Political Commentary

Blast-off or bust in Europe

John Grigg

On Monday and Tuesday of next week the EEC heads of government will be meeting in Brussels to take, or not to take, vital decisions about the European Parliament. lithe decisions are positive, the European Community will enter a new phase of immense difficulty but also incalculable scope. If they are negative, it is hard to see how there can be any future for the Community.

What has to be decided is, above all, the total number of seats in a directly elected European Parliament, and the number to be allotted to each member nation. The principle of direct elections is already agreed, but unless there can be agreement on size and composition the principle will die, and with it , sooner or later, the dream of a united Europe.

The British Government rightly insists that the European Parliament should be large enough to allow representation for British regions, or component nationalities, on a scale roughly equivalent to that of the small nations of the EEC. This means a total of between 350 and 420 seats, with about sixty-five to eighty for Britain.

But the French Government has hitherto opposed the idea of an enlarged Parliament, and the difference of opinion was not resolved during M. Giscard d'Estaing's recent state visit. There is, however, considerable optimism that the French will relent next week, using their strong bargaining position to extract last-minute concessions in other spheres of policy.

If the heads of government agree, then their decisions will have to go to national parliaments for ratification, and each country will have to work out its own system of voting for the first European elections to be held, it is hoped. in May or June 1978. Which system to use is already a matter of controversy in Britain, and the argument is likely to get more acute.

A projection of the existing British system on the basis of much larger constituencies would certainly penalise the Liberals, because even in the West Country it would be hard to form a single-area constituency of, say, half a million voters in which the Liberal candidate would have a good chance of being first past the post. But the ingenious David Butler further argues that even the governing party of the day might find itself grossly underrepresented if the European elections took place at a time when there was a mid-term antigovernment swing such as very often occurs.

The case for some kind of proportional system is, therefore, clearly strong. But is it strong enough to overcome the fear that its use for European elections would soon lead to its adoption for internal purposes? The answer is that since the two Parliaments are fundamentally different, and will remain so, there is no reason why a voting system suitable for one should ever be thought suitable for the other.

The British Parliament is one from which governments are formed and to which they are responsible, and it is consequently right that it should be elected by a system biased in favour of big parties and against fragmentation. But there is no prospect of the European Parliament's ever conforming to the Westminster model. It is likely to develop rather more on the lines of the American Congress, with a permanent separation of powers between itself and any European executive that may emerge. So why not let it represent the people as fairly as possible ?

This argument was put forward by Sir Peter Kirk, MP, Conservative leader at Strasbourg, at a press conference last week. And essentially the same point was made by Keith Kyle in the Tinzes on 30 June, evoking the comment from David Butler quoted above.

The quest ion is of great importance, and should not be treated as a party question, or as a subject for disciplined voting within parties. When the time comes it should be settled by a free vote of the House of Commons.

The strongest reason of all for a proportional system is not, in fact, to ensure fair representation for existing parties, large or small—valid though that reason is— but rather to facilitate the election of independents. It is essential that Britain's European MPs should not all be typical contemporary British politicians, but that many should be political animals of a new sort.

Sceptics have been saying that those elected to the European Parliament will merely be peers or failed candidates for the House of Commons; in other words, a 'second eleven'. This would be utterly disastrous, but would indeed occur if the elections were completely dominated by the party machines. Under the single transferable vote system, however, independents would have a better chance to win.

The sort of candidates who should be encouraged to stand for the European Parliament are people with first-hand knowledge of Continental countries, ability to speak well at least one other language of the Community, and a faith in the future of Europe which could influence, even inspire, the electorate. Such people exist, but most of them have been too busy or too bored by the domestic ding-dong to involve themselves in British parliamentary politics. It is essential that our first European MPs should be an outstanding team and not just a job lot. The French have a saying: nest que le premier pas qui coute'. If we get off on the wrong foot the game will probably be lost.

Too much concern is being shown that there should be a close tie-up between national Parliaments and the directlyelected European Parliament. But surely the closer the tie-up the less effective the European Parliament will be as a constituent assembly for the future, truly united. Europe. This cannot be a replica of the American federation (de Gaulle looked forward to a confederation) but must, in however novel a way, achieve genuine unity of action and decision.

What is needed is not too much collusion, but rather creative tension, between the new European Parliament and national parliaments and governments. But this presupposes a European Parliament containing some of the best brains and most ardent spirits in Europe, with ever-growing popular support in their home constituencies.

During the first six months of next year we shall have a special prominence in the Community, with Britain occupying the two key posts of President of the Commission and President of the Council of Ministers. If there is any tension between these two men, we must hope that it, too, will be creative.

There is little doubt that the President of the Commission will be Roy Jenkins (and the matter may be formalised in the course of next week). He will not be quite the first politician to hold the job, but by far the most distinguished and widely known.

His name already carries weight in Europe. Only three Britons have so far received the Charlemagne Prize. One is Mr Jenkins. The others are Mr Heath and Sir Winston Churchill.

Even his enemies grudgingly admit that Mr Jenkins has never failed in any of the jobs he has held. Of course he has made some mistakes, but on the whole his ministerial record has been exceptionally good. It would be contrary to form, therefore, if he were to bungle his new opportunity.

The British President of the Council of Ministers will (unless there is a change of government) presumably be either Anthony Crosland or Denis Healey. Neither can be described as ideally equipped for diplomacy, since both have an arrogance which, in different ways, is rather too apt to show. Moreover, both have a competitive relationship with Mr Jenkins dating from Oxford days.

Yet Mr Crosland has so far been a much better Foreign Secretary than he was generally expected to be, and Mr Healey has the advantage of being (by British standards) an unusually proficient linguist. Since their claims to the external post are just about evenly balanced, the clinching consideration might be that Mr Crosland would be the better Chancellor of the Exchequer.