[Sixty years ago the Conservative MP Enoch Powell (four years later to become infamous for his ‘rivers of blood’ speech on immigration) penned an article in The Times which described the Commonwealth as a ‘farce’: a mere relic of the empire, of no use to the UK, and potentially a drag on it. In this robust response, Timothy Raison (later himself a Conservative MP) set out the case for the Commonwealth. This is an excerpt from an article which appeared in the Round Table Journal in 1964 and is free to access until 3 September, 2024 under the Round Table ‘From the Archives’ programme.]
During the past year or two Britain has been involved in a reappraisal – searching if not agonizing – of her institutions, her economic vitality, her education and, above all, her role in the world. This reappraisal, which will undoubtedly shape the result of the forthcoming general election, was responsible for our unsuccessful bid to enter the Europe of the Six. Today, one of its focal points is the future of the Commonwealth.
Looking back, it seems clear that the British negotiation with the EEC and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ conference which took place during that negotiation in September 1962 caused many people in the Common-wealth countries to ask the question which was raised so dramatically by the writer (or writers) who signed himself (or themselves) “A Conservative” in The Times of April 2: is the Commonwealth a farce? “A Conservative”, whose identity is still a subject of speculation, had no doubt of the answer: the Commonwealth is not merely a farce but a “gigantic farce” at that. But the readers of The Times scarcely seemed to agree, for this particular article provoked a vigorous and overwhelmingly hostile response.
Nor, it is becoming increasingly clear, do the leaders of the two major political parties in Britain accept that view. Ever since Mr. Gaitskell’s famous speech at the 1962 Labour Party conference, Labour has increasingly been seen as a defender of the Commonwealth connexion. Though there are some passionate and able “Europeans” in the party, the majority of Labour’s leaders have been keen to emphasize the potential of the Commonwealth in helping rich and poor and in bringing different races and colours closer together. It now seems pretty certain that a Labour Government would not consider entry into the EEC on the sort of terms which emerged during the Brussels negotiation. Mr. Wilson, Mr. Gordon Walker, Mr. Denis Healey, Mr. Douglas Jay, and Mr. Richard Crossman are only five influential Labour leaders whose sympathies are known to lie very much more with the Commonwealth than with Europe.
But what of the Conservative Party, traditionally the party of the Commonwealth? The position here is more confused. Undoubtedly, Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Heath saw entry into Europe as the overriding aim of British policy, and were prepared to risk annoying the Commonwealth countries to achieve it. (In fairness to them it must be said that they believed that Britain in Europe, strong economically and politically, might be able to do more for the Commonwealth than she could if she remained outside the EEC.) Undoubtedly, too, the attraction of the EEC lives on, whether in the Conservative parliamentary party, among some influential conservative intellectuals or in business; while part of the press – notably The Economist and perhaps the Daily Telegraph – remains as strongly as ever committed to British member-ship of the Common Market. Yet the fact remains that the curious lack of regret felt in Britain as a whole at de Gaulle’s termination of the Brussels talks applies to many Conservatives, who still feel that if Britain has a destiny in the world it lies in a wider setting than the continent of Europe alone.
Moreover, there are mounting signs that the Prime Minister is keen to reaffirm his own and his party’s interest in the Commonwealth. It is not just that an impressive British stance at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ conference might attract the electorate (whom Gallup poll evidence has always shown to be much in favour of the Commonwealth). It is rather that in the wake of the Brussels breakdown there has grown up a deeper understanding of what the Commonwealth might do in the modern world. Sir Alec Douglas-Home has always been known to be sympathetic to the Commonwealth – after all he was a successful Commonwealth Relations Secretary; and, while as Foreign Secretary he undoubtedly accepted our application to join Europe, he never appeared to be the most ardent of Europeans. More recently, however, and especially since his visit to Nigeria earlier this year, he is believed to have become impressed with what might be called the more modern function of the Commonwealth of enabling its more backward members economically to develop effectively and harmoniously.
We approach the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ meeting, then, with mounting evidence of determination by the British Government to restate its faith in the Commonwealth as a developing and valuable factor in the world. At the same time, there are indications of increased activity on the part of certain non-governmental bodies which support the Commonwealth, and even of the growth of new bodies. The Royal Commonwealth Society – which incurred some disapproval among Commonwealth loyalists by failing to speak out during the Brussels negotiation – is believed to be asking itself whether there are ways in which it might become more effective.
For other free-to-access articles, visit the front page of the Round Table website. The ‘From the archives’ project is curated by Dr Alex May and Paul Flather.
