Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy…
Daniel Hannan, as I’ve noted in the past, has an awkward habit of deleting his tweets. Often, by a strange coincidence, it’s the more embarrassing proclamations that vanish into the ether – no explanation, no, “Apologies, friends, I buggered that up didn’t I?” The tweet simply vanishes as if it had never been tweeted.
I’ve taken, then, to screenshot-ing some of the best morsels, just in case they’re not there the next time I look. Here’s one now:
Funny thing about that tweet is that Danny Boy has not, at time of writing, deleted it. Despite the fact he was tricked into embarrassing himself by a mean-spirited Remoaner, it’s still sitting there on the internet looking for all the world like its author is not crippled with embarrassment at the fact he could have been such a dunderhead as to write it. Two things are wrong with it, one relatively small, the other so huge as to be all encompassing.
The small one lies in the choice of monarchs. Not all of them are unreasonable: Henry VIII famously broke with the Catholic Church in his search for a divorce, an heir, and a quick bonk with Anne Boleyn. Since that meant an end to the period in which the English crown was answerable to a higher authority in the form of the Pope, we’ve already been treated to umpteen “Britain’s first Brexit” articles, and they’re not soon likely to stop – all this, despite the fact the big man liked to go around telling people he was also the King of France.
Similarly England spent much of the reign of his daughter trying to avoid being swallowed by the Spanish Empire, so it’s probably fair to suggest that Elizabeth I wasn’t a big fan of European integration either. George V, though, was closely related to – indeed, shared a face with – half the other head of states in Europe during his time on the planet, so what he’s doing there is anybody’s guess.
The truly vexing inclusion, though, is Edward V. Is Daniel Hannan really saying that a boy king who reigned for 79 days and was murdered by a wicked uncle at the age of 12 had serious concerns about the European project? Was it the damage that the Combined Agricultural Policy wrought on developing world farmers that Edward was brooding about in his tower? The money wasted on repeatedly moving the European Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg? What?
@JonnElledge To be fair, if you’d ask the Princes in the Tower if they wanted to leave or remain, I’d bet they’d vote leave.
— Chris Cook (@xtophercook) December 29, 2016
Okay let’s be charitable and assume it’s a typo, presumably for another of Henry’s kids Edward VI. (It certainly wasn’t Edward III who spent much of his reign trying to get into Europe, by kicking off an endless war with France.) But the bigger problem here lies not in the specifics of Daniel’s answer, but in the fact he bothered to answer at all. The entire exercise is entirely ludicrous. It’s like asking for Theresa May’s position on the dissolution of the monasteries, or Jeremy Hunt’s proposals for tackling the Black Death.
The question is an ahistorical nonsense – not just because the European Union was invented in the late 20th century to deal with problems specific to a particular time, but because it misunderstands how England’s role in Europe has evolved over the centuries.
For the first five hundred years or so after the Conquest, the nations of the British Isles were a key part of a western European political system that included France and the Low countries. Until it lost Calais in 1558, indeed, the English Crown generally held territory in France.
The idea that the United Kingdom, as the state became, was with Europe but not of it – that its destiny lay on the high seas, not the continent – is a notion that’s core to Eurosceptic mythology, but one which didn’t emerge until the imperial era. Exactly when I’m not sure (unlike certain Conservative MEPs I’m not afraid to admit my ignorance, which is what makes us better than the animals and egg avatars). However you count it, though, the period between then and 1973 must make up a minority of England’s history as a nation. For most of its history, the idea that the England was somehow not properly “European” would have seemed crazy.
Actually, there was one major European project which a king of both England and Scotland kept us out of, a policy decision confirmed by his successors. That project was a key plank of French foreign policy, grew to encompass more far flung countries like Sweden, and was launched largely to prevent the Germans from getting above themselves. It was the Thirty Years War.
But is James I & VI on Hannan’s list? Is he b*llocks.
The Liberal Democrat veteran Vince Cable is right that free movement is not going to be politically viable after Brexit. Few people have stauncher credentials than Cable as an economic, social and cultural pro-migration liberal, and he makes a strong case for his liberal tribe rising to the democratic political challenge that the referendum result presents.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn sounds somewhat conflicted over whether he should move on from free movement or continue to support it. This shift in itself, though, shows increasingly that politicians who feel immigration benefits our society, nevertheless understand the post-referendum challenge of rebuilding public confidence in how it’s managed.
The Brexit vote was about more than immigration – but the Leave majority vote undoubtedly represented a vote of no confidence in how governments have handled immigration over the last fifteen years. So the core question for those who believe that Britain benefits from migration is how to rebuild public confidence in it. Responding with a « like it or lump it » approach will squander an important opportunity.
But it is not surprising that Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron was quick to disown Cable’s remarks. Farron sees an opportunity to “speak up for the 48 per cent” – though the idea of a 48 per cent tribe of aggrieved Remainers is a mirage. About 6m of the 16m Remain voters only made up their mind in the last four weeks of the campaign. Many pragmatic Remainers now believe that the Government should act on the Leave outcome. A majority of those who voted Remain share Cable’s view that freedom of movement should end too, as the New Economics Foundation’s study of the attitudes of the 48 per cent reveals.
But even a liberal tribe of half of the 48 per cent offers a decent opportunity for a Liberal Democrat party which fell to 8 per cent of the electorate in 2015 to climb back up to 15 per cent.
You could call this strategy « Cosmopolitan Ukip » – a liberal mirror party to Nigel Farage’s populist insurgency. These populist liberals articulate a new sense of anger and dispossession in the university towns and metropolitan centres, and even steal the slogan « give us our country back ». As former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg told John Harris for his Radio 4 documentary on populism , the liberals may be challenged with being an out-of-touch elite, but they can claim to be the outsiders now.
Even if Farron’s approach still makes tactical sense, there are limits to the « Cosmopolitan Ukip » approach too. Even electorally, voters are always more eclectic than pundits and activists realise. To keep their seats, Lib Dem MPs Norman Lamb in North Norfolk and Greg Mulholland in Leeds will need to combine ardent liberal Remainers with more pragmatic ex-Remain voters and, indeed, the one in three Lib Dem voters who backed Brexit in June.
But the bigger critique of Farron’s strategy is about the liberal outcomes his party should pursue. It is important liberal causes are not restricted by being defined as the voice of a minority tribe. The Lib Dems can benefit electorally by differentiating themselves from Labour and Conservative Remainers. However, their ability to actually shape Brexit will depend on forging cross-party alliances in Parliament. Similarly, success on issues like refugee protection, and challenging hate crime, depend on broader support.
Cable’s most interesting point is that “there is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement”. While there is a principled argument for EU free movement, it is likely to fail in Britain.
That argument is that we should have open migration from the EU, but not from outside it, because we are citizens of Europe. In most EU countries, most people put their national identity first, and combine it with a sense of European identity too. That makes EU free movement feel like a hybrid category, combining immigration with internal labour mobility. But Britain has a much weaker sense of European identity – indeed only 15 per cent say they have a sense of European identity, while two-thirds say their identity is national only.
That explains why, in Britain, both supporters and critics of free movement do think it is simply common sense to refer to this as « immigration ». If a politician tried to argue that it is a mistake to refer to Italians or Poles in Britain as migrants, because they are EU mobile citizens, most people would simply be baffled.
Instead, British supporters of EU free movement tend to be simply pro-immigration. They might aspire to the ideal of a borderless world, so consider openness to Europe as a start, rather than believing in the principle of openness to Europeans in particular.
This case for EU free movement is too open for most Brits – and, at the same time, it is too parochial for the most cosmopolitan, while those with Commonwealth connections feel it to be unfair. Asked to design an immigration system from scratch, if the EU did not exist, very few people would make it a point of principle that immigration should prefer Bulgarians to Indians, on the grounds that we are European.
So it is, as Cable argues, “the argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market”.
Open Britain, the successor campaign to the official Remain campaign, recognises that it won’t win the argument for the single market, or for the strongest possible trade relationship with Europe, if it depends on arguing that nothing can change on free movement.
Most people want more control over the pace of migration, while recognising migration itself brings both gains and pressures to British society. The public sees the referendum vote as a chance to strike a balance. This could mean strong support for skilled migration, combined with more control over the scale of low-skilled immigration. My own organisation, British Future, has proposed a preferential migration offer to Europe , where visa-free travel could be accompanied by sector-specific job quotas. This would fit too with the calls from Cabinet ministers , such as Andrea Leadsom on agriculture and Sajid Javid on house-building, to ensure that a more controlled system does involve choosing to keep low and semi-skilled immigration that key sectors need.
Cable has set liberals a challenge. They should rise to it – and back a new system which strikes that balance, and gives Britain a positive offer to take into the negotiations for a new post-Brexit relationship with Europe.
© Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/01/adventure-daniel-hannan-and-princes-tower
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.
“ FENCES ,” through Jan. 21, Pioneer Theatre Company, 300 S. 1400 East (801-581-6961 or pioneertheatre.org ); running time: 2 hours, 35 minutes (one intermission) 
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 (UPI) — South Korea’s national security advisor met with U. S. President-elect Donald Trump ‘s pick for national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the same day several Chinese military planes flew into Korea’s air defense identification zone in possible protest of THAAD. 
SEOUL, Jan. 10 (UPI) — U. S. egg producers and the South Korean government have hatched a new plan to tackle the short supply of shell eggs in Asia’s fourth-largest economy. 
16:15 ET 
As a young child in the capital of North Korea, Sungju Lee lived a pampered life. But by the time he was a teenager, he was starving and fighting for survival in a street gang. It was one of many twists of fate on a journey that has led him to postgraduate studies at a British university. 
– Japanese scientists have revealed a third major element that makes up the core of the Earth, along with iron and nickel. The search for the third element has been underway for several years. San Fransisco – Japanese scientists have revealed a third major element that makes up the core of the Earth, along with iron and nickel. The search for the third element has been underway for several years. The theoretical breakdown of the Earth’s core: Iron – 85 percent Nickel – 10 percent Silicon – 5 percent With the new experiment, the researchers, who are based at University of Tohoku, believe they will gain a better understanding to how the Earth was formed. The findings may help unravel a debate within science as to whether oxygen was in abundance when the Earth was formed or in limited supply. The reason for recreating the conditions of the Earth’s core within a laboratory setting are because the innermost part of the planet is a solid ball, with a radius of about 1,200 kilometers, which means that it lies too deep to investigate. Most data relating to the core comes from seismic readings. Further studies will need to be run in order to confirm the findings. At present the laboratory studies provide a window to see what the Earth’s interior was probably like after it first formed some 4.5 billion years ago. The findings have yet to be published in a peer review paper. However, Professor Ohtani has The ‘discovery’ of the third element remains theoretical and it is based on studies that recreated the high temperatures and pressures within the core of the Earth. These experiments reveal the ‘missing’ third element to be silicon. The findings suggest that around five percent of the Earth’s inner core is made up of silicon (by weight). This is unlikely to be in a pure form, but rather dissolved into the iron-nickel alloys. Silicon is a hard and brittle crystalline solid with a blue-gray metallic luster. Silicon is the eighth most common element in the universe by mass. However, perhaps until now, it very rarely occurs as the pure element in the Earth’s crust. Elemental silicon plays a significant role in the modern world economy. With the new experiment, the researchers, who are based at University of Tohoku, believe they will gain a better understanding to how the Earth was formed. Speaking with BBC Science , the chief scientist, Eiji Ohtani said: “we believe that silicon is a major element.”The findings may help unravel a debate within science as to whether oxygen was in abundance when the Earth was formed or in limited supply. The reason for recreating the conditions of the Earth’s core within a laboratory setting are because the innermost part of the planet is a solid ball, with a radius of about 1,200 kilometers, which means that it lies too deep to investigate. Most data relating to the core comes from seismic readings. Further studies will need to be run in order to confirm the findings. At present the laboratory studies provide a window to see what the Earth’s interior was probably like after it first formed some 4.5 billion years ago. The findings have yet to be published in a peer review paper. However, Professor Ohtani has presented his research to the Meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.
