Volume 5 Number 7 May 1998 £2.50 The European Journal The Journal of the European Foundation Michael St John Parker Stopping Europe’s Progaganda & Austin Mitchell, MP Oliver Letwin, MP Philippe de Villiers, MP The European Foundation 61 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ Chairman: William Cash, MP MAY 1998 VOLUME 5 NUMBER 7 THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL The Journal of the European Foundation Contents For reference, numbers on pages are as in the printed copy Original PDF Articles below are hyperlinked – use the hand icon, point and click Page Page Editorial 23 Bill Cash, MP Cultures, Parties and Pan-European Politics 34 Oliver Letwin, MP Eurosceptic Opportunities 45 Jonathan Collett Educational Entryism – A New Fable of the Bees? 56 Michael St John Parker The ECJ Condemned 78 David Radlett The Commission’s Choice for EMU – breaking all the rules 910 Jeremy Stanford A Necessity for Democracy 11 11 Will Podmore The Emperor’s New Clothes 12 13 James Barr Back to the Euro Doghouse 13 14 Austin Mitchell, MP Germany, the CAP, and the Third World 15 16 Bill Cash, MP Switzerland “nul points” 16 17 James Barr A Closer Look at the ECB 18 19 A.H.J.W. van Schijndel The Potential for Europe and the Limits to Union 20 21 Rt Hon. William Hague, MP The Rejection of Politics 21 22 Philippe de Villiers, MP Common Market, Common Currency, Common Sense? 23 24 Jeremy S. Bradshaw Book Reviews: New Books from France 25 26 Reviewed by John Laughland The Convergence of the Bundesbank 26 27 Professor Roland Vaubel Editor: Tony Lodge Publisher: The European Foundation, 61 Pall Mall, London SW1Y 5HZ Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7930 7319 Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7930 9706 E-mail: [email protected] ISSN 1351–6620 For subscription and advertising enquiries, please contact the editorial office. A subscription form is printed on the inside back cover. The European Journal is published by The European Foundation. Views expressed in this publication are those of the authors themselves, not those of The European Journal or The European Foundation. Feature articles and letters should be sent to the Editor at the address above, if possible on 3.5" IBM compatible disks which will be returned to the authors. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means or stored in a retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher. Typesetting by Nelson & Pollard, Oxford Facing Up to Facts illiam Hague’s bold and inspired speech to reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a written WINSEAD at Fontainebleau is as much a benchmark in answer during May. He emphasised that the constitutional test the late 1990s as was the Bruges speech in the late 1980s. does not override the economic test. Indeed, it would be impossible for the author of either speech The differences therefore between the parties and within the to have signed the Maastricht Treaty. No wonder, therefore, Conservative Party are being more clearly defined and the that Fontainebleau has been followed by an outburst from need is growing to get down to the serious business of Messrs Heseltine, Clarke and Brittan. But what was interesting preparing for the Referendum which will cut across all was their failure to address the real sections of society and all political questions and to come clean with parties. There is in fact division and the British public. At no point do Mr William Cash (Stone): Will the Prime William Hague understands this they ever seek to rebut the charge Minister explain why he thinks that there is no very well – hence his speech. There that the continuing process of constitutional barrier in the United Kingdom to are genuine parallels to be made European integration through going ahead with economic and monetary with the situation which prevailed Maastricht to Amsterdam is union… at the time of the repeal of the Corn designed to prevent the nation … Laws in the 1840s, although today states of Europe from being able The Prime Minister: … I say that there is no the issue which is about who gov- to govern themselves. Instead insuperable constitutional barrier because, erns Britain and democratic and they allege, quite wrongly, that although there are constitutional questions of political freedom is even greater Eurorealists are campaigning to sovereignty, the issue in the end is whether that is than the question of commercial come out of Europe and harp on an absolute barrier. If it is an absolute barrier, the freedom which lay behind the about their claim that a single position of the hon. Gentleman’s party – saying issues of the mid-nineteenth market requires a single currency, “We might join after 10 years” – is absurd. I know century. Indeed, we cannot have for which there is no evidence, only that that is not his position: he is leader of the commercial freedom without assertion. other Conservative party. However, it is an absurd political freedom, which is why the The speech was also important position. We must decide first of all whether or Prime Minister is so wrong. because it dealt head on with the not the constitutional question is an insuperable The verdict of the great historian, fundamental differences between barrier. He says yes; I say no. I say that, in the end, G.M. Trevelyan, on Sir Robert Peel the Government and the Oppos- if it is in the interests of British jobs, investments was as follows: ition in the United Kingdom. This and industry, we do it; if it is not, we do not. “Peel’s real defence is this: that was well illustrated in the chaotic © Parliamentary Copyright, 1998 the abolition of the Corn Laws aftermath of the split appointment, mattered more to Britain even if under the British Presidency, of the viewed from a Conservative stand- new Governorship of the European Central Bank. This is point, than the continued cohesion of a party which was in blatantly illegal and is an excellent illustration of the internal fact divided on the first question of the day.” The fatal mistake contradictions of the European Union. On the one hand it by Robert Peel was to recognise that the Party was in fact creates a rule of law across the whole of the Union and, on the divided a year too late. Had he acted sooner, he could have other, it breaks it itself. The Prime Minister in his statement to saved himself and the Party from going into the wilderness for the House on 5th May restated his view that there is no decades. constitutional barrier to the United Kingdom joining In our own day the issue is Europe. It cannot be denied that economic and monetary union and a single currency. In his all the parties are divided on the issue and there is no reply to me on this point, he made it clear that, “We must possibility of the differences in principle being reconciled. It decide first of all whether or not the constitutional question is would be as well to admit this and for the Conservative Party an insuperable barrier. He says yes; I say no. I say that, in the to buckle down behind the Fontainebleau speech. The real end, if it is in the interests of British jobs, investment and question is what is right in the national interest. industry, we do it; if it is not, we do not.” I received a similar Bill Cash JUMP TO CONTENTS 2 The European Journal May 1998 Cultures, Parties and Pan-European Politics by Oliver Letwin ill there, in twenty or fifty years’ If this speculation is accepted, it quickly programme or ideology, hold Southern Wtime, be a United States of Europe, becomes evident that little institutional Democrats together with Northern successful enough to stand with the USA, change is required to provide the platform Democrats in the US; religion, rather than China and Japan as one of the world’s great for a successful USE: the Court is in place; programme or ideology, keeps the CSU powers? the President of the Commission becomes separate from the CDs in Germany. The The answer to this question – however the elective President of the Union; the politicians, thinkers, apparatchiks and unpalatable to the Eurosceptic ear – must Commissioners become (as foreshadowed activists who make up a political party do be: maybe. There is little point in trying to in Amsterdam) the appointed members of so because – for a mysterious amalgam of deny that some intelligent and influential his (in the US sense) cabinet; and the TEU is reasons – they feel comfortable with one people are trying to bring about such a slightly revised to remove all unanimity another (or at any rate more comfortable result; and history tells us, if it tells us (and most qualified majority) rules from with one another than elsewhere). nothing else, that intelligent and successful the operation of the Council, and to give the Now, it would be foolhardy to suppose people may, with sufficient luck, move President, Parliament and Council a triple that such a cultural affinity cannot be built mountains. lock on (and equal weight in) legislation, so across Europe, or that it will be impossible It therefore behoves those interested in that ‘deals’ have to be done as on Capitol to create lasting pan-European political the evolution of the European Union to ask: Hill. parties that will each adopt policies relating what are the conditions for such a success? The problem, then, is not institutional. It to the supposed advantage of the whole Manifestly, none of us can know the is, rather, in the deepest sense, political.