Time puts
things into context. Last
week we dusted down a couple of documents that managed freakishly in retrospect
to combine Cool Britannia and the Government’s level of interest in army
helicopters. Today, with the launch of the Labour Party manifesto, let’s flip
back even further.
A week is a
long time in politics, so 672-odd are well nigh antediluvial. But on 1 May
1997, the very dawn of his electoral triumph, Tony Blair took the opportunity
to lay down his EU policy motif in the pages of The European. It was a speedy declaration and a pointer of
priorities.
“I want
Britain to be one of the leading countries in Europe,” he explained. “We have
the leadership, a sense of purpose and the policies to give Britain back its
confidence and its influence.” There followed a diatribe against the EU
policies of his predecessor, and a swift slash of the cane against anyone
considering withdrawal from the EU as an option. Then he turned to the New
Labour approach.
“On
qualified majority voting we will consider an extension to areas where it is in
Britain’s interests to do so, while retaining the veto in areas where that is
essential.” So, you can’t say in retrospect he didn’t give some warning; under Mr Blair more
vetoes were dropped than under all of his predecessors combined.
Then onto
the votes; “We would press for the re-weighting of the voting system to give
more equitable say to larger countries such as Britain.” Well, even
acknowledging that enlargement scuppered that pledge, it turned out that
Poland, Malta and Belgium would be the countries that fought that corner.
Next on the
incoming New Labour hit list was “reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. A
new Labour government can use the opportunities provided by enlargement and the
World Trade Organisation negotiations in 1999 to bring about real reform.” We know
how that one ended in tears.
Another
priority was unemployment and social legislation. The new Europe Minister’s
first task, delivered by a worryingly rictus-grinning Doug Henderson, was to
sign away the UK opt out on the Social Chapter. You can argue the policies from
the Right and from the Left. They are both irrelevant to the point. The opt out
provided an opportunity to decide at a national level; and even if the
economics could somehow be justified, a major bartering chit was handed over
for free.
A pledge “to
make our foreign policy co-operation real” would prove equally flawed in the
eyes of history; “We will still need American
support and involvement, but Europe needs to show it can be more self-reliant.”
After Kosovo and the St-Malo Accord, the theory however ran amok while the
practicalities drifted across the Atlantic.
Credit, if
that is an appropriate word, is nevertheless due on the Single Currency. Of
course, Mr Blair’s hand was more than forced by the commitment wrangled out of
both main parties by the Referendum Party. But the hardy words in this section stand the test of time, whatever their real origin, and have a particular relevance
this week;
“The
hardest question remains economic and monetary union. It is not yet certain
that it will go ahead on 1 January 1999 and I can see formidable obstacles to
Britain joining in the first wave if it does. But a single currency will affect
Britain – whether we are in or out of it. There must be genuine and sustainable
convergence between the economies that take part. We will have no truck with a
fudged single currency.”
Such borrowed
prescience is then utterly spoiled by a declaration of interest in joining later. Then
comes the bitterest of ironies, where he tempers the intent with the need for a
referendum first.
“If a Labour government were to decide to
enter a single currency – and that is a big if – I give my word that there
would be a referendum before we committed ourselves to entering. This is our
cast-iron pledge to the people. They will have the final say.”
How strange
to see, thanks to Lisbon, these terms reflected in their modern mirror today.
These
pledges are not of interest to us for any point scoring that may be derived
from them, or even for comparing how policies shift with time. They are
invaluable for learning the lessons of history. By such past promises can we
learn to navigate the whirlpools of future governance.
“We want a
Britain strong in Europe, leading in Europe, building a Europe on Britain’s
terms,” wrote Tony Blair on entering power in 1997. We are far from those sunlit
uplands. Time and time and time again, British leaders have gone to Brussels
pledging a new era of cooperation, an end to confrontation, and an intention of being at the heart of the decision making
process.
Invariably,
these early promises fail. The nature of the European Union is not one of whether
integration happens or doesn’t happen; it is about pace, it is about how visible is the failure to obstruct, and it is about blame.
So here’s a
message to the next PM and his Europe Minister; tell it straight, and drop the customary
flannel - the public deserves better than promises that can’t be kept. They might
even respect you for it. Now that really would be a premium in modern politics.
