Britain and Europe generally have a lot to argue about. Lately, though, they seem to be reaching consensus on something. Something big.

That Britain should get out of the European Union.

Britain is full of foot-draggers. When Gordon Brown earlier this year furtively signed the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum—knowing the public would nix it if given a chance—an Internet poll at the Daily Express found that a cool 99 percent of them disapproved. To say that British resistance to the European project is intense is an understatement.

On the other side of the Channel, it appears the Eurocrats have just about had enough of Britain’s continual “red lines” and requests for opt-outs, its repeated attempts to put the brakes on European integration.

As we have said for years—and as Herbert W. Armstrong said for decades before us—the flirtation between Britain and the Continent was ill-conceived from the start and is destined to break up.

Now the European voices expressing irritation over Britain aren’t just in the corners—like the German politician who reminded Britain that the Lisbon Treaty “contains an article which gives any member state the right to leave the EU if it so wishes,” or the Luxembourg prime minister who said it “is absolutely possible that the EU will move forward without the British.” One of the venerated fathers of the European project itself is not only adding his weight to the debate, but presenting a solution of sorts.

Valery Giscard d’Estaing, former French president and chief architect of the European Constitution, forerunner of the Lisbon Treaty, says Britain should have a “special status” in the EU that will prevent it from blocking closer European integration. “Special” meaning drastically smaller.

Last month, at a conference in Westminster on the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU, keynote speaker d’Estaing strongly criticized Britain for hampering the creation of a European superstate. He called Britain’s attempts to curb the expansion of power in Brussels “exhausting for the participants, and disappointing for public opinion, which is forever presented with negative results.” He condemned Britain’s approach of “permanent antagonism” toward the EU, saying “British diplomacy has incomparable expertise” in applying the brake by “complicating negotiations” and “flattering nationalisms.”

D’Estaing’s suggestion of a “special status” for Britain is clearly rooted in frustration. From the beginning of the relationship, he said, “The UK announces simultaneously that it wishes to be ‘at the heart of Europe,’ but endeavors to oppose all progress in European integration.” He relayed a short history lesson on how Britain’s Europe policy has gotten repeatedly hung up on this fundamental contradiction.

Within his speech, d’Estaing made a frank admission to his British audience. He called the Lisbon Treaty “simply a legal repackaging of the Constitution, albeit unreadable, and which scrupulously reproduces the innovations set out in the Constitution” (emphasis mine throughout). The European Constitution, of course, was rejected by several EU member states. The drafters of the Lisbon Treaty have scrupulously maintained that this is a different animal entirely. But that is a lie. If there was any doubt about that, d’Estaing killed it.

What makes this so interesting is how this confession underscores d’Estaing’s intentions with respect to Britain. If he had even a wisp of concern that the sceptered isle remain in the Union, he never would have exposed the Lisbon charade so candidly.

D’Estaing concluded by contrasting two different approaches to European integration—which clearly cast Britain as the odd man out. Regular Trumpet readers will find much of interest in his words:

For a majority of member states, representing a clear majority of the population, the position is that integration must be continued as set out in the Union Treaty, and that the EU is not yet “complete.” At a time when new powers are emerging—as the Olympic Games in Beijing have shown—the unification of Europe must be made more effective and understandable. … [D]ecisions should be able to be taken by qualified double majority, thus avoiding the delays and uncertainty of the vetoes of 27 member states. The building and development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy must be reinforced, gradually being detached from exclusively national impetuses. … For these states, the EU is on the right path, but its integration needs to be improved ….For other states, including the UK, as far as can be judged from its political parties and public opinion, the degree of European integration achieved today is enough, and should not be deepened. The dominant feeling is “too much” rather than “not enough.” The excessive interventionism of Brussels damages the efficient functioning of the market. And other vital relationships, especially that with the usa, ought to be given more weight, as well as the new factors resulting from economic globalization. These states do not want more “initiatives” and would prefer a more modest conception of European union.

It is remarkable to hear a European statesman of d’Estaing’s stature highlighting the need for a more politically and even militarily robust European federation in light of emerging powers, particularly from the East. These words will call to the minds of our regular readers the prophecy of Daniel 11:44 regarding this rising European superpower: “But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him.” Also, his aggravation over the cumbersome nature of 27 veto-wielding members points toward the fulfillment of a biblical prophecy that Europe will, in our day, be pared down to “ten kings,” which come to have “one mind, and shall give their power and strength” over to a singular political leader (Revelation 17:12-13).

At the same time, d’Estaing’s description—for British ears—of the current problems of Europe—the “excessive interventionism” and such—again highlighted his fundamental wish that the millstone of Britain be cut loose from the Continent. He concluded,

Let us be realistic: These two approaches, these two stances, are incompatible, yet, at the moment, they coexist within the EU. To avoid the possibility that these tensions grow and end up in a crisis, we need to ask ourselves what is the best way to go forward.

Euroskeptic Britons are already seizing upon d’Estaing’s remarks as an open door to freedom for Britain’s leaders to walk through. Three quarters of British people want to move away from the EU—either by withdrawing completely or negotiating a new, much looser, relationship. Their current prime minister, while perhaps popular with Eurocrats, is highly unpopular at home. With national elections two years away, it seems only a matter of time before a more Euroskeptic leader will come to power. Opinion polls consistently favor Tory leader David Cameron. “Today’s Conservatives,” writes the Economist, “would form the most Euroskeptic government since Britain joined the club in 1973. Unlike previous Tory bosses, David Cameron does not have to accommodate pro-Europeans in the party, let alone in his inner circle (just three Tory members of Parliament voted with the government on the Lisbon Treaty in March …).”

Fundamentally, the majority opinion of both Britain and Brussels is the same: Britain needs to distance itself from the EU.

And as the American financial crisis hits Europe in earnest, we can expect Continental antagonism toward Britain to grow, just as it has toward America. The fundamentals of Britain’s economy—including its weaknesses—far more closely mirror those of America than of Europe. And already it appears Europe is looking to solve its problems without Britain. As the Washington Post reported last Friday, “Christopher Allsopp, a senior economics research fellow at Oxford University and former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said any European rescue fund would be unlikely to include Britain, which continues to use its own currency, the pound. ‘It would be more of a eurozone thing,’ he said, referring to the 15 countries that use the common currency, the euro” (emphasis mine). The Continent sees Britain not as an innocent victim of a global crisis, but rather as part of the problem.

The separation between Britain and the EU is growing by the day. The biblical prophecies that informed Mr. Armstrong’s long-standing forecast that this relationship would eventually end also reveal both the source of Britain’s failings and the catastrophic end of its dalliance with Europe. Read our article “The Leper of Europe” to get a better understanding of where this trend is leading. And for a more comprehensive study, read Mr. Armstrong’s masterwork The United States and Britain in Prophecy. We will gladly send you a free copy upon request.

Many Britons are hoping that their nation will accept a scaled-down “special status” with respect to the Continent. They need to understand, however, that while a break between these two powers is prophesied to occur, the future of Britain is inextricably bound to that of Europe in a manner truly horrifying to contemplate. Current trends point ever more directly toward that future.