues down the Brexit path without care for warnings or dangers, this European past seems to recede further into the land of myths. Nowadays, an ardent showing of Euroscepticism or even Europhobia is a prerequisite for serious positions in the Conservative Party. Indeed, those that tend to be more pro-Europe have had to work particularly hard to prove their anti-Europe credentials in order to retain control of the party. 

How did it get to this point? How did the party of Winston Churchill (who in 1950 was even calling for a world government, let alone the modest idea of a united Europe) descend into the party of Ian Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove?

In their own mythos, there are two versions of the Eurosceptic narrative, depending on the individual. For a minority, their view is that they were always against this whole thing in the first place and that we should never have joined the EEC in the 60s. This group has never really held much power because it is so easy to show up their position as pure hostility to foreigners.

The second narrative, however, has been more successful. This one states that while these people had previously been supporters of the European project, they turned it against it when it started to 'go wrong' - in practice, usually around the time of the Maastricht Treaty. In this rewriting of history, Maastricht acts as a turning point for when the European project becomes 'political' rather than being about trade and mutual economic advantage. 

This is nonsense of course. The European ideal was always political. It was always presented as such (unless you live in a world where 'ever closer union between the peoples of Europe' sounds like the objective of a free trade area). The main accomplishment of  Maastricht was to expand rights to citizens and make the whole thing more democratic, more citizen-led.

Nonetheless, the betrayal narrative is compelling and makes people feel that they can switch their position without needing to justify doing a u-turn; they can claim that they are unchanged and it is everyone else who has changed.

So if we reject these ideas as convenient fictions, what then is the real reason?

The transition clearly happened during the Thatcher is, prior to Maastricht, when it became fashionable to be eurosceptic and even heavily anti-EU. Why during this particular time? Because the main opposition in Britain was heavily divided and spent as much time fighting itself as fighting Thatcherite Conservatives. It is nonetheless useful to governments to have an opposition, a punching bag to distract from their own failures. In this capacity the EU proved to be the ultimate punching bag because it has no real means to fight back.

Currently, the EU is trying to create direct lines of communication between itself and its citizens, but it still heavily relies on national governments to communicate pro-EU messages. This was even the more the case in the 1980s and Thatcher and the Conservative government could throw out hits at the EU all day long, virtually unchallenged. Inevitably, as with all deceits, in time they became convinced of their own lies as the reality they constructed became the only reality on offer in the UK. Propelled by a Conservative-supporting media that never tried to understand the EU or challenge the narrative handed down by their champion, the idea of an overbearing, ineffecient, dictatorial EU that was seeking to undermine the UK became the only vision of the EU that would get a hearing in many EU circles.

This is not to say that pro-European Conservatism has died completely in the UK, but in the heady days of the Tory dominance of the 1980s, it seems that this faction preferred to stick with the party rather than to remind their colleagues of the Conservative legacy in supporting and building European unity. Even with the UK's place in Europe resting on a knife-edge, there has been no willingness from pro-EU Tories so far to rebel against a hardline pro-Brexit government.

In 2017, Conservatives in the UK who believe in Europe have an opportunity. They have an opportunity to repair the damage that has been unleashed by their party's callous disregard for the values that they themselves used to stand for. If they want to bring back British Conservatives as a key part of the European project, now would be the time to do something about it. And yes, that will mean deciding whether they value party or country more.