Speeches, etc.

Margaret Thatcher

Article for The European ("No substitute for the nation state")

Document type: Speeches, interviews, etc.
Source: Thatcher Archive
Editorial comments: Item listed by date of publication.
Importance ranking: Major
Word count: 1318
Themes: Defence (general), Employment, Trade, Economic, monetary & political union, European Union Single Market, Foreign policy (Central & Eastern Europe), Foreign policy (USA), Race, immigration, nationality

No substitute for the nation state

Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, on her doubts about Maastricht

It is often said that we British lack a European idealism. But this is not so. How could a country, twice within a century drawn into war to defend the liberties of continental Europe, feel untouched by Europe's future? And who would not admire the determination of democrats in France and Germany to avoid the rivalries and conflicts of the past? We are just as idealistic about Europe as the federalists—we are just less federal.

Experience has taught us that the best system under which to live is a democracy where members of parliament are seen to be accountable to their electorate. Support this by worldwide trade and you get the prosperity which we all seek. In many of these we British have led the way.

In the 1980s we and our other colleagues in Europe passed the Single European Act to try to create a genuine single market, an area in which free movement of goods, people, service and capital was ensured. But that movement was not to be unfettered. I remember saying that if we left the words like that we should be encouraging immigration, enabling terrorists, criminals and drug dealers to escape detention by crossing borders from one country to another.

We therefore hammered out a General Declaration which was attached to the Single European Act. It said: “Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries and to combat terrorism, crime and traffic in drugs.”

I would never have agreed to the Single European Act without that declaration. I am therefore amazed when I hear it suggested that it does not have the force of law and can be ignored. Upholding it is a matter of good faith, and good faith once lost is hard to regain. Further, we made it clear in that act that certain directives brought foward by the Commission could only be passed by a unanimous vote. They were taxation, the free movement of persons and provisions relating to the rights and interests of employed persons. I was therefore quite happy that we had covered the most important things. To my amazement, the Commission, realising that we in Britain were opposed to a draft-directive which sought to limit the working week to 48 hours, attempted to bring it forward under the Health and safety provisions which require only majority voting. This is just not right.

But there is another point. The effort and efficiency of workers on the continent of Europe, especially in Germany, were held out as an example to us in Britain. It's quite a turn up for the book that other countries want to cut down the maximum work hours to 48 a week. Can it be that Britain is now the country to emulate, having the work ethic, having dealt with trade union law, and having low taxation and low public expenditure? Not to mention political stability.

The Single European Act has not come fully into effect. And yet already we have the Maastricht treaty. It is a long, detailed document and should be studied extremely carefully. Moreover, because the language is often opaque, governments should be asked precisely what certain clauses mean. I suggest that those who have to decide whether to include its provisions in their own laws should ask four questions.

First, will it ensure and enhance democratic government? The answer must be no, for it involves enormous transfers of powers from national governments to a centralised bureaucracy. It speaks of a common foreign and security policy. It extends Community authority in a host of fields and provides for majority voting in many of them. For most states other than Britain it introduces a social chapter which was first mooted at the Madrid summit and which has already given rise to more than 43 initiatives, of which 17 are new draft directives.

Moreover, with the exception of Britain, which is keeping its options open (thanks to Prime Minister Major), it is committed to the creation of a single currency no later than 1999. A single currency means a single interest rate, a single monetary policy, a single economic policy, and eventually a single minister. But control over economic policy and the supply of money to the executive is at the heart of parliamentary democracy.

The fact is that the Maastricht treaty passes colossal powers from parliamentary governments to a central bureaucracy. A dispassionate observer could perhaps be forgiven for wondering whether it is we in the West who are trying to convert the East to democracy, or they who are converting us to bureauracy.

Second, will the treaty and its associated provisions on a common foreign and security policy continue to ensure the defence of the West. It was the steadfastness of the Nato alliance which brought a bloodless victory over Communism. This is in stark contrast to the enormous sacrifices that were made to defeat Fascism in the first half of the century.

Indeed, no alliance has been more successful in keeping the peace, with freedom and justice, than Nato. The lesson we learn from history is that an American presence in Europe is vital to our security. We know there is pressure from isolationist opinion in the United States to withdraw from Europe.

Some of us are very concerned that the Western European Union, by taking a larger part in defence arrangements, could send the wrong signals to American opinion. While the agreement itself is careful to say that the obligations of certain member states under the North Atlantic Treaty shall be respected, it is the general impression that often matters when decisions come to be taken about the future disposition of American forces in Europe.

Third, does the treaty and the general stance of the Community on trading matters improve the prospects for world trade? The fact is that the protectionist policies of the Common Agricultural Policy are holding up the present Gatt round.

Added to that, the social chapter which—again thanks to John Major does not apply to Britain—will enormously increase industrial costs in Europe. This of itself can lead to increased protection just at a time when the world needs freer trade in goods and services.

The European Community should act as an example in upholding the post-war international structures which together were called the new world order and of which Gatt is one. Furthermore, it is quite possible for differences between America and Europe on this matter to sour relations and therefore have other far-reaching effects.

Fourth, are the provisions of the treaty, together with those of the Community as a whole, in tune with the instincts of the people? They have been deeply concerned at the scenes of destruction and killing, and families fleeing—not in some remote country, but in Yugoslavia, a part of our European continent.

They have heard day after day of cease-fire after broken ceasefire. They have seen or heard of European monitors pulling out of Bosnia just when their presence seemed to be most needed. They know the European Community has been able to do nothing really effective to relieve the agony of the people. They heard the cry of the child who was being evacuated: “Nobody cares about us.” We all want to say we do care and want to help.

Would it not have been better for foreign ministers to follow the advice of Germany right from the beginning and recognise Croatia and Slovenia? We could then have given those countries, and later Bosnia, the requisite weapons with which to defend themselves.

Has not this experience as well as that in the Gulf shown that when it comes to action there is no substitute for the nation state? Real progress comes not from more bureaucracy, but from the values and institutions of government by consent, through ministers seen to be accountable to their electorate.

These things are in tune with the instincts of the people. They are part of the heritage we have built up over the centuries.

Kipling, in one of his famous poems about freedom, said this:

Dear-bought and clear, A thousand years Our fathers title runs, Make we likewise their sacrifice Defrauding not are sons

May we heed his advice.