Home truths: Brexit is taking Britain back in time

Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Yes, yes, yes. We all know that. The ancient Egyptians knew that. The writers on Eastenders know that. But it is still astonishing to learn how little the Brexit debate has moved on in the last 55 years.

Listen, in your mind’s ear, to the words of Alec Douglas-Home, still then the Earl of Home, speaking as Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords on August 2, 1961. Imagine the words as if spoken by a skull.

“I base my reason for inclining towards membership of the European Economic Community on certain assumptions. The first is that Britain wishes to retain her political influence on the world stage; the second that Britain means to retain her position as a leading partner in the Commonwealth and the largest generator of capital for development in that association; and the third that we wish to enjoy in this country rising living standards.

“My Lords, I believe – and I have said so many times in this House – that the basis of the political influence of the United Kingdom in the world depends fundamentally on our economic strength; we cannot fulfil our rôle in our world-wide alliances, we cannot be a reliable partner, and certainly not a leading partner, in the Commonwealth, unless we are rich; and that means richer than we are now. The experts have calculated that if we are to fulfil our commitments the world over, and to fulfil this rôle which I have described as a leading partner in the Commonwealth then we must earn roughly £500 million overseas more than we are doing now.”

Never mind the prolixity. Ignore the circumflex in “rôle”. Most of all, adjust the figure of £500 million to, say, £50 billion. It is the message that matters, not the medium, or the numbers, and the message here was clear as a bell. We were broke.  Could we honestly turn to the Commonwealth in search of that elusive five-hundred-million?

The 14th Earl was not convinced.

“In theory,” he began, “we could do so if the Commonwealth were to turn itself into a free trade area. But here again we have to face some facts, and one of the facts is this: that the United Kingdom’s exports to the Commonwealth have fallen from 47 per cent to 42 per cent in ten years [now 10 per cent]. In spite of the Montreal Conference, where we passed all sorts of resolutions to maximise Commonwealth trade, that tendency to fall has nevertheless continued and been intensified.”

Elsewhere in his speech, the foreign secretary took on the thorny question of sovereignty.

“I should like to advance one general observation about sovereignty which perhaps I can do without too much dissent. It is that each surrender of sovereignty should be judged by whether or not there is a compensating gain. In fact, we are surrendering sovereignty in some degree all the time. The most obvious example is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; another example is the G.A.T.T [The  General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, now the World Trade Organisation, or WTO]. There are many examples that I could give. But … we should not make sovereignty into a shibboleth. It is harmful to surrender it if the results damage the nation, but it is not harmful if, on balance, the results are beneficial to it.

“It occurs to me that the bachelor surrenders some of his sovereignty on marriage; but, by and large marriage benefits the human race. I ought not to push this analogy too far, because the noble Viscount [Alexander of Hillsborough, leader of the Labour peers in the Lords] will be saying that one ought not to marry two wives at once, and at least I am flirting with two. At any rate, I believe that it would meet with general acceptance if I said that when considering the surrender of sovereignty it is a matter of balance of advantage.”

Here, assuming that the minister was not actually engaged in bigamy, ignore the Home-spun humour. He went on:

“Let me admit at once that the Treaty of Rome would involve considerable derogation of sovereignty. Let me say also that the field in which there could be surrender of sovereignty is clearly defined and restricted to economic matters. When the Common Market is established it will, it is true, be the Commission and the Council who, for instance, will raise or lower the common tariff; it will be the Commission and the Council who will decide on trade agreements with third parties.

“I cannot, at this stage, when the Common Market is in a formative stage, look forward to the future and say whether any individual operation will be to the advantage or disadvantage of this country. But at this moment, I think I must say that, within this restricted field, derogations of sovereignty will be different in kind from any contract into which we have entered before. It is well that people should realise that, although I cannot forecast whether these derogations would be substantial or whether in any particular case the derogation of sovereignty would act against us or for us.”

Lord Home – who in 1940 counselled Neville Chamberlain not to use the phrase “peace with honour” – showed an unexpected scepticism when it came to Britain’s partnership with the United States, but saw no conflict between the Special Relationship and closer bonds with Europe.

“I want to see Britain keep abreast of the trends of the future. Britain and America, on whose cooperation much of the peace of the world depends, have held for many generations a special position of trust and confidence in each other. But it would be an error to take that relationship for granted. Each of us, here and there, has to work to maintain it. And Europe is now on its feet again, thriving, confident and powerful.

“The centre of power and the weight of investment could well shift from this island of Britain to the Continent of Europe; and over 200 million people, my Lords, acting in concert, can exercise a greater political power and offer greater opportunities for investment than 50 million people. I suggest that as we look at this picture there is a strong interest for the United Kingdom to be inside this new power complex rather than excluded or on the periphery.”

I could go on (Lord H certainly did). But such, in 1961, was the official Conservative line on Europe, the Commonwealth, global trade and the relationship with America. Enoch Powell may not have concurred, but most of his party nodded assent. Fifty-five years later, with the EU tottering on the brink either of full integration or destruction, the Commonwealth reduced to the international equivalent of a ceremonial county, and with the Special Relationship well past its sell-by date, we are where we are – pretty well exactly where we started out in 1961.

That’s progress for you. But no doubt Mrs May has it all worked out.