The Complete Yes Minister

Having enjoyed watching Bernard wriggle, I turned back to Humphrey. ‘Oh by the way,’ I asked, ‘can we manage a CBE for Henderson? Or a Vice-Chancellorship or something?’

Humphrey was appalled. ‘Certainly not! He’s completely unreliable and totally lacking in judgement. I still can’t think why he suddenly cast doubt on his whole report in that final paragraph.’

‘Because,’ I replied without thinking, ‘he has excellent judgement, enormous stature and great charm.’ Then I realised what I’d said.

So did Humphrey. ‘I thought you said you’d never met him.’ Quick as a flash I replied, ‘Intellectual stature.’

Humphrey was not fooled. ‘And charm?’ he enquired scathingly.

I was almost stumped. ‘He . . . er . . . he writes with charm,’ I explained unconvincingly. ‘Doesn’t he, Bernard?’

‘Yes Minister,’ replied Bernard dutifully.

Sir Humphrey’s face was a picture.

¹ Originally said by Mr Harold Wilson as he then was.

² Department of Industry.

12

The Devil You Know

July 1st

The EEC is really intolerably difficult to deal with. For months I have been working with the DAA to get the whole of the Civil Service to place one big central order for word-processing machines. This would replace the present nonsensical practice of every separate department in Whitehall ordering all different sorts of word-processors in dribs and drabs.

If we at the DAA placed one big central order for everyone, the sum of money would be so large it would enable UK manufacturers to make the right sort of investment in systems development.

For days now, we have been on the verge of success. Months of patient negotiations were about to pay off. I was all ready to make a major press announcement: I could see the headlines: HACKER’S MASSIVE INVESTMENT IN MODERN TECHNOLOGY. JIM’S VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN BRITISH INDUSTRY. BRITAIN CAN MAKE IT, SAYS JIM.

And then, this morning, we got another bloody directive from the bloody EEC in bloody Brussels, saying that all EEC members must work to some niggling European word-processing standards. And therefore, we must postpone everything in order to agree plans with a whole mass of European Word Processing Committees at the forthcoming European Word Processing Conference in Brussels.

I called a meeting to discuss all this. I went through the whole story so far, and Sir Humphrey and Bernard just sat there saying, ‘Yes Minister,’ and ‘Quite so Minister,’ at regular intervals. Some help.

Finally, I got tired of the sound of my own voice. [Was this a first? – Ed.] I demanded that Humphrey contribute something to the discussion.

He sighed. ‘Well, Minister, I’m afraid that this is the penalty we have to pay for trying to pretend that we are Europeans. Believe me, I fully understand your hostility to Europe.’

As so often happens, Humphrey completely missed the point. I tried to explain again.

‘Humphrey,’ I said slowly and patiently, ‘I’m not like you. I am pro-Europe. I’m just anti-Brussels. You seem to be anti-Europe and pro-Brussels.’

He dodged the issue, and pretended that he had no opinions on the EEC. Duplicitous creep. ‘Minister, I am neither pro nor anti anything. I am merely a Humble Vessel into which Ministers pour the fruits of their deliberations. But it can certainly be argued that, given the absurdity of the whole European idea, Brussels is in fact doing its best to defend the indefensible and make the unworkable work.’

I told Humphrey that he was talking through his hat and that although I didn’t want to sound pompous the European ideal is our best hope of overcoming narrow national self-interest.

He told me that I didn’t sound pompous – merely inaccurate.

So I explained yet again to the Humble Vessel that Europe is a community of nations united by a common goal.

He chuckled, and I asked if Bernard and I might share the joke.

He was laughing at the idea that the community was united. ‘Look at it objectively,’ he said. ‘The game is played for national interests, and always was.’

I disagreed. I reminded him that we went into the EEC to strengthen the international brotherhood of free nations.

Humphrey chuckled again. It really was most disconcerting. Then he began to tell me his interpretation – which was even more disconcerting.

‘We went in,’ he said, ‘to screw the French by splitting them off from the Germans. The French went in to protect their inefficient farmers from commercial competition. The Germans went in to cleanse themselves of genocide and apply for readmission to the human race.’

I told Humphrey that I was quite shocked by his appalling cynicism. I couldn’t actually argue with what he said because I feel, somewhat uneasily, that there is a ring of truth about it. I said: ‘At least the little nations are in it for selfless reasons.’

‘Ah yes,’ he replied. ‘Luxembourg is in it for the perks – all that foreign money pouring into the capital of the EEC.’

‘Nonetheless, it’s a very sensible location for the capital,’ I argued.