Editorial. The role of an opposition

Citation

Coleman, J. (1998), "Editorial. The role of an opposition", European Business Review, Vol. 98 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.1998.05498eab.006

Editorial. The role of an opposition

Edited byJohn Coleman

Editorial

The role of an opposition

Now is the time for reflection on the whole evolution of the "European Construction" as once General de Gaulle felt the need for it in the course of his conflict with Jean Monnet. But we must not be too ready to jump on the Gaullist bandwagon but rather pause to consider Monnet's motivation and reasons. Monnet lived through those tragic times between the two World Wars and doubted if future wars could be averted in Europe without some degree of supranationalism as the objective of the post-war reconstruction of Europe. The fatal weakness and failure of the internationalism of the League of Nations must have weighed heavily in the balance as he came to his decision on the future of post-war Europe. No doubt General de Gaulle who had also been at the centre of the two great disasters of the twentieth century must equally have been painfully and personally aware of Monnet's reasons.

Britain, because of her position and independence, had been able to rescue Europe from the tyranny that gripped it and so the concept of independence became much more important to the British people than it did to their Continental neighbours. Britain is therefore prone to be a somewhat semi-detached member of the European family.

The British Government is, however, pressing ahead with what appears to be a much more positive approach to our European partners having impressed them with an enviable election result, but it is under the terrible pressure of managing day-to-day affairs. The role of the opposition should not be just to engage in slanging matches or picking holes in the Government's policies. Its duty must be to improve what Government is doing, in fact to be a kind of support to the Government which is, or should be carrying out the wishes of the electorate. If then those policies fail it should then be clear to the nation that a different course should be pursued. The role of the opposition should be to think and reflect.

In his speech at Fontainebleau it is clear that William Hague reflected in precisely this constructive way. His article in this issue is closely based on that speech. The Government should consider it carefully. An article from the Government would be welcomed in a future issue of this journal.

In their myths the ancient Greeks knew that in attempting to avoid some terrible stroke of destiny one is liable to take the very steps that would bring it about. They believed that life in all its important decisions was a matter of steering between Scylla and Charybdis. Their fundamental insights are as true in the modern world as ever they were for the ancients. It would be terrible if in trying to avoid repeating the disasters of the twentieth century we recreated a mirror image of them in the twenty-first.

James Robertson's article provides yet more food for reflection. The Single Currency does seem to be the real McCoy of European integration. Robertson offers a way through the dangerous passage avoiding the perils on either side and adds a further dimension to William Hague's thoughts. There is not much doubt that there is something unsatisfactory about the wait and see argument. If the single currency is essentially right we should be doing all we can to make it work now. If it is not we should be pressing our partners to think again. Robertson is thinking again about the whole monetary project.

Sir Richard Body's book, The Breakdown of Europe, is mentioned in this issue and will be reviewed in the next issue. It is even more fundamental in its approach to the whole European project. It is by no means anti-European based, as it is, on Leopold Kohr's Breakdown of Nations. It seeks to do no more than make the principle of subsidiarity a reality. The need is for the bulk of Governmental decisions to be taken sufficiently close to people to create trust in them. It will emerge that some decisions will need to be taken at wider levels but they should be restricted in number ­ one recalls Jacques Santer's remark "Europe should do less better". In the main Governments are happy to confuse and go ahead with their own plans. The people of Europe are certainly losing faith in their own politicians. Mussolini is reported once to have said, "the crowd don't need to know, they only need to believe". Unless politicians can share knowledge and understanding with their publics the twenty-first century will see a return to the fascism of the twentieth century by the very measures it takes to avoid the catastrophic consequences of fascism in the latter.

The last contribution may seem remote. It is about museums and more particularly about museums of childhood. Is "European visions of childhood" really so remote? How the different countries of Europe have developed their ideas about childhood and how they have learned from each other, not by imposition but by the choice of the best, is surely the most appropriate model for achieving "ever closer union". The subject must be one of the most important on the human agenda and must be interlinked with the whole range of futurist thinking.