Fraser Nelson is another Brexiteer who has learned nothing from the last two years. He is the editor of The Spectator but occasionally takes the time to write something ridiculous elsewhere. He has written an article in The Telegraph (behind a paywall but read it HERE) where he admits he loves Europe but doesn't feel passionate about it. Make of that what you will. He thinks Europe and the EU are totally separate things, which I think is a dangerous delusion.
All that scuttling around Europe by May, Johnson, Liddington, Hunt and Davis trying to split the EU27 should have taught us that there is no difference between them. But Nelson says, "I love Europe but have never confused that with loving the EU, which I’ve generally regarded as a racket".
To me this is like saying you love individual members of your family but don't like them collectively. Brussels is simply the administrative centre of the EU, a convenient way of organising Europe to act in a coordinated way to achieve a common good. There is no question in my mind that Juncker, Tusk, Tajani, Draghi, etc are carrying out the will of the European Council, not the other way round. Yet, Nelson and other Brexiteers seem to believe the Commission is some sort of evil dictatorship and the leaders of the EU27 willing supplicants.
What Napoleon and Hitler failed to do with massed armies, Jean Claude Juncker, the mild and rather bibulous ex PM of Luxembourg has done single handedly without a shot being fired in Nelson's version of reality. He says the EU is a "political cabal which now wishes to keep the club together by fear" presumably with Britain the only country out of the 28 to realise it? I really don't think so.
What Napoleon and Hitler failed to do with massed armies, Jean Claude Juncker, the mild and rather bibulous ex PM of Luxembourg has done single handedly without a shot being fired in Nelson's version of reality. He says the EU is a "political cabal which now wishes to keep the club together by fear" presumably with Britain the only country out of the 28 to realise it? I really don't think so.
You might be tempted to say he is just another journalist who doesn't get it and you would probably be right. Listen to this from his article:
"If Parliament rejects this [the deal], we default to World Trade rules on March 29 with freedom, yes, but a whole new system with tariffs and worse. The EU has said that it will, in this case, make life unpleasant for us - and will not give us a transition period to help us prepare. There’ll be queues, chaos, quarantined pets, etc etc".
He wanted to leave, to take back control, but is now asking for EU help to do it! They are not going to make life 'unpleasant' for us, we have made life unpleasant for ourselves. They are simply applying their existing rules to us. Brexit was our choice, his choice.
"I can hear my Remain friends saying: we told you so. After Brexit, the EU was always going to act like a wounded animal. It wishes to keep its 27 members together, and a successful Brexit would encourage others to follow: of course it would hammer Britain repeatedly in the talks. Its hostility was inevitable, and it was always going to be thus".
It is apparently fine for the UK to vote to leave, to try and become more competitive, to seek an advantage over the EU27 by cutting taxes and regulations and in doing so protect what it sees as its interests. But if the EU tries to protect what it sees as its own interests it is behaving like a 'wounded animal' and is going to 'hammer' us.
Like many ultras he is convinced 'technology' will solve the Irish border problem and says Leave would win a second referendum despite there being zero evidence for the first and an abundance of evidence to the contrary for the second (HERE).
In a fundamental misunderstanding about the EU, Nelson finishes:
"Trying to foist uniformity on the most gloriously diverse continent on earth is, fundamentally, an un-European exercise. Which is why the British voted to leave. We ought, now, to do so".
Anyone who has traveled in Europe would be amazed to think the EU is foisting 'uniformity' on a lot of unwilling people. There is massive diversity. France is still France as Italy is still Italy. A Frenchman is still a Frenchman and an Italian is still an Italian. Yes, there is some standardisation where this helps trade but surely this is a good thing? There has to be some regulation but Fraser Nelson would prefer 27 different ones to achieve the same end. Why? To what end?
I really cannot understand his thinking.
I really cannot understand his thinking.
