The acceptable face of the TUC
The determination of the Trades Union Congress not to participate in Common Market institutions, arrived at by the narrowest of margins at Blackpool last week, is a political step of considerable magnitude and some sophistication. The argument that the TUC should occupy the seats reserved for it on the Economic and Social Committee of the European Economic Community and other EEC bodies is powerful, and on the face of it bears a close relationship to the argument which justifies the TUC taking part in talks with the Government on prices and incomes policy. This argument, put forward by Mr Jack Jones against the reluctant opposition of Mr Hugh Scanlon, declares that however much the trade unions may object to the policies of the government of the day, it is the duty of trade union leaders to treat with governments in the interests of their members. That, saYS'Mr Jones, is one of the things he is paid by his members to do. Privately, no doubt, Mr Scanlon agrees; but Mr Scanlon has been instructed by the executive council of his union not to Participate and thus his voice has been silenced and he absents himself from the Downing Street talks. There are those who, with false cynicism, declare that the talks are a waste of time and, in the next breath, affirm that they are mere window-dressing (not realising that window-dressing is far from a waste of time), and then go on to say that the question of taking part or not taking Part is consequently flippant. Such declaratory attitudinising is Ignorant and foolish. A very great deal of the process of governing has to do with talks and talking. The TUC chiefs know this full well: and so do Mr Heath and his ministers. It is not a pure and simple matter when Mr Heath invites the TUC to Downing Street for talks; and it is not a pure and simple matter when the TUC accepts and turns up. The two sides may take up opposing Positions; but each side knows that there is always the possibility of an advantageous deal being struck, just as each side knows that there is the certainty that the other side will seek to derive Political advantage from the encounter. To refuse to talk, to skulk In one's tents, is both to exclude the chance of an advantageous deal and to concede by default the political advantage.
The TUC's decision last week to continue talking with the Government, and to allow the unions to defend themselves before the National Industrial Relations Court and to appear before the Pay Board, were sensible and fell right in the middle of trades union orthodoxy. Mr Scanlon was the chief maverick; he was isolated, coralled and, although he still bellowed a bit, was effectively made impotent. The TUC will not contract itself out. It Will continue talk'qg :th the Government, and with the liPpropriate thu state, partly because that is what Its leaders are pa to do, partly because there ma be benefit or their members ir talking, and partly because politically they 'Would look silly not to talk. However gratified Mr Heath in his statesmanlike capacity, as Prime Minister may be, or may pretend t,0 be, by the TUC's decision to carry on talking, he must also, in ()Is political capacity as leader of the Conservative Party seeking to snatch electoral victory out of the jaws of probable defeat, have hoped that the TUC leaders would behave like fools and determine to decline to talk with him and his ministers because of their opposition to his administration's prices and incomes policy. The TUC, invited by some of its hot-heads to abandon its customary hard-headed prudence, preferred to re-assert its commonsense, which tells it never to lose sight of its affiliated members' interests and never to abandon its claim to be one of the estates of the realm. At the same time, it looked ahead and realised that if it behaved itself, and made it impossible for the Prime Minister to go to the country on some trumped-up issue like "Who is to govern Britain?" then more likely than not the Labour Party would be returned to power by an electorate rather more fed up with Mr Heath than with Mr Wilson. Thus one of the most remarkable aspects of last week's TUC at Blackpool was the political maturity displayed. Mr Jack Jones, in particular —now, with the departure of Mr Vic Feather, very much the central figure —continually busied himself with seeing to it that nothing was done which would endanger a Labour victory and that everything was done which could help to bring that victory about. He and his fellow general councillors of the TUC saw to it that it was the responsible — and therefore acceptable — face of trade unionism which was publicly on show last week.
It is in the light of this that the decision not to join the Common Market institutions is best seen. Mr Jones's argument in favour of talking with the Government was now turned against him. Mr Alf Allen of the distributive workers, urging the TUC to join, work with and nominate members for all committees, institutions and organisations with which it was entitled to participate within the EEC, was in a strong debating position. Everybody knew about the evils of the Common Market, he argued, but for better or for worse Britain was in it and no vote of the TUC could do anything about it. Earlier in the week Congress had voted to allow members to defend themselves in the NIRC and to appear before the Pay Board. For unions to refuse to defend themselves when attacked by the same employers in Europe was "plumb crazy" went this line of attack. Those opposed to ending the boycott argued in reply that to join the EEC institutions was a step towards accepting entry, that it would be the thin end of the wedge, and that in practice it would add to the confusion within the Labour movement. Thus Mr Harry Urwin, of Mr Jones's Transport Workers, pointed out that the Labour party had decided that the British people should be allowed to go to the ballot box on EEC membership and, in the meantime, had refused to prejudice this by taking part in European institutions. On a card vote participation in Europe was rejected by 4,922,000 votes to 4,452,000, and immediately afterwards delegates declared their general opposition to British membership of the EEC overwhelmingly. That opposition was never in doubt; but the Eurocrats had hoped, and expected, that their subtle move to secure de facto acceptance of EEC membership through participation in EEC institutions would most satisfactorily from their point of view have fudged the issue and have preserved Labour confusion.
What is important about the TUC decision is that this characteristic Eurocrat manoeuvre was, albeit narrowly, defeated. It was, moreover, defeated in a context in which the TUC was behaving responsibly with a view towards securing a Labour victory at the general election. The TUC decision should ensure that the Labour Party, at its conference next month, will itself continue with its policy of boycotting the institutions of the EEC and will also continue with its slow process of ridding itself ofambiguities in its policy towards the EEC: a process that surely must result in a commitment, explicit or implicit, to repudiate the Treaty of Rome. The opposition of the public to the Common Market grows steadily. Those who were always opposed have their fears confirmed and their repugnance of the Brussels set-up justified, those who were unsure now move towards outright opposition, and many of those who once were in favour have become unsure and full of grave doubts. Even the idealists are silent, aware that their ringing voices would now sound shrill and hysterical if they gave tongue. The Trades Union Congress, in the first of the major political conferences of the new political season, has behaved wisely and moderately in responding to the best instincts of its members in refusing to have anything to do with the instituticris of the imitation state, the EEC. It has done so while dech 1, to have nothing to do with Mr Heath and the various inst„ations of our own democratic nation state. The effect of these two decisions is to give the Labour Party the opportunity of putting itself into better political shape than it has been at any time since the last election. The Labour Party conference next month should show us all whether Mr Wilson and his colleagues are capable of grasping the very great opportunity given to them by Mr Jones and his colleagues last week.
Previous page
