Tribune leader, 7 June 1991
This week, Neil Kinnock delivered a speech to European socialists in Luxembourg in which he argued that the European Community's council of economic and finance Ministers – Ecofin in Europeak – should play a "strategic role" in formulating member states' domestic monetary policies, overseeing the operations of a new European central bank.
As the Financial Times said, the speech was "the clearest indication yet that Labour is ready to hand over some control of the UK's internal economic policy to a supranational agency".
For many on the left, the idea of relinquishing national sovereignty over key elements of economic policy to any supranational agency is anathema. Yet national sovereignty over the economy is, for countries as small as Britain, part of the past. Like it or not, supranational agencies are essential for the development of viable alternative economic strategies: the crucial question is whether they are democratically accountable.
A European central bank, overseen by national economic and finance ministers who are answerable to nationally elected parliaments, is of course much more democratic than a European central bank overseen by bureaucrats who are not answerable to any elected body. But it is far less democratic than a European central bank overseen by directly elected MEPs.
Labour shies away from any such arrangement, believing that the powers of the European Parliament "must complement but not replace" those of national parliaments. In line with this, during his visit to Luxembourg Mr Kinnock made clear his opposition to the creation of a single European socialist party.
But it is difficult to think of any reason apart from sentimentality for this attitude. If Labour accepts that national sovereignty over the economy is now severely limited and that economic policy should be determined at a European level, it should surely accept that the European Parliament will increasingly replace Westminster as the focus of democratic politics.
TURN ON, TUNE IN ...
It is unusual for Tribune to agree with Judge James Pickles, but his call for the decriminalisation of cannabis makes perfect sense. Use of cannabis is now so widespread in Britain, among all classes and ethnic groups, that the law banning it has become a joke – except for the 30,000-odd people convicted each year for possession of small quantities for personal use.
The drug is not addictive and there is no evidence that it causes significant harm to health, as alcohol and tobacco undoubtedly do. If a tiny proportion of cannabis-users move on to addictive and debilitating illegal drugs, it is not because of any property of cannabis but because its very illegality means it is sold by black-market traders who also sell drugs that are dangerous.
Decriminalisation of possession would not remove cannabis from the black market – supplying it would still be illegal – and it is arguable that complete legalisation, with the state regulating or even monopolising supply, is a more coherent option. But Judge Pickles' proposal is at least a step hi the right direction.
By contrast, merely adjusting the law to make possession a less serious offence, as Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, recommended this week, would continue unnecessarily to clog up the courts. Dope-smokers have found an unlikely friend.
