Michael Brown: Dark days and dark arts: is history repeating itself?
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Print
Email
For those MPs "of a certain age" there will be little sense of déjà vu as they contemplate the forthcoming committee stage on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon – seen by many as a re-run of the Maastricht legislation of 16 years ago. The proposed legislation introduced in 1992 might have covered just one sheet of paper and contained eight clauses, but the parliamentary debate about it went on so long that MPs rushed to buy camp beds from the Army and Navy Stores in Victoria. I doubt we'll see a repeat in an era when Labour has truncated procedures and greatly reduced the scope for filibustering.
The general election of April 1992 was won by the Tories with a majority of 21 seats. But the Major government had already signed the Maastricht Treaty in February that year – before the election – with the manifesto promise that it would be ratified by Parliament (without a referendum) if the Tories won. Here is a crucial difference between then and now. Major could claim a mandate for his legislation – even though individual Tory MPs had pledged, in their personal election addresses, to oppose ratification. Gordon Brown, by comparison, is proceeding in direct contravention of his party's 2005 election manifesto.
Major's plans were thrown into disarray, however, by the decision of the Danes, in their referendum of June 1992, to reject the treaty. The Bill had already had its second reading, passed a few weeks earlier by a majority of 244, with Labour abstaining. Further proceedings were then "suspended" for six months. Meanwhile, storm clouds were gathering and the backdrop for the resumption of proceedings was about to get a whole lot worse.
But it was hardly a propitious moment to recommend the resumption of the legislation's passage against the ignominious exit of Britain from the exchange rate mechanism on 16 September that year. It was clear that Eurosceptics would use the Danish rejection of the treaty and the collapse of the Government's central economic foundation – maintenance of the currency at a fixed rate of exchange – as the basis of a fight to the death. But the Prime Minister vowed that committee debates would be resumed.
So on 4 November 1992, Major moved a Commons motion to resume the committee stage. Though now long forgotten in the annals of Parliament, it was one of the most electrifying debates of modern times. John Smith had just taken over from Neil Kinnock as Labour leader, and Labour's long march from anti to pro-Europeanism had prevented it from voting against the Government at second reading. But Smith argued that the suspension of debates should continue – cleverly enticing Tory rebels into his lobby. The government motion was approved by a majority of three. Had John Major lost, his premiership would have been over.
On the eve of the 1993 Whitsun recess, Major reshuffled his cabinet – sacking the Chancellor, Norman Lamont. This was the reshuffle in which I joined the Government as a whip. I learned fast how to trade votes for ministerial favours before the final twist in the tail. The House had resolved that a special resolution should be passed enabling the Government to opt out of the social chapter before the Bill could be enacted. Labour moved an amendment to oppose, which resulted in a government defeat. But Major sought a motion of confidence the following day which, though passed, further damaged his prestige.
It was a year when the black arts of whipping were stretched to the limit – not helped, however, when we withdrew the whip from eight rebels. These "whipless wonders", when added to by-election defeats, meant an erosion of the Government's nominal majority until it became, technically, a minority government. In the end, however, the black arts finally won – as will happen this time. There are simply not enough Labour MPs with the determination to fight on every amendment.
So Gordon Brown will secure his European legislation – but he might still need to worry about an amendment in committee to hold a referendum. His majority of 65, however, will probably be enough to cope with any rebels – not least because the Lib Dems are likely to abstain.
But the Prime Minister will suffer the long-term consequences of appearing to break a manifesto commitment regarding the referendum. And while the Tories are coy on what they would do in the event of ratification by all member countries by the time of the next election, they will be able to make the charges of "trust" and "broken promises" stick as potent issues in the election campaign. Europe destroyed the premierships of Thatcher and Major; it still has the capacity to do the same to Gordon Brown.