George Orwell writes in Partisan Review, June 1947:
“The only way of avoiding [the possibility of the end of civilisation] that I can imagine is to present somewhere or other, on a large scale, the spectacle of a community where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power. In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area… A Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worthwhile political objective today. Such a federation would contain about 250m people, including perhaps half the skilled industrial workers of the world. I do not need to be told that the difficulties of bringing any such thing into being are enormous and terrifying… But we ought not to feel that it is of its nature impossible, or that countries so different from one another would not voluntarily unite. A western European union is in itself a less improbable concatenation than the Soviet Union or the British empire.”
Winston Churchill delivers a speech to the Congress of Europe in the Hague, attended by statesmen from across Europe, on 7th May 1948:
“The Movement for European Unity must be a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law. It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity. It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty. But it is also possible and not less agreeable to regard it as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions, all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, fascist, or communist, would certainly be blotted out forever.”
Lord Beaverbrook, proprietor of the Daily Express, opposes Harold Macmillan’s attempt to join the Common Market in his last political pronouncement, writing in a paid-for advertisement in 1961:
“What does the Common Market mean to us? It means political subjection. Once in the Market we shall cut ourselves off from the great Dominions. We and they have everything to unite us. We have the one God, the one loyalty to the Crown, the one language, the one law. The Dominions are untainted by Communism. Their military strength is greater than that of most of the Common Market countries. And they will fight on our side without question as they have always done.”
Enoch Powell, Conservative politician, says in 1971:
“I was not an opponent of British membership of the European Economic Community in 1961-2. I was prepared to accept it, on the ground of trade, as the lesser evil, compared to being excluded. But we were excluded; and the events of the years that followed convinced me this judgement had been mistaken. Meanwhile it became clear that the Community, if it survived at all, would be something quite different from a free trade area, and something to which Britain could not belong.”
Barbara Castle, Labour Cabinet minister and a leading opponent of the Common Market, attends an Oxford Union debate on 3rd June 1975, three days before the referendum. She was opposed by Edward Heath, leader of the opposition, and Jeremy Thorpe, leader of the Liberal party:
“The Union has never been my favourite audience and, as the day drew nearer, all my old phobias about Oxford came flooding back. I was hampered too by my inhibitions about the crudities of our anti-Market case… I happen to believe deeply that membership of the EEC will fatally dilute some of the main motive power of British social democracy and give a great fillip to consensus politics. But my spirit cringes at some of the statistical distortions which bring such tumultuous applause from Labour audiences. Life is more complex than that and there is no doubt that the terms Jim [Callaghan] and Harold [Wilson, who renegotiated the terms of accession] have got effectively blunt the edge of a simplistic attack.”
Geoffrey Howe, then foreign secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, has lunch with the journalist Hugo Young at the Garrick Club on 26th February 1988:
“When the UK is attacked for ‘not doing enough for Europe,’ Howe takes pleasure (mild but stubborn, of course) in saying that the three big things that have happened to Europe’s advantage—developments towards the internal market, settlement of the budget question, start of a reform of farm prices—happened because of Britain’s strategic determination. Therefore Europe owes Britain and Margaret Thatcher a great debt.”
“The only way of avoiding [the possibility of the end of civilisation] that I can imagine is to present somewhere or other, on a large scale, the spectacle of a community where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power. In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area… A Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worthwhile political objective today. Such a federation would contain about 250m people, including perhaps half the skilled industrial workers of the world. I do not need to be told that the difficulties of bringing any such thing into being are enormous and terrifying… But we ought not to feel that it is of its nature impossible, or that countries so different from one another would not voluntarily unite. A western European union is in itself a less improbable concatenation than the Soviet Union or the British empire.”
Winston Churchill delivers a speech to the Congress of Europe in the Hague, attended by statesmen from across Europe, on 7th May 1948:
“The Movement for European Unity must be a positive force, deriving its strength from our sense of common spiritual values. It is a dynamic expression of democratic faith based upon moral conceptions and inspired by a sense of mission. In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law. It is impossible to separate economics and defence from the general political structure. Mutual aid in the economic field and joint military defence must inevitably be accompanied step by step with a parallel policy of closer political unity. It is said with truth that this involves some sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty. But it is also possible and not less agreeable to regard it as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions, all of which under totalitarian systems, whether Nazi, fascist, or communist, would certainly be blotted out forever.”
Lord Beaverbrook, proprietor of the Daily Express, opposes Harold Macmillan’s attempt to join the Common Market in his last political pronouncement, writing in a paid-for advertisement in 1961:
“What does the Common Market mean to us? It means political subjection. Once in the Market we shall cut ourselves off from the great Dominions. We and they have everything to unite us. We have the one God, the one loyalty to the Crown, the one language, the one law. The Dominions are untainted by Communism. Their military strength is greater than that of most of the Common Market countries. And they will fight on our side without question as they have always done.”
Enoch Powell, Conservative politician, says in 1971:
“I was not an opponent of British membership of the European Economic Community in 1961-2. I was prepared to accept it, on the ground of trade, as the lesser evil, compared to being excluded. But we were excluded; and the events of the years that followed convinced me this judgement had been mistaken. Meanwhile it became clear that the Community, if it survived at all, would be something quite different from a free trade area, and something to which Britain could not belong.”
Barbara Castle, Labour Cabinet minister and a leading opponent of the Common Market, attends an Oxford Union debate on 3rd June 1975, three days before the referendum. She was opposed by Edward Heath, leader of the opposition, and Jeremy Thorpe, leader of the Liberal party:
“The Union has never been my favourite audience and, as the day drew nearer, all my old phobias about Oxford came flooding back. I was hampered too by my inhibitions about the crudities of our anti-Market case… I happen to believe deeply that membership of the EEC will fatally dilute some of the main motive power of British social democracy and give a great fillip to consensus politics. But my spirit cringes at some of the statistical distortions which bring such tumultuous applause from Labour audiences. Life is more complex than that and there is no doubt that the terms Jim [Callaghan] and Harold [Wilson, who renegotiated the terms of accession] have got effectively blunt the edge of a simplistic attack.”
Geoffrey Howe, then foreign secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, has lunch with the journalist Hugo Young at the Garrick Club on 26th February 1988:
“When the UK is attacked for ‘not doing enough for Europe,’ Howe takes pleasure (mild but stubborn, of course) in saying that the three big things that have happened to Europe’s advantage—developments towards the internal market, settlement of the budget question, start of a reform of farm prices—happened because of Britain’s strategic determination. Therefore Europe owes Britain and Margaret Thatcher a great debt.”
