POLITICS
Mr Hurd discovers surprising similarities between Europe and a gentlemen's club
SIMON HEFFER
In late 1992, at the height of the argu- ments over the Maastricht Bill, some Tory MPs went to Brussels on a fact-finding trip. Even the enthusiasts for 'ever closer union' were alarmed by what they found. A British official at the Commission told them that the opt-out Britain had from the social chapter was of no consequence. He added that directives to force Britain to conform on social policy were ready for implementa- tion once the Treaty had been ratified.
On their return, the MPs sought assur- ances that this would not be the case. The ministers responsible, Messrs Hurd and Garel-Jones, said the opt-out was just that — and a great triumph for the Prime Min- ister. Later, when it seemed the Bill was in danger, the whips stressed that further loss of sovereignty was out. They pointed to the provision, under the Treaty, for a new round of inter-governmental conferences in 1996. There would, they said, be no more concessions until, and possibly not even, then. Maastricht was 'thus far and no fur- ther'.
It is against this background that Tory MPs — and not just traditionally rebellious ones — have become worked up about a possible dilution of Britain's power to block directives. Threats of a rebellion bigger than over Maastricht are not empty, as the Foreign Secretary's refusal to budge in Brussels on Tuesday showed he, and the Cabinet, understood. He has not won yet. Further talks are to be held next Tuesday, and a 'compromise' — i.e., a surrender of the principle that with one other big and one small country we can block anything we dislike — may yet happen. However, this show of resistance demonstrates how acute- ly aware the Government has become of the potential the European issue still has to wreck the Conservative Party.
In the present circumstances, Mr Hurd had no choice but to put up a fight, and assume the (for him) embarrassing position of Wielder of the Handbag of State. His party has been so damaged by its breach of promises since the election that even Major loyalists were making it clear that, for domestic political reasons, the promise that no more ground would be ceded before 1996 had to be observed. 'It's not so much the European angle of it that worries me,' one MP said. 'It's that you can't keep on going to the wall and making great histrion- ic shows of resistance, only to fold at the last minute. It doesn't do a lot for our cred- ibility.' Mr Hurd went to Brussels with Tories still seething about a directive on eligibility for maternity pay being forced on Britain last week. What those MPs were told in 1992 was now, despite pledges to the contrary, coming true.
The fight on voting rights has its origins in the British Presidency of the Community in the second half of 1992. The Presidency was deeply embarrassing, since it coincided with a period of failure by the Prime Minis- ter to stop public dissent among his nomi- nal supporters about his European policy. Looking for a 'triumph' at the Edinburgh Summit, he chose to champion enlarge- ment of the Community. In the silly metaphor of the moment, he wanted `widening' whereas others, of a more feder- alising bent, wanted 'deepening'. It now seems he might have opened the way to both, what we might call 'bottomless pit- ting'. 'It looked like a wheeze that couldn't fail,' says a sceptical MP. 'Getting more members in makes it look to the others as though you really believe in the institution. But getting more in also helps dilute the influence of Germany and France.'
Unfortunately, it can also dilute the influence of Britain, as Mr Hurd and Mr Major ha-, e found. Last week, Tory MPs were led to understand that the Foreign Office regarded fulfilment of Mr Major's crusade for enlargement as more important than preservation of voting rights. This worried a party already depressed by the drift in European policy since Maastricht was concluded. 'We're supposed to have made all these surrenders in the interests of getting more influence,' one MP said, tut I'm damned if I can see what good it's done us.' At the 1922 Committee meeting last week Mr Bill Cash and Mr Tony Marlow, both prominent in the anti-Maastricht cause, were cheered by more than just their cronies when they condemned the possibili- ty of compromise on voting arrangements.
Then, on Monday, just as Mr Hurd left for Brussels, Sir George Gardiner and Sir Tony Durant both stood for the leadership of the 107-strong 92 Group of centre-right Tory MPs. Sir George is known to disap- prove of the way Mr Major runs the Gov- ernment. He recently told him so in a meet- ing that allowed Mr Major the publicity coup of kicking Sir George out. Sir Tony, a former senior whip, is known to be deeply loyal to Mr Major. Sir George won com- fortably, receiving more than 60 of the hun- dred or so votes cast. Mr Major, noting the old divisions opening up again at a very bad time, hurriedly professed his recognition of the mood of the party on Europe. Mr Hurd went to Brussels with a mandate to fight, for the moment at least.
The Tory leadership is shaken by reports from whips, and from the grass roots, about how little concerned many in the party are about maintaining unity before the local and European elections. For Mr Hurd to roll over on the question of voting rights would have been — indeed might still be the last straw. His main consideration in this week's and, one imagines, next week's negotiations will be to do nothing that might change his party's violent apathy towards the European elections into hostil- ity against its own candidates.
The question of voting arrangements is so overwhelmed by domestic political con- siderations that the argument about whether or not a larger EC should require a larger number of votes to secure a veto has been lost. Certainly, Britain has only ever wanted enlargement if it could secure a veto on existing terms. But if four more members are joining the club, expanding its size by 33 per cent, it would seem logical that the requirements for a veto should rise proportionately; that is certainly how many gentlemen's clubs, and even the ultra-reac- tionary International Cricket Conference, operate. It may be distressing to admit that our partners have a point, but they do. Of course, we have only let them have that point by granting them the concession of qualified majority voting, started by Lady Thatcher but greatly and irresponsibly expanded by Mr Major in the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. If you hand over your sovereignty to other people, you can
Previous page
