783
Foreign Affairs HOUSE OF COMMONS [MR. HOLLIS.] Western Europe as there is of the man in the moon becoming Prime Minister.
Foreign Affairs
784
20th century. I hope he will address his mind to the problems before us while bearing that fact in mind.
As my right hon. Friend said, people What disturbed me so much about the work together without being Socialists; Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday was is is fantastic to pretend that that is not that he said that Europe could not possible. It is equally fantastic for Mem-
prosper or recover if Germany and bers opposite to equate Socialist economy Europe remained divided. He seemed to with planned economy, as if they were have no idea of how Europe was to be synonymous terms. If there is one thing reunited and the Russians removed from the Government have proved, if they Eastern Europe. I am not complaining, have proved anything at all, it is that but I am asking what is the answer to they are not guilty of planning. It is that problem. I have a great fear that interesting to note, when we look at the the foreign policy of the Government position of Parliamentary Socialists in and the Foreign Secretary is a policy of Western Europe, that in every country,
drift, and that in the minds of hon. Mem- with the one exception of Norway, they bers opposite is the foolish fallacy that are in a small minority. There is no
Socialism is really a stopgap against conceivable chance of their sweeping Communism. The objection to that as Western Europe in the immediate future, a principle of foreign policy is that it during which we must find a solution of has nothing to do with foreign policy Western European problems.
but They are
is
a manoeuvre in domestic in a small minority, not an increasing politics, which is the worst basis for any minority. They are not a new party. foreign policy. They are a party which dates back from the last century. New parties are coming along and taking the place of the old Socialist parties that are now dying out.
I should like to quote from a source which is not unsympathetic to what is going on today. Mr. Gerald Barry, writing in the "World Review
says:
"In almost every European country, except Britain, Socialism is on the defensive, if not actually on the run. If Britain had taken the lead in Europe, when Labour came to power in 1945, things might have looked different, but that is another story. The collapse of Liberalism and the first signs of the decay of Socialism
are the most depressing phenomena of our present age."
The important fact about most dis- tinguished Socialists on the Continent, M. Blum, in France, M. Spaak, in Belgium, and Senor Saragat, in Italy, is that they do not take the line of refusing to co-operate with non-Socialists. On the contrary, they are anxious to co-operate in an age when the obsolete division between laissez faire, on the one side, and Socialism, on the other, is passing away. A solution to our problems depends on recognition of the fact that that division is passing away. Our complaint against the leaders of the present Government is that they were born in the 1880's, and that they have never got over that fact. The Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the Debate, has at least an advantage over his colleagues in that he was born in the
110 A 42
3.15 p.m.
Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliff): There is one point I want to deal with in the few minutes at my disposal. Before coming to that, however, I want to make a reference to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) which in many respects was a remarkable and useful speech. He descended into
a little pettiness here and there which is to be excused, but in general content it was a remarkable speech. He did, however, in my opinion, do a very great disservice to the conversations that are going on in Paris at the present time, because there is nothing more likely to damage those conversations than to cast suspicion upon the purposes of the British delegation.
What my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is quoted as having said is quite correct and, as I interjected, should occasion no surprise whatever nor any suspicions of the motives of the Government delega- tion. What he said was that European Federation or European union could not fully succeed unless the component parts were Socialist.
There is nothing incongruous in this opinion on the part of a Socialist. On no occasion did he say anything to deprecate association between the non-Socialist and Socialist parties in Europe. I cannot develop that,
Foreign Affairs
786
and I refer this particularly to my right hon. Friend-
785
Foreign Affairs 10 DECEMBER 1948
except to say that I hope that the next speaker on the Opposition will dispose of any such smear upon the purposes of the British delegation.
The positive things that have been done by the Government are substantial, and those on this side of the House who were a little suspicious about the progress that was being made on a functional basis have been highly gratified at the tremendous progress that is now being made. There is no question at all that,
as
between all the elements in this country and any other parts of Western Europe, there is a tremendous degree of agreement on the objective we are seek- ing. However, there is a tremendous hiatus. There are, on the one hand, those people who say that the functional approach is the only effective approach at the present time, but who hesitate for legitimate reasons to face the tremendous obstacles involved in creating European federation and trying to overcome all difficulties of establishing a powerful, central, organised political authority; and on the other hand, there are people who think that federalism is necessary because of the urgency of the position but who are suspicious of what is going on behind closed doors.
Both points of view are very sincerely held. It is but right to say that the position of the Labour Party is becoming more and more clear on this subject. There is one remark I have to make to those on the other side of the House who have talked on this subject. Here I charge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his reference to "conclaves of chatter- boxes," which is rather a peculiar way of describing democratic conferences and consultations. I would refer to the pamphlet he mentioned, which makes this remark about "conclaves of chatter- boxes." After referring to
46
issues to be debated in democratic discussion under the guiding influence of public opinion,"
it goes on to say,
"But there is a danger that if Western Union is organised exclusively inside expert committees far removed from the public gaze, vested interests and bureaucratic inertia may slow down progress below the critical speed, and bad decisions may be reached under pressures which public opinion would not tolerate. Moreover, at some points national groups may be faced with sacrifices "——
110 A 43
"which are unacceptable if people are in- different to the issues involved and ignorant of the problems."
That was a tremendous concession to the necessity for a European Assembly. Why is there this hesitation in accepting it? Because, we are told, this assembly would be expected to draw up a cast-iron con- stitution for a federation of Europe. There is no reason whatever why that should be so. There are alternative courses. There is a bridge which can be erected between these two points of view, and which I believe would solve all the problems that face both sides.
One hon. Member opposite, who made the monstrous suggestion that we should wind up the United Nations organisation altogether as being completely useless and ineffective, at least made the concession that he would keep the I.L.O. Why? Because the I.L.O. is the one functional organisation of the League of Nations which, through all the vicissitudes of war and peace, has survived because of the peculiarity of its constitution which, while avoiding all the complications and com- mitments of a really authoritative assembly with executive powers, is still able to co-ordinate the activities of its various 'sections and is able, through its assembly and its governing body to con- centrate public opinion on the issues and to concretise that opinion.
I believe firmly that if the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy -who are both partisans of the I.L.O., as I am will examine its implications in regard to this problem, they may find the answer to what everybody in France, Bel- gium and this country and other parts of the Western world so ardently desires. Unfortunately, I have not the time to go into a discussion of the adaptations and adjustments of the I.L.O. constitution, representation methods, and so on, which would be necessary, but the system of Conventions to which no one is firmly bound, but which nevertheless have the pressure of public opinion behind them -and the history of the ratification of I.L.O. conventions is sufficient evidence of the force of that opinion-and of Recom- mendations as an
intermediate step
towards a Convention, offers a solution. In view of the importance of this issue, and the urgency of its solution, I impress