By Sir Timothy Garden
On the hottest day of the year, Chatham House was packed with the dark suits of the Establishment as they gathered on 27 July to listen to Jack Straw make his first major public speech in his new role as Foreign Secretary. The audience perhaps expected little of substance; they were well used to politicians coming to speak over their heads and at the television cameras. But, in an extraordinary departure from custom, the Foreign Secretary talked to his audience and at their level. This was not a populist political rant, but a carefully constructed erudite pitch on why the EU was a good thing, and what needed to be done to educate the British (and other EU members’) citizens in the benefits of membership.
He believed that it was not impossible to connect the EU to its citizens and started with a five point plan. Firstly, there needed to be more focus on outcomes and less on the processes. Second, people needed to know that the nation state remained the foundation. Third, he wanted there to be serious debate about Europe, and this would include his fourth point: that people need to understand the history of the continent. Finally, he made a call for striking the right balance between progress and stability.
He spent some time on outlining the benefits (or outcomes) of EU membership to Britain. These were not just in trade, but in environment, workers’ rights, consumer prices and from his own experience in the fight against crime. A questioner suggested that the EU should not just do good for its members but should become a cause for good around the world that we could be proud of. Jack Straw agreed quoting the EU action on the Kyoto protocol as an example of such powerful consolidated action.
He reminded the audience that we have over the years been prepared to give up aspects of our sovereignty to make various international organisations work. Pooling sovereignty through the UN, NATO or the EU makes us stronger than we would be on our own. Thus sovereignty is enhanced rather than weakened. Nor did he accept that being British or European were alternatives. We could all have loyalties at every level from the local to the global.
He said that leaders and political elites must remember that the EU exists for the benefit of its citizens. There was a need to express the discussion on Europe more in terms of what will be delivered and less in terms of complex institutional debates. His written text talks about greater transparency and efficiency, but his answer to a question on this was fairly cautious. He did not believe that government was possible if every committee and every policy discussion was open to the media gaze. He did not seem to advocate as much change in the mechanisms of the European institutions as some of his audience might have wanted.
His discussion on the need to debate the future of Europe was particularly interesting. He said that we should be less “twitchy and defensive” when others have ideas which come from a different perspective. We should welcome the diversity of views and the debate which it engenders. On a Constitution for Europe he took the view that it would be like the British Constitution made up of many parts rather than one overarching legal document. It would however help if the various treaties which effectively formed the EU Constitution could be written in a more simple way so that people could understand them.In the question period, he challenged the political philosophers in the audience to start looking at the possible visions for Europe. He thought that there was not enough thinking of the long term possibilities.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Euro was little discussed in this session. He got it out of the way early in his formal presentation by a quick restatement of the standard five economic tests and referendum requirement. It was clear that he feels that it will be necessary to convince the public to believe in the wider benefits of EU membership before focusing on the narrow issue of monetary union.
This was an impressive performance by a Foreign Secretary who had been reported as coming from the Euro Sceptic side of the Labour Party. He said he had made a personal journey on European issues, and that he hoped others would make the same journey. It was clear that he was well versed in the history and politics of the EU. If his speech signals the start of a much more proactive campaign by the Government on Europe, then Jack Straw is going to be in the vanguard. For once the applause of the assembled great and good was genuine appreciation rather than polite behaviour.