History of England 1-6

Up to this point, the speech had been well judged, with references to British help for Europe balanced by praise for Belgian courage. Now she directed the conference’s attention to the east. ‘The European Community is one manifestation of … European identity, but it is not the only one. We must never forget that east of the Iron Curtain, people who once enjoyed a full share of European culture, freedom and identity have been cut off from their roots. We shall always look on Warsaw, Prague and Budapest as great European cities.’ The message was plain: Europe must look beyond Western Europe. But the vision, though expansive, was incomplete. Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Albania and Russia, having nothing in the way of a capitalist tradition, simply did not count. ‘Europe,’ she continued, ‘will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity.’ The nation state, not the Commission, should be at the heart of Europe. That this ran counter to at least some of the reforms established by the Single European Act was an irony lost on her. Nonetheless, Thatcher’s understanding of a Europe run by European nations was thoroughly of a piece with her support for British membership in 1973. The term ‘Eurosceptics’ was not yet in currency, but even if it had been, the Bruges speech furnishes no evidence that Thatcher was of their number.

Later in the speech, she made the assertion for which the speech will always be remembered. ‘We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them reimposed at European level with a European superstate exercising a new dominance from Brussels.’ Perhaps she imagined that this would go down well in Bruges, a rival Belgian city, but it seems improbable. Ironically enough, the expression ‘superstate’ was one of the few with which none in her party, or in the Foreign Office, took issue at the time.

The free movement of peoples was all very well, she suggested, but border controls were needed if the citizen was to be protected from crime, drugs or illegal immigrants. The speech trumpeted NATO, though with a warning that member states of the union should begin to pay their share. She also invoked her bête noire, protectionism. ‘We have a responsibility,’ she said, ‘to give a lead on this, a responsibility which is particularly directed towards the less developed countries. They need not only aid; more than anything they need improved trading opportunities if they are to gain the dignity of growing economic strength and independence.’

It was a point that was also to be raised by many on the left, for whom the European Community was an overfed giant that squatted on the smaller economies, crushing all breath from them. It was altogether a remarkable affair, but none foresaw how deeply it would alter Thatcher’s reputation and her dealings with those in Europe. Howe was forthright when he read the first draft, remarking that ‘there are some plain and fundamental errors in the draft and … it tends to view the world as though we had not adhered to any of the treaties.’ It was a just point, but then Howe went further. While he agreed that ‘a stronger Europe does not mean the creation of a superstate’, he re-emphasized the unpalatable fact that it ‘does and will require the sacrifice of political independence and the rights of national parliaments. That is inherent in the treaties.’

This Thatcher could never accept, yet Howe was right. Clause Eleven of the Treaty of Accession had made it quite clear that the laws of the European Community would supersede those of the English parliament. Thatcher’s curious doublethink on the matter ended in what Howe was later to call her ‘defection’ from the party. Whatever the intention may have been, the speech achieved precisely the opposite of what many had hoped. Thatcher could not but intrude her own vision in a speech conceived to celebrate AngloEuropean unity. Now, however inadvertently, she had opened a fissure between herself and her colleagues in the cabinet, in the party and in Europe.

55

Money, money, money