LONDON–The split at the top of the British government could not have come at a worst time. Just as Britain is stepping into the presidency of the European Union the unpleasant rivalry, until now sublimated, between the camps of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his effective number two, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has hit the political headlines, threatening to throw Britain’s young Labour government into spasms of internal conflict just as all its attention is needed for what is certainly to be the most difficult task of its period in office, constructing the right relationship with its European partners.
The political calendar is turning fast and time is not on Britain’s side. What has been talked and negociated about for many years is going to reach its denouement in mere months. On May 10th a summit presided over by Mr Blair will decide the membership of the European economic and monetary union that will come into being on the first day of next year. In effect, Mr Blair and his team have not much more than three months to get their act together.
Are they for this venture, or are they against it? Do they want to be part of the great “historic compromise”, even it means turning somersaults on their previous wait and see commitments? Or do they want to stay on the sidelines, trusting there will be a more propitious time to join in the future, sometime after the next election, four and a half years hence, when supposedly the Blair government, the economic cycle and public opinion will have moved in tandem, by some miracle, to their most opportune positions on the political firmament?
The danger for Mr Blair is that in forsaking leadership and, as it presently appears, postponing this most important of all decisions, he has undermined his own government in a way that no political rival could. Indeed, he can only be rescued by events outside his control–the failure of the currency union to work as planned. If the so-called Eurosceptics are right and the tight money policy necessary for its success breeds increased unemployment and inappropriate interest rates and, therefore, more intra-European political tension, not less as is the object, then Mr Blair will reap the benefits of his seat in the bleachers. But if the single currency is a success, which is the more likely scenario, Mr Blair may be left standing helplessly at the entry gate, unable to walk through because he has allowed himself to be the follower, not the leader of public opinion at home, a public opinion that may then be soured by the consequences of what might flow from a successful monetary union–a devaluation of the British pound or, at least, a rather volatile currency, a loss of inward investment in favour of the continent, further marginalization of British influence in the world and, not least, the eclipse of London by Frankfurt as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre.
As Roy Denman, a top British diplomat who was at the centre of negociations for Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community in 1973, has put it, “The British presidency has all the makings of a farce…The British prime minister and his colleagues will resemble the orchestra at the end of the Marx Brothers’ “A Night at the Opera.” “On a barge moored to a pier it began to play. But someone had cut the mooring line and as the barge drifted out to sea the orchestra’s sound faded into the distance.”
Even at this late hour there is a hand that Mr Blair could deal–which is to play the presidency over the next three months on the assumption that Britain is going to join the single currency at some not too distant point. This will generate its own momentum. Nothing is more appealing to onlookers than the captain of a fully rigged schooner racing before a good wind.
Already the opposition Conservatives are making it easy for him. With their new young leader, William Hague, the Conservatives have nailed their colors to the Euro-hostile mast. But the so-called “grandees” of the party, former foreign secretaries and the like, have come out in favour of membership.
Timing is everything. If this ship is taking in no water come the end of April Mr Blair should announce that he is advancing by five years the date of a British referendum on the issue of joining to soon after the May summit–worded to give Mr Blair the authority to join up when he judges the moment is right for British economic well-being.
The argument for Britain being at the heart of Europe is as it has long been–to make sure that Europe is so bound together there never again can be war on its soil (and that means looking forward to the day when Russia becomes a member). Mr Blair has it in his hands not only to change the history of Europe but to be on course to become its leading statesman. But is he too bogged down in parochial, little-Englander politics and petty, personal differences with his chancellor to seize the defining moment?
