Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 93 New Labour—new Europe? KIRSTY HUGHES & EDWARD SMITH Within two weeks of the British general election, the new Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, issued a foreign policy mission statement which included the aim of making the UK a ‘leading player in a Europe of indepen- dent nation states’. Tony Blair, in his first major European speech as British Prime Minister, called for the creation of a ‘people’s Europe’ and announced that the British government ‘shares the goal of a constructive partnership of nations in Europe’. A few weeks later the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, called for Britain to be ‘leading in Europe’ and rejected ‘both the federal way forward and the regulatory way ahead’; and in November, the point was reiterated by the Prime Minister, stating that ‘we must end the isolation of the last twenty years and be a leading partner in Europe’. These statements have a familiar ring. John Major also famously called for Britain to be ‘at the heart of Europe’. The key question being asked of Britain’s approach to Europe under its first Labour government for a generation is whether this is new Labour, new Europe or new Labour, old Britain.The determination of the government to be a leading player combined with a rather typical British unease with supra- national structures (though not the outright hostility of the Conservatives) rais- es again the question of whether Britain will lead in a direction that no one else wants to take or whether it can promote and gain support for a new approach to the EU. As yet, the answer to this key question is unclear. Ruling out the prospect of Britain becoming a strong proponent of ever closer union, there remain three potential routes down which Labour may take Britain in Europe—the choice among which will also depend on the decisions, preferences and views of Mission statement for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), May . Speech by the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon.Tony Blair MP,to the Party of European Socialists Congress, Malmö, June . Speech by the Rt Hon. Gordon Brown MP,Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the Royal Institute of International Affairs,‘Britain leading in Europe’, July . Speech by the Prime Minister,The Rt Hon.Tony Blair MP,at the Lord Mayor’s banquet, London, Guildhall,‘The principles of a modern British foreign policy’, November . The Rt Hon. John Major MP,former prime minister,‘The evolution of Europe’, Conservative Party News, March . International Affairs , () – Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 94 Kirsty Hughes & Edward Smith Britain’s European partners. First, Britain could act on the rhetoric of the gov- ernment and indeed play a leading part in promoting a new political vision and role for the EU in the twenty-first century, drawing on the lessons, successes and strengths of its domestic position. Second, it could be a constructive but pragmatic European player, offering elements of new thinking and positive ideas but without an overall vision and without being a dominant player.There are already signs of this approach.Third, Britain could—without replicating the bitter divisions of the preceding Conservative government—be a side player in the EU, left behind as Europe develops in directions it cannot support.There is some evidence in support of each of these three routes, but so far the second is the most appropriate characterization. In this article, we assess the main elements of Britain’s European policy under the Labour government, how it compares with earlier British approaches and how it relates to the challenges Europe faces. A change of approach? In comparison to the previous administration, the current British government has adopted a new, positive tone in the EU.The importance of the change in both tone and behaviour should not be underestimated.The deep splits in the Conservative Party over Europe—splits that went to the heart of the cabinet— left Britain isolated in the EU, with its influence much reduced even in areas where it had common policy goals with its European partners.The fiasco over ‘mad cow disease’ in , and then Britain’s threat to veto all non-essential EU business in order to get the export ban on British beef lifted, must rank as one of the most damaging British foreign policy episodes in recent history. The obstructive behaviour of the Major government was an important factor lead- ing to calls for more flexibility in policy-making in the EU; the other member states did not want future development of the EU held back by a negative, non- cooperative Britain. The election of the new Labour government was generally welcomed in the rest of the EU,enabling a swift conclusion to the intergovernmental conference and offering the likelihood of more positive, constructive and reasonable behaviour.The professional election campaign, Labour’s huge majority in the new parliament and the dynamism of the early months of the incoming gov- ernment were both impressive and a cause of envy for many continental politi- cians on left and right alike. Britain also joined the ranks of the majority of EU member states which have centre or centre-left governments. However, given the range of political approaches among these broadly defined social democra- tic parties, this itself may be cause for conflict as much as for consensus. Despite pressure for change in the various manifestations of the continental social mar- ket model, there remain many differences between this model as a whole and the Anglo-Saxon economic approach. This has naturally led to caution over how Blair’s attempt to marry the two models—the so-called ‘third way’— Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 95 New Labour—new Europe? differs from the economic policies and social inequalities associated with Thatcherism. The new government does differ from its predecessor in its overall approach to the EU. Labour is not plagued by serious splits on Europe: there is a broad consensus around the view that Britain should have a major role in the EU. There are dissenters on the single currency but, as discussed further below,these doubts are principally on economic rather than national sovereignty grounds. The three leading figures in the cabinet—Blair, Brown and Cook—all recog- nize that Britain increases its global status and influence by being a serious, influential EU player. At the same time, both Cook’s mission statement and Blair’s first major foreign policy statement have made it clear they still see Britain as a global player, particularly given its position as a permanent mem- ber of the UN Security Council, and its role in other bodies including the Commonwealth and the G.There is, therefore, a combination here of a mod- ern approach, recognizing the importance for a medium-sized country like Britain of working with and through the EU, with a more traditional empha- sis on Britain’s independent global role. It will be important to observe how the balance or tension between these two emphases develops. The new British government is not an uncritical supporter of all of the cur- rent EU structures and policies.The Prime Minister made this clear in his key Malmö speech to the Party of European Socialists Congress, where he criti- cized both old left and old right approaches, calling for a ‘third way’ in eco- nomic and social policy and criticizing EU institutions for being ‘out of touch, out of date, not responsive to the people’s needs’ Labour’s European rhetoric emphasizes the need to renew and redefine Europe, to create a ‘people’s Europe’, tackling the dominant challenge of European unemployment and making the EU relevant to European publics. Reducing levels of unemploy- ment and remedying the democratic deficit are aims that will be generally supported across the EU, but Labour’s sometimes critical language and its emphasis on leading, on being a dominant player—and Cook’s ill-advised talk of triangles—have not been altogether welcomed. Concerns that Britain may seek to form a directoire of large EU states or adopt a balance of power approach have been fuelled by Labour rhetoric and signal an initial naiveté in the new government’s approach. And while the aims of creating employment and making the EU relevant are uncontroversial, differences of outlook surface in the specifics of the policy approaches. Britain’s overall approach to its six-month presidency of the EU, starting in January , is not likely to cause much dissension.The government has said its priorities during this period will be jobs, crime and the environment. It has promised to work to ensure successful moves towards the single currency, to give a ‘flying start’ to enlargement negotiations and to work to complete the single market.The Foreign Secretary has also announced that Britain will aim FCO Mission Statement, May . Blair,‘The principles of a modern British foreign policy’. Blair, speech Malmö, June . Hughes & Smith 10/12/97 2:02 pm Page 96 Kirsty Hughes & Edward Smith for the EU to coordinate its foreign policy more effectively in order to give Europe ‘more clout’ in the world. The impression given is one of a positive, constructive British government engaging with EU concerns and trying to inject new approaches and priorities into the discussion. However, once we consider both the content of specific policies and the extent to which the gov- ernment has an overall conception of the political role or purpose of the EU, a less clear-cut picture emerges. Employment as top priority While there is consensus across the EU that unemployment must be addressed, there is less agreement on specific policy approaches to the problem and the appropriate level for policy action.The Amsterdam treaty included for the first time an employment chapter, but there was disagreement over its contents and the types of policy approach to which it should refer.