[PEN-L:4739] Times Op-Ed on Tony Blair

[D Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>]

The London Times: Opinion			June 19, 1996

BLAIR IS FACING TWO WAYS ON EUROPE

Tony Blair's speech to German businessmen yesterday was one of which
the Prime Minister himself might have been proud. No expression of
support for a policy was complete without a countervailing warning.
Cliches ran amok: Britain should be "succeeding in Europe not failing,
winning not losing, walking tall, not skulking on the sidelines". By the
end, observers could not decide whether the Labour leader was leaning
towards enthusiasm or scepticism. Like John Major, Mr Blair is proving
adept at telling each side what it wants to hear.

On the one hand, we are told, "Britain should take its proper place as a
leader in Europe" rather than being "reduced to the margins of
influence". On the other, "you should not expect us to agree with
everything that comes from Bonn or Brussels". On the one hand, "we do
not seek to merge our national identities into an international
superstate"; on the other, "we seek a European and global framework for
key decisions that affect all our lives".

Mr Blair may be right in judging that mood music is important. It is easy
to forget the relief with which Mr Major was first greeted, by Helmut
Kohl in particular, when he assured his EU partners that Britain wanted
to be "at the heart of Europe". But the reality of Britain's position soon
caught up with Mr Major, as it will with Mr Blair.

It was on the single currency that the Labour leader was most
ambiguous yesterday. In principle, he said, it could have benefits. He
would judge the decision on economic grounds. But his definition of
what constituted "economic" seemed to include much that is political
and constitutional. He warned that, if the economies linked by a single
currency were not "genuinely and sustainably convergent", there would
be a risk to weaker economies and especially to jobs. "The result could
be a reaction amongst the people that could be severe, nationalist in tone
and dangerous."

This is precisely the reaction that makes us so wary of a single currency,
whether or not Britain is a member. Mr Blair must know that the
chances of Europe's economies becoming "genuinely and sustainably
convergent" in the short, medium or even long term are remote. The
dangers of which he speaks are, therefore, very real. And they are not
merely economic. Once governments lose the tools to remedy such
economic suffering, voters start to become restless. When they realise
that the Opposition too is similarly impotent, they begin to wonder what
use is their vote. Democracy is thus made vulnerable. Sovereignty is not
a dry, constitutional matter: the loss of it leads to riots in the streets.

Conservative Party spokesmen may claim an important difference
between Mr Blair and Mr Major is that, that while both are aware of
these dangers, Mr Major is the only one prepared to act on them. Mr
Blair yesterday restricted himself to pointing them out; he then went on
to promise that he would not try to obstruct; indeed he would "work
closely with Germany and others to help make sure EMU is given the
best chance of working". Mr Major is also, however, not attempting to
stop the project. Both can see it ending in tears; both are prepared to
watch the tears being shed.

If the rise of nationalism on the Continent were a problem merely for
those nations concerned, this might be a legitimate policy. But Britain
too has an interest in the continuance of democracy and peace in
Europe. The EU was set up precisely to achieve peace and prosperity.
Its current direction imperils this. If Britain can rightly be accused of
being on the sidelines, it is not because this country is not joining EMU,
but because it is not opposing it strongly enough.