POLITICS
The Prime Minister just has to hope that he will only have to fight one chancellor at a time
BRUCE ANDERSON
In the 17th century, our forebears burned witches, and we wonder how it was that the contemporaries of Donne and Milton could have behaved in such a barbarous way. But as the 21st century approaches, we are proposing to spend upwards of two billion pounds on burning healthy cattle; carcasses that could have been used to relieve starva- tion in the Third World; money that could have been used to alleviate suffering in Britain, or at least to cut taxes. We like to think ourselves superior to our witch-burn- ing ancestors, but with us as with them, sci- ence gives way to superstition.
Which leads on to politics, one of the lower forms of superstition. The House of Commons was flat on Monday, when the Prime Minister made his post-Florence statement. Most MPs clearly felt that the public had lost interest; their exchanges had a more than usually ritualistic quality. But interesting questions remain. Will the Europeans stick to the Florence agree- ments, both explicit and tacit, thus enabling the Government to deliver its timetable, or will the war restart, and with it, a wider British-European conflict?
The mood in Brussels is schizoid. It is hard to exaggerate the Eurocrats' detesta- tion of Mr Major and his ministers; Brus- sels is desperate for a change of govern- ment. But there is also a broader disen- chantment with Britain, a doubt as to whether we are worthy of a place in their grand European project.
On the other hand, they do not want a resumption of our blocking tactics, which would interfere with their preparation for the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). The French and the Germans are keen to press ahead with the IGC; the French were even proposing to complete the process by the end of the year, which is impossible. But this urgency gives us a weapon: obstruction.
The psychology of a peace deal is at least as important as the small print; in this case, both are favourable to Britain. By concen- trating our partners' minds, the beef war secured a better and a quicker deal than Britain could have obtained without hostili- ties. But the rest of Europe is not in a hurry to forgive us for our success. This may influ- ence the outcome of another likely dispute.
John Major is a quintessential English- man. He believes in fair play; he also believes that men should keep their word, and that once hands have been shaken on a deal, it is binding on all parties. That was why he started the beef war; he decided that the foreigners were breaking their word. He now thinks that they may be about to do it again, over the 48-hour working week.
At Maastricht, Mr Major negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter, but the Germans in particular are determined to eliminate the competitive advantages this gives us. In this they can rely on the help of the Commission and the European Court of Justice. Both bodies are staffed with har- monisers and federalists; both are keen to find ways of circumventing the British opt- out. By using their powers under EU health and safety regulations, they are trying to force us to implement the social chapter, thus negating the agreement Mr Major thought he had secured.
It is dangerous to treat an Englishman in that way. Mr Major will not break EU law: law-breaking would also be un-English. But he is determined to maintain the integrity of the opt-out, and will put that at the top of his agenda in the IGC talks. Unless the others agree, they are going to find it hard to move the discussion onwards.
They certainly intend to make progress. Chancellor Kohl in particular is determined to press ahead with the next stages of the Euro-reich. Herr Kohl has now been in power for 14 years; even though he has been formidably successful in seeing off all opposition either from other parties or within his own, his career must be entering its final phase. He has already united Ger- many; he now wants to ensure that Europe, too, is well on the way to union before he leaves office.
This is bound to lead to a battle with Britain. When the heads of government meet in Dublin in October, two diametrical- ly opposed concepts of Europe will confront each other across the table, reinforced by two conflicting moral codes. Sincere in his belief that only European union can guaran- tee peace, and profoundly convinced that anyone who does not share his vision is immoral, Herr Kohl will listen in disbelief as Mr Major not only rejects his principles but insists on limiting the discussion to the small print of the opt-out. On his part, Mr Major will be equally sincere; equally convinced of his moral righteousness in upholding agree- ments and restoring fair play. While the atmosphere is already poisoned by the beef war, it is hard to see how a fundamental diplomatic conflict can be avoided.
Mr Major is by nature a conciliator. Whereas Margaret Thatcher took pleasure in finding herself in a minority of one, and fed off her opponents' antagonism while insisting that she was the only one in step, Mr Major believes in patience and cour- tesy. At Maastricht, this was successful; he secured as good an agreement as was possi- ble: one reason why the others are now try- ing to claw back the concessions. Nor does Mr Major share Lady Thatcher's visceral anti-German reactions. Initially, he and Helmut Kohl got on well. The German Chancellor, who always tried hard to have good relations with Margaret Thatcher and never succeeded, found that everything was suddenly much easier.
No longer: Herr Kohl has transferred his affections to Tony Blair. John Major is equally disillusioned, and there is more deterioration to come. I suspect that before the end of the year, Mr Major's relations with Herr Kohl will be as bad as Margaret Thatcher's were with Schmidt and Giscard.
This could play to Mr Major's electoral advantage, as long as his own Chancellor allows it to. There is no real difference between Kenneth Clarke's views on Europe and Helmut Kohl's; Ken Clarke will not enjoy watching his Prime Minister in con- flict with his natural ally. At the weekend, Mr Clarke claimed that Britain could be among the first nations to join a single cur- rency; an extraordinary assertion with no basis in reality. But though they told us nothing about the real world, Mr Clarke's remarks were informative about his own mood; undaunted and belligerent. Mr Major will just have to hope that he only has to fight one chancellor at a time.
Previous page
