Thread by @EmporersNewC

This article about honesty in politics shows us why the European Union is in a difficult position with regard to the Northern Ireland Protocol. (Thread)

It begins with a quote, we are told, that was written by Lord Thorneycroft in 1947 about a plan that must be kept from the public.

Lord Thorneycroft may not have written those words.

He was the principal author of the pamphlet ‘Design for Europe’, published by the Tory Reform Group, but we don’t know who wrote that particular passage.

Enoch Powell wasn’t a signatory on the ‘One Europe’ pamphlet, but could still have written that Britain “should not be frightened of political union”.

Iain Duncan Smith then suggests that the argument to enter was based on the fear of economic Armageddon.

Economic Armageddon was not the argument in the 1970s. The government published a white paper that said that food prices would rise.

Consequently, the trade argument was put to the back and the political argument was brought to the front.

The article then claims Sir Con O’Neill said that the overriding principle guiding the UK negotiating team was ‘Swallow the lot and swallow it now’.

Sir Con O’Neil did not say that was the overriding principle guiding the UK.

‘Swallow the lot and swallow it now’ was the Community’s negotiation principle not the that of the United Kingdom.

He did admit that this was largely a reality, but also says that they got many mitigations, and for items such as fisheries they fought for them.

Starting from the EEC’s legislation to remove all limits, the UK negotiated a 6-mile limit and then they negotiated the continuance of some of the original outer 6 limits we had before we joined.

(It was a 10 year agreement that was the UK strengthened in 1983)

We are now told that Heath said in January 1973 that “there are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified”.

Heath did not say that in January 1973.

Something he did say was: “what we are building is a community whose scope will gradually extend until it covers virtually the whole field of collective human endeavour."

Heath did say something similar to Iain’s quote in a speech about European Unity being within our grasp, but with a different date, location, audience, meaning, context, qualification, and additional and different words.

Iain’s article then moves on to John Major. He apparently said “Game, set and match” and Douglas Hurd said that we had reached the “high water of European federalism.”

John Major did not say “Game, set and match”.

OK, maybe he did, and maybe it was a press artistic license, but as it was reported John was referring to the opt outs he wanted and got.

There was nothing dishonest about celebrating getting what you want.

Douglas Hurd didn’t say “high water of European federalism”.

Neither did he give a ‘reassurance’ for the future, but simply made a comment on the current views in parliament he experienced about extended competencies in the EU.

Iain now recollects when Tony Blair, after signing the Nice treaty, spoke only of how the future was going to be inter-governmental.

Tony Blair did not sign the Nice treaty.

I can’t find Tony Blair saying the future is governmental, but I can find him saying “...the answer to the second point is not to reach for intergovernmentalism as a weapon against European institutions”.

Iain goes on. We are told that David Cameron made the claim he had brought back welfare and immigration opt outs, and blocked future action by the European Court of Justice.

A claim the French President apparently discredited.

I can’t find a claim that future action is blocked by the ECJ beyond a claim a decision was overturned and ever closer union does not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of the treaties.

gov.uk/government/spe…
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-0…

Neither could I find a statement by François Hollande.

I could only find the one by Graf Lambsdorff who was Vice-President of the European Parliament. I suspect that President of France would be quite the unexpected promotion for the German politician.

And the agreement was binding on the member states and, therefore, if Graf Lambsdorff was correct and the changes had difficulty getting through the EU process, it would mean other solutions would have to be considered.

That could have included treaty change.

Now there is accusation that the Withdrawal agreement meets the manifesto commitment.

The manifesto only said they would leave membership of the Customs Union, and so there is wriggle room.

Iain’s remark is a fair subjective reading, but a strict interpretation of the commitments may be impossible to implement with regard to Northern Ireland.

We are now told: “in Brussels this project has always been understood to be about the creation of a federal state”.

It has not always been understood to be about the creation of a federal state.

It always was a possible outcome, but it has always been a project that is intended to develop naturally into what made sense for Europe.

It’s true that there have been commission presidents that supported a federal state, just as it’s true the odd commission president has been pushed out because they supported a federal state.

Iain then writes that a recent paper from Germany’s Centre for European Policy shows that the euro has brought a net gain of €21,000 per capita to Germans.

It did not bring a net gain of €21,000 per capita to Germans.

That was the Netherlands.

And now we have the conclusion that we are heading towards honest politics...now remember how that Irish Border wasn’t going to work?

Let's look at what happened after this article...

Iain Duncan Smith back Boris Johnson, a known liar.

Boris then gets elected by saying the Withdrawal Agreement is dead.

That he will not be bringing it back.

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1154721657921134595

When Boris Johnson does have to bring it back, with a lack of a parliamentary majority, he then tells people that the UK can sign it and then the government can change it later.

Lord Trimble gets involved and exclaims that: “This is in full accordance of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement”.

Leaving Iain Duncan Smith to back the deal while knowing that there is still a problem in Northern Ireland, but, as he argues in the Telegraph, this allows us to be sovereign equals.

When Boris Johnson calls an election, he claims that there are no, or few, checks.

And eventually when the UK faces the reality, we are told by Iain that the deal that he said allowed us to be a sovereign equals now stops us from being sovereign equals.

Iain is then quick to share the fact that Lord Trimble now says that it is wrong to suggest that the imposition of the Northern Irish Protocol protects the Good Friday Agreement.

And now Boris Johnson wants to reduce the checks he said didn’t exist.

The IDS article may be ironic in the sense that it talks about honesty while repeating decades of lies and misinformation, but it also shows how UK Euroscepticism is based on poor attention to details, simplism, outright lies, and the exploitation of false grievances.

But it also shows they knew what they signed.
They ignored the details.
They simplified the issues.
They lied about their support, while planning to blame the EU in the future.

The EU knows this, and it's going to be quite difficult to help the UK in this situation.

/End