This post might just as easily have been called The Fantasy of Labour Eurofanatcism, which might yet be written.
Tory Eurosceptics are, as their Party Leader might put it, "delusional". Since when did being the editorial position of the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail make something the policy of the Conservative Party? That certainly doesn't apply to grammar schools, for example. So why to Europe?
What has become the EU was never "a market" (there has never been an organisation or institution called "the Common Market"), and the first clause of Heath's Act taking Britain in established the primacy of European law, which is as clear a definition of a federal state as one could possibly wish for.
Indeed, when presented with the plans for the original European Coal and Steel Community, Douglas Jay, on behalf of the Attlee Government, pronounced them "the blueprint for a federal state", was told bemusedly that that was indeed the whole point, and therefore set in motion the process to keep Britain out. Knowing all of this, it was the Tories who campaigned to get Britain in.
For all the faults of the Blair years, there has been no further European political integration, and most strikingly no attempt to join the Euro, which a re-elected Major Government (heavily dependent on Ken Clarke, since it would have been on his economic record that it would have secured re-election) would have joined from the start. But then, after Heath, Thatcher (above all) and Major, what other integration was there really left to do?
All three of Blair's Foreign Secretaries have been at least broadly Eurosceptical (in marked contrast to any of Heath's, Thatcher's or Major's), and the present one is the most Eurosceptical since Bevin (the real reason for the BBC's hostility towards her - Tory Eurosceptics should give her a break). Of the current candidates for Labour Deputy Leader, at least three (Cruddas, Benn, and the erstwhile Maastricht rebel Hain) are Eurosceptical to an extent which simply would not be tolerated in the Cameron Shadow Cabinet, just as it would not have been tolerated in a Thatcher Cabinet.
Cameron is in the pocket of Michael Heseltine, and will not even pull the Tories out of the EPP, a rabidly and monolithically federalist organisation, and one, moreover, that grants associate membership to Turkey's ruling Islamist AKP, which it will admit to full membership upon the accession of that once-and-future Caliphate, the restoration of which is the whole point of the AKP. That, dear Tory reader, is your sister-party.
Only the AKP London Branch, otherwise known as the Conservative Party, has ever enacted British legislation giving effect to European federalism, opposed by Labour (albeit with some rebels) the first time round, by all Labour MPs (unless I am very much mistaken) the second time round, and by far more Labour MPs than Tories the third time round (even though there were far more Tory MPs than Labour ones at the time).
Opinion can have shifted all you like within the Tory activist base or the Tory core vote, but there is absolutely no sign of a policy shift on the part of the Conservative Party itself. Where is it? It simply doesn't exist. The Conservative Party, as such, is as federalist (i.e., not terribly, but enough) as it was 20 years ago, just as the Labour Party, as such, is as federalist (i.e., not terribly, but enough) as it was 20 years ago.
As for UKIP, it's finished anyway. If it doesn't tear itself to pieces (which it is busily doing), then the Electoral Commission has been charged to kill it off, and is determined to do exactly that. What "pressure" did UKIP ever exert on the Tories? None that ever made the slightest policy difference.
Finally, I have been asked elsewhere, "where is the Labour UKIP?" Well, UKIP is (or was) "the Labour UKIP". Add together the Tory and UKIP votes at the last European Elections, and you get a very improbably high figure even for today, never mind for the time, both nationally and, even more so, in areas of considerable UKIP success: Yorkshire, the North West, the East Midlands, the West Midlands, London. But cut the UKIP figure in half, allocating half to the Tories and half to Labour, and it makes perfect sense. Watch this space...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ah David, I knew our brief meeting of minds couldn't last...
ReplyDelete"and most strikingly no attempt to join the Euro, which a re-elected Major Government (heavily dependent on Ken Clarke, since it would have been on his economic record that it would have secured re-election) would have joined from the start"
Yes, that's right. Because a Tory government elected in 1992 with only a 21 seat majority, who actually lost their majority over the lifetime of the 92-97 parliament and tore themselves to shreds over Maastricht, would have somehow miraculously become pro Euro would they? Don't be ridiculous.
As I recall, the Tories *did* campaign on Ken Clarke's economic record, and lost. Heavily. And even if we can imagine that they somehow could have held on to win in 1997 (maybe Blair fell under a bus or something), the Parliamentary party would have remained fervently anti Euro. There is no way on this earth that Major could have dragged his party into the Euro, even if Ken Clarke had resigned in a fit of pique becaue of it. And it's frankly absurd to think otherwise.
Yes, they did indeed campaign on Ken Clarke's record. And had they won, then they would have won on that record.
ReplyDeleteSo he'd have been kept on as Chancellor (he might even have become PM at some point in that Parliament), and Britain would have joined the Euro on the votes of the Tory Europhiles (who would have remained quite numerous if the Tories had won in 1997, and even today are more so than is often reported) and "Good Company Men", of the Labour Europhiles, and of almost all of the Lib Dems. Just like Maastricht, in fact.
A few Tories would have voted against, rather a lot would have abstained (but not enough to make any difference), Nick Harvey would have been joined in the No lobby by Simon Hughes (who abstained over Maastricht) and maybe by one or two others, and a large chort of Labour MPs have voted against. Again, just like Maastricht.
Indeed, it is quite possible that there would have been a Labour three-line whip against, broken only by a few Eurofanatics. That almost happened over Maastricht, too.
David, David - come on! You remember the 92-97 Parliament right? You remember Major being completely unable to govern because of the permanent threat that his Parliametary party would rebel, especially over EU matters, right? You remember IDS and the rest fighting internal skirmishes over Maastricht and all the rest, even with the social chapter opt out, right?
ReplyDeleteNow it doesn't matter who would have been PM - Major, Clarke, anyone. The Parliamentary party would have remained very largely euro sceptic, and there would never, ever, have been the Tory votes to pass it. You are just plain wrong when you say that the backbenchers would have abstaniend - they would have rebelled, flat out.
Your post suggests that this could have been passed on a cross partty alliance - which I disagree with, because I think you understate the Tory feeling. But even if Clarke as PM decided that he wanted to push it, and calculated he could get enough Labour and Lib Dems together to pass it, he would have irretrievably split the party, and would have been forced to resign by his own backbenchers. He would have known that, and even Clarke would have rather remained PM than gone into the Euro.
So there would never have been a vote, and even if there had have been, the Tories would have lost.
Oh, I remember it all very well indeed. I also remember that Tory MPs were not "very largely Eurosceptic", but rather that most of them voted for Maastricht and had no time whatever for those very few of their colleagues who didn't. And who knows how large the Tory majority would have been if they had won in 1997?
ReplyDeleteNor am I convinced that most Tory MPs are Eurosceptics even now: most of them very pointedly never say anything on the matter, no doubt, in at least a good few cases, to avoid falling out with the Mail, the Telegraph, and those papers' readers among their constituency activists (although undoubtedly Mail and Telegraph-reading bodies of Tory activists have never actually deselected anyone over Europe except the anti-Maastricht Sir George Gardiner).
Likewise, most Labour MPs also very pointedly never say anything about Europe, no doubt in order to avoid falling out with the Guardian and with its readers on CLPs. But they are quite mistaken: many Guardian readers (and some Guardian writers) at least have doubts, while most Labour activists and almost all Labour voters are decidedly not from the "aren't gîtes in Burgandy fabulous!" crowd.
European integration has only ever been passed on a cross-party basis: first by most of the Tories, the Liberals, and some Labour rebels; then by most of the Tories, and the Liberals; and then by most of the Tories, almost all the Liberals, and the majority of Labour MPs (though with a significant minority opposed).
The Euro would have passed on the votes of most of the Tories, almost all the Liberals, and either a very narrow majority of Labour MPs, or else a significant number of Labour rebels against an instruction to oppose it. The only thing that stopped the Euro was the election of a Labour Government in general, and of a Labour Government with Gordon Brown as Chancellor in particular.