MR JOHN Major will begin preparations today for handing over the
presidency of the European Community to Denmark, the only nation which
rejected the Maastricht Treaty.
Still basking in the glory of his ''message of hope'' summit success,
the Prime Minister will leave the treaty in the care of the Danes less
than three weeks from now and turn his attention to dealing with his own
rebellious back benchers who want to wreck British ratification.
Having saved Maastricht for the Community and won international praise
for the first time since the sterling crisis almost ended his
premiership, the rejuvenated Mr Major will now redouble his efforts to
steer ratification through the Commons where the Tory Euro-sceptics are
planning all sorts of ambushes and blocking tactics.
But some of the results of Mr Major's ''hard pounding'' in Edinburgh
are still far from clear. Although the heads of state and government
reached agreement on financing for the post-Maastricht era -- until
almost next century -- the Danes could still torpedo the treaty itself
with a second ''no''.
Mr Poul Schluter, the Danish Prime Minister, voiced confidence that
the narrow rejection in the first referendum could be consigned to
history.''I honestly think that everybody at home will be able to see
that the result is so good that we can confidently vote Yes,'' he said.
The danger for Mr Schluter, and Maastricht, now is that the grouping
together of all but one of Denmark's many political parties in a
''national compromise'' might not hold much longer. A return to a more
even split seems likely and that would mean a rerun of the campaign
which led to the first rejection of the treaty.
In April or May Danish voters will be asked if they will now accept
Maastricht with a series of legally-binding opt-outs added on. These
involve a single currency, a European defence policy, sovereignty and
citizenship. The status of the opt-outs, which are quite separate from
the unaltered text of the treaty, is in some doubt.
According to Mr Major they are legally binding between governments.
Some observers were wondering last night if they were ''justiciable'',
in other words if they could be tested in court. Mr Major said they were
not. If the opt-outs are merely agreements then they would not enjoy the
status of legislation.
Mr Douglas Hurd, Foreign Secretary, yesterday on BBC television ruled
out the prospect of a two-speed Europe, with the Danes being left behind
on the road to a single currency and stronger political union.
Although no firm lifespan was given for the opt-outs, it seems likely
they will come under scrutiny when the Maastricht Treaty is reviewed in
1996. This also raises the prospect of some future summit having to take
into account the widespread electoral suspicion with which political and
economic union is held in most EC nations.
This is exactly the type of problem which the summit's embrace of
openness is supposed to tackle. From now on, under the terms of the
Edinburgh conclusions, the EC should be more willing to explain itself
and its workings to the citizens of Europe.
There were admissions by Mr Jacques Delors, EC Commission president,
and others at Edinburgh, that Maastricht is far from perfect. Quite
possibly some of its more contentious elements might have to be unpicked
later when the ratification process for a revised version gets under
way.
But for Mr Major these are distant problems. His success in brokering
a summit deal was all dependent finally on money. As expected, he gave
way and in effect challenged the complaining Spaniards, ringleaders in
the fight for more money for the four poorest EC countries, to wreck the
whole gathering -- and live with the consequences.
The Spanish had little choice but to back down with as good grace as
they could muster.
In that respect the swing towards Mr Major's tough line on spending
proved to be the turning point of the summit. Even the Germans showed
themselves willing to find more money for Spain, Portugal, Greece, and
Ireland -- a change of heart which forced Mr Major to concede.
In the end the Irish Prime Minister, Mr Albert Reynolds, who had
threatened to veto enlargement if more money was not forthcoming, wound
up heaping praise of Mr Major and hailing the British ''triumph''.
Mr Reynolds said: ''It was a very successful presidency in all
respects.'' That sort of statement would have been regarded as
impossible just a month ago.
Mr Delors, whose ambitious spending plans were also curtailed, also
appeared happy with the outcome, claiming he had won 85% of his original
proposals.
For two years there will be a freeze on EC spending, followed by
staged increases from 1.2% of the community's gross national product to
1.27% in 1999. The Cohesion Fund for the ''poor four'', which will
enable them to bring their economies into line with the better off
nations in time for a single currency, will be #12 billion. This will
cover the period from 1993 to 1999. The EC's Structural Fund will be
increased to #24 billion in 1999.
EC leaders also finally agreed their long-awaited package for economic
growth.
The European Investment Fund will have an initial #1.6 billion to
spend to boost business confidence in the EC. But Mr Major gave no
concessions to the Scots -- despite the noisy proximity of 20,000
demonstrators on Saturday calling for a Scottish parliament. Home rule
in the Prime Minister's vocabulary is not synonymous with subsidiarity.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article