Callaghan didn’t like being a European grocer, will Hague?

January 21, 2013 7:00 pm

The UK doesn’t have much experience of ‘renegotiation’ with its European partners. We have only been there before when Labour was holding the reins of government. Despite the issues being different, it’s worth looking at James Callaghan’s experience as Foreign Secretary of renegotiation and what may lie in store for William Hague if he has to do the same.

Although Harold Wilson put Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Roy Hattersley ‘nominally’ in charge of the renegotiation, Callaghan did a lot of heavy lifting. He hated the experience. The discussions were long and tedious. It was a highly technical grind into the minutiae of certain aspects of the UK’s membership. Sunny Jim learned far more about the price of New Zealand butter than he probably ever wanted. He said he felt like a ‘multiple grocer’.

When the Cyprus crisis of 1974 broke out (a coup in Cyprus threatening war between Greece and Turkey and the collapse of NATO’s western flank), Callaghan had a major role. He jumped at the chance to get involved with vim and vigour. It gave him a break from the drudgery of renegotiation. While this gave him a chance to avoid discussing butter he found the talks to avert war a tough slog, to the extent that he wrote to Wilson, ‘I much prefer the National Executive Committee’.

Like Hague, Callaghan was quite cool on the European project and wanted to examine some of the key tenets of Britain’s involvement. While he didn’t mind parts of economic collaboration, he was ‘agnostic’ on general European issues. Callaghan gave Foreign Office officials copies of the Labour Party February 1974 manifesto so they would know which policy to follow. Fundamental renegotiations that would look at the Treaty of Accession were on the cards but against the wishes of officials and didn’t really happen.

Callaghan approached renegotiation in an aggressive fashion. His first speech on the matter slated prospects for monetary union, the idea of a ‘European Union’ and the Common Agricultural Policy. It said Britain would need to focus on trade with developing countries in the Commonwealth and the European Community budget would need to be changed. Unsurprisingly, there was a harsh response from European capitals. The exception was the German leadership who viewed this approach as coming from Callaghan’s background as a trade union negotiator – he was putting all his cards on the table at the start as forcefully as possible and would work towards an accommodation from there. Nonetheless, Le Monde wrote that it thought Britain’s withdrawal from the EU was inevitable.

There were also internal party management issues to deal with. The two ministers appointed by Wilson to help Callaghan in Brussels were on completely different sides of the European debate. Roy Hattersley was strongly in favour and Peter Shore, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, loudly against. As negotiations wore on Callaghan developed stronger relationships with other European politicians and as a result started to face criticism from Shore and Tony Benn. Leading Benn to write in his diaries, somewhat predictably, that Callaghan has ‘sold out’ on British sovereignty.

On conclusion of renegotiation in 1975, Callaghan regarded himself as having secured good positions for the UK on economic and monetary union, control of capital movements, harmonization of VAT and regional policy, and improvements in commonwealth trade, in particular on sugar. On the negative side, he didn’t think he did enough for New Zealand, exemptions for butter and cheese ran up against Dutch and Danish opposition, and didn’t have the guarantee he wanted on reducing Britain’s budget contributions.

So is this what we can expect for Hague? A strong aggressive start, moving on to some accommodation and inevitable claims that he sold out from members in his own party? It seems likely. Will he get bored at any point: definitely.

John Clarke writes at johnmichaelclarke.wordpress.com

  • robertcp

    A Labour politician might actually be the grocer. Some renegotiation will be needed whoever wins the next General Election, because the relationship between the Eurozone and other EU members needs to be resolved. A referendum on the results of those negotiations would be reasonable.

    • johnmclarke

      Hi Robert,

      Yes, it will be interesting to see how a future Labour government will approach EU negotiations or renegotiations. How the Tories approach this coulc define Britiain’s relationship with the EU for a long a time.

      John

      • robertcp

        I agree John.

  • http://twitter.com/Paul_Convery Paul Convery

    John, the reason that butter, cheese and other groceries featured so high in Labour’s thinking was (1) there were growing inflationary pressures in the early 70s and the Common Agricultural Policy threatened to push up the cost of staple foods because the CAP essentially hiked-up prices to protect farmers; (b) Labour had a strong affinity with Commonwealth countries particularly the newly independent nations (we proudly took credit for decolonisation) and not just for the wheat, livestock and diary-producing countries.

    The Common Market was also seen by people on the left as a kind of Bosses club. Not until the ’80s and ’90s did the left start to appreciate the solid social democratic culture of Europe and its counterweight to the Regan/Thatcher axis. Now that the EU seems to be cheerleading for austerity and the European Commission co-sponsors the IMF/ECB stringency on the southern countries, we seem to be back in a place that the left was in during the early ’70s.

    The other fundamental change which has put many on the left “off” Europe is the result of enlargement … not just the sheer size but the fundamentally different political culture. For a long time, most of us understood the EU to be a place like more like the UK – the original 6 were West Germany, France, BeneLux (Italy being a slightly exotic outsider) theat was enlarged fiorst by Britain, Ireland and the nordics.

    Enlargement was a project to ensure the former Soviet bloc countries came alongside a poitically mature, democratic western Europe. But after 1990, most of the accession countries swung towards Christian Democracy (at best), aggressive neoliberalism or populist right-wing authoritarianism (at worst). So, twenty years later we don’t have a Europe where the political tone is set by social democratic/Christian democratic consensual countries such as Germany but one where right wing Governments like Poland are increasingly ascendent.

    For many on the left, this cocktail makes the EU a much less attractive bloc to be “in union” with. So the prosepct of reform and renegotiation (not least prompted by the urgent need to rearrange the Euro-zone countries into a tighter fiscal union) is becoming very appealling.

    Having said that … I do think the EU membership is still very much better than non-membership.

  • johnmclarke

    Hi Paul,

    Excellent comment and I agree with much of your analysis.

    Callaghan was Commonwealth Secretary as well as Foreign Secretary and it was a role he took very seriously. He built a many strong relationships with leading figures in the Commonwealth during his time as Shadow Colonial Secretary in the 1950s.

    As you well know, Ireland has been on the receiving end of the EU drive for austerity. However, EU countries aren’t as one on this. When it comes to bailouts, etc. policy is primarily driven by France and Germany. There was an element of a punishment beating mentality involved in the conditions imposed on many of the bailed out nations. It’s enough to put many right thinking people off the EU. But I do agree most countries that are members are better off in than out.

    John

  • Pingback: Callaghan didn’t like being a European grocer, will Hague? « John Clarke

Latest

  • Comment Londoners don’t want a staffless, soulless Tube system

    Londoners don’t want a staffless, soulless Tube system

    The London Underground is the single most important piece of public infrastructure in the capital. Over three million people use the Tube each day, to get to work, visit family or see friends. A healthy Underground network is at the heart of a healthy, vibrant London. It is a fantastic system that is the envy of the modern world, but we must ensure we do not neglect our crown jewel. Later  today, I will be addressing a conference on the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    Fairness dictates that we show concern for both sides

    We have all been shocked to see the surge in violence between Israel and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip. This conflict is causing enormous hardship on both sides. Particularly distressing is the sight of civilian casualties. The scale of human suffering in the current escalation is immense and every civilian casualty is a tragedy. The people of Gaza have the right to live in peace and freedom, just as Israelis have the right not to fear for […]

    Read more →
  • News Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    Are Osborne’s spinners block journalists from asking questions they don’t like?

    An intriguing story emerged from a copy of the Express and Star last week, the regional newspaper that covers the West Midlands and Staffordshire. Daniel Wainwright reports that during a recent visit from the Chancellor, a radio journalist said she wanted to ask George Osborne about food banks, and was told that he simply wouldn’t answer it. Here’s the story: “Talking of George Osborne, here’s a little insight into what goes on in the run up to getting an interview. These […]

    Read more →
  • News Alexander intervenes on Gaza escalation that “shames our shared humanity”

    Alexander intervenes on Gaza escalation that “shames our shared humanity”

    Douglas Alexander, Labour Shadow Foreign Secretary, has made another intervention on the Gaza conflict as the crisis in the Middle East continues to escalate. Alexander condemns the attack on a UN school in Gaza, describing the deaths of children there as “[shaming] our shared humanity”. His latest comments seem to be aimed largely at lobbying Israel to stand down the level of the force, and to recognise that as a democracy with “vastly superior technological and military capabilities, comes particular responsibilities”. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour changes track – and now it can win

    Labour changes track – and now it can win

    Labour has not generated many headlines this week. There haven’t been game-changers. David Cameron wasn’t trounced in Prime Minister’s Questions. The polls haven’t shifted. The meeting with a post-stardust Obama passed by without significant benefit or incident. Yet, this has been Labour’s best week for some considerable time – certainly in this Parliament. Heading into the final furlong of the election race, Labour has three strategic weaknesses: its perceived weaknesses on leadership, an absence of a strong governing story and a […]

    Read more →