My non-part in David Owen's plot

Peter Kellner reveals the surprising names of people he didn't join in an anti-euro campaign

I want to clear my name. Shortly before Christmas I was accused, separately, by two cabinet ministers, a lobby journalist and an aide to Tony Blair of joining Lord Owen's campaign to oppose Britain's membership of the single currency. They were wrong, though I could see why they thought this. They had been given a distorted account of an informal and (I had been told) confidential approach that I had received from Owen's camp. Now that he has started talking publicly about his venture, the time has come for me to explain my non-part in it.

Two months ago I was telephoned by Mary Ann Sieghart, an assistant editor at the Times. What, she asked, were my views on the single currency? I said I want Europe to evolve into a political federation. This process could take 20 years or more. It must not be rushed: plainly, a federal Europe will need a single currency. My fear, however, is that the euro is being born too soon, and that the economics and politics of European unity are out of kilter.

Mary Ann then told me that my thinking was similar to those of Owen and a number of other pro-Europeans who were planning to meet informally over dinner to see if they could rescue the debate about the single currency from the trench war between pro-euro fanatics and anti-euro nationalists. Was I interested in joining them?

I was intrigued. I told her I could not make the first dinner - at the Groucho on 23 November - but asked to be kept informed. A few days later Owen wrote to me. He listed other prospective members of his group:

- Lord Dahrendorf (academic, Lib Dem peer and one-time German minister);

- Sir Ewen Fergusson (of bankers Coutts & Co);

- Gerald Holtham (formerly director of the Institute of Public Policy Research and now economic strategist for the Norwich Union);

- Anatole Kaletsky (economics columnist for the Times);

- Ruth Lea (Institute of Directors);

- David Marsh (former German correspondent of the Financial Times and now head of research for the City company Flemings);

- Sir Peter Middleton (former permanent secretary at the Treasury);

- Lord Prior (former "wet" Tory minister, recently retired chairman of GEC);

- Ann Robinson (National Association of Pension Funds);

- Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover (president of the supermarket chain);

- Mary Ann Sieghart;

- Christopher Smallwood (of the public affairs and public relations company Brunswick);

- Martin Taylor (former chief executive of Barclays and head of the government's task force on tax and benefits).

As I was mulling over whether to join the group, Owen's office wrote again, this time sending me a ten-page draft statement: "Why Britain should keep the pound and not adopt the European single currency". It started: "We are positive Europeans." To distance the group from traditional Eurosceptics, it added: "We see no need for Treaty amendments."

I could sign up to that - and to much of the analysis in the draft statement. I agree that "a single political identity does not exist between the populations of the various member-states. This means that the strains generated by the inappropriate imposition of single economic policies across an Economic and Monetary Union may well cause the EU to fracture and fall apart. To insist on currency union before there is political union is to put the cart before the horse. To survive, political union will have to come in with currency union."

My basic problem with the draft statement is that it regards political union as anathema: "Adopting the European single currency could prove a decisive step towards turning Britain into a mere province of Europe, with a consequent loss not only of power and independence but of democratic accountability as authority is transferred outside democratic control." For me, the right kind of political union - democratic, tolerant, diverse, decentralised - is precisely what I want my descendants one day to inhabit.

I found that statement not only wrong-headed, but surprising. After all, Europe was the biggest single issue that had caused Owen, the proud internationalist, to leave the Labour Party in 1981. In those days he mocked the "chauvinistic and unrealistic" view that Britain could or should act alone. In 1986, in his book A United Kingdom, he argued strongly for British participation in the European Monetary System. It "offers us a way of reducing exchange-rate volatility and uncertainty, essential if industry is to plan long-term . . . The EMS is not a soft option but would provide an important external means of imposing a greater degree of internal consistency on the way successive UK governments approach monetary policy." Twelve years on, the merits of external discipline have been replaced by the dangers of Britain becoming a "mere province".

We are all entitled to change our minds. Still, it is curious that Owen's warnings today about independence and democracy resemble the language of the party he left 18 years ago more than that of the party he helped to found and, for five years, led.

Is there any consistency about him? Yes, in an odd way there is. During his long career, Owen has consistently made enemies of people he has worked with - in the Labour Party, in the Foreign Office, in the Liberal Party and even in his own SDP. Now he is alienating his former allies in the cause of European unity.

Five weeks ago, I wrote to Owen declining to join his group. So did Lord Dahrendorf, who thinks, like me, that Britain should keep its options open.

And that, m'lud, is the case for the defence.

Post this article to

• Digg
• del.icio.us
• facebook
• newsvine
• NowPublic
• Reddit

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.