NO CONSENT, NO ENTRY
The vote in the House of Commons in favour of the principle of acceding to the Treaty of Rome can be construed, and will be by some so construed, as a demonstration of that "full-hearted consent" of the British Parliament which was declared by Mr Heath to be necessary before this country could join the Common Market. Last week's Commons majority was a very evanescent one, and a very peculiar one also. Mr Heath and the Conservative party managers had to resort to the expedient of a free vote, and to depend upon the support of the Labour party's dissident Jenkinsites, in order to establish that, on one day in late October 1971, the House of Commons yielded a substantial pro-Market majority. No such majority will ever be obtained again; and while in politics it is perfectly fair for the marketeers to claim that they have won a famous battle, it is very foolish of them to pretend that they have won the war.
There are already faint-hearts among the anti-marketeers who see the lost battle as the lost war, and who have in consequence given up the fight. But enough Conservatives are standing firm in their opposition to British entry into the Common Market for it to be impossible for Mr Heath to sustain his European policy without support from the Labour party's dwindling band of rebels. This, together with the failure of the marketeers, despite the great amount of public and private funds at their disposal and despite the overwhelmingly pro-Market attitude of the press and the pro-Market bias in television, to persuade the public to support the European policy, has produced a unique situation in British politics which might well persist for at least another year.
Mr Neil Marten, the Conservative anti-marketeer, has pointed out in a letter to the Times that only 56.5 per cent of members of Parliament voted in favour of entry. It is improbable that now more than half of the Commons can be drummed up in support. The majority which looked so powerful and decisive last week will never again be assembled; and it is impossible for Mr Heath, or anyone else, to claim with justification that the Commons has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate "full-hearted consent ". We redirect everyone's attention to the words used by Mr Heath in Paris in May last year : ' " These " — the negotiations begun by the Labour government and subsequently continued by the Conservative government — "are not only or even essentially transactions between governments, and the Community must remember that its enlargement should not take place except with the full-hearted consent of the parliaments and peoples of the new member countries." Even if, last week, the appearance of the full-hearted consent of Parliament was obtained, such consent no longer exists; and the full hearted consent of the people of the country not only has not been obtained but at no recent time has it existed.
There can be little doubt that the performance of the Commons last week will cause further damage to the repute of Parliament and of politicians among the public. The manifest inability of the Commons to reflect public opinion, the contempt shown by many elitist socialists in particular for such public opinion, and the spectacle of an obstinate and doctrinaire Prime Minister pressing on with a policy rejected by the majority of the country despite his own previous insistence upon "the fullhearted consent" of Parliament and people, cannot but lower yet further the esteem in which Parliament and the parliamentary system is held. This may turn out to be the most damaging of all the effects of the present dangerous political situation created by the European adventurers.
Ways are, however, open to the Prime Minister by which he could consult the people and establish whether or not the full-hearted consent exists. So long as the Labour party officially supported entry, there was no way in which a general election could be held in which the question of entry would be the predominant issue. Now that the Labour party opposes entry on the terms negotiated, an election fought on the issue, and during which Mr Heath specifically sought a mandate for entry, could be held. It would be constitutionally proper for Mr Heath to seek such a mandate. There is, however, no need for him to put the Conservative government at risk should he or his chief advisors prefer not to do so. In the unique political situation of both government and opposition parties divided on this major issue, of a government sill)" ported by dissident opposition members, and where, clearly, the people have a right to be consulted so that their " fullhearted consent" may be obtained, and where the policy proposed Is irrevocable, then as an alternative to a general election no serious objection could any longer be made to a referendum.
Parliament has had its confused say; the people have not had theirs. If Mr Heath is prepared to hold neither .9 general election nor a referendum, It can only be because he does not believe he would succeed in either — in other words, that Mr Heath knows that hIs policy so far as this country is CO cerned does not command that "fu hearted consent of the peoples and parliaments " which he held to be a Pre,: requisite for entry. If and until sig." full-hearted consent is obtained, and If and until Parliament has voted through each and every piece of necessary legis. lation, it is the duty of everyone, inside Parliament and out, who has not been vouchsafed the European vision t° remain implacably opposed to a policY undemocratically arrived at, undemocratically pursued, inimical to the country's interests, destructive of lts liberties and privileges and culture, socially and politically divisive, and destined, if carried through without consent, to failure.
Previous page
