Major’s high risk strategy

Date: 23/05/1996

It is finally out in the open. After weeks of heavy hints and veiled threats, the UK government has declared its intention to play hardball with the rest of the Union in the battle over beef.

But while John Major's decision to play the tough guy in Europe may have won him the adulation of the British tabloid press and delighted the Euro-sceptics within his own party, who have been baying for blood ever since the Union imposed a worldwide ban on British beef exports on 27 March, it will do nothing for the UK's image in Europe.

Once again, the EU is being held hostage to the British government's desperate fight for survival at home. Major is playing games with his Union partners in a bid to boost his standing both within his own party and the country at large - and both he and they know it.

Because of the way the EU's complex voting procedures work, it was apparent after this week's meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee that the ban on gelatine, tallow and semen would soon be lifted - unless some of those who voted in favour unexpectedly switched camps between now and the next meeting of agriculture ministers on 3-4 June.

Yet Major chose this moment to launch his policy of non-cooperation. It is only surprising that, in the face of such blatant blackmail, supporters of a partial lifting of the ban have so far indicated they will not change sides rather than be seen kow-towing to such strong-arm tactics.

Given the optimism being expressed on all sides that at least a partial solution to the crisis over beef might be found within two weeks, through cooperation rather than coercion, Major's move must be seen for what it is - a manoeuvre designed to portray him as a strong leader willing to stand up for his country's rights.

The UK prime minister probably believes that it is a fight he cannot lose. If the ban is partially lifted at next month's special meeting of agriculture ministers, he will be able to claim that it is a direct result of his threat to disrupt the EU's business, conveniently ignoring the fact that it was almost certain to happen any way. If it takes a little longer to resolve the dispute, he can continue to boast that the UK is not taking the delay lying down by maintaining its policy of non-cooperation - knowing full well that, unless his government is prepared to go further by blocking discussions as well as decisions, the move will actually have little impact on the EU's day-to-day business.

Major may be hoping that other EU leaders will not lose patience with him while the British campaign has such a limited impact on the Union's affairs.

But it is a high risk strategy. Given the UK's long-standing reputation for obstructing progress on issues seen by the rest of the Union as vital to its development, and the widespread recognition that its stance is all too often determined by the government's weakness at home rather than a genuine concern to defend national interests, Major's counterparts in other member states may be tempted - before too long - to begin fighting fire with fire.

For the moment, they are shrugging it off, attacking the UK for its beligerence but playing down talk of a major political crisis. Insisting it is 'business as usual', some diplomats comment wryly that 'non-cooperation' appears to have long been a hallmark of British policy towards the Union, so its adoption as official government policy will make little difference. But it is already clear that the damage inflicted by such a blatant piece of pre-electioneering by Major at Europe's expense could have far-reaching consequences for the UK's future in the Union.