I was in Manchester recently, and having walked into a bookshop, I noticed a book called The Great Deception. It’s about the European Union, is authored by Christopher Booker, a man who writes for The Sunday Telegraph, and on the back, it is hailed as “a bible for eurosceptics”. Now, call me a sceptic myself, but I had a sense of where the book was going. A quick flick through the first pages, and I’m almost certain.

The book basically gives you the eurosceptics’ guide to the history of the EU; from the conception in the mind to its ultimate realisation. Of course that might sound informative, except for the fact that the tome is absolutely littered with the language of conspiracy, and plots of apocalyptic proportion. The blurb tells you that the construction of the EU has been “a slow-motion coup d’état, based on a strategy of deliberate deception”. Apparently it “shows chillingly” how British politicians were consistently outplayed in a game, the rules of which they never understood. And so national democracy was overthrown, etc. etc.

However, apocalyptic language and the ridiculous title aside, the book does stumble across something which is incredibly relevant, for the Brexit debate, and the modern problems of the Union. As with all great lies, within them lies little kernels of truth. Time and again, national politicians have not been straight with their electorates about the actual nature of the EU; what the original ‘European dream’ was, and where it was headed. At first it was unnecessary, because the path chosen by Jean Monnet and his allies in the 1950s was to adopt a slower, more incremental path to Union, at the end of which, it was hoped, there would be no question as to whether we constitute our ‘United States of Europe’ or not. However as more and more powers accumulated at the very top, and more decisions began to be taken out of sight of the citizens of Europe, questions were raised, and ever more allusions, diversions and excuses were needed.

From what I have read of it, The Great Deception paints the solution to the initial problem of getting the European peoples to cooperate as a lie; as an evil plot to deceive Europeans into believing they were entering an almost contractual relationship. An economic partnership where we would all benefit, but crucially, would not be brought together. In Monnet’s own words however “Make men work together, show them that beyond their differences and geographical boundaries, there lies a common interest”. Monsieur Monnet said many things, however this quote was at the heart of all of them, and of the successive steps taken by the Europeans on the path to Union; that, by allowing Europeans to work together, the national barriers would slowly be washed away. In the beginning things had to be inconspicuous and non-intrusive, so that Europe’s states could be brought together “without their people understanding what is happening”. Nevertheless, at the same time, it clear from the very beginning that the evolving EU would not be just any trade agreement. It had a High Authority with responsibilities of developing legislation for member-states, it had a Court of Justice whose rulings had binding force, and it had an Assembly where the politicians of member-states could gather and deliberate. The texts of the Ventotene Manifesto, the Schuman Declaration, and the Treaties of Paris and Rome clearly pointed to a plan (not a plot) that went much deeper than economic cooperation. Anyone who was paying attention has no excuse if they did not understand the intentions, even in those early days. Why do you think the British observer sent to the Messina Conference infamously stormed out? Because those who he observed were clearly and openly discussing a plan to unify Europe. To say that any journalist, politician or civil servant was unaware of the process that was unfolding, to suggest that they had been deceived is to remarkably under-value their intelligence.

However, the fact is that the majority of the population were not paying attention. And here is where the politicians are supposed to step in, and clear things up as more questions are asked. Through the 60s, 70s and 80s, the fledgling Community began to form a mind of its own, more and more powers started to accumulate at the top, outside the scrutiny of the electorates of Europe. And despite the failure of the politicians to actually admit to and begin a discussion on the matter, Europeans began to notice the process, which was taking place all around them. Call it what you will, a mistake, a deception, an attempt to buy time – by the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, Europe’s politicians had failed to bring the Union being created to their peoples, even as they were transferring powers to the Union. This was a failure, predicated on that second quote by Monnet, which has caused Europe the legitimacy crisis it faces today, and is really at the core of British eurosceptics’ religious intolerance of and irrational hatred against the EU. Monnet said the Union should be constructed without the people understanding; however, once they’d realised their situation, Monnet never said to actively cover up and make excuses for the process; he was not so stupid to think this would help the plan along. But, because this idea suited national politicians who realised in pursuing this project, the end game would be a loss of power for them, they maintained that letting the people know about their plan would spell the end of the European Project. Thus, that quote has infected everything the EU has done since the Treaties of Rome, including the burgeoning democratic deficit. Ultimately, if you put democracy at the heart of a process, as Altiero Spinelli advocated for, and the US did when founding their federation, you draw attention to it. You make a discussion of it, you invite criticism of it, and you have to argue for it. So what’s the alternative? You put diplomacy, the market and bureaucracy instead at the heart of your cooperation, and hope it takes off from there. None of these are democratic. They are about power relations, profiteering and efficiency. This is a recipe for authoritarianism when things go bad.

By the 21st Century, many peoples of Europe had come to the realisation that their leaders had created a government in Europe which had no real rules around how it operated (that people understood) and was undertaken without the consent of the people. The European Project always intended to create a new state in Europe – Europe’s leaders just didn’t emphasise this to anyone.

In 2001, it was widely recognised that Europe needed a constitution to truly give the newly constructed (and yet still incomplete) edifice a mandate, and yet still Europe’s leaders were reluctant to let go of Monnet’s supposed axiom, that until federation is the next step, the people can’t know what is going on. So the Constitutional Convention, despite being the first real manifestation of democracy in the creation of the EU, was infiltrated by the national governments, and then submitted to a diplomatic conference to be discussed and amended. What came out was something only a mother could be proud of (or a diplomatic conference of mothers). And now it had to be tested in its entirety against diplomatic standards. I’m surprised the Blair Ministry planned to put it to a referendum to be honest, considering the British government’s track record of pretending at every juncture that the EU and politics were two incompatible ideas. Of course, it wasn’t a complete turnaround; once more British voters were addressed as national citizens operating in a broader European setting, and not as a part of a wider European demos which was being founded by the Constitution; an idea that would need to be discussed.

This was in stark contrast to France and the Netherlands, whose national debates treated the text in front of them as a proper constitution with constitutional ramifications and relevance. When you consider this, as well as the Eurobarometer polls which demonstrated wide support for a Constitution for Europe (63% in favour in 2003), its rejection by the French and Dutch electorates cannot be seen as a rejection of the idea of a European Constitution, simply the Constitution being placed before them. What was our leaders’ response however? ‘That’s it, I’m taking your ball away’. Democracy was once again removed from the process, and the European political elite returned to the more diplomatic, secretive means of rule-making, which actively cut the European peoples out of the process. The message received? ‘Your opinion was considered unnecessary and dangerous, and so we’ll be taking over again’. This has done irreparable damage in the public eye to the European Project.

Indeed, national politicians did not make their intentions clear enough to the European peoples when proceeding with the European Project. Every treaty reform has been undertaken with the utmost effort to bury any reference to a constitution, or the foundation of a new society in Europe

This is not a conspiracy as The Great Deception asserts, but it is an affront to Europe’s way of life, and has nevertheless damaged the European Project incalculably. Because, ultimately the eurosceptics were right; our leaders lied to us, and took advantage of the majority being unaware of a process that would fundamentally transform their lives. Upon realisation of what had happened, and worse still having the right to finally say something on the matter ripped away after 2005, the EU can only have seemed like a coup of epic proportions, and a complete betrayal of everything Europeans believed Europe stood for. There is a real sense of this betrayal in Britain, and combined with the austerity under the Cameron Ministry, the still lingering effects of the Thatcherite Revolution, and the state of politics today, the sense of disenfranchisement is enormous. Prime Minister Cameron has desperately been trying to win back huge sections of the British public who rightly were incensed when they were told black was white, when they could see it was not. If we in the Remain camp really want to win back the British people to the European project decisively, we need to be open and honest about what the European project is, and what Britain’s place in it will be.

This article was written a couple of months before the referendum. Having lost the vote, it seems that the discontent in Britain was so palpable, it triumphed over reason. We can only hope Britain and Europe can recover from this, before it tears down the post-1945 European order.