THE WORST SPEECH and the best heckle that I have ever heard occurred 20 years ago. The speaker, as was customary, attempted to introduce the debate with a few humorous remarks at the expense of the chairman. His comments were numerous and entirely devoid of impact. Joke after supposed joke fell flat, expiring at the very second the words left his lips.
After what felt like an eternity he finally turned to the subject in hand — animal vivisection. “Mr president,” he began, “this debate is about pain.” “You’re telling us,” rang out a loud voice from behind him.
To tell Tony Blair that this week will be about pain would elicit a weary “you’re telling me” from the Prime Minister. The EU budget negotiations are the modern equivalent of torture on the rack, yet no law lord in the land can prohibit that.
Mr Blair has already been accused of “treason” by a section of the media for indicating that he would “surrender” £800 million of the £3.4 billion British annual rebate.
Yet he has been assailed for “humbug” by his alleged allies in Eastern Europe for not offering a sum far larger. Paris has let it be known that this is simply typical of London. Any attempt to link the reduction in the British rebate to reform of the common agricultural policy will incur Jacques Chirac’s veto. The French President insists that Britain should abandon at least half of its special allowance.
And that is precisely what the Prime Minister should contemplate. He will be murdered in the press whatever he does, so he might as well be stabbed after having achieved a deal than burnt in effigy despite bringing home no bargain. To invite bitter personal criticism, to alienate the EU members in the east and still to obtain nothing in Brussels this week would be the worst of outcomes. Mr Blair does not have to face the electorate again. He can afford, every now and then, to put the national interest before newspaper invective. He should do that on this occasion. No pain, no gain.
To state this is not to be an enthusiast for the European Union. Far from it. If I could employ the services of a time machine to move back to the 1975 referendum and rig the ballot then I would happily do so. I am left a Eurosceptic and a Euro cynic. The streets of Brussels are paved with mould as far as I am concerned. But we are in the EU and those who dream that we might depart from it could equally well hang about and wait for a resurrected Oliver Cromwell to arrive and re-establish the Commonwealth of England.
It is not going to happen. Nor are matters helped by the sheer fanaticism of those who favour withdrawal. I received an expensive journal recently informing me that the late Sir Edward Heath had been a German spy for 60 years, at first for the Nazis and then for something called the Euro state Plan B. I note that these accusations were not placed in print while he was in any position to sue for libel.
There are three reasons why Mr Blair should bite this particular bullet. The first is the basic facts of the case. Margaret Thatcher secured the rebate at a time when Britain was struggling to escape basket-case status. It was ludicrous, back in the early 1980s, to expect us to make contributions of anything like the size of France and Italy when they were much richer societies.
The rebate was not, though, issued for all time and it was not valid in every circumstance. It is a relatively small amount of money compared with national income. As a fee for being at the centre of the largest market in the world it is not unreasonable. Britain should be prepared to forgo half of it over the period 2007 to 2013 and then stand back from it entirely.
The second of Mr Blair’s reasons is the sheer immorality of the present situation; it is an outrage that the EU waited for 15 years after the collapse of Communism before setting out a threadbare welcome mat for Eastern Europe. It adds injury to insult to deny those countries the money required to make a success out of membership. Britain has been rightly in the vanguard of those who welcome Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states back into the bosom of this continent.
While such countries are not quite the natural partners that they are portrayed in some quarters, it remains true that fundamental change within the EU suits them, as it would assist Britain. There is a strategic incentive to cement an alliance, even if it means continuing to tolerate a bizarre, sad arrangement under which half the French population sticks a brace of poulets in the back garden and calls it agriculture.
That wasteful practice will not last for ever. Mr Blair, if he settles with his friends to the east, can bring forward its funeral. The idea of a “review” of the whole EU budget in 2009 has been widely mocked as an empty gesture. It need not be. By being serious about removing the rebate today the Prime Minister can bind other countries into a formal commitment over when that budget review should begin and what apportionment of agricultural support should be eliminated. While it is true that any French President will support the CAP to the hilt, not every politician is as tied to the pâté lobby as Monsieur Chirac. His time in the Elysée Palace is running out. The EU should be ready for his long-deferred retirement.
Among the many gibes thrown at Mr Blair is that eliminating the rebate is a slight on Mrs Thatcher’s legacy. How can acknowledging the economic transformation of Britain that she initiated be considered disrespectful? How can championing those in prisons behind the Iron Curtain that she helped to tear down be deemed demeaning of her? How can culling the sordid CAP be dismissed as inconsequential? The Prime Minister is in this, as in several other respects, extending the Thatcher enterprise, not ending it. The budget deliberation will be painful. That is no reason for Britain to engage in masochism masked as nationalism.
JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails from here
