Political Commentary
The charade of 'renegotiation'
Patrick Cosgrave
We are, as yet, nowhere near the climax of the great debate on Britain's membership of the European Economic Communities. The battle-lines have been drawn only roughly; and the public response is uncertain: I was speaking at a fairly full, and very concerned, political meeting over the weekend, for example, and, though the questions ran virtually the whole gamut of politics, there was not a single one on the EEC. I do not think this mood of apathy will last; and I am pretty well convinced that the campaign itself will be an exciting one, and full of surprises. But, at the moment, whether our membership continues or not is a matter of serious concern only to the politicians, the media, and the relatively small number of those seriously engaged on both sides. In the last three general elections in this country we have seen the emergence of a pattern which will, I think, serve for the referendum campaign itself. In each of them there has been a front runner at the start; and there has been a general conviction, lasting until about half way through, that the whole business is a dull one. The explosions and twists have occurred only towards the very end: the campaign will be all.
There is, therefore, no reason for jubilation in the pro-Market camp, or depression among the opposition, that current public opinion polls suggest a handsome majority for continued membership. It is a matter of recurring amazement to me that serious and even intelligent people can still, after three general elections, pay the slightest attention to the prophetic powers of opinion polls. For that matter it is even more amazing that political lobbies lash out the money needed to undertake a poll.
For the anti-Marketeers, however, there is one danger in this period of quiet. It is the danger that myths may get abroad, of a kind seriously damaging to their cause; and this is especially true of Conservative anti-Marketeers, in a minority in their own party, but an essential part of the overall anti-Market campaign. The myth most to be feared is that there has been a renegotiation of the Treaty of Brussels.
It is now clear that the Prime Minister would like Britain to stay within the EEC, and that he Will commit himself to that policy as far as he dares without leaving himself in a trap if the people choose to come out. When Mr Wilson is in doubt or difficulty his invariable (and quite sound) instinct is to attack the Tories. His message from now until the end of the referendum campaign will be not merely that it is a good thing, on the present terms, to stay inside the EEC, but that the deal he has got is one manifestly superior to the deal Mr Heath got, and that it amply fulfils Labour's manifesto promise. In this way he hopes to present himself to the people, and especially to doubting Labour voters, both as the epitome of responsible international statesmanship and as the patriotic hammer of the Conservative Party. In so far as the anti-Market lobby admit any part of his argument they will sow doubt in the minds of the voters, and they will raise the spectre of a split in the anti-Market movement itself. It is therefore essential to demonstrate that there has been no renegotiation of any consequence.
During the election of last February there was a confrontation on television between Mr John Davies, who was then the minister responsible for European affairs, and Mr Peter Shore, then as now an implacable opponent of continued British membership of the Community. Much of the argument turned on the meaning of the term, renegotiation. Whenever, however, Mr Shore made a specific point against membership — as it might be a rise in the price of a particular commodity, or the consequences of a given Brussels planning decision Mr Davies would immediately insist that the matter concerned was already the subject, or might become the subject, of renegotiation. What Mr Shore was clearly trying to do was, under the umbrella of an objection in principle to British membership, raise specific disadvantages that had come Britain's way, as part of his tactics. What Mr Davies was clearly trying to do was trivialise the very concept of renegotiation itself. The Tory pro-Marketeers have, of course, attempted the same ploy, for they do not want a Labour government, whether pro-Market or not, to be able to insist that it was able to get substantially better terms from its continental allies than could Mr Heath.
The concept of renegotiation must flea be trivialised. Nobody who was not a fool trusted Mr Wilson to embark on a solidly anti-Market course which would take Britain out of the entanglement. The force of Mr Powell's two speeches last February lay in the argument that only under Mr Wilson was there a possibility of circumstances being created which would enable Britain to come out. All Conservatives who wished for such a consummation may, however, have put a little too much trust in Labour anti-Marketeers; and these have been notably slow off the mark in attacking the Dublin summit. Where Mr Jenkins, without waiting for Cabinet consultations, and Mrs Williams, with a like zeal, leaped instantly forward to support their side, and announced vigorously that they were getting ready for the campaign to keep Britain in, supposedly
anti-Market members of the Cabinet have been notably slow. But the circumstances which Mr Powell envisaged can be created only by himself, by the small number of Conservatives against the Market, and, principally, by the Labour majority likewise disposed. And there will be no argument at all if Labour anti-Marketeers allow themselves to be trapped by as much as a little finger in the Prime Minister's web.
There has been no renegotiation; and the so-called terms on which the country will be voting in June are only marginally different in essence from those signed by Mr Heath at Brussels. Had Mr Heath remained Prime Minister, events would not have taken a markedly dissimilar course. True, Mr Heath is far more instinctively prone to federalism than is Mr Wilson: he is far more Community-minded in his outlook. And he has far less sentiment for, let us say, the interests of New Zealand, than has the present Prime Minister. He probably would not have bothered with New Zealand as Mr Wilson bas; but his agriculture minister would almost certainly have sought and obtained the same trivial alterations in the Common Agricultural policy as has Mr Peart Nothing has changed since February 1970, save that we have seen an uncommonly boring charade.
There were and remain two broad areas of
argument between pro-Marketeers and antiMarketeers. The first relates to the so-called sovereignty dispute. Anti-Marketeers believe that the Community is of its nature federalist, and repudiate it for that reason. ManY pro-Marketeers admit the same — in private; but would die rather than admit it in public. Instead, they have striven to obscure the argument by saying that no nation can be truly sovereign in the modern world; or that by joining the EEC we are pooling rather than losing our sovereignty. Now, nobody sensible supposes that the anti-Marketeers are proposing a Britain that can stand isolated and 'separate from the rest of the world. No: the essential anti-Market ease in this area of the argument is that membership of the EEC, as laid down by the Treaty of Rome, takes away from our own Parliament the power to Make laws and, in an increasing number of cases, levY taxes on the British people, without aPPeal either to our courts or to our Parliament. There is the further point that these powers are handed over to a bureaucracy. Even, however, if there were to be a European Parliament with financial powers, the anti-Market argument would stand, for our independence would be gone. To the power of the Brussels bureaucracy to make laws and impose regulations, from important to trivial matters, on our citizens — a„ power which would deprive each citizen ot even the usefulness of a complaint to his 1VIP — the renegotiation has made not the slightest difference. Many pragmatists, however, have alwaY,,s passed by this argument, and concentrateu essentially on the economic case. RoughlY,the pro-Marketeers argued that Britain would he richer — in the broadest terms — and the anti-Marketeers that she would be poorer, after membership. There can be no question that we have become poorer: even our balance of trade with our new partners themselves has deter; iorated alarmingly. Pro-Marketeers now, 01 course, argue that we must wait some time before the benefits become apparent: but we have waited some time, and no benefits are visible. All Mr Wilson has managed to do is verY slightly reduce the cost of EEC membership tn. Britain; and that is hardly fundamental renegotiation. • There has, thus, been no renegotiation; and anti-Marketeers of all parties should not alloy'', themselves to be deluded into the belief that there has. Nor should Conservatives, whether proor anti-, be bewitched by Mr Wilson's magic. The case is as it was before; and on it the people have to take a decision.
Previous page
