ANOTHER VOICE
Boring for Britain
CHARLES MOORE
There are now two chief arguments being made for the Maastricht Treaty in this country. They are, first, that the treaty is so flawed that it is all right to sign it and, second, that the boredom is now so intense that we cannot bear to hear about the sub- ject any more, and so must ratify at once.
This is very unfair on the treaty. There are plenty of good arguments for it, and they are made, frankly and clearly, by roughly 90 per cent of continental politi- cians. They reduce to one essential point, which is that Maastricht is, as its name 'the Treaty on European Union' — sug- gests, a treaty on European Union, and that the European Union is a good thing. Since our Government and Opposition (though not the straightforwardly federalist Liberals) are against the European Union, they have to search for other things to say in favour of the treaty. -It is a desperate search, because they can never base their claims on the document's words. Hence the arguments described above.
The idea that we should have Maastricht because it is falling apart anyway is one that could only have been concocted in the world of politics. It is like saying, 'Buy this house. It can't last more than a couple of years.' It is a sort of manufacturer's guaran- tee in reverse, with the promise of compen- sation if the product works. '. . . Events in Europe have given Maastricht the virtual kiss of death,' says the Sunday Times. But instead of suggesting, logically, that we should put the poor treaty out of its misery, the Sunday Times concludes that we should put it on a life-support machine. It is claimed that we can sign now and put everything right at the next intergovern- mental conference in 1996; but why does anyone think that M. Delors and Dr Kohl are so keen that we should sign? And why is that 1996 conference provided for under Maastricht at all? Surely not because all the heads of government wanted a chance to roll back what they had previously done. It is provided for because Maastricht does not quite bring about the consummation of the European Union for which most of them devoutly wish, and so they need to get together one more time.
There is something much cherished in Brussels called the acquis communautaire, which means everything the Community has so far grabbed from the member states. It is not just a descriptive phrase, but an imperial doctrine, a way of saying, 'What we have we hold.' The idea is that change in the Community can only go in one direc- tion — towards more power for the Euro- pean Union. The Maastricht Treaty states that nothing must be done to damage the acquis communautaire. One can be confi- dent that this injunction will be obeyed in 1996. So when, in that year, we see what Maastricht has done and what still worse is now proposed, those in Britain who favoured the treaty in 1993 will not even be able to say, 'It seemed like a good idea at the time.' It didn't. It seemed like a bad idea, but they wanted it all the same.
Now for the boredom. It is true that if one is known to be interested in Maastricht one is treated at parties like the social equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness at the door. People try to hide altogether and then, when there is no escape, and one is bearing down upon them and can clearly see the panic in their eyes, they try to deflect one with extreme politeness and apologies about there being someone else that they have to speak to terribly urgently. It makes one feel guilty. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
But in defence of the opponents of the treaty, I would point out that it is not we who are trying to take it through an unhap- py House of Commons. We never asked for it and never wanted it and we should be overjoyed if we never heard about it again. We are not the bores so much as those dogged enough not to let the bores trample on us. We are like the moderate Labour politicians in the early Eighties who would not go home when the Militant activists moved resolution after resolution late into the night. We are more bored against than boring, and the only question is, are there enough of us? If there are not, no one should imagine that the boredom will cease with the ratification of Maastricht. Its pass- ing will produce tranche after tranche of regulation in new areas of our lives. Already we find our food production and farming and safety standards ruled by the Brussels directives whose effects Christo- pher Booker exposes every week in the Sunday Telegraph. Ratify Maastricht, and you will soon see how much more there is where all that came from. You've only read Book One of The Dunciad so far.
Besides, there is something wrong with a political culture in which the shout of 'Bor- ing!' is used as a way of ending every dis- cussion. Often it is a way of avoiding the difficult bit. Why should anyone expect, after all, that most political discussions should be interesting? Every policy has its details, as well as its issue of principle, and these are bound not to attract much pass- ing trade. Even we gluttons for punishment share human weakness here. As many peo- ple find it impossible to listen to arguments about Maastricht, so I just cannot concen- trate on anything about missiles or weapons systems; but my boredom, or even mass boredom, would not be a good reason for having more or fewer of either. In fact, the cry of boredom is self-fulfilling. The very word is fairly new, so perhaps that is true of the concept. If we keep telling one another that no one has an attention space of more than two minutes it gradually becomes true and the result is, well, boring. It is an odd way of thinking about life which says that Paradise Lost is more boring than breakfast television.
So we few, we increasingly happy and increasingly numerous few, we band of brothers, will go on boring. More speeches by Mr William Cash, more applications for judicial review by Lord Rees-Mogg, more cases before the German constitutional court, more articles such as this, until we have bored Maastricht into the ground.
Previous page
