Political commentary
Our own resources
Charles Moore
If you suffer from persecution mania, you will imagine that there is a conspiracy of silence among politicians on the subject of
the Common Market. Despite its declared opposition, which it repeated throughout the general election campaign, Labour never said anything very specific on the sub- ject, and now seems to be moving away from opposition altogether. The Liberals, blinded by superstition, fiddle with their rosaries as they kneel before the effigies of Monnet and Schumann. The Government scarcely mentions the subject, except for the occasions, several each year, when Mag- gie battles for our money i.e. tries to recoup a small proportion of the immense sums which we have already paid out.
But there is no conspiracy. The silence reflects the inability of almost anyone ex- cept those directly affected to take any in- terest in what the EEC spends its time and our money doing. That is what is so devil- ishly clever about it. If the main function of the Common Market had been to run the police force of every member state from of- fices in Brussels, it could not have lasted a fortnight against the protests of the elec- torate (although one can imagine a Euro- fanatic like Mr Hugh Dykes or Mr Russell Johnston arguing that the decline of our own police force was a price worth paying for the improvement of law and order in Greece). Instead, it invents agricultural prices, keeps the resulting surpluses in storage (2,750,000 tonnes in 1981, 5,773,000 tonnes of wheat in 1983), and sells some of it off cheap to Russia. There is a general sense that something is wrong, but when it comes to finding out what, a certain lassitude descends upon the political class. The few who actually know, and are object- ing, are looked at as bores by association with their chosen subject.
Britain has gone along with this for ten years, and might have done so for another ten but for the fact that the policy is so bad at managing itself that it now demands even more money to keep going. At present each country's main contribution is one per cent VAT. The EEC says it needs 1.4 per cent, and will demand it at the summit in Athens in early December.
Fortunately, the increase cannot be granted just like that. If it does not get the assent of all the member Parliaments, it falls. In the House of Commons, it is treated as a constitutional question, and so has to be taken on the floor of the House, giving opportunities for a filibuster and a good row. There is scarcely a single con- stitutional matter in recent years which has not caused trouble — Scottish and Welsh devolution, the Northern Ireland Assembly, even the repatriation of the Canadian constitution. This one promises to be the most troublesome that Mrs That- cher has faced.
Unlike Tories of the Heath era, this Government has not made a virtue of its Europeanism. The note is realism, the ideal is friendship, not unity. The readiness to fight has been much trumpeted, though not so conspicuously proved. Before the elec- tion, the Government spoke of the im- possibility of an increase in 'own resources' (the in-term for what we pay in). But more recently, it has said that it would consider such an increase if 'effective control' of the rate of increase of spending and a 'fair shar- ing of the financial burden' could be work- ed out. More recently still, it has implied that the granting of these conditions would virtually ensure British assent to the in- crease. These conditions need not mean very much. The spending on the Common Agricultural Policy increased by 40 per cent last year. Would 'effective control' mean reducing the rate to 39 per cent? As a preliminary position before the summit, the Government's demands look weak.
This is the second example, after Grenada, of the unhappiness of Sir Geof- frey Howe in his new position. At the Treasury, the calculations that had to be made were the sort that Sir Geoffrey likes making: they were mathematical and Sir Geoffrey's main job was to go on poin- ting out that the sums added up to the many dunces who claimed that they didn't. At the Foreign Office, Sir Geoffrey finds himself in a far more political position. Many of the calculations cannot be made on sheets of paper. The officials who surround him speak with great experience of the benefits of good relations with 'our community partners', of the importance of compromise and good manners, and Sir Geoffrey finds it difficult to cling on to the rather fierce and simple notions of national self-interest which are essential to keep in your head when bureaucrats all around you are losing theirs.
Nor is Sir Geoffrey a man of completely independent judgment. He has never been one of Mrs Thatcher's toadies, but neither has he been much of a politician in his own right. For more than four years, he has been extremely close to the Prime Minister and, not surprisingly, her character has dominated, Where Lord Carrington believ- ed that British foreign policy could be con- ducted without reference to anything so vulgar as public opinion or his Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey gives the impression of hanging about the prefect's study waiting to be sent off to occupy his time usefully. And in this matter, the prefect is ambiguous. When she stood for the Con- servative leadership, Mrs Thatcher went to see a group of anti-Market MPs and won the support of them all. She has never been mystical about the EEC. But in her dealings with it, she has been contented to be disagreeable rather than radical. She has en- joyed sitting up late asking for her money back (and being lauded in the papers for it), but she has not seriously set herself or anyone else to work on reforming the CAP. She has ignored its offence against her free market principles, and it is even possible that she sees in an adjustment of present budgetary arrangements a chance to direct more EEC money towards regional in- dustrial assistance in Britain, something to which her famous instincts are allegedly op- posed. And now that she has scurried about the world stage so long that she is the doyenne of the Community leaders, she is beginning to catch the diplomatic disease. It is all 'Helmut' and 'Francois' and top-level conferences, and a readiness to acquiesce in systems which have given her prominence for so long. To be sure, paying out more money would be disagreeable, but would it be as disagreeable as cross words with democratic allies?
She may not yet have taken in how cross will be the words on her own back benches. Mr Teddy Taylor's Conservative European Reform Group can count on the support of about 40 MPs. A far larger number has no love for the EEC and, thanks to the land- slide, sits for suburban or urban seats where the protectionism of rich farmers does not influence Tory constituency associations. Of the 100 or so new members, at least half must know that they have no immediate prospect of a government job, and so have little to lose. The rebels can call on the skills of men like Mr Tony Marlow to do the shouting and Mr Nicholas Budgen to act as whip in reverse. There will be resignations, certainly at a junior level. Labour, however it may be edging away from pure anti-Mar- ketism, will be delighted at the mess. Mr Powell, of course, will muck in; and is it unimaginable that Dr Owen's SDP, free of Jenkinsite Europeanism, will exploit a mat- ter which is bound to divide the Tories?
It is difficult to see what arguments, other than 'loyalty' of course, the Govern- ment will be able to deploy to convince its backbenchers. The number of out-and-out Tory Marketeers is now tiny. It does not in- clude Mr Edward du Cann, and therefore cannot rig the 1922 Committee. Everything that this Government has said, when speak- ing of general political principles, commits it to oppose protectionism. Most of what it aims to do marks a departure from what its predecessor in 1970-74 did. Although the question to be decided is financial in con- tent, it cannot avoid presenting itself in political and constitutional terms. If Mrs Thatcher is not careful, she will be humiliated for something in which she has no real faith. She would not enjoy falling in defence of Mr Heath's most famous legacy.
Previous page
