Restore Britain's identity crisis

It’s turning out to be a Restore Britain themed week on this blog. As ever, I run the risk of repeating myself but I still think there’s a few points worth making. To some extent I’m reiterating points from yesterday’s post, but it’s a theme I’m developing so please bear with me.

I’m of the view that a party like Restore cannot withstand the massive ideological gulf between its senior spokesmen and its leader. Something has to give. There are questions which cannot go unanswered.

For instance, I would very much like to know if it is the official view of Restore Britain that Israel is committing genocide, just so we know what Britain's defence/trade posture would be under a Restore government.

Does that mean an end to defence cooperation and an end to drone intercept operations? Does it mean a withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the gulf? Shall we passively allow escalation between Israel and Iran? Does this amount to a full or partial disengagement from the middle east? If so, what is the policy regarding Syria?

If we are to take a more isolationist approach, letting the chips fall where they may, are we simply to resign ourselves to the possibility of ISIS regrouping in Syria, even at the risk of further terror attacks n British soil?

A total reset on our foreign policy has serious implications we should have more detail on. If the posture is armed neutrality (in line with doctrinal British nationalism), what is the policy towards NATO and Ukraine? What is the plan for developing an entirely independent defence policy, and how are we paying for it?

I assume since Charlie Downes is pandering to the nationalist crowd that he will be taking broader policy cues from them, so it is reasonable to assume armed neutrality is the baseline. This has even wider implications.

I recall when we had provisional discussions about defence policy for the Homeland Party, there was a general consensus that Britain should close US airbases such as Fairford and Lakenheath because they “put a target on our backs”. I did not share that view, nor did my inner plane-spotter. It would mark a profound distancing in our relationship with the USA, which necessarily implies greater defence co-operation with the EU. Total defence sovereignty for a small country is pipedream.

That then creates further friction being that Lowe, of the Brexit ilk, implacably opposes any kind of formal defence arrangement with the EU. It would leave us looking for bilateral arrangements, but as a non-NATO member. I’d be interested to know how they see that playing out, or if they’ve given it any thought at all. After all, the practical function of NATO is defence interoperability and common command protocols. You can't just make drive-by comments on foreign policy without elaboration.

A further clue as to the potential direction of travel is when Downes remarked a few weeks ago that he wouldn’t rule out re-joining the EU if there were any chance of turning it to serve nationalist purposes. Traditionally, the British nationalist “far right” has been hostile to the US for much the same reasons as the far left (US Imperialism), and sees more utility in forming political relationships with comparable parties on the continent. Does Restore see compatibility with European populist/fascist parties?

The point here is that one (supposedly) throwaway comment designed to show a bit of ankle to Restore’s online nationalist base (while again raising questions about Jewish influence) has a cascade of ramifications for foreign policy, defence and international relations. Is the intent to simply appease Islamism at home and abroad?

For my part, the more I’ve toyed with the nationalist notion of neutrality, the less compelling I find it. As I’ve noted recently, the unravelling of Africa could necessitate some kind of pan-European intervention force, if only to prevent the mass displacement of people who would otherwise migrate to Europe. It has been put to me that we should not get involved, but I don’t think it very sensible to abandon Europe to its fate, or wait for the problems to show up on our doorstep.

It’s possible that I’m reading too much into Downes’s remarks, but if that isn’t the direction of travel for Restore, we deserve to know what is. This is not a trivial matter because it is central to how Restore defines itself. Is it the party of civic nationalist Thatcherite boomers or ethno-nationalist isolationist zoomers? The incoherence cannot be sustained. Ironic that a party pushing identity politics should have such a profound identity crisis. There certainly cannot be an alliance with Reform until it’s resolved.

Perhaps the party has a more nuanced third way in mind, in which case I am especially interested in hearing it, and might even vote for it, but before I do, they’ll need to articulate what it is. I suspect, though, on present form, it will be more of the same slop - because that’s all they’re capable of. I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.