POLITICS
Testing Mrs Thatcher for EEC positive
NOEL MALCOLM
In the eyes of her critics, of course, she has never had positive proposals to offer on Europe — only hostile reactions to the proposals of others. Mr Heath has attacked her for 'negative nagging' (to which she rather chirpily replied that no, it was positive nagging), and has described her insistence on knowing what people mean by 'political union' as a classic delaying tactic. It is `foolish' to 'harp on' about the meanings of terms — a view which will make many of us feel that we got off quite lightly by having Mr Heath as a prime minister, when God might have made him our solicitor instead. But without sharing his view of Mrs Thatcher's motives, one must agree that some solid counter- proposals would greatly strengthen her case.
For years it has appeared as if the only coherent plans for the future came from the federalists. What their programme has always involved is the accumulation of powers by European institutions — the European Parliament, Commission and Court of Justice — and the whittling down of the rights of national governments, above all by abolishing the right of veto in the Council of Ministers. There have been different versions of this programme, de- pending on how one settles the competing claims of the Parliament and the Commis- sion; one popular current version, con- tained in the plan which Belgium submit- ted to the Dublin summit, has the Presi- dent of the Commission elected by the Parliament. But whichever way they rejig the proposals, the basic pattern of argu- ment remains the same. Each time a Euro-institution gains power, national in- stitutions lose it. In the circumstances, it would be under- standable if the plans of the anti-federalists amounted to nothing more than blocking motions. But they have done better than that. In Britain at least, the last six months have seen a ferment of new thinking about Europe in the anti-federalist camp, un- matched by anything the federalists have put forward. As Mrs Thatcher makes up her mind about the next steps in Europe, pamphlets published by three different think-tanks will be sitting on her desk. One, by her former adviser Dr Oliver Letwin, is published by the Centre for Policy Studies; three separate studies by Dr Frank Vibert have been produced by the free-market Institute for Economic Affairs; and another pamphlet, by Dr Alan Sked (to be published this week) is issued by the Bruges Group which, although a non-party organisation, was founded to support the vision of Europe which Mrs Thatcher outlined in her Bruges speech.
These learned doctors all start from a set of assumptions that is close to Mrs Thatch- er's heart. They assume that the Single Market is of crucial importance, but that creating a free-trade zone does not mean creating a new political entity. They assume that democratic accountability works through national institutions. They assume, therefore, that the EEC is a treaty organisation between sovereign states, and that it should remain such.
But beyond those fixed points they diverge widely. Dr Letwin proposes a Europe consisting of an inner federal core (for those who want federalism) and a `wider community' (for those who don't). The problem with this view is not that it is out of touch with reality — it might well satisfy the desires of the EFTA and East European countries to join the Single Market — but that it is uncomfortably in touch with the designs of some of the federalists. When M. Delors proposes a Europe of concentric circles, and M. Mit- terrand mutters about a 'two-speed Europe', their reasoning is that in the long run an activist federal core would hold an advantage of power which it could use to draw the outer rings inwards, on its own terms. And they are probably right.
A similar problem besets the idea of `subsidiarity', which Foreign Office advis- ers have been toying with.
`Decisions should be made at a lower level unless they can better be made at a higher', runs the thumbnail version of the subsidiarity doctrine. But 'better' from whose point of view? The doctrine merely obscures that question without answering it, while enabling the power-seekers of the higher level to dress up their claims in terms of abstract 'efficiency' or 'co- ordination'.
As Dr Vibert points out, `no definition of subsidiarity has yet been put forward which provides the safeguards necessary and which could be enforced in constitutional law'. Just as any inner-outer distinction gives a hidden advantage to the inner core, so a higher- lower distinction leaves the advantage at the higher level.
Drs Vibert and Sked both want to strengthen the power and involvement of national institutions in Europe; but they go about it in different ways. Dr Vibert's most eye-catching proposal is to provide seats for British MEPs in the House of Lords, to help correct the 'Westminster deficit'. Dr Sked's solution is simpler, but even less likely to get off the ground: we should abolish direct elections to the European Parliament, and return to the system under which it was stocked with representatives from national parliaments.
In the end, it is hard for anti-federalists to avoid seeming negative on the subject of the Strasbourg parliament. That body is the key to the whole federalist project, since it is the one thing that bypasses national governments and bestows political legitimacy directly on a European govern- ment. The best Mrs Thatcher can hope for is to freeze the Strasbourg parliament's powers as they are, while strengthening the powers of the Council of Ministers. Dr Sked's work, which is certainly the boldest project now on offer for a new European constitution, contains some strong sugges- tions on how to transform the Council into a more powerful 'European Cabinet', and these may well supply Mrs Thatcher with the `positive' elements she needs. For the rhetorical need to sound positive is the most important thing. Instead of `political union', she should have insisted that the discussions be about `political reform'. While opening the options a little wider, that would have shown up the fact that it is her opponents who are criticising the present system, and she who is defend- ing it. Mrs Thatcher missed a trick there; but it may not be too late to win it back.
Previous page
