Over at the FT is a magnificent article by Samuel Brittan that with unerring precision demolishes certain arguments often put forward for why the European Union ‘must’ be supported.

I subscribe to the FT online edition so it may be paywalled and unable to be seen by some readers. If so, cough up for an online subscription if only to read it.

It’s probably one of the best pieces I have ever read. Not so much because it is dense and clever or even I agree with the arguments he advances, but because of the light, subtle, measured way he presents the case on a different plane of analysis.

A couple of examples:

What I am saying is that the EU no longer deserves the devotion of practical idealists. When voices in Paris or Berlin say the answer to any problem is “more Europe”, by which they mean more centralised power to EU institutions, we should turn a deaf ear. And when some leaders say that “without the euro there is no Europe” we should shrug our shoulders and look at an atlas to reassure ourselves.

Although there was always a strong federalist element in the background, the post-1945 European movement began in earnest with the Schuman Plan, designed to integrate German and French coal and steel industries so that war between the two countries would be impossible. There followed the common market, designed to free up trade in western Europe; and I can remember urging Harold Macmillan, the British prime minister, to get on with his application to join.

But as time went on, the EU, as it became, acquired more and more ambitions and a whole cadre of eurocrats developed, concerned with increasing EU power and influence for its own sake. At this point they lost me…

… But of one thing I am sure. I know the language of intolerance and authoritarianism when I hear it. Words such as unthinkable, unmentionable and undiscussable are hurled at anyone who dares question EU orthodoxy, not only on the euro. Even if everything else in this article is wrong, EU intolerance of criticism is enough to turn me off the project.

This last point is why we need to worry.

There is too much talk of the unwavering ‘determination’ of Europe’s political leaders to ‘do what it takes’ to keep the Eurozone afloat. Indeed the blunt emphasis on this determination was the rhetorical highpoint of Radek Sikorski’s speech at Blenheim Palace laying into UK Eurosceptics:

You could, if only you wished, lead Europe’s defence policy. But if you refuse, please don’t expect us to help you wreck or paralyze the EU.

Do not underestimate our determination not to return to the politics of the 20 century. You were not occupied. Most of us on the continent were. We will do almost anything to prevent that from happening again…

Isn’t acceptance by our leaders that politicians are empowered to do only what is lawful (as opposed to ‘almost anything’) the bedrock of democracy?

As Samuel Brittan concludes, the very intensity of the language that leaps over such fundamental practical principles in favour of some sort of higher abstract normative – and imperative – standard for running Europe’s affairs really sounds ghastly to most informed British ears.