onservatives have always signal an end of , an end to been divided over Europe the strategic objectives which the but their differences have Thatcher government has attempted to recently become much more pursue, however inconstistently and in­ Cpronounced. The row over Nicholas coherently, during the past 11 years? Or Ridley's after-dinner observations in will a leadership be found to maintain the Spectator demonstrated just how broad continuity in policy direction? much Conservatives on both sides of the Attitudes to Europe are rapidly becom­ divide abandoned their normal reserve ing the litmus test, superseding old wet/ in front of the cameras and began dry divisions over economic manage­ denouncing one another with unseemly ment. As on any other complex issue, vigour. Terms like federalists and positions on Europe within the nationalists to characterise the oppos­ Conservative Party do not always fall ing factions have begun to be freely neatly into two camps. Nevertheless, employed. there is increasingly a divide between When Ridley resigned in July, com­ two approaches to the European Com­ mentators were quick to point out that munity - the first pragmatic and he was the third senior minister accom-modating, the second ideological Thatcher had lost because of internal and obstructive. divisions over Europe. Heseltine res­ These two camps are termed federal­ igned in 1986 as secretary of state for ists and nationalists, but labels disguise defence over the prime minister's a range of different positions and em­ refusal to back his plans for a European, phases within each. In the nationalist rather than American, rescue for West- camp three different strands can be land helicopters. Lawson resigned in identified: isolationists, Atlanticists and 1989 as chancellor of the exchequer market liberals. In the federalist camp because of long-standing differences there are unionists, realists and market with the prime minister and her special liberals. The picture is further con­ The adviser Sir Alan Walters over Britain's fused because it is quite possible to membership of the European monetary belong to different camps on different system. issues. For example, may All three resignations weakened the have been a federalist on the ERM, but Great prime minister's authority, and focused on the social charter, on political union attention on the policy divisions over and on industrial policy he was a nation­ Europe within the party. These policy alist. Similarly, Heseltine and Thatcher differences have become tangled up take different views on all the above, Divide with the question of her leadership and but on defence both are Atlanticists the succession. When they debate Eu­ rather than Europeans. rope, Conservatives are also seeking he two pure positions are iso­ Europe has become the the answer to another question - is lationist and unionist. Isola­ there life after Thatcher, and if so tionists favour withdrawal great divide in the Tory whom? from the European Commun­ At one level this is about personalities. Tity and support the assertion of national Party. Andrew Gamble Who will inherit the golden throne (or sovereignty in all areas of policy. explains the various poisoned chalice) which Thatcher will Unionists by contrast favour rapid pol­ positions and suggests leave behind. Leadership contenders itical and economic integration leading come and go, rise and fall. No-one has to the creation of a federal United that the Thatcherites yet established a secure claim to be heir States of Europe. will ultimately lose presumptive. So much will depend on There is a sizeable body of opinion in the timing and circumstances of That­ the party which is isolationist, but union­ cher's departure. ist sentiment is much smaller. The But the European issue is about much spokesman for the isolationists used to more than just the identity of That­ be Enoch Powell. He is resolutely na­ cher's successor. Because Thatcher tionalist on all questions including herself has become so involved in the defence, rejecting dependence on the issue as a partisan on one side of the United States as much or even more divisions in her party that the issue has than he rejects dependence on the Euro­ also become the battleground for the pean Community. For the isolationists future direction of Conservative policy. there are no issues which justify the Issues that appear technical and surrender of national sovereignty. highly complex, such as whether Bri­ The Thatcherite wing of the party con­ tain should join the exchange rate tains many isolationists, but it is not the mechanism of the European monetary dominant tendency. Thatcher's position system and if so at what parity and on national sovereignty is complex, since inflation rate, have become invested she is such a strong supporter of the with the wider hopes and fears which Atlantic alliance and American leader­ the different factions entertain for the ship of the West, and she has never future of the country and the party. opposed Britain's membership of the European Community. She accepts the While enthusiasts from the Thatcher Youth pooling of sovereignty which member­ still chant '10 more years', most ship of Nato and the European Com­ Conservatives and most commentators munity imply. expect that the prime minister will seek The Thatcherite position, therefore, to win one more election and then step embraces two groups - Atlanticists and down. Most people assume therefore market liberals. Atlanticists give high­ that the post-Thatcher era is almost est political priority to defence and here. But will Thatcher's departure security issues. The special relation-

34 MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1990 ship with the United States must not be compromised by merging British sov­ ereignty into a European union. For Atlanticists, the European Community cannot replace Nato and it is not desir­ able that it should. Thatcher has no confidence in European political union, and she uses every opportunity to demonstrate that the Europeans are in­ capable of acting together. The most recent example is her blunt criticism of other European nations for allegedly giving inadequate and lukewarm sup­ port to US action in the Gulf. or market liberals in the nationalist camp, less em­ phasis is placed on maintaining an independent defence and foreigFn policy and more on maintaining an independent economic policy. Unlike isolationists, they support the pro­ 'In Ridley's gramme of the single market, but they believe that moves to full economic and political monetary union, as well as implementa­ universe it tion of the provisions of the social is essential charter, risk bringing back many of the that anything evils which the Thatcherite revolution had banished from Britain. unpleasant The other countries of the European being done Community, particularly the original to the six members, favour forms of state in­ British tervention and industrial relations which Britain has rejected. Britain people must either convert her partners to should be Thatcherism, or run the risk of con­ done by a stantly being outvoted, and seeing government forms of central planning and collectiv- ist intervention reimposed on Britain accountable by the bureaucracy in Brussels. to them' A common European currency is op­ posed because it implies the creation of a European central bank and European state agencies to run a common Euro­ pean monetary and fiscal policy. Under such a centralised regime, countries with higher costs would suffer deflation and unemployment. Britain would be locked into an inflexible monetary and fiscal regime, and the British govern­ ment would no longer have the powers to decide its own policy. Thatcher makes use of both Atlanticist and free-market arguments. In her Bru­ ges speech in September 1988 she made it clear that while she supports the cre­ ation of a European free market, she is totally opposed to steps leading to any kind of European political union. The Bruges group was founded after this speech to rally opposition both within the Conservative Party and across Eu­ rope to progress towards political union. The Bruges group unites isola­ tionists, Atlanticists and market liberals in a coalition against the federalist threat. The federalists are less well orga­ nised. The major standard-bearers of the federalist camp are Edward Heath and Michael Heseltine, both of whom have a strategic vision of Britain's place in Europe. But they do not work to­ gether, and neither openly presents a unionist argument. Heseltine in parti­ cular prefers to align himself with the realist faction, which has a majority both in the cabinet and among

MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1990 Conservative MPs. sovereignty. dwindle still further. This was a view Currently represented by Douglas The argument between these different Ridley himself seems to have shared. Hurd and , the realists have market liberals partly turns on diffe­ He clearly cannot have anticipated the no great enthusiasm for political union rent attitudes to Thatcherism. That­ impact his interview would have. He but are pragmatic and accommodating cherite market liberals are proud of the concluded it by declaring that he was to moves to further the integration of achievements of Thatcherism and an­ still at the top of the political tree and the Community. They seek to extend xious that its distinctive identity might was not done yet. co-operation and build consensus. They be lost. Many pro-European market hen he returned from his tend to be much less ideological than the liberals like Sam Brittan think that ministerial trip abroad to nationalists; they are less worried about Thatcherites are too complacent. They face the clamour for his the loss of sovereignty or the imposition do not believe that Thatcherism has resignation he at first of alien policies by Brussels on London. cured all Britain's ills and brought Wtried to delay, indicating that he would They believe that if Britain is fully about an economic miracle. Far from only resign if the prime minister in­ committed to the Community it can Britain being some shining beacon of formed him that it would be helpful. shape the institutions that emerge and economic rectitude and success they There then followed a 15-minute tele­ safeguard its interests. think Britain could benefit from the phone conversation with the prime min­ A federalist approach, embracing both tighter monetary discipline of the Euro­ ister, and the resignation was agreed. realist arguments and a unionist vision, peans and could adopt some of their Thatcher knew that if she did not force is set out and cogently defended by successful supply-side policies. Ridley's hand, many of the pro- Michael Heseltine, in his recent book European wing of the party would ab­ The Challenge Of Europe: Can Britain 'Europe The publication in the Spectator in July of stain, or even vote with the opposition, Win?. Heseltine is a committed Euro­ has become an interview with Nicholas Ridley was in any no-confidence motion on the af­ pean and is prepared to go a long way in an important political event because it fair. Valuable though Ridley was to her, supporting moves to wider economic the revealed how deep the gulf in attitudes she could not put her own leadership on and political union. Heseltine presents battleground towards Europe in the Conservative the line again so soon after she had been himself as a post-Thatcherite rather for the Party was becoming. The interview under such challenge from Michael than an anti-Thatcherite. aroused such interest partly because of Heseltine in the spring, when the poll- He supports many aspects of the future the candour and crudity with which tax debacle was at its height. Thatcherite revolution in policy. But direction of Ridley expressed himself, but mainly he believes that the next stage of Conservative because it was widely assumed that he Ridley's offence was not what he said, but modernising Britain and turning it into policy' was merely saying in public what Mar­ how he said it. He expressed the real a competitive and dynamic industrial garet Thatcher was saying in private. feelings of many Britons, particularly society is to build structures of polit­ Ridley had long been close to Thatcher, of his generation, to the process of Ger­ ical and economic co-operation in and after the departure of Nigel Law- man unification. He appeared less con­ Europe which will not disadvantage son, Lord Young and cerned that European integration might European companies in the battle for he was widely perceived as the prime reintroduce socialism into Britain by world markets. minister's strongest ally in cabinet the back door than that it was a cover In Europe, Heseltine sees opportuni­ - a privileged member of her inner for the revival of German ambitions to ties while Thatcher sees dangers. He circle, and licensed to speak out dominate Europe. stresses the need to construct a suitable on matters beyond his departmental Much of the reporting of Ridley's in­ institutional framework for European responsibilities. terview suggested that he had com­ co-operation. He is particularly keen Ridley was important to Thatcher in pared Kohl with Hitler. The impression that there should be effective public another sense. He had been a That­ was reinforced by Garland's cartoon of agencies created that can formulate and cherite before Thatcher. He voted for Ridley defacing Kohl's poster with Hit­ protect common European interests. Powell in the 1965 leadership election lerite features. What Ridley actually This means both a larger European bu­ which Heath won. He was a strong sup­ said was that if Britain was going to reaucracy and budget - like most fede­ porter of the free-market policies give up sovereignty to the '17 unelected ralists he points out how tiny both cur­ initially adopted by the Heath govern­ reject politicians' of the European Com­ rently are in relation to national bureau­ ment in 1970 and served briefly as a mission, 'you might just as well give it cracies and budgets - and democratic junior industry minister until Heath got to Adolf Hitler, frankly'. accountability through the European rid of him in 1972. But although he did not compare Kohl Parliament. He proposes among other Ridley has always been close to with Hitler directly, Ridley obviously things the election of a European Thatcher. He helped plan the strategy views the new Germany with great senate, and the interlinking of the work for tackling the unions and the national­ alarm. It is as though the last 45 years of national parliaments with the Euro­ ised industries. As a minister he played have not happened. The German ques­ pean Parliament. a major role in several important priva­ tion is back. For Ridley, it seems, the arket liberals in the fede­ tisations, as well as being responsible logic of geopolitics and national cul­ ralist camp, like Lord for the introduction of the . tures never change. In his interview he Cockfield, put less em­ After Tebbit, he was the most vocal condemns the plans for a joint Euro­ phasis on the political supporter of the Thatcher revolution pean monetary policy as 'all a German dimension of Europe, more on the desi­ among Thatcher's ministers. racket designed to take over the whole rability of pushing rapidly ahead with The interview in the Spectator was of Europe'. Germany would soon be economic liberalisation and on econo­ certain, therefore, to attract attention. trying to dictate Britain's own internal mic and monetary union. They have It may even have been intended as a monetary policy and its taxes. With much in common with the market way of expressing the prime minister's Germany so 'uppity', and the French liberals in the nationalistic camp, but views to counter the increasingly domi­ 'behaving like poodles', it was neces­ tend to view the process of economic nant pro-Europe direction of the cabi­ sary for Britain once more to preserve integration as more benign, attaching net majority. If so it proved an embar­ the balance of power in Europe. much less importance to the social rassing miscalculation and Thatcher Ridley maintains that there would be charter and welcoming the creation of a had to sacrifice one of her most depend­ 'absolute mayhem' if economic policy common currency. Steps to break down able allies in cabinet. was in future to be determined by 'Herr local obstacles to free trade and compe­ The Thatcherite wing of the party Poehl and the Bundesbank'. In Ridley's tition, and create a unified economic tried hard to play down the affair and political universe it is absolutely essen­ space with one set of currency arrange­ argued that Ridley's remarks were not a tial that anything unpleasant being done ments and adminstrative regulations, resigning matter. They were desperate to the British people should be done by a are perceived as an enormous benefit, that the already depleted ranks of That­ government formally accountable to which far outweigh the loss of national cherites in the cabinet should not them.

36 MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1990 He asked his interviewer to imagine forces. But they then want to resist any when. The cabinet alliance forged be­ what it would have been like to have transfer of formal political sovereignty tween her chancellor, John Major, and gone to Jarrow in 1930 and said: 'Look to supranational bodies. Nation-states her foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, boys, there's a general election coming must be allowed to impose socialism and supported by her former chancellor up, I know half of you are unemployed upon themselves if they choose to. and foreign secretary, , and starving and the soup kitchen's Thatcherites are being forced to make has left Thatcher with little room for down the road. But we're not going to a choice. Which is more important to further manoeuvre. Major and Hurd talk about these things, because they're them - the Conservative conception of have signalled a much more pragmatic for Herr Poehl and the Bundesbank. It's nation defined by language, culture and and positive approach to co-operation his fault; he controls that; if you want to territory as the basis of political legiti­ with Europe, and although Thatcher protest about that, you'd better get on to macy; or the liberal conception of the still does her best to sabotage European Herr Poehl.' market as a supranational order tran­ initiatives, she cannot block progress Nicholas Ridley the political national­ scending national governments? indefinitely. ist here takes precedence over Nicholas Powell had no doubt about his choice. The next leader of the party is almost Ridley the free marketeer. Free-market The nation came first. Its preservation certain to be more pro-European than liberals like Ridley bitterly attacked was ultimately much more important to Thatcher. Thatcher has seized the op­ Labour politicians for using the 'gnomes him than the particular economic and portunity of the Gulf crisis to reaffirm of Zurich' or the IMF as scapegoats for social arrangements that were insti­ her commitment to the United States unpopular policies. They always argued tuted by government. Other market and her lack of commitment to Europe. that Labour governments had to face up liberals have often put the market first. But there are few in the leading circles to the constraints which operating in a In the 1930s, Hayek, for example, ar­ 'For the of the party who share her antipathy to world economic order imposed. gued the case for inter-state federal­ isolationists the other states of Europe. The desire he European Community is ism, as an important element of a global for a real partnership with France, Ger­ different. It was apparently market order. there are many, Spain and the other members of acceptable for Germany and Thatcher has always been ambiguous. no issues the European Community is now the the United States to lay down She has assented to the process of creat­ which justify priority. Tconditions for Britain to receive help ing a united Europe by removing bar­ The Thatcherites know that without the through the IMF in 1976, but it is not riers to free trade. She signed the Single Thatcher's instinctive anti-Europeanism acceptable for a European central bank European Act. But she resists the paral­ surrender it will be much harder to resist progress to determine monetary policies for the lel process to create common political of national towards European unity. But they hope whole Community. In an interview on structures to support and guide the sovreignty' that they can exert enough influence to Newsnight in September, Ridley ex­ common European market. Her diffi­ ensure that the next leader is not plained that his objection to other Euro­ culty is that the implementation of the strongly pro-Europe, as Heath was. pean countries was that they were free-market programme of which she Heseltine is the one they wish to stop. inward-looking, preoccupied with their approves requires the use of the bu­ Their problem is that they lack a cre­ own concerns. Only Britain and the reaucratic agencies and procedures dible candidate of their own. United States were outward-looking, which she wants curtailed. In the postwar period, the Conserva­ and were prepared to make sacrifices Many Conservatives, however, see the tives, although at first reluctant, be­ for the safeguarding of world order and two processes as inseparable. Many of came the party of Europe under Mac- free trade. If Britain gave up its sove­ those who become involved with the millan and Heath. The realities of Bri­ reignty to the European Community, European Community, whether as tain's economic and strategic position this unique British contribution to the members of the European Parliament left no other choice. The empire could world would be lost. or as European Commissioners, like not be preserved. During her leader­ Lord Cockfield and Sir Leon Brittan, ship of the party, however, Thatcher The Ridley affair underlines that at the also become converts to the case for has succeeded in casting doubt as to the heart of the debate over Europe is this more rapid European integration. The depth of Conservative commitment to question of sovereignty. Two main ar­ business of creating a single market Europe. She has not endorsed Powell's guments are put forward by That- comes to seem more important than the isolationism, but she has consistently cherites. There is the argument that preservation of formal political accoun­ given a higher priority to Britain's role sovereignty must not be ceded because tability to national parliaments. as the principal European ally of the it would lead to socialism by the back idley and Thatcher, as good United States than as a partner in the door. And there is the argument market liberals, assent to European Community. rehearsed by Nicholas Ridley that sov­ processes like the free The Conservatives have become ereignty must not be ceded because it movement of goods and divided over Europe during Thatcher's will lead to political domination of Eu­ capital which radically constrain the leadership; more, perhaps, than they rope by Germany. sovereignty of any national govern­ have ever been. Will these divisions Political union is resisted because of ment. But they resist any diminution of continue and widen under Thatcher's the likelihood that any union would be the formal trappings of sovereignty en­ successor? It seems unlikely, provided dominated by non-Thatcherite policies. joyed by the Westminster parliament. the party remains in office. In opposi­ But if a Thatcherisation of Europe were In this sense their fight against those tion the European issue could be very to take place, as Lord Young used to wanting devolution of powers to regions hard to handle inside the party and predict it would, then Britain would or local communities within the UK, and might conceivably lead to a split. In have nothing to fear from political those wanting the transfer of powers to government the issue will be contained. union. Indeed political union would pre­ European bodies, is the same fight. A new Conservative prime minister vent the risk of socialism being imposed They justify their desire to keep tight would make Britain's European links on Britain through an internal shift of central control by involing the mys­ once again become the priority of Brit­ power. It was precisely this aspect of tique of parliament. Thatcher recently ish policy. Without becoming enthu­ European integration that was the basis declared that other European leaders siastic about political union, Britain of the hostility to Europe within the knew nothing about democracy because would no longer resist pragmatic evolu­ British labour movement. they were not accountable in the way tion towards it. The issue of sovereignty creates a se­ that she was. In this way, the post-Thatcher rious dilemma for Thatcherites. They Thatcher's problem is that at present Conservative Party may well return to support the creation of a European free the pro-European federalist wing of the the path laid out by Macmillan and market, the 1992 programme. They ap­ party is strong and getting stronger. Heath. History will once more be prove of the idea that the freedom of Having fought for so long to keep Bri­ rewritten, only this time it will be the governments should be drastically cur­ tain from joining the ERM, she has had turn of the Thatcher era to be per­ tailed by the operation of market to concede that it is not whether, but ceived as an aberration.

37 MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1990