Chapter 44 Section 1 Europe

The first big political challenge I faced as leader of the Conservative Party was the referendum on whether the UK should remain in the European Economic Community.Holding a referendum was a promise Labor made while in opposition to keep the party united.For a number of reasons I would have liked this to be a challenge on some other issue.European issues are largely Ted's passions.He considered his greatest achievement to have been Britain's entry into the European Economic Community, and now that he had lost his leadership it was only natural that he would be more enthusiastic about it.As has been evident during the leadership campaign, there is some suspicion that I am not too enthusiastic about this issue.That may be true in comparison with Ted.But I do sincerely believe that it would be folly to leave the Community; I think that the Community provides an economic link with the rest of Western Europe which is of great strategic importance; and I especially welcome the greater trade opportunities.However, I don't see European issues as a litmus test for everything else.While I think it is best for the UK to stay within the Community and make the most of it as possible, I can also fully understand those who generally hold the opposite view.The hyperbolic rhetoric about Britain's European destiny, let alone European identity, doesn't really hit the mark, in my opinion, although I do use a little bit of it sometimes from the public pulpit.For all these reasons, I am extremely happy with Ted taking the leading role on our side of the referendum campaign, and Willie representing the Conservative Party as vice-chairman of "Britain in Europe", which is a fellow O'Neill and later Roy Jenkins were chairmen of the "Vote Yes" movement founded by O'Neil's Labor MPs and the Liberals.

This arrangement has two advantages and two disadvantages.The advantage is that while I need to make high profile public appearances at the beginning and end of the campaign, I have time for other things; and second, the most European-minded people in the party will be able to devote all their energies to the front lines .Two downsides are probably what I should have foreseen, firstly it would increase Ted's appetite for a comeback, and secondly the Conservative Party's determination to get rid of me would try to take advantage of the coalition of parties that were campaigning for the "yes" vote, Make it the centerpiece of a campaign for a "centrist" coalition government.

I also encountered an unexpected reasoning difficulty.The position I have inherited from Ted is to reject the whole idea of ​​holding a plebiscite on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and not a British custom.Even if I had wanted to change that position, I had not had time to do so; the government released its white paper on the referendum just two weeks after I assumed the leadership role.Moreover, the party can gain inexhaustible political advantage by attacking the referendum as a constitutional monstrosity merely designed to keep the Labor cabinet together.However, I feel uneasy.First, there is obviously the practical issue that no matter what protests the Tories raise, we're going to have to have a referendum anyway, and we're going to have to take it seriously very quickly - and show people that we are Do - if we want to get the right results.Second, and only a vague one, I think that at some point in the future, when a particular issue divides the country rather than the party, and general elections are not the appropriate means of addressing the problem, it may be necessary to call for a A referendum.Likewise, if a far-left government backed by militant trade unions tries to challenge fundamental liberties under the guise of constitutional convention, the Conservative opposition may try to do so.

I decided to read all the material on this subject.The idea of ​​holding a referendum has quite a long origin and history in British politics.From the 1890s to the 1930s, issues of Irish Home Rule, the powers of the House of Lords, and the imposition of food duties were raised—sometimes by Conservative Party leaders. In 1945 Churchill raised the possibility of holding a referendum on extending the term of parliament until Japan was defeated.In none of these cases has a de facto referendum been held.But it would be a mistake not to take arguments for a referendum seriously.I was especially attracted to the following assertion in Diesel's Laws of the Constitution, Eighth Revised Edition: "The referendum is the veto of the people; the whole nation is sovereign, and they may issue orders saying that without the direct approval of the people , shall not amend the Constitution."

I consulted Michael Havers, the legal affairs spokesman for the shadow cabinet, on these arguments.His answer seemed authoritative to me at the time.He said looking back at the cases where the Conservatives had supported a referendum, we could say that apart from the case of imposing food tariffs - this time the party was trying to avoid a destructive split (as is the case with Labor) - it involved The issues are all perfectly constitutional.Furthermore, neither parliament has decided on any of these issues, nor have we risked unilaterally breaking the treaty.He concluded that past precedent did not justify a referendum on participation in the EEC.

I therefore gave this issue a lot of thought when I spoke in Parliament on Tuesday, March 11, during the debate on the question of the referendum.This will be my first speech as Leader of the Opposition.This is the kind of speech I like to give, though I have some reservations about the circumstances and reasons I'm talking about.The government's main intellectual weakness in the debate is the confusion of views on whether and how referendums are "binding" on parliament.If it is binding, then the powers of Parliament, which is very important to those who oppose joining the European Common Market on both sides of Parliament, are violated.If it is not binding, what is its power?I did not rule out a referendum in my speech, but I urged the need to consider the full constitutional implications.I reject the Government's argument that the case for continuing to join the EEC is unique and requires a referendum.I say:

"To employ the means of referenda is to ask the question: What kind of circumstances should referendums apply to? Presumably the answer will be: Applies to constitutional changes. But in the British tradition it is difficult to determine what is constitutional changes, because we mostly follow convention and precedent." However, a referendum may become acceptable if the proper constitutional basis is in place—that is, the conditions under which it can be held are established.But that would mean, as in many other democracies, the situation developing to have a written constitution, or at least a somewhat written constitution, and the implications for parliamentary power would be profound.But if our awareness of constitutional law and practice is weakening, we may one day need to consider such questions.

While there are passages in the speech that I would not agree with now, the assertions still seem like a good starting point for considering a referendum on issues such as the Maastricht treaty or the single European currency .I do not at this moment see how the conditions I have outlined for holding a referendum have more or less been fulfilled.Some people have realized this.The subordination of British law to the law of the European Community was the result of joining the Treaty of Rome, and successive treaty amendments and the implementation of the Community system would also accelerate this process, which indeed led to a constitutional change.And we have "at least partly moved" towards a written constitution by accepting the content of the Treaty of Rome and a special European court that can eliminate laws passed by Parliament when they conflict with them.

The House of Commons voted 312 to 248 to hold a referendum.However, the outcome of the debate on remaining in the European Economic Community on Wednesday 9 April was a harbinger of things to come: 396 votes in favor and 170 against.From then until Thursday 5 June, the day when the plebiscite was to be held, the great powers of business, the leaders of both parties, and the wider and respectable ruling circles in the shadows extolled the virtues of community membership, spelling out in detail the implications for work. Worries about job losses, warnings of European internal conflict that could lead to World War III, and mocking the odd coalition of Labor leftists and Tory reactionaries - forming a 'no' lobby/yes' movement Well done and well funded - this was inseparable from the efforts of Aleister McAlpine, whom I soon recruited as Conservative Treasurer. The "big debate" people talk about ", it was really a contest between David and Goliash, and Goliash won in the end. The real issues often disappeared.

Most disgusting to me is the blatant opportunism of the Labor leadership.A "renegotiation" of the terms of Britain's accession to the Community is simply not serious.At the European Council in Dublin in March, it was agreed that a special "fiscal mechanism" would overburden the UK: it was never activated and therefore never delivered a penny.Yet the government's household pamphlets jettisoned all the Eurosceptic rhetoric that Labor, and especially foreign secretary Jim Callaghan, had used in the general election.The booklet contains words of encouragement such as:

As a result of these negotiations) the agricultural policy of the Common Market (commonly known as the Common Agricultural Policy) is now more flexible to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in the UK... Under the previous conditions, the British contribution to the common market budget imposed an excessive burden on us.New conditions ensure the UK will pay a fairer share of... Past shifts in the Common Market towards Economic and Monetary Union are a threat to UK jobs... This threat has now been eliminated... It is absurd to say that joining the Commonwealth might force Britain to eat European bread or drink European beer... ...it is the Council of Ministers, not the officials of the common market, that takes the important decisions. I duly launched the Conservative pro-common market campaign at a press conference at the St. Ominous Hotel.The reception was hosted by Ted Sheehan, and I even described myself as a "student lecturing before a master".I spoke in my constituency and elsewhere.I submitted a contribution to the Daily Telegraph on the eve of the vote.I think I gave my part to the movement.But others don't see it that way.Criticism emerged in the newspapers - for example The Sun commented: Missing person notice: a Conservative Party leader.Named Margaret Thatcher, 11 days ago mysteriously disappeared from the common market referendum campaign.It has not been seen since then.I implore whoever finds her to wake her up and remind her that she has let the country down by failing as leader of the Opposition. No doubt such criticisms were offered to the press by persons who had made me their victim and had other motives of their own.But Aleister McAlpine, a quick supporter-turned-friend, told Willie Whitelaw with concern that I should be more active.Unfortunately, on the day I was scheduled to give a press conference at Central Headquarters as part of the campaign, Edward Dukan, chairman of the 1922 committee, issued a call for a "no" vote in the referendum.I only found out about it shortly before I was about to face the press.I am in a dilemma.Had to change direction and go roundabout instead of heading straight for Brussels. The result of the referendum itself was not surprising, with 67% voting "yes" and 33% voting "no".What is more difficult to predict is the impact on the overall political situation.The vote was a blow to the left of the Labor Party; the whole movement was rigged by the cunning maneuvers of Harold Wilson when he replaced Tony Benn from industry secretary to energy secretary, a post he had held in his previous role. a political burden, while the scope for harm in the latter role is more limited.Naturally for the Conservatives, it was Ted and his friends who got most of the praise.I myself praised him in Parliament.He didn't respond.He reacted later. The newspapers were soon filled with reports of Ted's earlier meeting with me in Wilton Street, but in a way that suggested I hadn't seriously proposed him for the shadow cabinet.The reports also suggest that he now wants to use the status he gained through the referendum campaign to make a comeback, possibly at my expense.Ted's ambitions were his own business.But at least the truth about the Wilton Street meeting should be known.So I told George Hutchinson of The Times about it - not my supporter, but a virtuous journalist - and the story was duly published. No doubt Ted's hopes were encouraged by two other things.First, it is impossible for me not to be aware that various well-informed commentators are predicting that my tenure in leadership will not last; specifically, that I will be gone by Christmas.Second, the combination of the early fiscal irresponsibility of the Heath government and the current anti-corporate policies of the Wilson government has plunged Britain into a deepening economic crisis, which may conceivably lead to the emergence of a coalition government, while Ted's future is uncertain. You can take advantage of the momentum to show your grand plans.And the introduction of proportional representation may keep the coalition in power and last for a long time, and people like me will drop out. In fact, the chances of any of this happening are smaller than critics think.It's not just that I have no intention of relinquishing leadership, even the Conservative backbenchers are not prepared to tolerate Ted's backlash.And it is quite impossible to expect a shrewd, confident politician like Harold Wilson to let the megalomaniac he despises clean up Britain's problems.If he wanted to back down, it was on his terms and at a time of his choosing: of course that was what happened afterwards.Another aspect, which was not generally appreciated at the time, was that I became a unifying figure in the movement, despite the criticism that I had not advocated for Europe vigorously enough.Conservative MPs who oppose the common market hold no grudge against me.Most backbenchers feel very much like I do about Europe, seeing it as a framework within which Britain can prosper, not as a crusader.The dispute over whether Britain should be a member of the European Community has been settled for the foreseeable future.The real question now is what kind of community?There will be a realignment of dissenting views within the Conservative Party on this issue. Two short visits abroad during my referendum campaign on European issues provided me with food for thought.I visited Luxembourg at the end of April and attended the European Congress, which demands to be called "Parliament".The best I can say to the eager newsletter community after a lifeless debate on petty issues is that the institution is clearly "very valuable" and its members work "very well." effort".At this time, the members of the General Assembly are still composed of those members appointed by the member states.Perhaps it is long overdue for all of us to weigh more carefully the question of whether it is right to end the system in favor of direct elections.Under the old regime, at least, there was a close connection between the members of the national parliaments and the members of the European Assembly; in fact they were the same people.The European Assembly has a limited role, for which full-time MEPs are unnecessary.When the latter comes up they demand a bigger role, in part to justify their salaries, generous spending and lifestyle, which raises a myriad of questions.However, my main conclusion from visiting Luxembourg is that in such a European assembly people do not speak the same language and do not share the same traditions, which shows that the idea of ​​trying to create artificial all-European institutions is flawed.Peter Kirk, the Conservative leader in the European Congress, organized a reception for me in Luxembourg, and he did his best to introduce some British parliamentary ideas and impose some fiscal discipline.But it will take more than that to create a true European Parliament. The following month, I was invited to Paris as a guest of the Gaulle party—then called the League of Democrats of the Republic and later the League for the Defense of the Republic.It was during this visit that I met Prime Minister Jacques Chirac for the first time, I had lunch with him at Palais Matthione (his office and office) and also met President Valery for the first time at the Elysee Palace Giscard d'Estaing.Despite the contrasting personalities of the two men — the prime minister is charismatic and dynamic, as opposed to the president’s phlegmatic and rigorous — both Palais Matthione and the Elysée speak equally to French historical splendor and national pride.French identity and interests are always the first to be represented in the Community or in any other forum.Some people may be aggrieved by this, but I find it strangely reassuring: You know where you stand. Three distinct but related developments have drawn my attention to Europe since then.First, about the speed and extent of European integration: in particular, we have to consider the arrangements for direct elections to the European Assembly and our policy towards the European Monetary System.Second, it was felt, and I felt the same way, that the centre-right parties in Europe should work more closely together to come up with countermeasures against the Socialist International.Third, it is necessary to determine the role that Western Europe should play in East-West relations, especially the Helsinki process, which is most appropriate to be discussed later. In early July, Belgian Prime Minister Leo Tindmans came to the UK.He drafted a report on the "European Union" at the request of heads of government at the Paris Summit in the summer of 1974.I met with Reggie Indling and others in a room in the House of Commons.I have set up a committee under Reggie's direction, including the ex-diplomat Sir Anthony Royle and others, to consider such matters.I emphasized to Tindermans that it would be best if the community developed naturally rather than according to some predetermined structure.I intend to take this as a warning that while I envisage that Britain will adopt a more positive attitude towards the community under a Conservative government than under a Labor Party, our partners should not imagine that we aspire to imposition from the centre. Man's grand plan. Within the Conservative Party, the debate on Europe has increasingly focused on the issue of direct elections.I regularly receive reports of party opinion.A group of MPs led by Neil Marton argued vigorously against direct elections at all.A larger group of MPs grudgingly admits that the pass to direct elections has been sold, and the real question is when and by what electoral system the elections will be held.A third group aspires to create a real European Parliament to check the action of the Council of Ministers and committees.Fortunately, the government is at least as divided as we are, and we can all be united in accusing them of not bringing the relevant and essential legislation to the House of Commons in time.Equally satisfactorily, the government's proposal to adopt proportional representation, a gesture to preserve the Liberal-Labor coalition, collapsed in December 1977.Thus, the first relevant direct election was held in 1979 when I was Prime Minister, and it was conducted on a majority-first basis. Pressures for political integration necessarily have their economic counterparts.The first grand plans for the European Economic and Monetary Union were embodied in the so-called "serpentine floating exchange rate regime" established in 1972.Britain joined the mechanism under Ted, showing he was serious about Europe's strict obligations; but within six weeks he had to withdraw.Economic planners, however, were instead energized by failure, and the European Monetary System was endorsed in late 1978, with eight of the nine currencies in the community participating, with only Britain staying out.It would be inhumane for Her Majesty's Opposition under my leadership not to use this to justify the fact that the UK currency is too weak to participate because of Labour's failures in governing the economy.This is a fair enough tactical position, but what is difficult to judge is how a Conservative government should proceed. At the end of October 1978, Jeffrey Howe sent me a note, outlining the circumstances and reasons for and against participation in floating exchange rates.He thought that if we were in power now and committed to getting the fiscal and economic policies right, we might be able to participate.Geoffrey also believes that we need to maintain the party's EU-friendly attitude, fearing that other options will mean "handing over the direction of the European Economic Community and its policies to the Franco-German leadership".Nigel Lawson, a junior finance spokesman, also sent me a thorough analysis at the end of October.He sees EMS as having a political purpose in the minds of the French and Germans, the next stage in the European unification process.He astutely states that "those who support the UK's entry into the European Monetary System as part of their allegiance to the EEC cause should stop and consider whether discipline (the EC's only virtue) might actually prove otherwise so unpopular as to make support for continued membership in the EEC political suicide".Nigel reluctantly concludes that we should be in anyway: but his "best hope" is that the system will collapse shortly thereafter, not because of weakness in the UK currency but because of pressure.We can then propose some kind of more sensible framework for the convergence of European economies.I was impressed by the quality of the two analyses.My thinking on this issue is still evolving, but I decide at this point that we should continue to be generally positive about the EMS while avoiding any specific commitments. A second major European theme—closer cooperation between centre-right parties—eventually led to the establishment of the European Democratic Union in 1978.The role of this organization was limited, but the political intentions for its establishment had greater significance. The mid-1970s was a period of progress in many aspects and fields of the democratic and non-democratic left.Some Communist parties in the Mediterranean region of Europe appear to be on the verge of entering government.The Left is encouraged by the sense that history and Soviet military power are pushing the world in its direction.Only NATO policymaking and a reinvigorated U.S. leadership can wrestle with it and turn it around.At the same time, the European right has had to fight an uphill battle on the political front. Nowhere was the fighting so ferocious as in Portugal.Within a few weeks of my becoming leader of the Conservative Party, I had a long conversation with Professor Diogo Freitas, the leader of the Center for Social Democracy, the only party on the center right that belongs to the ruling coalition, Professor Do Amaral.He was an urbane intellectual, clearly involved in politics for the noblest of motives.When I saw him, he too was in utter despair.Since the overthrow of Dr. Caetano's dictatorship in April 1974, the Communists and other elements of the radical left in the army, along with the Portuguese Communist Party, have managed by all means to gain almost total power. Neighboring Spain was relatively lucky. After the death of General Franco in November 1975, it basically realized the transformation of the dictatorship smoothly.There, one undoubtedly sees the Portuguese resistance to overly conspicuous attempts to seize power, and from the days of its legalization in 1977 the Communist Party of Spain has preferred the guise of "Eurocommunism" with its Italian counterparts. Compete with French counterparts.I've always thought that Eurocommunism was a tactical approach and that one should understand it in terms of earlier analogues like the Popular Front in the 1930s.It does demonstrate a recognition of the power of enlightened public opinion, and it heralds the impending collapse of communism's internal self-confidence.But it does not signal an abandonment of any of the fundamental aims of Marxism-Leninism.The only "evidence" of this is to be found in the evaluation of the real attitude and intentions of the leaders of the Eurocommunist countries. I harbored a long-cherished desire to visit West Germany for several reasons.Of course, it happens to be on the frontier of European freedom when the scope of global freedom is shrinking.The defense strategy of the West depends to a great extent on the policies of the West German political leaders and the determination of the West German people.Konrad Adenauer and the chancellors of his successor, the Federal Republic of Germany, had staunchly resisted the flattery and threats of the Soviet Union and its East German satellites.But the hidden agenda of Willy Brandt's New Orient Policy, German reunification on Eastern terms, shook many assumptions.It had an effect unintentionally.That is, it promoted neutralist attitudes in West Germany (including within the ruling Social Democratic Party) and recognition of the legitimacy of Eastern European governments.Doubts about the New Orient Policy and the soundness of the Social Democrats lingered, although Willy Brandt's successor, Helmut Schmidt, was determined, and he soon set about NATO in his favor. Strengthen trans-Atlantic ties by organizing the stationing of U.S. intermediate-range nuclear missile forces in Europe.Helmut Schmidt followed with growing distrust of the tortuous approach to American foreign policy under Jimmy Carter. Another reason I was eager to make this trip was the importance of the CDU itself, which, for Conservatives, is another of the largest centre-right European parties.The idea for a coalition - later to become the European Democratic Union - originally came from Alois Möck, leader of the Austrian (Christian Democratic) People's Party.But the Germans and ourselves must be the two key components in that coalition.Although I later discovered that there were important differences between the traditions of the German Christian Democrats and the British Conservatives, these differences were far from being as great as those between Christian Democrats in countries such as Italy or Belgium and our own.The social market approach advocated by Ludwig Erhard in Germany embraced to a greater extent the orientation of free enterprise, whereas other Christian democrats, for the most part, pursued a self-confessional, often somewhat directionless economics. My first visit to West Germany as leader of the Conservative Party was from Thursday, June 26 to Saturday, June 28, 1975.However, my mind was focused on what was happening at home on the first Thursday night at the residence of the British ambassador in Bonn, where the counting of ballot papers for the West Woolwich by-election was underway.Unlike my predecessors, I decided to campaign myself in a by-election, which is a bit of a risk, but when things go well, as in this case, it pays off because we end up with 7. A 6% majority wins the seat.Given the usual lack of cash in the party, I was not accompanied by a press officer, and Gordon Reese, knowing this, advised me what to say and do in order to succeed as expected.We agreed that I would say something along the lines of "this is a step on the road to ending socialism", and then I would make a Churchillian victory gesture - all the more appropriate since I was in Germany.Gordon didn't think about teaching me how to make this gesture.So the next day when I was asked to comment on this election result, I smiled and held up two fingers, unfortunately in the opposite direction, and the jubilant photographers took it as a sign of lightheartedness , must be more vulgar disdain for the Labor Party than satisfaction with our own success. Later that day I met for the first time Helmut, Chancellor Schmidt, the socialist.I came to the conclusion at the end of our discussion that he was far less socialist than some members of my shadow cabinet.These two impressions have not disappeared with the passage of time.However, we do not see eye to eye on union issues.Helmut Schmidt, based on the experience in Germany, cannot understand why we in England do not just call all trade union leaders to the conference table and solve the problem sensibly.I pointed out that his ideas had practical possibilities in Bonn due to the post-war transformation of the German trade union structures by the British occupation authorities, reducing their number and basing them on industries rather than trades.Holding such a meeting in London would require a small gymnasium. (As far as I know, credit for the superior transformation is due to Paul Chambers, a British member of the Control Council that ran western Germany during the Allied occupation: I have known him since the 1960s.) I would be tempted to add that Most British trade union leaders, unlike their German counterparts, are at least as interested in socialist politics as they are in sensitive wage bargaining.But I decided that this could be discussed on another occasion. The host, the Christian Democratic Union, arranged a late lunch for me. The lunch was attended by three German luminaries: Helmut Kohl, leader of the CDU and candidate for chancellor in next year's federal election, Kurt Biedenkoff, general secretary of the CDU, and—the most famous of all. Famous - the great German Finance Minister Ludwig Mehhard in the 1950s and 1960s.I had some discussions with Helmut Kohl earlier in the day.My first impression was that he was affable and had an instinctive sound mind on some big issues.But we didn't speak each other's language, so our discussion somewhat stalled.For the next decade, however, we see broadly the same thing about the East-West relationship that dominates European politics.Professor Biedenkoff is a broad and open character, overly eloquent, extremely intelligent and especially energetic.He was so eloquent about his thoughts and opinions that it was difficult for me to cut in.Like me, he has an unmistakable determination to develop a rigorous and well-thought-out program for government when his party returns to power.Ludwig Erhard was no longer involved in any real politics at this time, but apparently he had heard that my political views (and economic views) were different (that is to say similar to his own) enough Make this discussion engaging.I was delighted to find that the ex-Chancellor, designer of German prosperity, is personable and astute.He asked me many tough questions about my economic policy, and he seemed satisfied in the end.I felt that I did well in an important mentoring session. These three represented in different ways the great strength of Christian Democracy in Germany, so I came away feeling that we were both parties in opposition. Both are poised to rise to power and have a lot in common. My next visit the following year was to the Christian Democratic Union Congress, which I have already stated, and this reception partly confirmed.But I could never quite get used to the style of West German political activism I witnessed there.A succession of talkers approached the microphone, an inch or two away, yelled at it, and delivered long speeches.The technique of winning applause appears to be shouting so loudly that what is said is lost in the crackle of overused microphones.Neither the Conservative party conference nor the equipment at the party's central headquarters may be able to withstand it. At the same time, discussions continued between conservative and Christian democratic parties in Europe regarding the formation of a European Democratic Union.I try to convince less enthusiastic parties, whose countries have a tradition of coalition government and whose political principles are vague, fear being seen as right-wing. I visited The Hague in December 1976 for talks with Dutch statesmen - a moment of personal and long-term importance for me, because it was during this visit that I first met Ruud ·卢伯斯，他是当时的经济部长，后来成为首相，我同他在后来的岁月中建立起一种相互有益的友谊关系。在那里我还向英国贸易商会发表讲话说： 我急切地希望……共同体内思想相同的政党之间有更加密切的合作，我当然知道历史在我们的道路上设置了障碍……不过，我确信在我们检查我们的政策时我们会发现我们之间的共同点比我们在开始时所料想的大得多。 １９７７年６月我去罗马作了一次短暂访问。在这次访问中也进行了一些有价值的接触与讨论，特别是和基督教民主主义者赫赫有名的长者阿明托雷·范范尼教授、还有意大利最聪明有效的财政部长之一菲利波·潘多尔菲的接触与讨论。我的访问以与罗马教皇保罗六世的一次私人会见结束，这是我的第一次梵蒂冈经历。这些会见始终是严格和私下会见。我同教皇六世以及后来同教皇约翰·保罗二世讨论了北爱尔兰问题；约翰·保罗二世当选教皇在我看来始终是个天意，另外，我同他还讨论了共产主义的非宗教性质以及它向基督教政治家提出的挑战问题。 在这次访问的公开讲话中我要求意大利的基督教民主党人参加到新生的欧洲民主联盟中来：我承认"保守"一词在意大利具有不同的轻蔑涵义，但我敦促我的东道主们考虑我们的政策相似这一现实。我亲自对阿尔多·莫罗这位当时的基督教民主党领袖谈了这一论点。他是个处世超然的学者式的人物，在他的党内属于左派，我觉得他对我的讲话并不怎么赞同。哎呀，可悲的是，没有机会再讨论这一问题了，因为不到一年时间莫罗先生就遭到绑架并被谋杀了。 回想起来，我现在能够领会，意大利人认为他们与我们对世界的看法很不相同，他们的看法是有道理的。天主教的社会学说在不存在强大的世俗的中间偏右政治传统的社会里提供了一个有价值的框架，这种框架也适用于新教徒。问题是，作为一种生活观点，无论这一学说有多少优点，它本身并不足以为２０世纪后期所需要的切实可行的政策提供思想基础。就经济政策而言这一点尤其如此。从地地道道的自由企业到"总体主义"的任何思想都能用基督教民主主义的语言来乔装打扮。有些基督教民主主义政党，如德国基督教民主联盟，采用自由市场词藻（如果说并非一贯采取自由市场政策的话）来弥补这些不足，他们至少已经在这方面走了部分路程。其他政党，如意大利基督教民主党人，则已全部走完了这一路程。基督教民主主义已经表明，它无法说明冷战后世界面临的一个重大问题——民族国家和超国家机构之间的长期关系。我得出的结论是，不管个别的基督教民主党人可能会博得我们多少尊敬并值得我们支持，保守党人从他们那里几乎学不到什么东西。 总之，来自奥地利、丹麦、芬兰、德国、冰岛、挪威、葡萄牙、瑞典和英国的基督教民主政党和保守主义政党还是一致同意成立欧洲民主联盟。我出席了１９－－７８年４月在萨尔茨堡的成立大会。出席大会的其他政党领袖有赫尔穆特·科尔和弗朗兹·约瑟夫·斯特劳斯——巴伐利亚州基督教社会联盟领袖，他在赫尔。科尔于１９７６年１０月的选举中以微弱少数失败后，成为德国右翼的总理候选人。他们两人之间的悬殊差别使我很感兴趣。两个人都身体魁伟，很有德国人特色。但斯特劳斯先生是个生性活泼的知识分子，十分机智，是个有造诣的雄辩家。他缺乏赫尔穆特·科尔的谨慎，在与赫尔穆特·施密特竞争时，他的感情冲动和并不完全名副其实的极端主义名声后来使他失败了。这是在克莱斯汉姆城堡的一个光辉灿烂的时刻，欧洲民主联盟是奥地利人的创见，他们是极好的东道主。对我来说这也是在重要时刻的一个有用的讲坛。 我已经提到过，第三个紧迫的欧洲问题是共同体各国在东西方关系中的作用。虽然这个问题从我成为党的领袖后不久就使我全神贯注、但我只在一个场合直接谈到过它，——在由休·托马斯帮助起草、于１９７８年６月２３日星期五在布鲁塞尔向天主教大会发表的一次讲演中。主题是"外交政策的原则"，论述的范围很广，包括需要在全世界推进民主以减少战争的危险。但是讲话中引起最大注意的那部分是关于欧洲共同体的政治作用问题。我并不把欧洲经济共同体仅仅看作是一个经济实体：它具有更广泛的战略目的。作为毗邻苏联控制的东欧的一个民主、稳定和繁荣的地区，它既是一个显示西方生活方式的窗口，又是一块把各国政治家和人民从共产主义拉开的磁铁。此外，西欧国家在处理它们同苏联及其卫星国的关系时，其指导思想不应仅从经济的角度出发，而是要充分考虑到技术转让和廉价贷款对俄国战争机器的润滑作用。 我们必须从总体上来看我们同苏联的关系。西方提供的信用贷款、谷物和技术；关于安全与裁军的各个不同方面的谈判；苏联和卫星国在非洲、亚洲和太平洋地区的活动，全都是同一景物的不同表现特征。除非我们像苏联那样学会从总体上来看待这一景物，否则我们将不断失算。 为了了解我们是如何得出这样一种看法的，有必要更加全面地考虑东西方的均势问题。