[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 99 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4377-S4378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, on September 2, 1939, the House of Commons 
convened to debate whether to declare war on Germany for having invaded 
Poland. Prime Minister Neville Chamberland seemed ambivalent and didn't 
immediately call for a declaration. Clement Atlee, the Labor Party 
leader was absent that day. When his deputy rose and declared that he 
would ``speak for Labor,'' Conservative MP Leo Amery famously yelled 
from across the floor: ``Speak for England!''
  I am here today to speak for England, for Great Britain, indeed for 
all of the United Kingdom. This Thursday, June 23, the British people 
will answer a momentous question: Should the United Kingdom remain a 
member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
  I have not stated nor will I state today a position on this question. 
The British people alone should decide their policy toward the 
Continent. What I will defend is their sovereign right as a people to 
decide this question free of external influences, foreign threats, and 
hysterical fear-mongering.
  The ``great and the good,'' the Davoisie elite, are united in horror 
at the prospect of a British exit from the EU. According to these 
Eurocrats, if the British people choose to leave the EU, then the 
people must be punished. Some have called for immediate tax increases 
and budget cuts should the ``Leave'' campaign win. Business leaders 
threaten to move jobs out of Britain and to the Continent. Many 
economists speculate that recession is the best possible outcome, with 
depression the more likely outcome.
  Most disappointing of all, foreign governments have made egregious 
threats of retaliation in trade, financial matters, and other economic 
matters, both to punish the British people for exercising their 
sovereign right of self-government and to intimidate the other peoples 
of Europe from doing the same. I would say the only thing they aren't 
predicting is war and pestilence--but they are. Indeed, one leading 
Eurocrat said a British exit could mean ``the end of Western 
civilization.''
  If the Davoisie elite were doing even a passable job of governing 
their own countries, perhaps their unsolicited advice might be heeded. 
But let's face it. Europe is beset by its own problems, not the least 
caused by the democracy deficit in the European Union. With no 
coordination or democratic accountability, the Eurocrats last summer 
allowed migrants to overrun their continent. Most of these migrants 
lack the job skills and education to contribute meaningfully to 
European economies. Some migrants went on rampaging crime sprees, and 
terrorists infiltrated the migrant flows to enter France and commit the 
Paris attacks. Meanwhile, the migrant flow continues across the 
Mediterranean, with hundreds dying en route. What is the Eurocrats' 
policy? ``If you survive the trip, you can stay.'' How is that moral? 
How is that wise?
  The economies of Europe aren't much better. Many countries are 
trapped beneath unpayable mountains of debt, saddled with austerity 
plans merely to make the next repayment and avoid default. Unemployment 
is high, and for young people it is rampant and chronic. Growth is 
negligible. In fact, the only continent with lower growth than Europe 
is Antarctica.
  I am amazed, maybe even a little amused, that despite these and other 
manifest failures, the Eurocrats presume to lecture the British people. 
Perhaps they hope ``Project Fear'' will sufficiently intimidate the 
Brits into voting for ``Remain.'' After all, if the EU loses Great 
Britain, Europe will lose 350 million pounds a week, and it will lose a 
dumping ground for a quarter million migrants a year. The stakes are 
pretty high for Brussels.
  But that doesn't justify their flagrant interference with Britain's 
domestic politics. Since the Davoisie elite are threatening to punish 
the Brits if they leave the EU, let me say in response that the 
American people will stand with our British cousins no matter what they 
decide. If the Continent dares to retaliate against Britain, I will do 
everything in my power to defend and strengthen the Anglo-American 
alliance that built so much of the modern world and on which it still 
depends.
  The Eurocrats may want to pressure Britain, but perhaps they might 
recall that Britain is not the only land where pressure can be brought 
to bear. On my last trip to Europe, I heard from many political and 
business leaders who were eager--desperate, even--to consummate the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The Paris and Brussels 
attacks vividly reminded us that the small continental countries depend 
heavily on American intelligence to support their counterterrorism 
efforts. Of course, need anyone be reminded which NATO country 
underwrites the independence and security of

[[Page S4378]]

Europe, particularly in the face of a revisionist Russia?
  It would be regrettable if a continental temper tantrum imperiled 
these important relationships with the United States. One would hope 
that cooler heads will prevail in the capitals of continental Europe 
should the British people elect to leave the EU. One would hope that 
Brussels, Berlin, Paris, and other capitals will realize that Britain, 
in or out of the EU, is a NATO ally, a trading partner, and a friend in 
freedom. One would hope that a British exit, if that is Britain's 
choice, would be followed by the spirit of magnanimity, generosity, and 
continued friendship. But hopes aside, one should know this: The 
American people will stand with Britain, in or out of the EU, and will 
stand against punitive retaliation against the British people.
  Of course, I must admit that, unfortunately--though not 
surprisingly--our own government is also sticking its nose where it 
doesn't belong. President Obama traveled to London last month to say 
that a newly free Britain would go to ``the back of the queue'' in 
trade negotiations with the United States. U.S. Trade Representative 
Michael Froman has cautioned: ``We're not particularly in the market 
for [free trade agreements] with individual countries.'' This strange 
combination of arrogance and ignorance is all too typical of the Obama 
administration. The United States has a bilateral trade agreement with 
Oman, after all. But negotiate a new bilateral trade agreement to 
support the special relationship with Great Britain, our ancestral 
ally? No, sir, we will have none of that nonsense.
  So, for the record, let it be noted that the American people will 
stand up to the ``great and the good'' not only on the Continent, but 
also here in Washington if this or any future administration tries to 
punish Britain should it leave the EU. Just as I will do everything in 
my power to preserve our special relationship against continental 
meddling, so will I do the same with any administration that doesn't 
fully appreciate that relationship. I suspect many other Senators feel 
the same.
  Put simply, there will be a new bilateral trade agreement, NATO will 
survive, our Five Eyes intelligence partnership will continue, and the 
special relationship will remain a bedrock for the prosperity and 
security of both our nations. The British people can cast their votes 
certain of those things.
  The British people deserve nothing less. Were it not for them, 
Europe--indeed, the world over--might still be a mere plaything of 
kings and tyrants. Of all the peoples of the world, surely the Brits 
have earned the sovereign right to govern their own affairs, free of 
external influence or threats of retaliation. Like most Americans, I 
stand in admiration of Great Britain, and I stand with the British 
people, in or out of the EU.
  I also call on the Davoisie elite, on the ``great and the good,'' to 
spend a little less time fulminating about British democracy in action 
and a little more time looking in the mirror at their own failures. 
Populist insurgencies are raging on both sides of the Atlantic, on both 
the left and the right. Rather than obsess about Great Britain, rather 
than keep the populists at bay one desperate election at a time, these 
leaders should consider why these insurgencies are gaining in every 
election--stagnant wages for the working class, uncontrolled migration 
without regard to economic need or cultural assimilation, Islamic 
terrorists massacring our citizens, and a loss of national honor around 
the world.
  This record is not pretty. In politics, as in medicine, it is usually 
better to address the cause than the symptom. If our leaders addressed 
these challenges more creatively, more forthrightly, more effectively, 
perhaps neither the British people nor so many other people would be 
disappointed in their leaders to begin with. Let the British people 
manage their own affairs, whether right or wrong in your eyes. In the 
words of Scripture, whatever you may think of their mote, take care of 
your own beam first.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________