because the UK is the remnant of the old empire. It is, as onernConscr-atie journalist suggested to me, “the empire of thernEnglish ocr the Celts,” by which he meant the Scots, thernWelsh, and the hish. This fact—so rarclv nrentioned in Englandrn—turns British politics upside down: it explains, for example,rnwhv Scots nationalists are warmK attached to EuropeanrnUnion, and why English Tory nationalists oppose both EuropeanrnI’nion and any plan that would give the Scots some controlrnoer their own affairs.rnSome Tory nationalists see Eurofederalism as a kind of plotrnto subert the loyalties of England’s Celtic subjects. Their fearsrnwere exacerbated when the Cerman Christian Democrats putrnout a paper in 1994, arguing that no single nation should bernable to block further European integration and describingrnsoN’ereigntv as now an “empty shell.” More ominoush’, the Germansrncalled for a “quasi-constitutional document” to “set outrnthe dixision of powers between the union, the nation states andrnthe regions.” Norman Tebbit, at a Bournemouth rally (on Octoberrn11, 1994), described the German proposal as a plan tornbreak the British nation into Gcrman-stlc Lander: “Now yourrnbreath ma be taken away by that touch of arrogance of Germansrnseeking to define the relationship between Westminsterrnand Edinburgh or Belfast and Cardiff—perhaps even Newcastlernor Birmingham.” In a telephone interview, FerdinandrnMount (the editor of the TLS) pleasantl} observed that “thernNorman Tebbits are the last reactionaries, and history will washrnc[uietl ocr them.”rnAmerican conser’atives of nearly cvcrv stripe arc used tornthinking of “federalism” as, at least in principle, a good thing,rnand it seems paradoxical that in the Tory nationalist lexicon,rnfederalism and devolution are synonms for treason, while devolutionrnhas become the rallying cry for the revivified LabourrnPart under Ibnv Blair. Short of a miracle—it is not every dayrnthat the English get an in’itation to go headhunting for Argentineansrn—it will be Mr. Blair and not Mr. Major who will decidernthe question of Britain’s future in the European Community,rnand it is this sense of impending disaster that has egged on JohnrnMajor’s nationalist critics within his own jjartv.rnThe case against Europe is conrplex. For some it is littlernmore than John Bull’s sentimental reaction against the loss ofrnhis idcntit-, and hardly distinguishable from Middle Americanrnparanoia ocr the United Nations. More tpicallv, the argumentsrnarc pragmatic and economic. The European LJnion hasrnproed to be a costly bureaucracy, whose commercial and agriculturalrnregulations seem to favor every state but England. Mr.rnMount, who is decidedly pro-Europe, concedes that the fearrnof the new bureauerac} is justified up to a point, especially ifrnthe extreme Eurofedcralists were to have their way. But, hernadds, “What would unite three-fourths of the Conservatives—rnand ecrone—is if European Union stopped here, where it is.rnThere is, howev-er, fear of going on to create a full-scale federationrnof the .’ineriean type.”rnThe opposition docs not entirely agree on the relatie benignitrnof the L’nion as it is today. Christopher Booker andrnRichard North had been writing a series of articles in the I .ondonrniclegraph, revealing the criminal follies of the Brussels bureaucrats,rnuntil the paper’s editors balked on a column aboutrncattle disease. Historically, stringent British controls have guaranteedrna disease-free cattle population in Britain. However, thernCommon Market resulted in the abandonment of some controls,rnsince ino’enient of animals between EC countries is nowrnunrestricted, so long as thev have a veterinarian’s certificate sayingrnthev are hcalth’. One prize-winning breeder took deliveryrnof supposedh German but probably East Euro|3ean cows thatrnnot only came down with cattle AIDS but also infected otherrncows. Unable to sell his milk, the farmer now collects £S,500 arnmonth. To some, the case illustrates the stupidit of Europeanrnregulations: to others it is the greedy farmer who is at fault; butrnwhat strikes mc as really ominous is the evil s nergism betweenrnsupranational regulation and the national government’srnresponsibilit for welfare. Between Brussels and London, bureaucratsrnsucceeded in introducing a disease and gouging therntaxpayers.rnImmigration has been not emphasized by Euroskeptics, butrnit represents a more serious threat than cattle diseases. CharlesrnWardle, the immigration minister, resigned over the government’srnfailure to maintain controls. According to official hgures,rnin the fi’e ears up to 1993, 264,500 immigrants settled inrntlie I’K; but Peter Tompkins, head of immigration service forrnten ears, savs the figure is more like 625,000.rnThe immigration crisis is complicated b’ European Union,rnwhich aims at a Europe without frontiers. Once a NorthrnAfrican arrives illegally in Italy or Spain, it is faid easy for himrnto go to France or Britain. There is already a problem of immigrantsrnusing false EC identity cards—particularly Algerianrngangs invoh’cd in massive welfare fraud. If, as has been threatened,rnBrussels forces the United Kingdom to give up passportrncheeks, Britain—as Wirdle says—”would be powerless to stoprna flood of immigrants entering the country.”rnUncontrolled borders alwas make the work of the policernmore difficult, and in Britain (as in the United States) the kneejerkrnresponse is not to stop the criminal immigrants but tornthreaten the liberty of the citizens. The frontieriess zone introducedrnunder the Single European Act (1986) and developedrnunder Maastricht makes it easier for criminals to enter the UK.rnThe police, who are now responsible for apprehending fugitivesrnidentified at ports and airports, will have to trace them andrntheir inone- throughout the country. Not eoincidentallv, it wasrnannounced in 1994 that London j^olicc would carry Smith &rnWesson .^S’s, while in the city bankers and other financialrnagents are now required to disclose their clients’ financial dealingsrnover £11,600. Briti.sh police are increasingK required torncollaborate with other countries of the EU where, as CharlotternHorsfield writes in ‘ihe European journal (September/Octoberrn1994), the police are not so tender in their treatment of civil liberties.rnIncxitably, .she suggests, “the state authorities will dependrnmore and more upon the police forces and other localrnagencies to monitor and control the activities of the ordinaryrncitizen of its expanding empire.”rnThe leading “Euroskeptics” are the whipless members, thatrnis, Conscrati’es from whom the whip was withdrawnrnwhen thev refused to vote as thev were told. If there can be arnleader in a group of mavericks, that title belongs to Bill Cash,rnwhipless MP and founder of the European Foundation, whichrnpublishes ‘I’/ic European journal, an invaluable source of informationrnand opinion on both European llnion and the Briti.shrnresponse (61 Pall Mall, London SWIY 5HZ). His speeches arcrnhard-edged and to the point: “Let us say the unspoken word:rnAVe will not be subjected to a German Europe.””rnBefore meeting Mr. Cash in April, I had imagined the sort ofrntwo-dimensional speech-reader who occupies all positionsrnof power in both American political parties, but he turned outrnto be disappointingly likable: determined in his opinions butrnCJCTOBER 1995/11rnrnrn