Blair stays relaxed amid euro frenzy
Published 05 March 1999
Tony Blair makes a measured statement on the euro in which he repeats an argument he has made several times before and look what happens: William Hague falls into the trap of trying to appear strong and macho even though his situation demands Wilsonian pragmatism; Messrs Heseltine and Clarke declare that this is the moment they have been waiting for; Sunday newspapers repeat old stories about the launch of a pro-Europe Conservative party; poor Anne McElvoy tells us on page 35 that she cannot enjoy a dinner party in peace now that Blair has fired the starting gun.
It all goes to show that Blair is the shrewdest occupant of Downing Street for many a decade. When he wants to create a frenzy without fully declaring his hand he can do so. When he wishes to kill off a thorny issue for the time being, he waves his wand and it is despatched to the land of milk and honey marked "second term".
Compare how he has handled the single currency with that other divisive issue of recent months, electoral reform. Both received "warm" words from Blair without enjoying an unequivocal endorsement. But he has managed to kick the issue of a change to the voting system into the long grass without alienating Roy Jenkins and Paddy Ashdown, and without facing accusations of indecisiveness. In my view, the momentum towards electoral reform will revive only in the unlikely event of a close result at the next election. Indeed, some very senior Blairites partly blame the uncertain start made by the Schroder government on the voting system in Germany, which "failed" to give him a strong majority.
Anyway the Jenkins report landed in the political pond and made no ripples at all, which is precisely what Blair desired at the time.
His statement on EMU contains at least as many qualifications as that which greeted Lord Jenkins' recommendations, but on the single currency he wanted to "move up a gear". So the symbolism of the event was all the greater. The briefings afterwards also stirred the pot, with the Sunday newspapers being told of Blair's private meetings with Heseltine over the issue. Even so, the original Commons statement listed enough conditions for entry to illustrate that behind the frenzied headlines this is a debate of a most tentative kind. We know who is on either side of the dividing line, but the line itself is very blurred.
Take the emergence of Blair's main foe this week. For if Blair and David Owen were to sit together in a room for an hour or so they would agree about most issues, including a fair amount on Europe. Indeed Blair is closer to Owen on policy issues than he is to Roy Jenkins. Owen is a great admirer of new Labour. He would have offered his endorsement at the last election but for loyalty to John Major, who wooed the doctor in the same way as Blair offers jobs to some Tories. Owen fully approved of the speech Blair made this week on the importance of a more competitive, deregulated Europe, closer to the American model. He shares Blair's enthusiasm for Britain's close relationship with the US and was a supporter of the bombing of Iraq at the end of last year when some of Blair's ministerial colleagues had private doubts.
What is more, the two have a similar attitude towards leadership, although Blair is infinitely the more successful practitioner. Both were impressed by the Thatcher style of "tough" leadership. Yet both have sought to work with other parties. For Owen this proved an impossible conflict to resolve. He railed against the politics of "fudge and mudge" while his position in a new centrist party required compromise. I suspect Blair would grow equally impatient if he became dependent on the Liberal Democrats.
The "co-operation" he is currently offering is in the heavily controlled environment of a cabinet committee with the most senior and responsible members of Ashdown's party. Stray Lib Dems actually occupying positions of power in his government would be in conflict with his own Thatcherite desire for strong control.
So what places these individuals on opposite sides of the fence? The answer is that Blair is Prime Minister and Owen last held office in 1979. If Owen were foreign secretary now he would be taking precisely the same route as Blair. For Blair has experienced at first hand the logical consequence of a foreign policy that seeks to place Britain at the heart of Europe. Such a policy can be realised only if Britain is in the single currency. Blair seeks economic and institutional reform of the EU along similar lines to Owen, but knows he will be heard only if his European partners sense he is ready to join EMU. Owen's lofty vantage point allows him to conclude, wrongly, that it is possible to be a leading member outside EMU.
But for now the gulf between Blair and Owen is nowhere near as huge as it seems. The single currency debate is splintered with these two men somewhere in the centre. Those unequivocally in the "yes" camp include Paddy Ashdown, Peter Mandelson and, quite possibly, Gordon Brown. The "yes, but . . ." group is led by Blair and incorporates at its most sceptical end Robin Cook. The "wait and see" group includes Owen (who would wait and see for a very long time) and the shadow chancellor, Francis Maude, who is playing an interesting game, stressing always that the Tories are opposed to entry "in the short term". Those opposed as a matter of principle range from Hague (who feels strongly on the issue and is not acting out of political expediency) and, at the most sceptical end of the spectrum, John Redwood and Michael Portillo.
Yet, in the clash of conflicting certainties in recent days, only Tony Blair has left himself with some room for manoeuvre, while masterfully changing the course of the debate.
Post this article to
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.
