Show Hide image

Greens and blues

Whatever the outcome at Copenhagen, the real work will be done in Europe, where the Tories look incr

If the UN summit on climate change in Copenhagen ends with an agreement on legally binding targets (which it almost certainly won't), the hard work of implementation would still need to be done. Targets have value - they focus political, business and media attention - but they don't automatically lead to delivery.

Look at Kyoto. The fairest overall assessment of it is that the developed countries which ratified the protocol have allowed their emissions to increase by 9.1 per cent, while the US allowed its emissions to increase by 14.4 per cent. Kyoto can plausibly be said to have reduced non-US, developed-country emissions by about 5 per cent from what they would have been without the deal, which is better than nothing. But it's not nearly enough.

The EU's target of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, though still not enough, is at least enforceable. And the EU has significant policy levers - regulatory powers and money to invest in clean energy. So, even though Copenhagen is important, the EU Council of Ministers is the crucial forum for UK pol­iticians wanting to control climate change.

The EU has led international negotiations on climate. Its commitment to reduce emissions is not dependent on what anyone else does. Its target to get 20 per cent of all energy from renewables by 2020 is achievable and it has the money to help construct the more extensive and efficient infrastructure needed, including grids across the North Sea and the Mediterranean. It has also said that it will have up to 12 large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) plants operational by 2015. Although this is just a target and the words "up to" are classic fudge, the Commission has already allocated more than €1bn (£910m) to CCS projects under the European Economic Recovery Plan and has selected the projects to receive the money, which national governments seem to find hard to do.

There is no significant disagreement between the UK's main political parties about climate change, but there certainly is disagreement over the EU. New Labour has generally been pro-EU; the Liberal Democrats are very pro, but the Conservatives remain divided (though David Cameron's sensible decision not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty failed to produce the ructions that some expected, or hoped for). Cameron and the shadow energy secretary, Greg Clark, are serious about controlling climate change. But the damage done to relations with other centre-right parties by the Tories leaving the European People's Party (EPP) may be a significant obstacle.

Trouble on the right

The Conservatives have good policies on the low-carbon transition. Yet I know from my own experience that it is considerably less difficult to adopt good policies in opposition than it is to achieve good outcomes in government.

From 1992-94, I was adviser to the then shadow environment secretary, Chris Smith, and secretary of the Labour policy commission on the environment. This produced In Trust for Tomorrow, which proposed targets to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent by 2010 and to generate 10 per cent of electricity from renewables in 2010. Smith negotiated the considerable internal discussion about this with skill and determination.

Then, from 1997-99, I was adviser to the environment minister, Michael Meacher. He and John Prescott played an important role in the Kyoto negotiations and tried hard to make our economy less climate-damaging. The changes in performance since 1997, however, have been very disappointing. The UK will meet its Kyoto target, due largely to the "dash for gas" that Labour inherited from the Tories. In office, ministers have had to deal not only with Labour Party politics, but also with interdepartmental Whitehall politics. Too often, these have proved insuperable barriers. The 2010 targets for carbon dioxide and renewables will both be missed. The UK gets a lower proportion of its energy from renewables than any EU country except Luxembourg and Malta.

I am no longer a member of a political party, and so do not have inside knowledge of politics today. But it is worrying that Tory ministers trying to implement their climate plans would have to deal not only with internal party and Whitehall politics, but also with difficult relations with other centre-right parties. Cameron, William Hague and George Osborne have all said that the EU should focus on global issues such as climate change. Yet, by leaving the EPP, the Tories have made it more difficult for the party to achieve this. For instance, a central part of developing clean energy sources is to get the EU emissions trading scheme working better. The scheme has had little impact so far because the price of carbon is unpredictable and too low; the best way to improve it would be to set a floor price. This could be done formally through the EU, but that would take many years. It could be created instead through a bilateral deal between the UK and German governments, which have enough allowances in effect to guarantee a floor price. But the Tories have reduced their influence with Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.

The Conservatives accept that climate protection cannot be left to the market. They have called for an Emissions Performance Standard (EPS) to set a maximum pollution level from any power plant. This was an excellent proposal, as Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, recognised when he said that an EPS could act as a "safety net" in case CCS is not as effective as hoped. The UK could introduce an EPS on its own, but it would be much more effective if introduced across the EU.

Let us not lose faith

The EU's target to improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent by 2020 is merely an aspiration at present. The Commission is now saying that the target should be made binding, with predictable hostility from national governments. Allowing decisions to be made by the right tier of government is important, but not as important as taking the right decisions.

However, one way to get one tier to do certain things is to get another tier firmly committed. If Copenhagen and the follow-up negotiations in 2010 can secure legally binding commitments, it will concentrate minds. Several EU governments have been more willing to accept EU directives because they have a legally binding Kyoto target. The EU itself has said that if there were a strong international agreement, its reduction target would be 30 per cent, not 20.

So let us not lose faith entirely in Copenhagen. It is good that Gordon Brown and other world leaders are going to the summit (although, for Brown to be credible, he must put serious money into the low-carbon transition in the pre-Budget report). The real challenge, however, will come after Copenhagen. For it to be met, whoever forms the next UK government must engage extensively, seriously and constructively with Europe.

Stephen Tindale is a climate and energy consultant and co-founder of Climate Answers

 

Take a walk on the dark side

In June, David Cameron pulled his party out of the centre-right European People's Party (EPP). He has argued that leaving the EPP will be good for European democracy, but the Tories' departure has distanced them from old conservative allies in Europe. In 2006, Cameron signed a joint declaration to form a new partnership, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR), chaired by Michal Kaminski.

The Conservative leader has pointed to the ECR's anti-federalist stance in attempting to justify his party's new alliance in the European Parliament, but among the politicians in the group are some who hold sexist, homophobic and racist views. Kaminski has come under scrutiny in recent months for his previous membership of the National Revival of Poland party, which has been accused of neo-Nazism.

The Tories may now lose influence in Europe in important settings such as the environment, public health and food safety committee (vice-chaired by Boguslaw Sonik, a member of the EPP), the committee on industry, research and energy, chaired by an EPP member, and the economic and monetary affairs committee, which has two EPP vice-chairmen.

The Conservatives are the largest party in the new parliamentary grouping, making up 25 of the ECR's 54 members. Its two other main partners are Poland's Law and Justice party and the Czech Republic's Civic Democratic Party.

James Burgess

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

This article first appeared in the 07 December 2009 issue of the New Statesman, Boy George

ANDRÉ CARRILHO
Show Hide image

The Great Huckster: Boris Johnson’s reckless distortions of history

As a scholar of Churchill, Boris Johnson could have articulated a constructive vision for Britain and Europe. Instead, he wilfully manipulates and distorts the historical record.

This month, 76 years ago, the defeated British Expeditionary Force was making for the Channel ports. Thanks to the ferocious resistance put up by the garrison at Calais, and Hitler’s hesitation, the bulk of the men were safely taken off the beaches at Dunkirk to fight another day. Whatever their private feelings during those terrible hours may have been, most of them knew even then that they would return to Europe to finish the job.

Their forefathers had been intervening in Europe for as long as anyone could remember. From Shakespeare’s Henry V through to Elizabeth’s support for the Dutch revolt, the Second Hundred Years War against Louis XIV, the French Revolution and Napoleon, and the First World War, London had always been profoundly invested in the continent. Defending the “liberties of Europe” and thus British freedoms was what Englishmen and Britons did. It was part of what they were.

In early June 1944 – on D-Day – the British, Americans and Canadians hurled themselves into northern France as their ancestors had done since the late Middle Ages. At least one British officer tried to inspire his men that morning as the landing craft approached the strongly defended beaches by reading out Henry V’s speech before Harfleur, in which Shakespeare has him exhort the men, “once more unto the breach”. The film version of the play was released that same year, dedicated to the “commando and airborne troops of Great Britain”. In the popular mind, these Englishmen and their North American descendants were part of the continuity of a European story that went back to the medieval English empire in France.

Some of those liberating Europe thought that they could not simply return to “business as usual” after the war. One of them was the later Conservative prime minister Ted Heath, the man who took Britain into the European Economic Community in 1973. He first defended Liverpool as an anti-aircraft gunner and then took the fight to Hitler as an artillery man during the campaign in north-west Europe. Over the course of the next 11 months, Heath and his comrades fought their way across the traditional battlefields of northern France and the Low Countries, including the Walcheren swamps in which their ancestors had been mired in Napoleonic times; and through western Germany into the centre of the Reich. They were to stay there, at the heart of Europe, for some 60 years. They created a stable European order, based on Nato and what was to become the European Union, which remains with us to this day.

Now the Brexit stalwart Boris Johnson, my fellow historian, claims that it was all in vain. “The European Union,” he says, “is an attempt to do what Hitler wanted by different methods.” Worse still, the EU is a German plot, whose currency, the euro, was “intended by the Germans” to “destroy” Italian manufacturing and generally grind the faces of its unfortunate members. Johnson has also invoked the spirit of Churchill in support of his arguments. He has since doubled down on his remarks and has received support from other members of the Brexit camp, such as Iain Duncan Smith, though not apparently from more informed figures such as Michael Gove. Unfortunately, Johnson’s claims are as historically wrong as it is possible to be, comparable in their crassness only to his predecessor as London mayor Ken Livingstone’s suggestion that Hitler supported Zionism.

Far from supporting European political unity, Hitler was violently and explicitly opposed to the idea. This was partly because it was proposed by his opponents on the “left” of the Nazi Party, such as the Strasser brothers. They belonged to the “anti-imperialist” wing of the Nazi Party, which wanted a pan-European front against the Jews and the British empire. Hitler’s hostility to the European project was also in part due to a racial antipathy to the half-Japanese Richard, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, the author of the widely discussed book Pan-Europa (1923). One way or the other, Hitler condemned the Pan-Europa movement as “a fantastical, historically impossible childishness”, which would be no more than a “Jewish protectorate”.

Nor did he hold back with his alternative view of what the continent should look like. “The solution,” he wrote, “cannot be Pan-Europa, but rather a Europe of free and independent national states, whose spheres of interest are separate and clearly delineated.” Comparisons involving Hitler are usually odious but if one is going to draw parallels, his view of European integration then was much closer to that of the Brexiters today than that of the advocates of the European Union.

Moreover, the European project did not originate in the Nazis’ attempt to mobilise the continent on their behalf but rather in the resistance movement against Hitler. Take Sicco Mansholt, who hid Dutch resisters on his farm during the war, at great personal risk. He subsequently became the Dutch minister for agriculture and one of the fathers of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Take Altiero Spinelli, the Italian anti-fascist who spent ten years in Mussolini’s prisons. It was there, in June 1941, at the height of Hitler’s power, that he secretly wrote his draft manifesto For a Free and United Europe.

Take Paul-Henri Spaak, later prime minister of Belgium, first president of the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community – the forerunner of the EU – and secretary-general of Nato. He was forced to make a daring escape from wartime Europe in the false bottom of a lorry in order to carry on the struggle against Hitler in exile. Indeed, across Europe there were thousands of men and women who fought, died, were imprisoned or tortured because they believed in a free and united Europe. To suggest that they were trying to achieve the same thing as Hitler by different methods is an outrageous slur on their memory. If Johnson ever makes it to the top of the Conservative Party, and thence to No 10, he will have a lot of explaining and apologising to do in Europe.

***

As if all this were not bad enough, Boris Johnson’s invocation of Churchill flies in the face of everything we know of the great man’s attitude to the European project. To be sure, he began as a Eurosceptic. When army reforms were proposed in 1901 to support the creation of a substantial land force on the continent, the young Winston Churchill was one of the few MPs to oppose them on the grounds that the navy, rather than the army, was of crucial importance to British security. Writing in the Morning Post, Churchill argued that “history” and “geography” showed that the British empire was “essentially commercial and marine”, and had been defended by armies of foreigners.

As the German threat loomed large, however, he changed his mind. Churchill, then first lord of the admiralty, told the Australians and New Zealanders in April 1913 that Europe was “where the weather came from”. It was the terrible storm of the First World War that caused Churchill not only to believe in the centrality of Europe but in the need for European – or at least continental European – unity.

In May 1930, the president of the Pan-Europa Union, the former French prime minister Aristide Briand, made a formal proposal for a “European federal union” based on a “European conference” with an executive to co-ordinate economic and military co-operation. The British government of the time rejected the surrender of sovereignty involved but many were sympathetic to the idea of continental European union under liberal auspices. The arch-imperialist Leo Amery, secretary of state for the colonies and later a powerful critic of appeasement, was a strong admirer of Coudenhove and his projects, which he regarded as the extension of Anglo-Saxon principles to the continent.

Likewise, Churchill, then chancellor of the Exchequer, told parliament in June 1925 that he hoped that one could “weave Gaul and Teuton so closely together economically, socially and morally as to prevent the occasion of new quarrels and make old antagonisms die in the realisation of mutual prosperity and interdependence”. Then, he continued, “Europe could rise again”. Churchill did not believe, however, that Britain should be part of any continental political union. “We are with Europe, but not of it,” he wrote in 1930. “We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed.”

In mid-June 1940, however, as western Europe buckled under the Nazi onslaught, Churchill went a step further. He made an unsuccessful offer of union with France – involving joint citizenship and a common government – designed to lock the French into the war effort against Germany or, failing that, to secure their fleet. The Nazi threat was so existential, in other words, that it justified the surrender, or at least the pooling, of British sovereignty.

When the threat of invasion passed, Churchill returned to the theme of continental European integration. In October 1942, he “look[ed] forward to a United States of Europe in which barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised. He “hope[d] to see the economy of Europe studied as a whole”, and the establishment of a council of “ten units, including the former Great Powers [and thus presumably Britain], with several confederations – Scandinavian, Danubian, Balkan, etc, which would possess an international police and be charged with keeping Prussia disarmed”.

Churchill returned to the subject immediately after the war, as the Soviet threat menaced Europe. In a speech at Zurich University in September 1946, he urged the continent to “unite”, with Britain supporting the project from the outside. Once again, including the Germans was central to his conception. Churchill urged no less than the full political union of the continent in a “kind of United States of Europe” under the “principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter”. He again praised the work of Hitler’s bugbear, Count Coudenhove-Kalergi’s “Pan-European Union”.

Churchill demanded an “act of faith”, beginning with “a partnership between France and Germany”, assembling around them the states of Europe “who will and . . . can” join such a union. Its purpose was clear, namely “to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause.”

Moreover, Churchill argued, “The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might each take their individual place among the United States of Europe.” In short, the new polity was designed to solve not merely the European question but the German problem, the two being one and the same. Once again, Churchill conceived of this United States of Europe alongside but not including the United Kingdom and the British “Commonwealth of Nations”, that is, the empire. Instead, he believed that Britain should be one of the “sponsors of the new Europe”.

Churchill’s attitude to continental European union was, unlike Hitler’s, highly positive. For Johnson to suggest, therefore, that he is donning the mantle of Churchill to prevent the current European Union from achieving Hitler’s aims through other means is a complete travesty of the historical truth.

Far from being intended to promote German power, the European Union was designed to contain it, or at least to channel it in the right direction. Contrary to what Johnson suggests, the euro was not planned by Germany to subjugate Italian industry or any other European economy. It was insisted on by the French to decommission the deutschmark, which they described as Germany’s “nuclear weapon”. Likewise, the Germans are not incarcerating the Greeks in their European prison: Greeks are desperate not to be released back into the “freedom” of the drachma and the corrupt national politics that they joined “Europe” to escape. If there is one thing worse than being dominated by Germany in the European Union, evidently, it is not being in the EU at all.

Boris Johnson may not have known the details of Hitler’s attitude to European integration, or the European sympathies of many resisters, but he is very well informed about Churchill and Europe. His ignorance is thus not just a matter of making mistakes; we all make those as historians. Nor is it simply a matter of these mistakes being, like bank errors, in favour of one’s own argument. To say that Johnson knows better is not a figure of speech: he has shown in print that he does. His recent book, The Churchill Factor, contains a very balanced account of Churchill’s position on Europe, including most of the statements listed above.

In making his arguments, Johnson is not appealing to the baser instincts of the electorate; it is far worse than that. The deeply ingrained British instinct to fight European tyranny is not base but fine. What Johnson and those who defend his rhetoric have done is to take something virtuous and pervert it. The European Union is not, as we have seen, the continuation of Hitlerism by other means and to suggest so is blatant manipulation.

The shame of it is that there is a perfectly plausible Eurosceptic argument on its own merits. It was well stated by Michael Gove at the start of the campaign. It insists on the historical distinctiveness of the United Kingdom, whose history does indeed set it apart from the rest of the continent. It makes the case for a reform of the EU. It rejects the scaremongering of “Project Fear”, on the cogent grounds that the United Kingdom has the political, economic and military weight to prevail even without the stabilisers of the EU. It scorns President Obama’s impertinent warning that Britain would have to “get to the back of the queue” for a trade deal after Brexit, with a reminder that Britain and her empire defied Nazi Germany for two years before the Americans joined the fray, when Hitler declared war on them (not vice versa). One does not have to accept every detail of this discourse to feel its force. Uniquely among the democratic European powers, the United Kingdom can “stand alone” if it must or wants to.

The Achilles heel of the Brexit campaign, however, is that it has no viable vision for continental Europe. Even Gove falls down here, as his idea of a British departure unleashing a “democratic liberation” of the continent is pure fantasy. It seems odd to have to explain this to Brexiters but Britain really is special. Casting off the bonds of Brussels will not emancipate mainland Europe but let loose the nationalist and xenophobic demons tamed by the integration project. This is clear when we look at the rise of radical anti-European parties in France, Hungary, Austria, Germany and many other parts of Europe as the European project fragments. These developments should not surprise anyone who knows the history of mainland Europe before the mid-20th century and to a considerable sense beyond.

***

 

Most of continental Europe had failed before 1945 and even now the European Union is only failing better. Unlike virtually every other European state, which has at some point or other been occupied and dismembered, often repeatedly, England and the United Kingdom have largely – with very brief exceptions – been subjects of European politics, never merely objects. In this sense, too, she is exceptional. Yet this should not be an occasion for British triumphalism. Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 23 June, the European Union is not an enemy of the United Kingdom. It should best be understood as a modern version of the old Holy Roman Empire; hapless and officious, perhaps, but not malign. It needs help. The failure of the European project and the collapse of the current continental order would be not only a catastrophic blow to the populations on the far side of the Channel but also to the United Kingdom, which would be
directly exposed to the resulting disorder, as it always has been.

In short, the Brexit camp in general and Boris Johnson in particular are missing a great opportunity in Europe. A student and partisan of Winston Churchill, the former mayor of London was qualified to articulate a constructive vision for Britain and the continent. He has failed to understand that the only safe way that Britain can exit from the European Union is not through Brexit – whose consequences for mainland Europe would be dire – but through Euroexit; that is, a Churchillian political union of the continent in close co-operation with the UK.

Instead, in addition to their distortion of the historical record, Johnson and the Brexit camp are committing the cardinal sin of making a decision before they need to. The European Union is not, sadly, a United States of Europe, even though it needs to become one to survive, and is becoming less like one every day. If and when it musters the strength for full political union, there will be plenty of time to leave. Meanwhile, the EU needs all the support that Britain can give it from within.

In 1940, the British forces had been defeated and retreat was the only option. The situation could not be more different today. This is no time to head for the beaches in what will be a legislative Dunkirk of epic proportions, with incalculable consequences not so much for Britain as for the rest of the continent. Unlike in 1940, the United Kingdom is not being forced out of Europe. It has hardly begun to fight there, unless shooting oneself in the foot through Brexit counts as combat. The battle in Britain today is a distraction from the great struggle on the mainland. There is much work to be done in Europe. It is time the British stop tearing themselves apart and return unto the breach once more.

Brendan Simms is a NS contributing writer. His latest book is “Britain’s Europe: a Thousand Years of Conflict and Co-operation” (Allen Lane). He is president of the Project for Democratic Union

This article first appeared in the 19 May 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Great Huckster