EU: In Or Out?

Notable person, Jeremy Clarkson has written in his Sunday Times column that he thinks we should stay in the EU. Clarkson is someone who generally challenges orthodoxies and infuriates those who think they are the only people allowed opinions.

He always struck me as someone it would be great to discuss the world, the universe and everything with, over a meal. Most convivial I would have thought. I know he is a bit of a simpleton where the EU is concerned, as previously he said we should join the Euro because he hates changing money to travel. Solid.

But even so, his juvenile reasoning on Sunday as to why Britain should stay in the EU was a surprise. He likes Europe he says, and when there, feels European. Feels he fits in more than in America, where they at least speak a version of English. And has strong links with the UK both in legal infrastructure terms and historically.

Yes, Europe is the cradle of civilisation and has an immense amount to commend it in art and architecture. Then of course, the wealthy Clarkson enjoys the food and wine it produces and the quality of restaurants.

And then there is modern European politics. The French revolution, Napoleon, the 1848 revolutions, the Franco-Prussian war, the bombast of Bismarck, De Gaulle and his plan to take over Britain when he and his countrymen surrendered their own country as soon as possible, French Communists, Mussolini, Italian Communists, Hitler. The First World War, the Second World War and Jean Monnet.

Truly 'the Europeans', of which we clearly are not and have never been a part, do not see themselves as European and are very keen on fighting each other. Particularly the French and Germans. But Clarkson thinks these two, specifically, run a super club that we should be part of. Sure he recognises that it isn't democratic, is corrupt and incompetent at every level, but that he says is why we should stay in.

So we can cure these ills from within. Just like Cameron did when he asked for some minor changes and was told no. (Although he seems to be suggesting that no means yes). There is a reason, Clarkson, that when Blenheim and Wellington and numerous others, helped sort out the latest bout of bickering in Europe, they went back home and left them to it.

We didn't take over territory in Europe (well, beyond Gibraltar I suppose) precisely because we are not like them and don't want to be. It is said that in Italy the bureaucracy is appalling and to get anything done it can only be speeded up by bribing the corrupt officials. And in Britain the bureaucracy is appalling and you can't get anything done, because the officials aren't corrupt!

The rule of law here generally works for and is designed to work for, the people. Europe consists of states where the law keeps the people in check.

Regarding the EU itself, it is a Marxist construct that has no democratic core and is designed to be the fun house of an elite, paid for by the masses, a power trip for the careless class. Clarkson thinks we could make it a United States, but it is designed to be a Soviet Union. The naivety in believing it could be changed from within is immense and no more realistic than thinking you could change it standing on the moon.

The United States of America absorbed all kinds of people, of many nations, but in building their life in this new country they became Americans first, with a shared belief in country. Some time later they adopted a single currency. The EU has no demos and forced an inappropriate single currency on its members, the result of which we are seeing now.

There is a continent called Europe but no country called Europe. The nation states have noble histories with much to be proud of (though for France and Germany, much to be ashamed of). They don't need an all-powerful elite to end their histories.