Task 6.1 Speech Analysis: The Conservative Party and Cooperation in Europe
In 1972, when the UK was entering the European Community (EC), Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath gave a speech that celebrated the achievement. However, some 16 years later Margaret Thatcher found less cause for celebration and delivered a far less enthusiastic speech about Britain’s relationship with the EC. In 2016 Boris Johnson, another Conservative politician who would later become Prime Minister, campaigned for the UK to leave the European Union (EU) and gave a thoroughly Eurosceptic speech.
Edward Heath, January 1972
We mark today, with this ceremony, the conclusion of arduous negotiations over more than ten years which have resulted in another great step forward towards the removal of divisions in Western Europe. […]
Just as the achievement we celebrate today was not preordained, so there will be nothing inevitable about the next stages in the construction of Europe. They will require clear thinking and a strong effort of the imagination.
Clear thinking will be needed to recognise that each of us within the Community will remain proudly attached to our national identity and to the achievements of our national history and tradition.
But, at the same time, as the enlargement of the Community makes clear beyond doubt, we have all come to recognize our common European heritage, our mutual interests and our European destiny.
Imagination will be required to develop institutions which respect the traditions and the individuality of the Member States, but at the same time have the strength to guide the future course of the enlarged Community. […]
The collective history of the countries represented here encompasses a large part of the history of the world itself over the centuries. I am not thinking today of the Age of Imperialism, now past: but of the lasting and creative effects of the spread of language and of culture, of commerce and of administration by people from Europe across land and sea to the other continents of the world. These are the essential ties which today bind Europe in friendship with the rest of mankind. […]
Thus, this ceremony marks an end and a beginning. An end to divisions which have stricken Europe for centuries. A beginning of another stage in the construction of a new and greater Europe. This is the task for our generation […]
Source: Edward Heath, Speech in Brussels, January 22, 1972. Excerpts.
Margaret Thatcher, September 1988
[…] The European Community belongs to all its members. It must reflect the traditions and aspirations of all its members. And let me be quite clear. Britain does not dream of some cosy, isolated existence on the fringes of the European Community. Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community.
That is not to say that our future lies only in Europe, but nor does that of France or Spain or, indeed, of any other member. The Community is not an end in itself […] The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations.
[W]illing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states is the best way to build a successful European Community. To try to suppress nationhood and concentrate power at the centre of a European conglomerate would be highly damaging and would jeopardise the objectives we seek to achieve.
Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality […]
I am the first to say that on many great issues the countries of Europe should try to speak with a single voice. I want to see us work more closely on the things we can do better together than alone. Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the world.
But working more closely together does not require power to be centralised in Brussels or decisions to be taken by an appointed bureaucracy […] We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.
Certainly, we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose. But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers and sense of national pride in one's own country; for these have been the source of Europe's vitality through the centuries.
Source: Margaret Thatcher, Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech"), September 20, 1988. Excerpts.
Boris Johnson, May 2016
[…] I want this morning to explain why the campaign to Leave the EU is attracting people who love Europe and who feel at home on the continent, but whose attitudes towards the project of European Union have been hardening over time.
For many of us who are now deeply sceptical, the evolution has been roughly the same: we began decades ago to query the anti-democratic absurdities of the EU. What was once the EEC has undergone a spectacular metamorphosis in the last 30 years, and the crucial point is that it is still becoming ever more centralizing, interfering and anti-democratic. […]
You only have to read the Lisbon Treaty to see how far this thing has moved on from what we signed up for in 1972. Brussels now has exclusive or explicit competence for trade, customs, competition, agriculture, fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, the areas of freedom, security and justice, and new powers over culture, tourism, education and youth. […]. We need to look at the legal reality, which is that this is a continuing and accelerating effort to build a country called Europe. […]
The independence of this country is being seriously compromised. It is this fundamental democratic problem – this erosion of democracy – that brings me into this fight.
People are surprised and alarmed to discover that our gross contributions to the EU budget are now running at about £20bn a year, and that the net contribution is £10 bn; and it is not just that we have no control over how that money is spent. But that expense is, in a sense, the least of the costs inflicted by the EU on this country. [….]
I am in favour of immigration; but I am also in favour of control, and of politicians taking responsibility for what is happening; and I think it bewilders people to be told that this most basic power of a state – to decide who has the right to live and work in your country – has been taken away and now resides in Brussels. […]
It is absurd that Britain – historically a great free-trading nation – has been unable for 42 years to do a free trade deal with Australia, New Zealand, China, India and America. […]
The choice on June 23 is between taking back control of our money – or giving a further £100bn to Brussels before the next election. Between deciding who we want to come here to live and work – or letting the EU decide. […] It is a choice between getting dragged ever further into a federal superstate or taking a stand now.
Vote Leave on June 23 and take back control of our democracy.
Source: Boris Johnson, “Speech on the EU Referendum”, May 9, 2016. Excerpts.
Task 6.4 Article Analysis: The Second Wave of Populism in the UK
The character of populist projects can change, absorbing new demands and grievances and linking them together within new narratives and policies. In the UK, net-zero carbon emission policies have become a new focal point of right-wing populist politicians such as Nigel Farage who have linked decarbonization to the rising costs of living of ordinary Britons.
The abbreviated version of Nigel Farage’s March 2022 comment on net-zero policies in The Telegraph:
[…] When the major parties that make up Westminster’s political class present a united front on a big subject that affects us all, I am often highly sceptical. My instincts tell me that a trick is being played on the electorate […]
For more than 20 years, a near-unanimous view has taken hold in Westminster that renewable energy will save the planet. Each political party seems to have fallen over itself in its quest to demonstrate its moral superiority regarding the green agenda. None of them brooks any dissent. You’re either with them or against them.
What has never been openly debated, however, let alone voted on by the people, is the extent to which everyday families should bankroll the costs linked to combatting climate change [...] In the name of saving the planet, billions of pounds – money, don’t forget, which comes out of the taxed income of ordinary people – is being used to subsidise the activities of large foreign multinational companies and rich landowners. Indeed, many of the wealthiest people in Britain who own huge estates have been paid for years simply to have wind turbines on their land. I cannot think of a comparable scheme in modern times that has transferred so much cash from the poor to the rich.
This is a rip-off of monumental proportions, and it is time we had a public debate about it […] I have recently helped to launch the Vote Power Not Poverty campaign. Our motivation is specifically to provoke an open national discussion on green issues. We want to talk about energy security. We also want to examine the implications of the "net zero target", the orthodoxy under which the UK is supposed to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Successive governments have run down Britain’s nuclear industry, reduced our natural gas storage capacity, and have seemed happy for us to rely on imports to keep the lights on.
These misguided policies left our country in a very vulnerable position even before Russia invaded Ukraine. Since the war began last month, the need for the UK to be in charge of its own energy supply has arguably become the most pressing matter we face. [In this connection, it] is worth pointing out that our decisions on fracking, for instance, have worked in the interests of Vladimir Putin, who would have wanted to keep us and the rest of Europe hooked on Russian [gas].
At the moment, there is a wall of silence from Westminster. My best guess is that when people become aware of the extent of the rip-off to which they have been subjected for years, there will be considerable fury. At the very least, the true cost of green subsidies should be stated clearly on everybody's electricity bill.
Of course, the truth is that if renewable energy really is the wondrous transition to the brave new world that we are told it is, it should be able to stand on its own two feet. Politicians should have nothing to fear from a healthy debate on net zero. But for any individual or entity wanting to stifle the urgent conversation that must be held, I have a warning: you will only be storing up trouble for yourselves. The truth will out.”
Source: The Telegraph, 15 March 2022.
