Maastricht revisted
While writing the obit post below for Jim Molyneaux I found myself describing the rights and wrongs of the Maastricht Treaty ratification vote twenty years ago in which Jim played a pivotal role.
I don't like to use Obit posts to score political points, and my attempt to describe the role which in my opinion Jim played in ensuring Britain still has the pound rather than being forced to join the Euro was in danger of becoming a political essay rather than a tribute to departed merit. So I decided to move it into a separate post.
As I wrote in the previous post, in the early 90's there was a bizarre "unholy alliance" between people of diametrically opposite objectives, e.g. hard-line opponents of the EU and hard-line pro-EU Federalists in respect of the Maastricht treaty.
One of those two sides would have well and truly shafted themselves if they had succeeded in defeating the Major government, although we never found out which side was making a catastrophic strategic error because the government narrowly succeeded in getting both the treaty, and the opt-out which saved the pound, through parliament.
The government was seeking ratification of the Maastricht treaty on the future form of the EU: during the negotiation of that treaty the Major government had secured two important opt-outs for Britain - from the Single Currency and from the "Social Chapter." Tragically the latter opt-out was subsequently thrown away by the Blair government along with half the rebate Maggie had previously secured for Britain but we still have the single currency opt-out and thank God we do.
The Labour party at the time wanted Britain to give up the pound (a view from which they wisely later had second thoughts) and sign the Social Chapter (from which they didn't), so when the Maasstricht Treaty came up for renewal they tried to remove the opt-outs.
This is where the unholy alliance came in: some hardline Euro-sceptics, most of whom would have preferred to leave the European Union altogether and are now in Better Off Out or UKIP, decided that they might have a chance of getting the entire treaty thrown out by voting with Labour to remove the opt-outs.
Hence we saw the extraordinary spectacle of people who don't want Britain to be in the European Union at all voting to scrap the pound in favour of the European Single Currency and to make Britain subject to European social legislation.
The vote was excruciatingly close: we will never know whether the result, if the amendment had succeeded, would have been that the treaty was ratified without the opt-outs, or that the whole thing had fallen through, which might have resulted either in a British exit from the EU, or Britain remaining a member, probably under a new treaty and possibly on less favourable terms.
Some pro-Europeans such as Ted Heath and Paddy Ashdown thought that Labour Leader John Smith was gambling with Britain's EU membership, hence Ted attacked Smith in the sort of strong language he usually reserved for his own party, and the Lib/Dems voted with the government.
However, many Eurosceptics thought that the Euro-rebel opponents of the government were the ones who were taking an almighty gamble, because they were essentially voting that Britain should surrender our currency and give Europe far more control over our social policies.
Since we do not know what would have happened if the government had not squeaked through, I don't know which side of the "Unholy alliance" between Labour pro-Europeans and Tory Eurosceptics would have discovered that they had completely sabotaged their own position had the opt-outs been removed from the legislation to ratify the treaty. However we can be absolutely certain that one of those two groups would have found this. Because we don't know which, it is my personal opinion that both were taking a huge and arguably very irresponsible gamble with Britain's future.
As I can see at least two possible scenarios in which removal of the opt-out clauses from the bill ratifying the treaty could have resulted in it being ratified without the opt-out, it is more than possible that Jim Molyneaux's decision to oppose the amendment to remove those clauses saved the pound. That is how I will remember him.
Unlike the obit post which preceded it, I will accept comments expressing different points of view on this one in the normal way, except that "nihil nisi bonum" still applies.
I don't like to use Obit posts to score political points, and my attempt to describe the role which in my opinion Jim played in ensuring Britain still has the pound rather than being forced to join the Euro was in danger of becoming a political essay rather than a tribute to departed merit. So I decided to move it into a separate post.
As I wrote in the previous post, in the early 90's there was a bizarre "unholy alliance" between people of diametrically opposite objectives, e.g. hard-line opponents of the EU and hard-line pro-EU Federalists in respect of the Maastricht treaty.
One of those two sides would have well and truly shafted themselves if they had succeeded in defeating the Major government, although we never found out which side was making a catastrophic strategic error because the government narrowly succeeded in getting both the treaty, and the opt-out which saved the pound, through parliament.
The government was seeking ratification of the Maastricht treaty on the future form of the EU: during the negotiation of that treaty the Major government had secured two important opt-outs for Britain - from the Single Currency and from the "Social Chapter." Tragically the latter opt-out was subsequently thrown away by the Blair government along with half the rebate Maggie had previously secured for Britain but we still have the single currency opt-out and thank God we do.
The Labour party at the time wanted Britain to give up the pound (a view from which they wisely later had second thoughts) and sign the Social Chapter (from which they didn't), so when the Maasstricht Treaty came up for renewal they tried to remove the opt-outs.
This is where the unholy alliance came in: some hardline Euro-sceptics, most of whom would have preferred to leave the European Union altogether and are now in Better Off Out or UKIP, decided that they might have a chance of getting the entire treaty thrown out by voting with Labour to remove the opt-outs.
Hence we saw the extraordinary spectacle of people who don't want Britain to be in the European Union at all voting to scrap the pound in favour of the European Single Currency and to make Britain subject to European social legislation.
The vote was excruciatingly close: we will never know whether the result, if the amendment had succeeded, would have been that the treaty was ratified without the opt-outs, or that the whole thing had fallen through, which might have resulted either in a British exit from the EU, or Britain remaining a member, probably under a new treaty and possibly on less favourable terms.
Some pro-Europeans such as Ted Heath and Paddy Ashdown thought that Labour Leader John Smith was gambling with Britain's EU membership, hence Ted attacked Smith in the sort of strong language he usually reserved for his own party, and the Lib/Dems voted with the government.
However, many Eurosceptics thought that the Euro-rebel opponents of the government were the ones who were taking an almighty gamble, because they were essentially voting that Britain should surrender our currency and give Europe far more control over our social policies.
Since we do not know what would have happened if the government had not squeaked through, I don't know which side of the "Unholy alliance" between Labour pro-Europeans and Tory Eurosceptics would have discovered that they had completely sabotaged their own position had the opt-outs been removed from the legislation to ratify the treaty. However we can be absolutely certain that one of those two groups would have found this. Because we don't know which, it is my personal opinion that both were taking a huge and arguably very irresponsible gamble with Britain's future.
As I can see at least two possible scenarios in which removal of the opt-out clauses from the bill ratifying the treaty could have resulted in it being ratified without the opt-out, it is more than possible that Jim Molyneaux's decision to oppose the amendment to remove those clauses saved the pound. That is how I will remember him.
Unlike the obit post which preceded it, I will accept comments expressing different points of view on this one in the normal way, except that "nihil nisi bonum" still applies.
Comments