POLITICS
Coming soon to a theatre near you: The Secret Views of Walter Major
SIMON HEFFER
Labour said it proved the unreliability of the Prime Minister, but a more benign interpretation can be put on it. Perhaps Mr Major was so uplifted by the wonder- ment of Thurber's story that he completely forgot which film he was watching, being transported instead in his imagination to a room stuffed with Tory grandees in double- breasted waistcoats and silk old school ties.
`Major,' barked the Grandissimo, 'we have decided you are the only man we can rely on to take Britain to the heart of Europe. Will you do it for us?'
`But Britain is an offshore island!'
`This is no time for 0-level geography. We're talking metaphors here. Will you save your country?'
Will I have time to win the Gulf war, conquer inflation, and re-admit South Africa to international cricket first?'
`Only if you hurry, Major. Thank God. We knew we could depend on you.'
And, no doubt, as he left the Cabinet room — or perhaps it was just the Alham- bra, Coldharbour Lane — he could hear the unrelenting to pockets, pocketa of the European train moving inevitably to its fed- eral destination.
Reality, though, is about to take over from fantasy. In the next few days Mr Major faces the two most difficult tests of his career. Next Monday and Tuesday, in the less taxing of these trials, he must seek to negotiate new EEC treaties on econom- ic, monetary and political union that will, in the words of the ineffable Mr Brian Walden to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Sunday, please both Margaret Thatch- er and Helmut Kohl. Then, having failed to do that, he must (in the second and more exercising trial) return to the House of Commons and explain himself to the likes of Mr Norman Tebbit, Mr Nicholas Ridley, Mr Nigel Lawson and other titans of his party: and must do all this, of course, well within range of the iron-plated handbag.
No one knows what deal Mr Major is preparing to do at Maastricht. After the meeting of finance ministers in Brussels last Monday, when Britain (in a joyously nostalgic moment) found herself isolated 11-1 on the opt-in clause to the single cur- rency, the briefing was that Mr Major might well not be able to sign. Back at Westminster, though, among MPs of all parties, the view was that Mr Major would shout and scream before signing whatever was put in front of him. He says, though, that he will not sign a treaty that is bad for Britain. Compared with this welter of infor- mation and disinformation, the attempt to discover what films were on in Lambeth in 1962 becomes positively scientific.
So far Mr Major has proved an honest man, so we must trust him and believe him. But trust is a complicated thing. Last week, it was whispered by some close to the Prime Minister that he now recognised there was no 'downside' to coming back from Maastricht not having signed. When your correspondent put this to a Euro-scep- tical Minister of the Crown, the Minister laughed to an inch this side of rupture. He told the tale of three Tory backbenchers, one left, one right, one centre. If each were asked whether he had recently spoken to the Prime Minister, they would all probably reply 'yes'. This would be the truth, since Mr Major is far more assiduous than his predecessor when it comes to propitiating the mental porridge that passes for his loyal rank-and-file parliamentary troops. Howev- er, the three backbenchers would then, the Minister added, all confide in their inter- locutor that during the course of their chat with Mr Major he had given them clear indications that he was on their side.
The problem is, of course, that the time is coming when Mr Major has to make his final choice of sides. He will also be making a choice of enemies; his peers at the head of the other European governments, or the siren voices of anti-federalism in the Con- servative party at home. The choice, and its consequences, are of great import. The choice must be made at a time when the party is short of strong leadership. Some in
the Government find this most upsetting; and have become so rattled that the tremors could almost be measured on a seismograph. Crude smears have been launched against papers and commentators who point up the deficiencies of the Gov- ernment's position, leading one to hope (sadly, one suspects, in vain) that such robust tactics will characterise the actual negotiations with our so-called partners. One senior Tory MP who spoke sharply in the Commons last week about the short- comings of the policy on the national ques- tion was harangued (entirely ineffectively) by the Whips afterwards. Silliest of all, Conservative Central Office and Downing Street have been having hysterics about a letter in last Friday's Daily Telegraph from 25 prospective parliamentary Tory candi- dates, supporting the Prime Minster's toughness in the European negotiations, and standing up for sovereignty. Rather than display signs of panic that the candi- dates were rocking the boat, the party would have been better advised to take the support at face value. It was surprising that all this fuss was made about followers of the party line, and yet there was none about an advertisement by the European Movement, signed by several Tory MPS, calling for federal defence, foreign and eco- nomic policies of the sort Mr Major abhors. Perhaps it is the reaction to that last point — or lack of it — that gives the greatest clue to what Mr Major's secret views really are. There are some close to him who say he would like a rebellion in his party over Europe because (a) it would not be very large and (b) he could appear to be awfully tough by crushing it. On the second point Machiavelli took an identical view, but lest the modern Tory party be unduly influenced by that precedent it should he remembered that 15th-century princes did not have to fight general elections or make other unpleasantly democratic gestures. It may be that Mr Major sees next week's events as his golden opportunity to estab- lish himself, break with the past, lay down the law, or any of the other similar cliches that will make us think he is a visionary leader. He can take either route — signing or not signing — to this goal of self-fulfil- ment. He should bear in mind, though, that when he hears the to pocketa, pocketa of the firing squad, it will not necessarily be he who is giving the order to shoot.
Previous page
