Relax. You are under no obligation to read the small print. There is a clause in Europe’s constitution about bringing our economic policies — money and tax — into line with our neighbours’, but it must have got past the Prime Minister, because he has flown to Rome and signed us up for it. In any case, we shall be able to vote on it. In eighteen months or so from now, if he is still with us, he will stage his promised referendum. One other promise of this kind remains outstanding. Before the pound can be submerged in Europe’s single currency, we shall have to vote in favour — but he has never called this referendum, because he has never yet felt confident of winning it. He must be tempted, at least, to take the two of them together, arguing that logic links them, and believing that if he can win one, he can win both. He could then claim to have left his mark on history and retire to Bayswater-les-deux-Eglises. This would indeed be a moment of economic decision — for many of us, one of no more than five in our lifetimes. Looking back, we can rate the first four: two clear wins, one great leap backward and one road not taken. All four of them will have lessons to teach us as we approach the next moment of truth.
Passing the parcel
The loser is easily spotted. This was the attempt to solve our problems — most of all, inflation — by handing them over to our neighbours. Signing ourselves up for Europe’s exchange rate mechanism, we expected the Germans to act for us. I said at the time that they would act for themselves, and they did. We were soon bundled out, ignominiously and expensively, and our affairs at once took a turn for the better.

Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in