Power and the Prime Minister
The power that lies in a Prime Minister's hands is not a toy given to him by the nation at a general election, to be played with as he sees fit. Nor is the legislative authority possessed by each and every member of Parliament an outright gift.
Such powers and authorities are in the nature of trusts, held and exercised on behalf of the country. Mr Heath quotes the familiar words of Edmund Burke fol- lowing his election at Bristol, saying that a parliamentary representative 'owes you' —his constituents—`not his industry only; but his judgment; and he betrays it in- stead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion' and in the corrupt eight- eenth century, long before the two great Reform Bills of the nineteenth century, let alone the universal adult suffrage of the twentieth, there was a great deal to be said for this view of the constitution. The Prime Minister did not quote .some other more appropriate words of Burke —and more considered words, what is more—when in his 'Thoughts on the Pre- sent Discontents' he wrote that 'in all disputes between the people and their rulers the presumption was at least upon a par in favour of the people'. In the present dispute between our rulers and the people, which is a considerable and growing cause of the present discontents, the Prime Minister disregards this pre- sumption, thus far dominates the Cab- inet and much of the dazzled Conservative party in the Commons, threatens to ride roughshod over Parliament, and endeav- ours to present the baffled and bewildered country with an irrevocable continental arrangement it neither understands nor desires. The spirit of the constitution and the principle of democratic control are alike outraged. Far from 'trusting the people' we now are saddled with a con- servative Prime Minister who does not trust the people, who dares not trust the people, and whose politics now and for the next months are clearly to be directed at foiling and fooling the people and denying them their voice in a matter of supreme importance to their and their children's and their children's children's future.
Despite Mr Heath's explanations to the Commons, members of Parliament and the rest of the country remain very largely in ignorance of what transpired during the eleven hours of tete-a-tete dis- cussions between the Prime Minister and the French President. To be sure we have the two leaders' assurances about how much they agree—It was heartening' Mr Heath tells the Commons 'to discover how close are the views of the French and British governments on the develop- ment of Europe and its role in the world'. But when those views, insofar as we have been told about them, are ex- amined they turn out to be confused and contradictory.
The secrecy the Prime Minister chooses to preserve can only be tactical—he him- self hopes to have 'the terms' published by the end of next month—for it is not to be supposed that the Prime Minister and the President arrived at any genuinely secret arrangement. The effect of the sec- recy is to lend some slight importance to the remaining session of talks between Mr Rippon and the Six at Luxembourg at the beginning and in the middle of June. Otherwise the only justification for continued silence on the small print of `the terms' is the tactical political advan- tages that the delay can bring, advantages either flowing from a reduced time for their public consideration or from some presumed element of delighted surprise when it discovered that they were not as bad as expected. We cannot but admire the expertise of this chicanery, even if we suspect that in the long run it may well turn out to be in the words of Lord Salisbury's description of the late Mr Jain MacLeod, 'too clever by half'. Much the same phrase may yet come to be applicable to all those marketeering pro- pagandists who have started to say that it is all over, and to claim the victory because of their confidence that the sugar agreement will prove to be satisfactory and the New Zealand matter will be toler- ably disposed of and the fisheries affair tidied up. The cleverness of the market- eers has throughout been to refuse ser- iously to treat the revolutionary historical, political and cultural aspects of the ap- plication and its nationally' destructive consequences and instead to say 'let us find out the terms' so as to be able to pronounce 'these are the negotiated terms and since they are acceptable, we now have no cause not to join'. In such a manner is the 'great debate' never begun and are the great issues avoided. In such a manner—and only in such a manner— may it prove possible to avoid that direct consultation with the public which every marketeer dreads.
When we consider such generalities as Mr Heath permits himself we find that he has little of coherent value to say. He says that he and M Pompidou 'found an identity of view on the role which a United Europe can play' while also agree- ing 'that the identity of national states should be maintained in the framework of the developing Community'. Mr Heath tells us that he 'told President Pompidou that Britain looked forward wholeheart- edly to joining in the economic and mone- tary development of the Community . . and I was able to dispel any reservations which the French government might have felt about the British government's will- ingness, which the Chancellor the Ex- chequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have often expressed, to ac- cept the consequences of this develop- ment for its own policies' while also in almost the same breath telling Parliament that 'joining the Community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty.'
If Mr Heath honestly believes that the EEC will 'eventually lead to closer unity in international monetary fields, coordina- tion of economic policies, and then be able to exercise a political influence' with- out a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential sovereignty, he is a fool. If he does not believe it, he is a knave to say that he does. And what is the country to make of such Prime Ministerial assertions as The Govern- ment are not trying to force through a decision' and 'It is unworthy to suggest that I am in any way going to "bounce" this House'? Remarks such as these dis- play the great contempt in which Mr Heath holds Parliament and the country. If Mr Heath continues, through the arro- gant abuse of the power entrusted to him, to display such contempt he will find that the feeling will be reciprocated.
Previous page
