"Euro-Skepticism" Skepticism

The “Brexit” referendum (June 23) has energized the Right, in Britain and beyond.

I hate being a wet blanket, but I’ve always been highly skeptical of so-called “Euro-Skeptics.” I understand the appeal of bashing the EU—that monstrous bureaucracy in search of a nation. Yet the arguments of Euro-Skeptics have always missed the mark. Brussels has become a bogeyman and a screen on which to project conservative angst. In this way, Euro-scepitcism is often a temptation to avoid facing the real issues and dilemmas before our race—and instead focus on an easier, more politically correct target.

Below are three theses illustrating this:

1. The EU is not to blame for the immigration and demographic crises within European nations, nor is it to blame for the 2015 refugee crisis.

Brussels regulates internal European immigration, that is, immigration between EU member states. Brussels does not regulate immigration between European states and the rest of the world.

According to the Dublin Regulation, an asylum seeker from outside Europe is required to register himself in the country of first entry; and he should be returned to that country if he crosses additional borders. This regulation was widely ignored last summer, as refugees entered Mediterranean countries and then immediately headed north. In August, the Dublin Regulation was partially suspended as Germany assumed “sovereign responsibility” for refugees fleeing Syria, worsening the German situation and, no doubt, inspiring additional migration.

In other words, the summer crisis was exacerbated on the national, not the European, level. And Viktor Orban was right when he claimed to be trying to save the European structure—not oppose it—by stemming mass migration into Hungary.

On the other hand, Brussels is responsible for the so-called “Polish Plumber” phenomenon—that is, the migration of people from the former Soviet Bloc into Western Europe and Britain.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose the Polish Plumber; after all, increasing the supply of labor suppresses wages and displace natives workers. However, only a fool would view waves of White Christian Slavs as an existential threat to Britain. To the contrary, they are assimilable and, arguably, a real example of vibrancy and enrichment.

2. Exiting the EU would not necessarily lead to an improved immigration situation.

It’s comforting to imagine that once nations are free from the evil Eurocrats, they will expel immigrants and reject liberalism. But there’s really no reason to believe this.

In 1955, Winston Churchill urged Conservatives to rally under the banner of “Keep Britain White!” In 1968, Enoch Powell delivered his “Rivers of Blood” address. Both of these Cassandra calls occurred well before Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973. And at no point did Brussels demand that Britain import millions of former Imperial subjects. (Again, Brussels only regulates internal European immigration.)

And yet so many want to believe that the EU is causing Britain’s demographic problems, or at least that leaving the EU would be necessary in order to change Britain’s immigration policy. Neither is true. Britain is in full control of its immigration policy right now, and Britain created its demographic disaster all on its own.

3. The “Brexit” and similar referenda have become metaphors for national and racial identity and tradition.

Yes, there are some libertarian Euro-Skptics, who see exiting the EU as an opportunity to increase immigration. There are some Leftist or even Communist Euro-Skeptics, such as those who came out for the “non” referendum in 2005, and who view the EU as too capitalistic and too “neo-liberal.” And in Britain, there are Euro-skeptics who dream of returning to a Thatcherite golden age (mostly imagined) of free-wheeling capitalism and a closer relationship with Uncle Sam.

But mostly, Euro-Skeptics are nationalists. The problem with this is that a “Brexit” could become the ultimate safety valve or distraction, the ultimate false start and red herring.

A more powerful position would be to view the European Union as a potential racial empire and in-gathering, and an alternative to NATO and American hegemony. In other words, why not Make Europe Great Again?