Political Commentary
The rescuing Shore
Patrick Cosgrave,
It greatly suits most newspapers — and most television and radio programmes for that matter — to concentrate for the moment on the heady excitements of election prospects, and to dismiss the European issue to the backs of their minds and pages. Yet, given that there is little if anything to choose between the economic policies of the two main parties at present in regard at any rate to the battle against infla tion, European policy remains the crucial national issue. Where, therefore, stands the policy of renegotiation of the Treaty of Accession?
It is fair to say that the performance of politicians in the last decade or so has rarely lived up to their promises. Since we know that the Foreign Office at least — the second most incompetent, as it is the second most hypnotic, department in Whitehall — is utterly committed to membership of the EEC, it is not therefore wholly unreasonable to imagine that politicians proved fainéant in other respects will yield to the narcosis of inadequacy which is the regular diet provided by that department for successive Foreign Secretaries. Any shift in words or tone thus confirms an expectation that Mr Callaghan — and, by extension, his colleagues — will not keep their promises.
Plain speaking is, for these reasons,valuable, and the press managed, conveniently, to under-report a recent speech by Mr Peter Shore on just this subject, in which he made matters as plain as any man could, at least in regard to his own intentions. Mr Shore is a man of significance in the present Government. He was also the minister who, during the life of the last Wilson government, first broke ranks to argue against the EEC — thus giving his Prime Minister some extremely uncomfortable moments at the dispatch box when Mr Heath taxed that agile man with the difference between his own professions and Mr Shore's vision. He is a man of whom it was said recently that he had learned a great deal about the Market in recent years and, the more he learned the more the thing repelled him. And he is the man of whom a colleague who had seen Mr Callaghan on televisior declaiming to assembled Europeans with Mr Shore sitting behind him said recently, "There was one tall, thin, gaunt figure of integrity."
This is what Mr Shore had to say on June 14 to the Maidstone Constituency Labour Party about the apparently shifting tones of British speeches and tactics on renegotiation:
But what should not be overlooked, for it is more important than tone or tactic, is the content of the change we are pledged to seek. This remains unaltered. Fundamental renegotiation we have asked for: fundamental change we must have. If, without changing the Treaties, we can achieve a major reform of the CAP; if we can get rid of the exorbitant contributions to the Common Market Budget which Mr Heath and Mr Rippon so weakly agreed to pay; if we can protect the interests of Commonwealth countries both developing and developed; if, above all, we can ensure the supremacy of our own Parliament on major questions against the claims of external authority; if, in short, we can pour the new wine of changed policies into the old bottles of the Treaties, then so be it.
But, Mr Shore added, "it is a big 'if,' a mighty 'if.' There should be no illusions about this on either side of the Channel — certainly not here, not after Premier Chirac's recent speech. The truth is that unless there is a real will to succeed, it could prove just as hard to renegotiate the content of policy within the Treaties as it would be to make changes in the Treaties themselves." Not much prevarication, I would have thought, there. There was, -however, another point about the argument of Mr Shore's speech which was of some considerable significance, particularly when one remembers his mention of M. Chirac's own unforthcoming speech. Mr Shore reminded people that, as matters stood, any one of the other eight members of the EEC could scupper renegotiation — he clearly implied the French; and, of course, it is the French who might find intolerable "a major reform of the CAP." On the other hand, were the EEC members to change to a system of majority voting — in which policies would be decided by a simple majority of participating countries, a system which Mr Heath is known to favour — then "this would inevitably lead to the end of democratic self-government in Britain." Thus, as long as a Labour government sticks to the renegotiation policy as laid down by Mr Shore the responsibility for excluding Britain from the EEC — if that is what is going to happen — lies with some one of our present 'partners,' rather than with Britain — and this is in spite of the fact that the Labour Government will leave the last word on renegotiated terms to the decision of the British people.
But — the question must be asked — how far is Mr Shore representative of his colleagues in government? One minister to whom I was chatting on just this subject the other day — a former pro-European, incidentally, who some time ago changed his mind on the subject — was worried on just this score. Mr Foot, he claimed, was becoming "too ministerial." Renegotiation, he felt, was taking so long that it was becoming increasingly difficult to resist the departmental impact of Commission decisions — of which there is a steady drip, drip, drip — which would eventually tie us in an unbreakable way into the structure of the Community. There is the supposed apostasy of Mr Peart, and the unending ambiguity of Mr Wilson. Mr Benn is said simply to have lost interest, while Mr Healey was never very
strongly disposed either way, and the hidiolo Mr Jenkins's light under a bushel is nod tedly a purely temporary affair. There is also, however, the Labour 1 ment. It is very hard to see how a Lai cabinet could, given the present balao'f power within the movement, wriggle outu; commitment to a serious and fundaroleto renegotiation — even supposing its gle., want to. Much has been made, for exarall the power — some would say the overWe,e power — of the trade union element wit11,.1,e Labour structure. Now, Mr Jack Jones " averse to the idea of appearing on the platform with Mr Enoch Powell to declaall anti-European case. Mr Hugh Scanlon is like mind. Mr Clive Jenkins, the newest, as one of the most able, of major trade leaders, is currently busy alerting frierP supporters to the necessity of forming a flj fight the battle against the Treaty of Acceil None of these seem to me men likely to se pass because a pansy Foreign Office tells,. no other choice is open to Britain but too' Nor are the ranks of the pro-Eura.,0 outside Whitehall quite as phalanx' might be supposed. The CBI, the leader, which has been massively uncritical o'it servative government policy on this, as, been massively uncritical of any govern", policy on other issues, has been findiat gravest difficulty in keeping its business bership in line with the Clapham-Adeaa policy of slavish idolatry of the Treaty 01'; Under Mr Ralph Bateman, a more vigoron of fellow altogether, it may well begin ,t! Sir Arnold Weinstock has had difficnnYo his board, not in restraining its Euro enthusiasm, but in finding a spokesmaa„ei e Community cause. All these influenu, bound to tell on Mr Wilson and Mr Calla' The broad picture, therefore, far frornei what the press — which under-rePort,v( Shore, and over-reported an apparent, tion of tone on the part of Mr Callaghallp it, is an anti-EEC one. What must Conservatives at the present momenta,' way in which their own party is strivino to over-identify with the CommunitY. sonable person could reasonably contea„ t Mr Heath ought to give up a lifetime's tion and start to play the renegotiation g it is played by Mr Wilson, but the Leader61 Opposition, along with more than (Poi colleagues, is being, surely, excess", zeal. The other day, repairing from gallery for a cup of coffee after hea',, Rippon speak on the EEC, I fell in ex-minister who is pro-European in sY but who knows my own views. He thre,t hands (literally) and said, "Well, Cf; seems bent on committing suicide, ad others seem to be with him." My frier 4 that Mr Rippon's lavish (I would Owt printer who put an 's' in front of that las 4 adulation of the Common Market was the party in an unnational position, 011,,ii would allow the Labour Party again to r patriotic card.
ei
II
is
Yet, there is an honourable way Heath's dilemma — as there is an 110' way out of his dilemma on incomes When Stanley Baldwin was defeat,e appealing to the electorate for a Ma! introduce tariff reforms he proclant continued faith in the policy in whicho t come to believe: but he announcedd accepted the people's verdict and wool esi the matter no further for the mora5 Heath could now speak thus on incont and announce well in advance of its tion that he will not oppose a referenuo Nonetheless, Mr Wilson can be relied , wring the last drop of voting potentia! the Market issue, and such a resolution part inescapably leads him in an direction. Three different men — Pfi, r himself, Mr Callaghan, and Mr PowelA in March 1974 that the next won!' European election. So it may be.
Previous page
