more than willing to listen to other points of view—a good listenerrnand an even better questioner. There is something almostrnNorth American in his frankness, and I was not surprisedrnto learn that he admired Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.rnLike so many American conservatives, Mr. Cash is interested inrnquestions of money, and his opposition to a single eurrencvrnstems as much from practical concerns as it docs from the s mbolicrnhumiliation implied by a surrender of national currency.rn”No nation Tories”—as he calls conservative MPs committedrnto single currency—do not appear to be disturbed by his allegationrnthat monetary union would mean an irrevocable transferrnof £56 billion from tlic Bank of England to the European CentralrnBank, any more than our own Republicans were disturbedrnby the Mexican bailout. Cash says he is in favor of Britain remainingrnin the EC, but not if it proves “incompatible with ourrnnational interests.”rnAmericans have been slowlyrnintroduced to the idea thatrnnational sovereignty is a dangerouslyrnoutmoded concept that mustrngive place to a broader and morerngenerous understanding of ourrnplace in the world.rnFor some Englishmen, at least, the choice is not betweenrnBritish sovereignty and European Union so much as it is a conflictrnbetween their dislike of Frogs and Dagos and their fear ofrnYankees. John Gray, who has now explicitly aligned himselfrnwith Labour, apparcntlv thinks that if European monetaryrnunion were subject to a referendum, it would pass, not so muchrnon its own merits as that it could be made a referendum onrnEngland’s continued participation in the EC. Some people arernafraid of being isolated from the great events taking place onrnthe continent, while others object to the Conservative Party’srnAtlanticism as a continuing invitation to increased dominationrnby the United States.rnBill Cash suggests (in the Ma 1995 European journal} thatrnBritain is slowly being squeezed out of the transatlantic equationrnduring a period when the relationship with the UnitedrnStates has become ever more important and as Europe movesrnin the direction of federal union, but if the choice is whetherrnBritain is to be part of Europe or a pro ince of the UnitedrnStates, there are many good reasons for picking Europe. Thisrnapparently simple dichotomy, however, is complicated bv thernenthusiasm for European Union expressed by so many Americanrneconomic and political leaders. Last year in Bonn, PresidentrnClinton declared: “The United States does stronglyrnsupport the movement towards a more united Europe, and understandsrnthat Germany’s leadership towards a truh’ united Europernis critical.” Some in Britain think Clinton has fallen underrnthe evil spell of Helmut Kohl, but like all transnational elitesrnthe American ruling class is strongly committed to an internationalrneconomic and political order of which the EuropeanrnUnion represents a small but nonetheless significant part. Is itrnan accident that Jean Monnet, the godfather of EuropeanrnUnion, was a French businessman with verv close ties \ ithrnAmerican tycoons? I am not suggesting that the advocates ofrnEuropean Union are mere shills of American business—rnalthough many of them may be just that—^l^ut, what is worse,rnthat national borders and nation-states themscKcs are seen asrnan obstacle to the achievement of the goal for which all thernWestern elites are striing: a world of peaceful consumers runrnby transnational business leaders. Britain has faced this problemrnbefore. For centuries her royal family and leading aristocraticrnhouses were closely allied to their counterparts on therncontinent. While these connections might occasionally bernuseful in prexcnting or concluding hostilities, the interests ofrnthe British nation and their international rulers did not alwavsrncoincide. The divergence of interest was dramatically obviousrnin the reign of William and Mary, when the Dutch king usedrnhis British subjects as cannon fodder in his wars against LouisrnXIV, and his Hanoverian successors repeatedly showed morernconcern for their German principality than their island kingdom.rnOnce the members of the royal famih’ began marryingrnwithin the realm, it was clear that their power had become negligible,rnbut Britain’s rulers today have more in common withrntheir partners and rivals abroad than with their fellow subjects.rnIs there still a British “nation” in any sense that is richer thanrnour own Disney-America? If food is a test of nationalitv, thernisland might just as well be attached to the continent—orrnrather to the subcontinent, since Indian food predominates.rnOnly tourist restaurants advertise English cooking—or ratherrngenuine Flnglishc fayre—the rest arc Italian or Indian orrnLebanese. One Sunday, I go off to the National Gallery—thernBronzinos are good, but the Bellinis and Giorgiones seem overrestored.rnIn Piceadillv Circus, I am held up by a Kurdishrndemonstration. No one seems to contest the right of Kurds tornstage their protests in London, rather than Ankara or Baghdadrn(and no one recalls the Kurds’ role in the Armenian genocide).rnKurdish demonstrations, Lebanese restaurants, Italian art—rnI might as well be in New York or Chicago. I think that it is thisrnfear, that there really will not be an England sonre day, that liesrnbehind the largely pragmatic criticisms of European union.rnEven the most pro-American of John Major’s critics are awarernof it; even his mentor. Lady Thatcher, belatedly began to dragrnher high heels on the question, and the Bruges Group takes itsrnname from an anti-European speech she delivered in that citv.rnJohn xMajor’s response to the Euroskepties’ offensive was to resignrnas Conservative Partv leader and stand for reelection. Hisrnopponent, John Redwood, was never taken ery seriously, althoughrnMargaret Thatcher—preserving a rather vengeful neutralityrn—described the former Welsh Secretary as a “heavyweightrnperson.” While Mr. Redwood based his challenge onrnthe charge that the Prime Minister had “jeopardized the \’holernposition [i.e., of the Tories] by resigning the leadership,” hisrncandidae’ was supported bv Norman Lamont and other Euroskeptiesrnwhose opposition to European Union had driven Mr.rnMajor to this desperate gambit. In the event Mr. Major survivedrnthe threat without substantially enhancing his stature orrn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn