Members of Keep Britain Out of the Common Market protest outside Chequers in 1967. Photo: Ann Ward/Rex
Show Hide image

From the archive: J B Priestley on why Britain would be better off out of the Common Market

Britain is not a super-ICI but the home of the British people.

First published in the New Statesman in 26 May 1967.

Nobody has asked me yet if I want to go into the Common Market, just as nobody asked me if I wanted to be defended by the Bomb. And I will remark here in passing that there seem to me to be certain decisions so important that they burst the seams of our parliamentary democratic system. In these rare instances we ought to be asked. As it is, I may wake up one morning to find I am already in the Market, and perhaps discover sooner or later that if arrested and charged I shall be presumed to be guilty unless I can prove my innocence – and God knows what else. Of course I can see the noble possibilities of a federated Europe but creating this and bashing into the Market seem to me to be very different activities.

One reason why I feel dubious about the Market is that most of our practical, hard-headed, no-nonsense men are strongly in favour of it. For 35 years now I have been at odds with these men and have been called a literary sentimentalist or a crackpot, and it seems to me that I have always been right and they have always been wrong. (I could prove this, and may do so, one day.) The point about these men is that, while they are practical and hard-headed about bank loans, costs, profits, ledgers and petty cash, as soon as they consider very large questions and issues their minds go hazy and dreamy. But though ignorant and an innocent in many practical matters, I am in the dream business, know all about self-deception (our national vice), and in this region I am a realist.

So I feel that many of these no-nonsense Market enthusiasts write and talk about going into Europe quite unrealistically, out of a golden haze. They tell us in effect that once we are in then all will be different but – not to worry – somehow just the same. Or, if you like, what we want to be different will be different and what we want to remain unchanged will stay the same. But this is not coming to an agreement with tough types across the water, representatives of French peasants, German steel men, Belgian financiers – it is strolling through fairyland, picking unfading flowers. The practical men, the hard-headed fellows, are at it again.

Smacking their lips over the magic cake you can eat and still have, they tell us that once in the Market, up against some ruthless competition, management and labour here will rise “to face the challenge”. Now I know that we can face challenges if necessary, as we did so magnificently in the war. But that was another sort of challenge, very different from business. The truth is – and we might as well face it – we English find it hard to develop an overwhelming passion for business. (We are a nation of hobby-horse riders, and out of our pursuits and pastimes, from birds and flowers to football and tennis, has come an astounding contribution to world civilisation.) I don’t believe myself that any cut-throat competition in the Market will turn us into people who can hardly think about anything but production curves, sales graphs, rising profits, people who talk on and on and on about business. Certainly we have to earn a living. But not an existence – a living. Being alive.

Now, if we go into the Common Market and can’t face this challenge, I feel we shall be worse off than we are at present. London, Birmingham, Manchester will be swarming with cleverer business men than we are. But what if we go in, boldly face the challenge and triumph? As I see it, we shall still be worse off than we are now. There may be more money about, but a lot of it will benefit the wrong people while many of the people I like will be staring in horror at the household bills. At the same time we shall be turning ourselves into a business-first community. Already too much Admass rubbish about Executives (business men seen through a haze) is creeping into our advertising, and we are being shown the planes, cars, trains, hotel suites fit for Executives.

All right then, we encourage Executives (with wives who have passed the necessary tests) to beat their brains out, risk ulcers and coronaries, and pile up the money, but under a Labour government we take most of the money away from them (we hope) and distribute it, with the help of 500,000 civil service clerks, among the needy. That might be worse – and it would be under the Tories – but to my mind it doesn’t offer an attractive picture of a society. I see us all existing in the shadow of weary Titan Executives, now our great men, and of public filing cabinets 200 feet high and a quarter of a mile long. Will this release and ennoble the spirit of man? It will not.

But what – and you can hear the voices of the Marketeers rising higher and higher – is to happen to us if we don’t go in? Do I want to find myself living merely on an off-shore island? And the trouble is – I do. I am an off-shore island man. If there were a great West European combine to secure better terms for writers (and we could do with some), I wouldn’t join it. If I did I might soon find myself wearing a skullcap, reading my new works aloud and plotting to obtain a prize for Jimmy Wood, Jean Dubois or Heinrich Wald. And this isn’t my style, isn’t our style, is the Continental not the island style.

Am I being frivolous when I ought to be considering money and business, size of markets, imports and exports and tariffs? I don’t think so. It is the enthusiastic Marketeers who are being unrealistic. For example, it is absurd to believe you can happily join the Common Market by turning it into something else. Some of these Marketeers are like a woman doctor trying to become a member of a club of male barristers. Either you want to go along with these Europeans, who understand one another much better than they do us, who are in closer touch, who share certain traditions strange to us – or you don’t. If deep down you don’t, then stop the fuss. If you do, if you realise that the Common Market isn’t going to transform its character just to please us, that sooner or later the whole style of our national life will have to be changed, then be ready to face the consequences. I’m not.

Much of this desire to get into Europe seems to me to have its origin in a bad idea. A nation must have trade but it is not primarily a trading concern. Britain is not a super-ICI but the home of the British people. Because of the balance of payments, the trade gap, the tremendous influence of the economists, the effect on the people of Admass (how can you live without colour television?), we are beginning to believe that the gross national income is more important than anything else. But a country might have a gigantic and rapidly increasing gross national income and yet be crammed with dissatisfied and miserable people, hating the sour flavour of their lives. I believe Mr Wilson and his colleagues would agree with this, but circumstances are compelling them either to rush us into the Market or to drag an enormous son-et-lumière herring across the trail. They have to do something to lighten the atmosphere.

A few years ago, in a piece here called “Ambience or Agenda”, I argued that a change of atmosphere, a different climate of values, ideas, opinions, was even more important than the most elaborate party programme. The ambience would produce the agenda, not the agenda the ambience. But it seems to me that Labour, though meaning well, has so far been all agenda and no ambience. Instead of being made to feel we must make sacrifices out of love of our country, we have been encouraged to suspect that we are being punished for something. Again, while we can live more frugally, we would do it with a better heart under an obviously frugal government. Finally, we don’t feel we are living in an audaciously creative country but in a rather stiff and disagreeable one.

And while all manner of outworn or bogus traditions are allowed to waste time, money and temper, real and valuable traditions – the cheap food policy, for example – may soon be in danger of being scrapped. We might find ourselves in a still more disagreeable country, irritated by all sorts of alien demands, perhaps tied to ruthless big-business types whose methods and values we despise, and forbidden to make any generous social experiments of our own. Somehow the Common Market doesn’t smell like the possibility of any noble federation. And the Tory rush to get into the Community arouses my suspicion. These have never been the men I have wanted to follow.

But how can we go our own way, so many eccentric islanders, who don’t want to work too hard or think and talk about business day and night? The answer is – and I write in all earnestness – not to have our corners rubbed off by chaps from Clermont-Ferrand, Essen or Liège but to turn ourselves into even more eccentric islanders. There are two sides to our national character: one represented, we might say, by Francis Chichester, the other by the town clerk of Bumbledom. The latter and his sort and their whole attitude of mind weigh us down like a lead poultice. The adventurous, the original, the inventive, the imaginative, can hardly breathe. We have a well-meaning, careful government that may take us cautiously into the Market, behind high tariff walls. But we might be happier out in the wind, risking the loss of colour television, holidays in Spain, more and more cars, prepared to make audacious experiments, so many odd but exciting islanders. We might then have youth on our side. 

This article first appeared in the 09 April 2015 issue of the New Statesman, The Anniversary Issue 2015

Graham Brady illustration
Show Hide image

Tory backbench leader Graham Brady: “When we vote to leave the EU, the PM should stay”

As chair of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady is a king among Tory backbenchers. So what does the ardent Eurosceptic make of David Cameron’s prospects in the EU referendum – and afterwards?

Enter Graham Brady’s office and you are treated to a magnificent panoramic view of the Palace of Westminster and Parliament Square. It is an appropriately grand vantage point for one of the most influential MPs. As the chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, Brady is an essential barometer of Tory opinion. In recognition of this, he was one of the first guests to No 10 Downing Street in the hours following David Cameron’s general election victory. A prime minister with a majority of 12 – the smallest of any single-party government since October 1974 – must take permanent heed of his backbenchers.

I met Brady, 48, shortly before the start of Prime Minister’s Questions on 10 February. Among Conservative MPs below us in Portcullis House, there remained only one topic of discussion: Europe. Cameron’s draft agreement with the EU has failed to persuade many Eurosceptics that they should vote in favour of membership of the Union when the referendum is likely held on 23 June. Brady, who entered parliament in 1997 as the MP for Altrincham and Sale West, is one of those who intends to campaign for withdrawal.

“There is a very long-term problem that there is a massive difference between what Britain thought it was joining – the European Economic Community – and what it actually was joining,” he said. “There was no appetite or decision to join a political Europe . . . That is something that has always needed to be resolved in some way and I think the more the eurozone, in particular, integrates with the continuing crisis, the more we will have to see massive political and fiscal integration and probably, still, the departure of some of the weaker eurozone countries. As that process goes on, the United Kingdom has got to redefine its relationship in a meaningful way.”

In advance of the European Council summit in Brussels on 18-19 February, he warned that Cameron’s renegotiations had fallen far short. “The reforms that are being sought by the Prime Minister, while all welcome changes, don’t come anywhere near to that fundamental reform of the nature of our relationship with the EU.”

I asked Brady, who was elected to lead the 1922 Committee in 2010, how many of his Conservative colleagues he expected to join him. “It’s very hard to say. I’ve always thought that a clear majority of Conservative members of parliament are deeply unhappy about the shape of the current European Union. And probably a clear majority would have a preference of leaving the EU as it is today. I suspect that roughly 100 will declare that they’re campaigning for Britain to leave. But many more will be very sympathetic to that objective.”

His estimate of 100 is notably higher than the 50 to 70 predicted by Steve Baker, the co-chairman of Conservatives for Britain.

In recent weeks, Eurosceptics have complained as pro-EU cabinet ministers have campaigned for membership while front-bench opponents have remained “gagged”. Brady told me it was “not unreasonable” for Cameron to force them to abide by collective responsibility until the renegotiation had concluded. But, he added: “What is important is that once the deal is done things should be brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. I hope there will be a cabinet meeting, if not on the Friday after the Prime Minister returns, then on the Saturday morning, [so] that the cabinet can agree its collective position and also agree that those who don’t share that view are free to say so and free to campaign.”

Some MPs expect as few as five cabinet members to support EU withdrawal (Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Grayling, Priti Patel, Theresa Villiers and John Whittingdale) although others remain hopeful of persuading Boris Johnson and Michael Gove to join them. “I hope that everybody who is really committed to Britain’s future as a free, independent democracy will realise this is a key decision point,” Brady said.

“There’s no doubt that if Boris Johnson were to campaign for Britain to leave it would bring an energy and buzz to the campaign. Of course that would be welcome, and I hope that Michael Gove will resolve his dilemma in the same direction.”

I asked Brady if he was worried by what some Eurosceptics call “the Farage problem”: that the most prominent opponent of EU membership is also the most polarising. “Nigel Farage is very good at what he does,” he said of the Ukip leader. “He’s a very effective communicator with some audiences, so clearly he has a role in the campaign. Given the salience of the issue for him and his party, it would be unreasonable to expect him not to be prominent in the campaign. But he is a Marmite character and I think this is why it’s so important that there should be a wide range of different voices.”

Brady, who had just returned from a breakfast meeting in the City of London, told me that a number of business people have revealed to him that although their “institutional position is firmly that we should remain in the EU . . . privately their view is completely the opposite”.

Two days before we met, Cameron had been accused of “scaremongering” for warning that “the Jungle”, the refugee camp in Calais, could move to Dover in the event of EU withdrawal. Brady told me that the Prime Minister’s remarks were indeed “inaccurate” and that it was “enormously helpful of the French government to point out that it wasn’t going to happen”.

Were Britain to vote to leave the EU, as polls suggest is possible, many Tory MPs on both sides believe that Cameron would have to resign as Prime Minister. But Brady rejected this suggestion. “No. When we vote to leave the European Union I think it is very important that we have a period of stability. I think it would be hugely valuable to have an experienced team in place to deal with the renegotiation, I think it’s actually very important that the Prime Minister should stay.”

I noted that he referred to “when” Britain leaves the EU, suggesting he was confident of victory. “I’m always confident of victory,” he replied with a smile.

Given Cameron’s decision to pre-resign before the election by vowing to serve only two terms, there will be a Conservative leadership contest before 2020. I asked Brady whether, as some have suggested, the members’ ballot should be widened to include more than two candidates.

“The rules are constructed for each contest by the 1922 executive and agreed with the party board. The only stipulation in the constitution of the party is that we should provide ‘a choice’ to the party members. That has always been construed as a choice of two. I can’t see any reason why parliamentary colleagues would wish to reduce their own influence in the process by putting forward a larger field.”

The Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, has argued that it is essential there be a female candidate (ideally herself). Brady offered her some advice: “I have very fond recollections of a woman leading the Conservative Party. I hope that if Nicky wants to launch her campaign seriously, she’ll talk to me about how we might promote more grammar schools and selective education as one of the ways that we can stimulate real social mobility in the country again – and she’ll have my support.” It was after the then shadow education secretary, David Willetts, argued in 2007 that grammar schools inhibited social mobility that Brady resigned as shadow minister for Europe.

If there is one stipulation that most Conservative members and MPs will make, it is that there be an anti-EU candidate in the field. I asked Brady whether he would consider standing himself.

“I say to people that I’m very happy with being the returning officer for any leadership contest,” he replied. But the man with a better feel for Conservative backbench opinion than any other ended our conversation with this prediction. “I do think it’s very likely that if we put two candidates forward to the party in the country, at least one of them will have been someone who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.” 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 11 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle