POLITICS
Is Ken Clarke trying to wreck the Government or does he just not care?
BRUCE ANDERSON Knneth Clarke's motives are now the most important factor in British electoral politics. The question exercising many of his colleagues is whether they are dealing with malice or with insouciance: is Ken determined to make it impossible for John Major to win the next election, or does he simply not care? The answer lies some- where in between. Mr Clarke would be happy to win the election, as long as it were on his own, Euro-federalist terms. When he is told that these would be unacceptable to at least 90 per cent of Tory MPs (Nick Bon- sor spoke for the majority of his col- leagues), activists and supporters, his response is a defiant shrug. He may not have made his strategy explicit in his own mind — he is a biffer rather than a schemer — but he is acting as if he has decided to bully the Prime Minister and the Tory Party. I don't care if I am in a small minori- ty, he seems to be saying, there are enough of us to wreck the rest of you unless you do what we want.
Such is the distrust of Mr Clarke in many Conservative circles now, that another expla- nation for his behaviour is being given cre- dence. It may be that, having lost hope of becoming Prime Minister, he has switched his ambition to a Euro-Commissionership. Mr Blair would be more likely to make that appointment than Mr Major would.
But whether out of ambition, recklessness or malevolence, Kenneth Clarke is acting in the great tradition of Tory Euro-fanatics, from Ted Heath in the early 1970s to the so- called grandees last week. For three decades, these high-minded gentlemen have regarded themselves as custodians of the national interest and practitioners of an honourable form of politics far above rancorous partisan- ship. In keeping with such exalted endeav- ours, they have always displayed two charac- teristics: intellectual dishonesty and a con- tempt for the British electorate.
For 30 years, they have systematically misled the voters. In the run-up to acces- sion, Mr Heath denied that British mem- bership of the EEC would involve loss of sovereignty; he now claims that he was a federalist all along. A few months ago, Mr Clarke insisted that there would be no con- stitutional implications if we were to join a single currency — an argument which he knows to be preposterous. His main reason for supporting a single currency is that it would help build the federal Europe of his dreams, in which Westminster would be reduced to the status of a county council. When it comes to the constitution, as on other matters, Kenneth Clarke seems to agree with Tony Blair. Both of them obvi- ously think that they can say what they like about the constitution, because such debates are above the heads of most voters.
The grandees' letter adopted the same approach, both in its patronising and its misleading aspects. Rarely has such a short document contained so many bogus argu- ments. The authors began by invoking Churchill. While they were too crafty to claim that he was in favour of British mem- bership of a united Europe — they and their friends have tried that before, and been nailed by quotations proving the opposite — they did use him as cover, for purposes he would have repudiated. They went on to use the words 'enterprise' and 'patriots', in defence of policies that would stifle British enterprise and end our inde- pendence. Theirs is the enterprise of Mr Benn's National Enterprise Board; their patriotism is the patriotism of Vichy. Our grandees were using words in a deliberate, Orwellian inversion of their meaning.
They went on to argue that Britain should have joined the Common Market at its out- set. They might be surprised to find that a number of Euro-sceptics agree with them. If we had joined Europe at the beginning, we could have used our prestige to shape its institutions differently. We might have been able to prevent the French from capturing the Commission, and we would have tried to ensure that Europe remained a Common Market rather than a political union. By not joining at the start we gave the French 15 years to consolidate their psychological hold over the Germans and to pursue their vision of Europe as a French jockey on a German horse. We also gave the Germans 15 years to become accustomed to the notion that they could only expiate their war guilt by obeying the French. Ever since we did join Europe, we have found ourselves swept along by a hostile momentum; if we had been a founder member, we might have been able to prevent its creation.
The grandees seem to be arguing that because we did not join at the outset, we ought now to join the single currency. On the contrary: one reason for joining then was to stifle the single currency at birth. We have failed to prevent Europe from devel- oping in ways hostile to British interests but that is no reason to surrender to it now that it has.
The grandees' attitude to the British peo- ple is that of a mother towards a fractious child with a temperature whom she has at last tricked into taking his medicine: 'There, there, that wasn't so bad, now, was it?' Some of the six men have served their country in war; all of them did in peace- time. How odd, then, and how dishearten- ing that they should have so little reverence for its history, so little love for its freedoms, so little respect for its people. Like most extremists, they also want to sabotage the middle ground. The implication of their letter is that anyone opposed to a single cur- rency is in favour of withdrawal from Europe. That is not true. There is no contra- diction in supporting free trade and political co-operation, while rejecting federalism and a single currency; in being an enthusiastic European of l'Europe des patties. Ted Heath and Teddy Taylor both think that they have nothing in common; they are wrong. Both men believe that it is impossible to be a good European without being a federalist. But not only does the Prime Minister disagree with them, a majority of the British people agree with him.
Unfortunately for the Tories' prospects, the PM is not doing enough to articulate that majority view. It is easy to understand why Mr Major is reluctant to talk about Europe: he fears that it would cause trou- ble. He also believes that he has made his position clear, and so he has. But there is one problem. Nobody else has noticed.
There is no way to prevent Europe from becoming an issue at the election, so the campaign will be a disaster unless Mr Major acts now, not only to expound his own views, but to impose them on the rest of his Cabinet. This does not necessarily mean that he has to force a breach with Ken Clarke. It is too late now to change the agreed line on a single currency; all that can be done is to forbid Ken from adding his own federalist gloss. But would Ken agree to be forbidden?
There is no question that he would be a grave loss to the Government, possibly a fatal one. But if he were to rebel during the election campaign, the fatal consequences would be inescapable. It would be a desper- ate choice, but if it has to be made, a possible fatality is preferable to an inevitable one.
Previous page
