What kind of Europe, Mr Heath?
The Rome talks between the Foreign and Finance Ministers of the European Ten have ended with much mutual congratulations, and with a French acceptance that the proposed European summit should, after all, be held next month in Paris. This much is clear. Not much else is.
Although there is much to be said for secret diplomacy secretly arrived at, this is not the case when the topics of discussion concern the economic, monetary and political nature of the much trumpeted and heralded new Europe' which this country, along with Norway, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland, has been arranged to join on January 1 1973. It is not only the peoples of these applicant countries who are entitled to know what kind of 'new Europe ' is envisaged by the present and alternative leaders; but Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Dutchmen, Belgians and Luxembourgers also. At the end of the Rome talks, we do not know whether or not Britain will finally agree — whatever the risk to the economy — to return •to a fixed parity for the pound before January 1. All we know is that the Chancellor, Mr Barber, refused to promise that we would. We do not know whether the Rome agreement to establish a European Monetary Co-operation Fund is, or is not, intended to lead to a central European Bank issuing a single European currency and bringing about a full European monetary and economic union. We do not know whether President Pompidou's previousdemands that the proposed 'political secretariat' (about which we also know little) should be housed in Paris has been shelved, dropped or become part of a secret deal. We do not know what is meant by unofficial reports of an agreement in principle' that next month's summit should decide on a date by which arrangements for a directly elected European Parliament should be completed.
The confusion surrounding the Rome decisions, and their meanings is reflected in the editorial comments made by our 'serious' daily newspapers : the Times describes the ' understanding ' to set up a European Monetary Fund as "at least a symbolic step forward" but adds "How far it goes in reality is not yet clear "; the Guardian, asking rhetorically "Do we want a hoop to the European barrel, or shall we risk its collapse into a pile of separate staves?" does not answer, but says "If a full union is not contemplated, it would be better to recognise that now "; and the Daily Telegraph, on Europe, if not on anything else, the most starry-eyed, was also the most bedazzled — "the greatest boon to this country, and indeed to the whole of Western Europe . . . in the long run will be yesterday's commitment to direct elections to the European Parliament . . . For Mr Heath the summit, if it happens, as now seems almost certain, will be symbolic of his long struggle to get Britain into Europe; for him and for the nation it could and should be a second Messina." It could also be a second Canossa.
We have been given no practical or ' pragmatic ' idea of what kind of Europe the Prime Minister envisages. He has talked in grandiose terms about the Europe of Charlemagne and of Napoleon which is disquieting enough — and those who saw this week's BBC programme of life under Hitler will have gained a true enough impression of what the last united Europe was like. The new Europe' will be different from the others, of course, better, richer, nicer. But does Mr Heath envisage a Europe in which sovereignty resides in a directly elected European Parliament, or does he not? Are his and his ministers" pragmatic ' policies directed towards that end? Or are they directed towards the retention of the nation-state, the enhancement of the powers of the Council of Ministers, and the inevitable extension of the Brussels bureaucracy which this entails? We do not know. It is not as if this distinction between the Parliamentarians and the Bureaucrats is fine, or academic. The particular set of practical, 'pragmatic' policies the Administration has pursued in Rome, will pursue in Paris and will day-in and day-out be pursuing in Brussels will only make sense if minds are pretty soon made up, and made known. Pragmatism,' which is said to have had a success in Rome, is not a policy but a method; and although muddling through' is supposed, like pragmatism, to be both a British characteristic and a virtue, it is nothing of the sort, but is instead the vice of men and of nations, who prefer the lazy Way of not making up their minds.
Mr Heath's energies, thus far, have been devoted to getting us into Europe; and it is understandable, given the country's hostility to the European venture and the deep Gaullist suspicions of the French, that this should have been so and hitherto he has kept silent, wishing neither to separate himself further from the people he governs nor to alarm unduly the chauvinist French. He cannot keep silent much longer, however; for otherwise, our Commissioners and Couneil members and Brussels bureaucrats will not know what they are supposed to be doing; the House of Commons will become resentful at being kept in the dark; and the condition of the Government and the Conservative Party in the country will further degenerate.
It may be that the Prime Minister's mind is open. Then let him initiate the new debate on what kind of Europe by saying so. It may be that he believes it is possible to conduct a wait and see' policy, keeping open options, and not yet deciding between the Parliamentarians and the bureaucrats, in the finest Wilsonian tradition. Then let the Prime Minister say so. It may be that he has already formed his mind. If so, then it is time he stated it. We do not know — nobody does — whether the European adventure will succeed or end in failure. If it should fail, as is most likely, then the shock could do us some good, and we must trust that the country will have retained sufficient resilience to bounce back. The greater danger is that it will succeed — or not be conceded to have failed. It is, thus, that confidence and vigilance will be required, to see that within Europe as much as possible of our institutions and traditions are preserved, that democratic procedures are not obliterated by bureaucratic ones, and, above all, that our liberties are safeguarded. This task will be unremitting. Those who have been opposed to the European policy cannot contract out of it, and sit around wailing and gnashing their teeth leaving the Eurofanatics with a clear field. At the same time, those advocates of entry, led by the Prime Minister, must declare, in practical terms, what kind of Europe they want and how, pragmatically or otherwise, they propose getting it.
Previous page
