SPECT THE AT OR The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL
Telephone 01-405 1706; Telex 27124; Fax 242 0603
NON!
o uninterested are the British in the politics of the EEC that few of us under- stood Mrs Thatcher's speech in Bruges for what it in part was — her first shot in the campaign for the elections to the European Parliament. The Prime Minister may not care much for the assembly in Strasburg, but she cares quite passionately about victory for her party in any contest. This accounts for the tough tone of the speech and particularly for the way in which it was presented to the press. She was said to have 'roughed up' the EEC, something which the British electorate likes.
Mrs Thatcher obviously hopes that the campaign begun in Bruges will succeed in getting Tories of all descriptions to turn out for the European elections. Those suspi- cious of the Common Market will he reassured by her insistence on continuing national independence. Pro-marketeers will be able to find a commitment to staying in the EEC. She has covered the Tory flank. The strictest anti-marketeers (and the bored majority) may abstain. They will not vote Labour.
As a piece of electioneering, then, Mrs Thatcher's continental performance was skilful and unexceptionable. Why did so many people take exception to it? The Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, was furious, 'as were the Euro-chancelleries.
One detects in the reaction the anger of an official class which had congratulated itself too early on having won round an awkward customer. For years Mrs Thatch- er employed an almost rhetorical device in her arguments with the EEC. Work to- wards a genuine common market, she said, and we shall raise fewer objections to your spending. Over the past two years, the Single Market of 1992 seemed to convince her that she was getting her way. Lord Young stuck lots of businessmen on post- ers to talk about it. Lord Cockfield frantic- ally harmonised. Brussels began to believe that Mrs Thatcher would come quietly.
• Just in time, however, she noticed the political implications of the reforms for which, in a rather vague way, she had been calling. M. Jacques Delors incautiously explained how he wanted to run virtually everything. Suddenly it seemed that the sort of control that she likes — frontier, immigration, her own — would disappear and the sort she hates — labour law, health and safety, exchange — would be imposed. The breaking down of barriers seemed to involve the erection of a fence of new regulations, regulations, what is more, that she could not alter.
So Mrs Thatcher is asking the EEC the question which it most dislikes: What do you mean by what you say? 'Europeans' will always deny, for instance, that they want a United States of Europe, and yet their ideas for the central direction of affairs from Brussels and the enlarging of the power of the European Parliament tend towards just such a conclusion. They always say how much they respect the diversity of European experience and cul-
ture, but never explain how that diversity could not be diminished by the downgrad- ing of existing national institutions, the standardisation of weights and measures, the uniformity of rules. They proclaim their belief in free trade, yet support a ludicrous subsidy of agriculture, an extra- vagant regional policy and the creation of an EEC trade bloc that would be protec- tion on a colossal scale.
And in asking these questions Mrs Thatcher was right to invite criticism of her tone.' For it is the tone — evasive, gener- alising, vague — which is so maddening in so much discussion of the EEC. If the Prime Minister seeks to play the role of de Gaulle she is right to adopt his most successful method — a stiff-necked awkwardness that drives everyone else nearly to despair. Her tone should he insistent, strident, tiresome, which, after all, is the sort of tone she is best at.
Mrs Thatcher's speech at Bruges made clear the limits of her European ideal. She affirmed her belief in the unity of Euro- pean civilisation, but rejected the idea of a community of political aspiration compara- ble to that of the United States. She talked of the 'Atlantic Community', not the EEC, as 'our noblest inheritance and our greatest strength'. She emphasised the need for economic liberty rather than the dissolu- tion of the independent, sovereign state. All these are beliefs which are widely shared in Britain and it is interesting that many on the Continent should object to them. It will also be interesting to see whether Mrs Thatcher will be as firm in making practical British decisions about the EEC on the basis of these beliefs as she is in stating them in general terms. The story until now has been of stirring declara- tions, followed by actual results distress- ingly satisfactory to Brussels.
THIS week, the price of The Spectator rises to £1.20. The new full annual subscription rate is £49.50. This is the first increase for two years. The Spectator has expanded its editorial content, and therefore its costs, over the period, but the chief reason for the increase is the much-publicised inabil- ity of our former editor to get rid of inflation.
Previous page
