POLITICS
An Italian Euro-summit is like a bus ride with the Marx brothers at the wheel
BRUCE ANDERSON
European summits usually end in agree- ment; momentum and mechanics alike drive them in that direction. In the weeks before their principals meet, hundreds of officials are sherpa-ing all over Europe. Areas of disagreement are identified, and then arbitrated or fudged. Everyone is aware of the theatrical maxim, that nothing requires so many rehearsals as spontaneity. The aim is to ensure that when the heads of government start talking, their discussions will proceed on invisible tramlines.
So, on previous form, there ought to be a deal over beef in Florence this weekend. On Wednesday morning, the two sides were not far apart. There were still problems over exports to third countries, the timetable for lifting the ban and the size of the cull. But none of these is insuperable. At similar stages on previous occasions, bigger ques- tions had been unresolved, and yet agree- ment was reached in time for the summit to proceed smoothly. It could happen again, given good will. But is there good will?
The two sides feel hard done by; each accuses the other of bad faith — and they are both sincere. With some justice, the Europeans feel that we mishandled the ear- lier phases of the beef degringolade. They insist that we are now indulging in black- mail, which is not only a dreadful way to do EU business and creates a lamentable precedent, it is also unnecessary. A solution could have been found by the normal meth- ods; there was no need for the British to paralyse the EU's affairs, and it would be morally wrong if they were allowed to profit from doing so. These feelings are widespread in other European capitals.
In London, there is a different perspec- tive. The EU's panic-stricken reaction is blamed for inflaming the problem; if French and German producers are suffer- ing, it is their governments' fault for over- reacting. We also believe that some Euro- peans saw an opportunity to steal our export markets.
As for blackmail, we are by no means the first government to put pressure on the EU in this way. If we had not been so bloody- minded, we would have been fobbed off with assurances for months if not years. Now the Commission has come with a framework document, as we always said it should. If everyone is sensible, we should be able to sort things out in the first session at Florence, and then resume normal service. It might happen that way, but there are a lot of injured feelings in Europe. We will be pressing for concessions over and above the Commission proposals; other governments will be grumbling that the Commission has been too generous. Mutually contradictory self-righteousness is a better basis for recrimination than for compromise.
If there is a breakdown in Florence, seri- ous consequences could ensue. The British non-co-operation tactic was focused on this summit: if it continues beyond Florence, there are no imminent deadlines. We could be in for a summer and autumn of mount- ing exasperation. Some would argue that this is the worst possible preparation for the forthcoming intergovernmental confer- ence: others, the best.
Those who are keen to bring this whole phase to an early end regret the fact that the Italians are in charge of this summit. The host country is responsible for much of the preparatory work, and in that respect the Italians are easily the least competent of the major EU governments. Then again, Italian government is an oxymoron. Andreotti was once asked whether there could be a coup d'etat in Italy. 'No,' he replied. 'There is no &at.' Italian Euro- arrangements have often borne Andreotti out. Carlos Westendorp, a senior Spanish diplomat, once compared an Italian-run summit to a bus journey with the Marx brothers doing the driving. His remark reached the press, but unattributed. The Italians were furious and blamed the British, who were, for once, innocent. Mar- garet Thatcher and Charles Powell had oft thought the same as Sefior Westendorp, but ne'er so well expressed it. It may be that by the end of this weekend the Italians will have refuted these monstrous slurs on their reputation. It may be that they will have confirmed them.
If so, the Italians will provide amusement not only to those of us who enjoy mocking their politics, but to another group of whom they equally disapprove: Tory Eurosceptics. A lot of Tory MPs would like nothing more that a slow deterioration of our relations with Europe. If there is a deal, some of them will be vexed and regretful. Should Mr Major bring back an agreement from Flo- rence, he will face a strange coalition of crit- ics. There will be European governments determined to insist that no concessions have been made to the British, and that our tactics were as unsuccessful as they were dis- graceful. Then there will be Robin Cook, who has already prepared two responses. If there is no deal, condemn the Government for its incompetent diplomacy. If an agree- ment is reached, condemn it as a sell-out. He will slip from one position to the other as easily as he moves between television stu- dios. Finally, there are the Tory Eurosceps, some of whom are at least as keen as Robin Cook is to fmd fault with any agreement.
The PM is, as usual, intent on a middle course. He is determined not to allow the beef issue to broaden, and to arrive at a deal which concentrates on the original problems. But he feels that Britain has been wronged, and is not prepared to settle for anything which does not put that right.
On Wednesday, Mr Major made a speech in which he reminded everyone that there was a Europe beyond beef. He linked two issues: the enlargement of the EU and the future of its economy. On both, he insisted that the British position was in Europe's best interests. The original challenge the Common Market faced was the rebuilding of shattered economies and institutions so that Western Europe could not only recover from the war; it could banish the fear of future wars between its member nations. Now that this phase of the EU's develop- ment has been so successful, there is a new and equal challenge; to help the emergent states of Central and Eastern Europe towards stability and prosperity. Anyone who prefers navel-gazing in Brussels or Strasbourg to that great task is not defend- ing the European ideal, but betraying it.
There is a similar antithesis on the econo- my. Mr Major would argue that Europe cannot work unless Europeans are working. We had the Thatcherite reforms of the Eighties — not that he mentioned her name — they had the social chapter. So we are creating jobs while they are losing them. It was a powerful argument and Mr Major will no doubt convince himself that he has finally dealt with those who accuse him of not making himself clear. If so, he Is likely to be disappointed, partly because much of his general message will be inaudi- ble against the background noise from Flo- rence. While it would be foolish to predict the outcome of Florence with any confi- dence, there is one point on which we can be certain. John Major will have to return to the theme of Europe, again and again.
Previous page
