Nothing to fight over

WHEN talking about tectonic plates shifting, a degree of caution is advisable. Just over a year ago, John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, used the metaphor in a tangled sort of way to suggest that the Labour Party was preparing for the post-Blair era. The promised seismic event never happened and Tony Blair went on to begin his third term as prime minister. But on June 20th, when Mr Blair delivered his report to MPs on the fantastically acrimonious European summit, the sound of plates grinding was unmistakable. It is beginning to look as if the aftershock from the French and Dutch referendums will have a momentous effect on the always-vexed, frequently disfiguring politics of Europe in Britain.

Mr Blair's tone and manner were almost unrecognisable. As a gifted thespian, the prime minister is a man of parts. But Mr Angry is not one he normally likes to play. Referring to the stalemate over a new budget settlement, Mr Blair remarked: “It is said that the failure to reach a deal has deepened Europe's crisis; that Europe's credibility demanded a deal. No. Europe's credibility demands the right deal - not the usual cobbled-together compromise in the early hours of the morning, but a deal that recognises the nature of the crisis. This crisis is not about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with each other. The crisis is about the failure of Europe's leaders to reach agreement with the people of Europe about the issues that concern them.” Mr Blair added, “people support the concept of the European Union. What they do not support is its present reality...”

Tory MPs cheered, chortling with delight at the once-ardently Europhile Mr Blair's repentance. But there was no less satisfaction on the Labour benches. Although most Labour MPs think of themselves as pro-European, Mr Blair's insistence on reforming the common agricultural policy as the price of giving up “the anomaly” of Britain's rebate resonates with them too. If the prime minister had simply repeated the mantra that the rebate was non-negotiable, some of his supporters might have felt uneasy at the echo of Margaret Thatcher. But the left has always loathed the CAP, seeing it as a fiendish mechanism for stifling the economic potential of the world's poorest people. Moreover, Mr Blair declared he would agree to Britain's making a bigger budget contribution if it were used to improve the prospects of the relatively impoverished new members.

Whether or not Mr Blair succeeds in making any progress on the budget during Britain's six-month presidency is almost beside the point. He now has a European cause - fairer trade policies, greater economic dynamism to tackle unemployment and further enlargement - that few in any of the main parties would take issue with. The Tories are congratulating themselves for having won the argument, but it is unclear whether it is they or Labour who will benefit most from what has happened.

Although much is made of the differences between Mr Blair and Gordon Brown over the reform of public services, the biggest source of discord between them has been over British membership of the euro. Whether Mr Blair would ever have dared to hold a referendum on the euro if his chancellor had supported entry is a moot point. Without Mr Brown's acquiescence it was always a non-starter. Mr Brown (and the Treasury) regarded Mr Blair's enthusiasm for the currency as a dangerous frivolity, while Mr Blair chafed over Mr Brown's veto.

Their spat over the euro was in effect ended before the election, with Mr Blair coming close to conceding that the chancellor might have been right all along. But Mr Brown continued to fret that Mr Blair was insufficiently robust in defending Britain's superior economic model from European hanky-panky. While Mr Blair, never one to trouble himself too much with the fine print, was quite partial to the constitution, Mr Brown's endorsement was far more grudging.

Now, for the first time as far as Europe is concerned, they find themselves united - in analysis, purpose and even rhetoric. The speeches made by the chancellor at the Mansion House on June 22nd and by the prime minister in Brussels the following day were crafted for different audiences, but the message was identical: unless Europe responded positively to the challenges of globalisation, it would continue to fail its citizens. Mr Blair, by arguing that social Europe and economically liberal Europe are not inevitably hostile to one another, was explicitly attempting to export to Europe the Brown-Blair, New Labour synthesis. There is, however, one potential danger for the government in all of this. If Mr Blair decides that the mission to reform Europe can be accomplished only once Jacques Chirac departs the scene in 2007, he may be tempted to carry on for longer than Mr Brown can bear - with explosive consequences.

Tempting but wrong

But the Tories also face a temptation. The best course to follow is clear: to declare victory and move on. Barring something extraordinary, the integrationist project they have fought against is dying. They should welcome a new national consensus on Britain's place in Europe that does not offend Tory instincts. Although this runs a small risk of giving encouragement to the UK Independence Party, which wants Britain to leave the EU, it would demonstrate the ending of an obsession that has done the party nothing but electoral harm. It would also allow whoever is the new Tory leader to make a break with the past and to concentrate on the themes British voters actually care about.

The temptation is for the Tories to vacate the new centre ground on Europe for a more extreme position than any they have held previously - one that would entail tearing down, as some would see it, all that is left of the crumbling edifice. It's a temptation a party serious about one day winning power should resist. On past form, they will find it very hard to do so.

Commentary feature says that a developing consensus on Europe between Labour and the Tories in the United Kingdom would be good, but there are dangers ahead for both parties.