The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

NOTE! This site uses cookies and similar technologies.

If you not change browser settings, you agree to it. Learn more

I understand

Cookies are a technology which we use to provide you with tailored information on our website. A cookie is a piece of code that is sent to your internet browser and is stored on your system.

Please see below for a list of cookies this website uses:

Cookie name: _utma, _utmb, _utmc, _utmz

Purpose: Google Analytics cookies. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information. To opt out of these cookies, please visit Google's website.

Cookie name: Sitecore

Purpose: Stores information, such as language and regional preferences, that our content management system (the system we use to update our website) relies on to function.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: ASP.net_session

Purpose: Allows the website to save your session state across different pages. For example, if you have completed a survey, the website will remember that you have done so and will not ask you to complete it again when you view another page on the website.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: website#sc_wede

Purpose: Indicates whether the user's browser supports inline editing of content. This indicates whether our content management system will work for our website administrators in their internet browsers.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: redirected

Purpose: Remembers when the site forwards you from one page to another, so you can return to the first page. For example, go back to the home page after viewing a special 'splash' page.

Function: This is a session cookie, which your browser will destroy when it shuts down. The website needs this cookie to function.

Cookie name: tccookiesprefs

Purpose: Remembers when you respond to the site cookie policy, so you do not see the cookie preferences notice on every page.

Function: If you choose to remember your preference with a temporary cookie, your browser will remove it when you shut it down, otherwise the cookie will be stored for about a year.

Cookie name: _ga

Purpose: Additional Google Analytics cookie. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information.


Purpose: Sitecore Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. When you close your browser, it will delete the 'session' cookie; it will keep the 'global' cookie for about one year.

Facebook cookies

We use Facebook 'Like' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Facebook's cookie policy page.

Twitter cookies

We use Twitter 'Tweet' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Twitter's privacy statement.

YouTube cookies

We embed videos from our official YouTube channel. YouTube uses cookies to help maintain the integrity of video statistics, prevent fraud and to improve their site experience. If you view a video, YouTube may set cookies on your computer once you click on the video player.

Cookies pop-up

When you close the cookies pop-up box by clicking "OK", a permanent cookie will be set on your machine. This will remember your preference so that the pop-up doesn't display across any pages whenever you visit the website.

Opting out/removing cookies

To opt out of Google Analytics cookies, please visit Google’s website.

You can also control what cookies you accept through your internet browser. For details on how to do this, please visit Please note that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our website.

mailing list
donate now
join now

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.

Peace In Our Time

Author: John Griffing​

The readily visible collapse of Brexit negotiations echoes the most significant foreign policy blunders in British history, episodes characterized by the misplaced worship of process over principle and a pathological pattern of "surrender."

Such was the case with Neville Chamberlain, a man who genuinely believed a "piece of paper," would preserve peace in Europe.

While the British applauded the empty gesture as a triumph, German Chancellor Adolf Hitler told his Foreign Minister J. Von Ribbentrop, "Oh, don't take it so seriously. That piece of paper is of no further significance whatever."

In point of fact, at the meeting that would ultimately produce the notorious Munich Pact, Hitler told the prime minister he favored a world war and was completely un-serious about peace talks.

"I do not care whether there is a world war or not: I am determined to settle it and to settle it soon and I am prepared to risk a world war rather than allow this to drag on," Hitler stated.

A normal person would change tack accordingly, and stop futile exercises that amount to little more than checking off boxes. Not Neville. He dug in his heels.

Hitler uses the same tone to tell Chamberlain his true intentions that today is used to send an ugly date home. The next sentence usually involves some version of, "Your Uber is outside." Such blatantly transparent subtlety was apparently still too subtle for the prime minister.

As if struck by an epiphany, Chamberlain began to understand, qupping, "If the Fuehrer is determined to settle this matter by force without waiting even for a discussion between ourselves to take place what did he let me come here for? I have wasted my time." It appears Chamberlain finally realized the sinister German may not be entirely truthful.

Chamberlain's shockingly naive demeanor is further illustrated by his response to Hitler's demand that he be allowed to invade Czechoslovakia.

"Hold on a minute; there is one point on which I want to be clear … would you be satisfied with that and is there nothing more that you want? I ask because there are many people who think that is not all; that you wish to dismember Czechoslovakia," the prime minister insightfully inquired. Bravo, Neville.

Aside from temporary madness brought on by the stress of governing, one possible explanation for Chamberlain's behavior is that he truly viewed diplomacy as an end in itself, a blindness beautifully captured by the powerful new film, "Darkest Hour."

"Darkest Hour" is set during the Nazi invasion of France, the Netherlands and Belgium. It retraces the steps of Winston Churchill's heroic evacuation of 300,000 British soldiers at Dunkirk, with a makeshift fleet of private fishing boats and yachts.

But most importantly for our purposes, the movie depicts Neville Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax advancing a plan to prematurely force British surrender to Germany shortly after Churchill was appointed prime minister.

Let that sink in: Britain almost never fought World War II, and very nearly became a German satellite state, the stated vision of Halifax and Chamberlain. Without Great Britain's contribution the war effort, the U.S. might have been overrun. The world could very well be speaking German and Japanese.

While promoting preemptive surrender to Nazi Germany, Chamberlain and Halifax blackmailed Churchill into initiating negotiations with Hitler, who only hours before invaded (and subjugated) France. Their rationale? "Peace at any cost."

If Churchill did not agree to disgraced ex-Prime Minister Chamberlain's surrender-disguised-as-diplomacy, Halifax threatened to mount a "vote of no confidence" in the British Parliament which Churchill was sure to lose.

History might look very different today indeed.

It is only by sheer happenstance, or possibly divine intervention, that these men were thwarted in their objectives. After all, Chamberlain was no longer prime minister for the very reason that his fanatical belief in formulaic diplomacy gave Hitler virtual carte blanche to invade the Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and later, Poland.

After signing his signature treaty with Hitler at Berchtesgaden, Chamberlain proudly declared, "We shall have peace in our time." The treaty agreed to almost all of Hitler's demands, an agreement no less absurd than the Iranian nuclear agreement negotiated by Barack Obama.

Chamberlain and Halifax were also would-be murderers; they vocally opposed the rescue mission to save 300,000 British soldiers (now considered one of the most awe-inspiring military operations in history), on the grounds that it wouldn't send the right signals to Hitler.

Churchill warned against such a scenario, a situation "in which we went to Signor Mussolini and invited him to go to Herr Hitler and asked him to treat us nicely. We must not get tangled in a position of that kind before we had been involved in any serious fighting."

Amazingly, such total insanity and naked treason was the near-consensus of Churchill's cabinet. The survival of the English-speaking world stood on a knife-edge, and British leaders were kicking the dirt in on themselves.

The lesson? Misplaced focus on process can easily become an obsession; good diplomacy must always make room for common sense and fresh air. Sometimes, "a" does not equal "b" for no other reason than the fallacies of human nature, and nowhere is this more true than the world of foreign policy.

While Chamberlain is certainly a cautionary tale, it took real stupidity, or deep-seated treachery, to strip Britain of what global influence it still possessed following the war, all to join the continental club.

There's nothing new under the sun, especially when it never sets. It is perhaps fitting that the same lunacy plaguing Brexit negotiations presently, also consumed the British delegation negotiating EEC entry in 1971.

Led by weak-kneed Sir Edward Heath, Britain agreed unreservedly to all French demands, including the requirement that the once proud seafaring nation reduce its global standing to the level of other European member-states as a condition of EEC membership. On what planet would Britain trade its unparalleled greatness, though bruised after a horrific world war, to join a club?

To join, Britain was told: no more Empire, no more Sterling as world reserve currency, no more special relationship with the U.S., and basically … no more doing anything better than the French, etc.

The goal was entry at any price, and the price was extremely high, a reality Sir Con O'Neill -- head of the British delegation -- described as, "Swallow the lot, and swallow it whole."

The minutes of Heath's "swallow it whole" talks with French President Georges Pompidou can be viewed in full, thanks to the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. Upon review of the declassified minutes, one thing is abundantly apparent: France never intended to make any concessions to Britain, and Heath uncritically accepted this outcome.

One communique quotes Pompidou as remarking, "I will consider with sympathy a problem which carries sentimental and political importance across the Channel, though it can only be solved in Brussels." The French president regarded British advantages in the areas of trade and finance to be "a relic of the British empire."

In any event, Heath made no attempt to counter demands obviously growing from French jealousy, stating that did not "feel sentimental about it."

Heath's transparent exercise in boot-licking borders on disgusting. "Historically, Britain had always been part of Europe. It was only during the past 25 years that it had come to seem as if our natural connection might be with the United States. But we were in fact still part of Europe," Heath remarked, earnestly seeking French approval.

Referring to British policies, Heath promised to "bring them into line with the European Community."

France owes everything to the British and American soldiers who landed at Normandy only a few decades prior, and no debt so precious as freedom bought with the blood of millions can ever be repaid. For that reason, Heath's hopping around like a trained seal is that much more nauseating.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) internal document released under the thirty-year rule shows that the British government was fully aware membership in the EU would mean the end of historic British nationhood, even before the Heath-Pompidou Summit:

"... we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the United Kingdom, even in derogation of United Kingdom statutes, and as having in certain fields exclusive legislative competence, so that our own legislature has none."

Like Chamberlain, and later Edward Heath, many in today's British foreign policy establishment would willingly give the European Union everything it wants, in the blind pursuit of a so-called "good deal" for Britain after it leaves. The argument goes, "If we don't agree to everything Europe wants, then they won't be nice to us after we leave."

Such absurd circular non-logic defies the reason for leaving in the first place, since the act of leaving already presumes the intent to cut previous ties and accept any associated risks.

Moreover, the scaremongers who claim that continuing to enforce EU laws on immigration and other matters is "the only way" to avoid economic "consequences" after leaving are effectively re-litigating the thoroughly discredited claims of the remain campaign.

The EU is not in a position to punish Britain economically, and to do so would result in its own sanction by the World Trade Organization. Sadly, the willful ignorance of Europhiles is imbued with fanatical devotion.

For the sake of the halfwits populating the diplomatic corps, here again are the "remain" myths (followed by the facts) of Britain's economic relationship with the EU:

Europhile claim: the EU is 60 percent of the British economy. Exports of goods and services only account for somewhere in the region of 21 percent of "final demand." Since the EU accounts for approximately 48 percent of total exports, it follows that only 10 percent of actual GDP is the result of trade with the EU. In other words, nearly 80 percent of our economy is the result of British consumption of British goods and services.

Europhile claim: leaving the EU will spark a trade war. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. It has an outstanding trade imbalance with the EU of £61.7 billion. It is simply not in interest of major European partners to stop selling their merchandise to Britain. Also of note, is that the EU's average external tariff on non-EU imports is down to around 1.5 percent.

Out of the top ten exporters to the EU are: China, Russia, the USA, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Turkey, India, South Korea and Brazil, and only one of these countries is part of the EU's "single" market.

Europhile claim: 3 million jobs will be lost. The basis for that figure is a 1999 National Institute of Economic and Social Affairs study claiming that 3 million British jobs are dependent on trade with the EU, but the Institute's own director retracted the study, calling it "pure Goebbels." The reality? 3 million jobs are dependent on trade, not trade with the EU.

To sum up, capitulating to the EU's perverse terms of continued uncontrolled migration for its Muslim rape mobs all for a single percentage point in tariffs is lunacy by any definition.

Europe's desperate attempt to con the British people into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is bluff and bluster -- nothing more. When Britain is officially "out," watch how quickly the snail-eating French beg for normal trade relations to hock their overpriced dairy products and runny cheese.

Neville Chamberlain and Sir Edward Heath call out from the grave, "No doesn't mean yes, and leave definitely means, leave." 

Britain's Standing up for Bombardier
The EU's 'Punishment Period' Is An Affront To Our ...


No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 17 February 2018