If we are the oppressed, then Ann Widdecombe is the oppressor.
The dark past of Ann Widdecombe on Maastricht, referenda, and European integration.
Joshua Payne | 06/07/2019
After her explosive maiden speech in the European Parliament on Thursday, the former Member of Parliament for Maidstone has returned to form — a highly controversial figure once again in frontline politics. This time, however, her views have (somehow) become even more hardline — and there’s no compromise in sight. Was it always this way? Not exactly.
Her comment, comparing the upcoming British withdrawal from the European Union with the emancipation of slaves from their oppressors, has made waves across Europe — extensively criticised by most commentators, as well as lauded by those most fervently against the European Project. Her ‘colourful’ language is clearly unhelpful in getting a favourable deal with the EU, especially when combined with the news of Boris Johnson being urged to form a pact with her new party. Though, the idea that this rhetoric would damage goodwill during negotiations is unlikely to be a revelation to Ann Widdecombe, or anyone else for that matter. A deal is not the former Strictly star’s preferred option. After all, her comments defending the act of a No-Deal Brexit by invoking the sacrifices made in World War Two show that, in her eyes, the European Union is the enemy — and the enemy does not warrant kind words or a peace settlement.
This may be a useful time to dissect how we as a nation got to this point. The once mighty oppressors — an Empire that stretched across the globe and conquered distant lands, to what Widdecombe sees as a feeble servant of our European masters. Of course, a lot of questions arise from this.
How did this happen?
Were we duped? Invaded? Was there a conspiracy in the Commons in 1973 forcing us in? And why haven’t we had a vote after 1975 on anything to do with the European Union — not on Maastricht? Lisbon? Have we been forced into further European integration by the continent, that would have only worsened with a forced adoption of the Euro? Have they been keeping us as their oppressed slaves, as Widdecombe has claimed?
The answer to these questions is categorical. No, we weren’t. We as a nation were not duped, nor were we invaded (despite the claims from the Express). There were no traitors in the commons in 1973, and there certainly aren’t now. We would not have been forced into the Euro if we remained in the EU, nor would we be if we were to revoke article 50 tomorrow. The most inconvenient fact of them all is that the European Union cannot and will not prevent us from leaving its institutions — any talk of being prisoners in such a system does not stand up to any scrutiny.
However, the questions regarding a lack of a referendum on Maastricht in the early 90s, or on Lisbon in the mid-2000s are surely worthy of a response. After all, these are the two treaties that are often looked at in relation to a more federalised Europe. Some, like those at BrexitCentral, go as far as to call Maastricht the beginning of vassaldom for the United Kingdom. Indeed, the mantra of ‘not having a say’ for 40 years is a default response that Brexiteers like Ann Widdecombe regularly call upon when sparring with those in favour of a second Brexit Referendum. It was also used in her article on the vote in the 2016 referendum itself; it is an opportunity for her readers to right their wrong of 1975.
But why was there no referendum on anything between 1975 and 2016? It isn’t like the question of a referendum was off the table altogether; there was a motion tabled in 1993 for such a referendum on Maastricht. Those in the Republic of Ireland got one for both the Lisbon and Maastricht treaties, but also nearly every other significant treaty change since 1993. It is part of their constitution. In fact, the only Prime Minister that has ever promised to give a referendum to the British people on anything to do with Europe was Tony Blair. First on the European constitution, and then on the Euro in the early 2000s. Both were eventually unnecessary: the constitution was rejected elsewhere, replaced with the Lisbon Treaty; the currency idea abandoned internally under Brown. Thus, Britain went on once more — without giving the eurosceptics the say that they were so desperate for.
While these never came to be in the United Kingdom, the story was very different on the continent. There were referendums in France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and more; their results have had consequences for the whole of the European Union. Most recently, the referendum in the Netherlands very quickly nullified the idea of closer integration with Ukraine in its current form. Going back in time, the rejections of the European Constitution by member states brought about the Lisbon Treaty, and concessions were made in a similar vein over Maastricht. The examples are plentiful.
Then why haven’t the British electorate had a say on the direction of travel in Europe — by means of referenda or otherwise — since 1975? Who has ‘enslaved’ the British people, as Ann Widdecombe has ‘clarified’, and who has imposed it? Perhaps we should go back and see how Maastricht, the Treaty that started it all, became law in the United Kingdom — and discover who facilitated it. Perhaps we should go as far as to see who actively voted to prevent a public referendum on Maastricht — forcing us into ‘vassaldom’ and ‘serfdom’ for all eternity?
One of those to do just that may surprise you.
As pointed out on Twitter, the great beacon of Brexit herself — Ann Widdecombe — voted for the Maastricht treaty in its entirety. She did not attempt to delay Maastricht, not in the first of two government defeats — an amendment supported by 26 Tory rebels in March 1993. She also voted with the government — and thus against the infamous Labour social chapter amendment — on the 22nd July 1993. Both Government defeats in relation to Europe under Major were achieved by a coalition of those who wanted more integration into Europe — and those who wanted none at all .
Focusing on the major defeat, that on the 22nd July 1993, you will see the left eurosceptics. To name a few, Tony Benn, Kate Hoey, Jeremy Corbyn, and George Galloway among others. You will also see the group of right-wing eurosceptics, such as Bill Cash and IDS. Finally, there were those passionately in favour of Europe and did not agree with the opt-outs — such as those in the Labour frontbench, and the Lib Dem’s Charles Kennedy. This colourful coalition voted with their conscience against this government compromise in a 324–316 victory, in a close fought division, much like those occurring regularly today. The strange bedfellows of those opposed to Theresa May’s deal were on show here, over 25 years ago.
During the amendment stage before the government defeat, there was a rarity in British Politics: a tied vote. For this to occur, those on the right of the Tory benches had to vote with Labour on an amendment that technically gave more power to Brussels. While rather complicated, the initial right-wing Eurosceptic voting with the Labour benches in the 317–317 Government victory (after an unnecessary tie-break in favour of the government) makes sense after listening to their motives.
As one of the few remaining rebels, I shall not be voting for the amendment, because I am in favour of the social chapter. The amendment does not say that, but rather that it will not be possible to ratify the treaty until the Government say that they want to sign the social chapter. Should I worry? Far from it. We had the clearest statement from the Chancellor during the Budget speech that Britain would never sign the social chapter.
The Government — I am sure that those on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State for Employment will agree — are never to sign the social chapter, and the amendment says that there can be no ratification until the Government say they are to agree to the social chapter. Is not that the ideal thing for someone to vote for who does not like the Maastricht treaty?
This was the infamous Tory eurosceptic, Teddy Taylor, arguing for the Labour amendment. As he makes clear, he did not vote for the amendment because of a love of the social chapter. He voted for the amendment, along with his fellow rebels, to make the government vote against its own bill if it were to pass. This was because of Major’s effort to make his opt-outs regarding the social chapter appear to be a key concession to eurosceptics, and to renege on this policy would have been catastrophic.
It would have only taken one Tory MP to switch to the Ayes for the amendment to pass (despite the miscount), and the Government to be weakened once more. This defeat would have put the Government in an impossible position over the UK’s future relationship with Europe. Ann Widdecombe, however, did not vote for such an amendment. Indeed, she voted against. Once the amendment was defeated by the Government on a tie break, it was now time for the ratification of the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty, and, if passed, the ‘end’ of the debate on Europe. As written above, it was defeated by 8 votes.
The eurosceptics were emboldened. That was, until, John Major pulled an ingenious confidence vote in himself in combination with the policy of the Social Chapter. It won by 339 votes to 299. This culled the rebellion — getting most on-side, and removing the whip of any that did not. Major’s former private secretary, Sir Roderic Lyne, has said that by doing this Major “lined the rebels up against a wall and aimed machine guns at them”.
Why not, Widders?
It is understandable why Ann Widdecombe did not vote against her own government in a confidence motion. Many fierce Eurosceptics would not and did not. But the question remains, why didn’t she vote for the two votes leading up to it?
Widdecombe was a junior minister at the time, and so would have had to resign from the Government — but not the whip — to do so. In the grand scheme of things, is it not obvious that this would be a small price to pay? Resigning a junior ministerial post in exchange for being able to vote against something that may have prevented the ‘enslavement’ of the citizens of this United Kingdom? Perhaps you could argue she did not know what she was voting for (I try to type this with a straight face). Though, it was clear to almost everyone what the fears of the eurosceptics were. It led John Major to attempt to debunk them in his opening statement on the above debates in July 1993.
I do not want to see either a centralist or a federalist Europe. I mean federalist in the sense in which we refer to it, not in the sense in which other countries refer to it. They mean something different by it. Yet when I say that to some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, they are apt to say to me, “What about this country or that? There are federalist countries in the Community.” That is true. There are. That is why we need influence and allies in Europe to build the sort of European Community we want. — John Major
This is all pretty damning for the new(ish) leading lady of Brexit. There has been no admission that she has played any part in the situation we have found ourselves in, though it is clear that she could have had far more influence than many, and failed to act.
But it gets worse.
To prevent what the eurosceptics felt was a forced integration into Europe, there was the aforementioned proposal of a referendum on Maastricht. Whenever questioned on such a policy, John Major typically made a statement similar to the one he made in the debate in July 1993.
We are a parliamentary democracy. Decisions such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should properly be taken in the House, and are taken in the House.
This standard response in favour of representative democracy was unsatisfactory at best to many eurosceptics. Though, a Labour backbencher, Bryan Gould, had previously tabled a motion to have a referendum on the issue — under the premise of understanding whether or not the treaty was the will of the people. It failed, on a tally of 124–363. Those who were in favour were mostly made up of typical eurosceptics such as Jeremy Corbyn or Dennis Skinner, but also a few in favour of more direct democracy — such as the Lib Dem’s Charles Kennedy. There was another eurosceptic however, that did not vote in this motion. That did not vote to discover the will of the people. In fact, this person voted against giving the British people a say on Maastricht whatsoever.
This person is now claiming that the British population have been enslaved by the European Union. If we are the oppressed, then Ann Widdecombe is the oppressor. She facilitated our further 25-year prison sentence inside the walls of the European establishment that she so loves to hate. And now, she is a fully paid-up member of the European Parliament, pretending to fight against the establishment — helping the powerless British people break out of the supposed jail cell that she has put us in. The only viable defence is that she did not know what she was voting for. That’s because the other options would be the following: that she decided to put her career and party before her new adoring eurosceptic fans; or that she has changed her mind.
However, as we all know, nobody can change their mind. Can they?
That at least appears to be true in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, who in recent weeks has appeared to be trying just about anything to delay the Labour Party from adopting a second referendum and remain stance. Looking at his previous votes, it is no wonder why.
When looked into further, however; it is nearly impossible to conclude that the Brexit Party MEP didn’t know what she was voting for on the day of the Maastricht referendum vote. Here is an excerpt from the debate on the day of this vote, by the former Labour Shadow Cabinet minister Bryan Gould who tabled the amendment.
The treaty of Maastricht is not, in my view, just an incremental change. It is a fully- fledged statement of a written constitution for a new state. It is not I who say so ; it is the drafters of the treaty who proclaim that they hereby establish a European union, of which we are all to be citizens.
That union, if we examine it, has, as I said in an earlier debate, all the trappings of a state. It has its own head of state, chief executive, legislature, civil service, bank, foreign representation, defined boundaries and territories and its own economic, agricultural, industrial and trade policies. Above all, it has its own constitution and supreme constitutional court, which sees its function as being to interpret, develop and protect that constitution. We delude ourselves if we pretend otherwise. Even the term “federal” is inadequate to describe what is laid down in the treaty of Maastricht. It may be good, or it may be bad, but that is what it is.
(source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-04-21/Debate-14.html)
The last sentence of this quote is worth highlighting. ‘It may be good, or it may be bad, but that is what it is’. Everyone in the commons that day could see what they were voting for. They may not have seen it in the same way as Bryan, but most would agree: an exchange of some ‘sovereignty’ perhaps, but for the chance of economic gain and both peace and influence on the continent.
Ann Widdecombe was one of those to vote for just that.
In a similar vein of defence as before, as a junior minister, she may have had to resign her post to go against the government on this issue. But this did not stop Mr. Gould — a Labour leadership contender in 1992 — who resigned from the Labour cabinet and then the party as a whole, partly over his party’s stance over Europe. One may disagree upon his views, much like Bill Cash, but not upon his convictions. These people will very rarely put their beliefs over party loyalty, much like Cash’s longtime rival Ken Clarke. Both command respect in the house. Both are consistent in their beliefs, and both are unwavering in doing so.
The other possible explanation is that she has changed her mind about Europe. There were rumours of an apparent defection to UKIP in 2014, ones that she quickly shrugged off. As it happens, Ann Widdecombe was not always this hardline in her hatred of the European Project, and had even backed Ken Clarke for the Tory leadership in 2001. A now rather ironic article from Widdecombe in the Express, just over three months before the vote in 2016, shows that she has not always been as hardline. The article opens by admitting the following:
AS readers of this column will know, for some time I have been undecided on my vote in the referendum, wanting to come out but unconvinced that anybody has any sort of plan for doing so and that includes the most vocal advocates of leaving the EU.
Her fears may have come true. Though now, she is of the most vocal advocates of leaving the EU. It is her that has no plan, besides that of walking away from her perceived oppressors and slamming the door behind her. Though, given that we have the ability to walk away, can they really be our oppressors anyway?
The truth is — if you feel like we have had little say on the direction of the European project, be it because of a lack of public votes or otherwise, the fact is that the only people stopping this from happening were the government of the day. And if the premise of Brexit is to regain Parliamentary sovereignty, then you have voted to give a stronger voice to those who have ignored you for over four decades.
Ann Widdecombe has an unfortunate case of hero syndrome. She has, along with others, created a mess — and has now decided that she will take a stand against her former self to solve it, all while being lauded by her adoring fans for doing so. But, the unfortunate truth is there for all to see. There is no admission of her previous faults. Instead, she has remodelled herself as the voice of the victims of European integration. She is our representative, sent forward as one of us — one of the many British people apparently enslaved by our European masters. Though, she is a new kind of slave. One that has voted for her own enslavement that is European integration, a slave that voted against giving the ‘oppressed’ a vote on such integration, and a slave that, like the rest of us, has been free to walk away for 40 years. We are still free to do so right now, if we so wished.
Her brave defection to the Brexit Party is two decades too late. Her honourable stance would have been far more honourable if she had done so when she had more influence. Instead, she is simply performing another pantomime, albeit with a much larger audience this time around.
