Yes, Prime Minister, said Sir Humphrey. Good idea, he added deferentially. Were quite a team!
A DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT
September 3rd
Today, the anniversary of the day World War II broke out, was a day with a couple of extraordinarily appropriate developments, a day full of surprises but a day that will one day be seen as a great day, a day on which a new day may dawn for Britain.
[Hacker occasionally lurched into passages of purple prose. Generally they are meaningless. At best they are insignificant. But they reveal a Churchillian yearning for a meaningful and significant place in the history books which has sadly been denied him by posterity Ed.]
The main topic at the first early morning meeting with Humphrey and Bernard after my brief summer hols was the great delay that we are experiencing on the Channel Tunnel [a 1980s project for a tunnel under the English Channel, connecting Dover with Calais Ed.]. My concern is the big public ceremony to celebrate the start of the work. [Naturally Ed.] For reasons that were unclear to me, the Foreign Office have been stalling again.
Humphrey didnt see the hurry. Nor did Bernard. They say the heads of agreement havent been signed.
Typical Foreign Office lethargy. Its about time they were, I complained. It should be terrific ceremony -- big gates inaugurated, a foundation stone laid by the Rt Hon. James Hacker, the Prime Minister. Ill do a speech about this historic link, uniting two great sovereign powers. The coverage will be great. The fact that the FO hasnt agree everything with the French does not, on the face of it, seem a sufficient reason to hold everything up at a time when my opinion-poll ratings have slipped a bit.
So I told Humphrey my decision: to have a summit meeting with the French President and sort it all out myself.
Humphrey was shocked. I had no idea that you were considering such a radical approach, he said, using one of the most vicious adjectives in his vocabulary.
Well, I am.
Immediately he tried to undermine my self-confidence. Prime Minister, do you really believe that you personally are capable of concluding this negotiation with the French?
I couldnt see why it should be so difficult. Yes I do. What are the outstanding points of issue?
He replied, They are mainly concerned with sovereignty. Where do you believe the frontier should be?
The frontier? Id never considered it. He meant the frontier between Britain and France, presumably.
[This entry in the diary tells us all that we need to know about Hackers thought processes. It is as well to remember the adage: if God had intended politicians to think, he would have given them brains Ed.]
I couldnt see a problem. Whats wrong with wherever it is now?
You mean, enquired Humphrey, the three-mile limit? Who would own the middle of the tunnel?
I had meant the three-mile limit. Id never considered the middle of the tunnel at all.
[Undoubtedly so. Hacker had only considered the favourable publicity to be obtained from the opening ceremony Ed.]
You see, Humphrey explained, the British position is that we should own half each. But of course, we could follow your idea, in which case most of the tunnel would be an international zone, administered by the United Nations perhaps? Or the EEC?
I felt that the Foreign Office had got it right for once -- dividing the tunnel in the middle is perfectly fair.
But Humphrey explained that the French dont think it is fair. They want an Anglo-French frontier at Dover. A ridiculous notion! Perhaps, Humphrey suggested with a little smile, perhaps you would be happy to concede fifty per cent of the French case?
In the interests of fairness, I told Humphrey, Im always happy to concede fifty per cent.
Oh dear, replied Humphrey with evident satisfaction. Since the French have demanded one hundred per cent to start with, theyll end up with seventy-five per cent.
A trick question. Which explained Humphreys little smile. He was now looking triumphant, the silly man, because hed caught me out. Anybody could do that. [A little unintentional honesty there Ed.]
Obviously, I told him, keeping my temper with difficulty, we have to divide the tunnel in the middle. That way we can have sovereignty over half the tunnel, and so can they.
And who has sovereignty over the trains?
Id never thought of that. Humphrey, who after all has had the benefit of doing some homework on this, threw a barrage of irritating, niggling, pettifogging questions at me.
If a crime is committed on a French train in the British sector, who should have jurisdiction? The British or the French?
The British, I replied. He stared at me, that irritating little smirk playing around his lips. No, the French, I said. No, the British.
He didnt give me his opinion. He just went on with the questions. If a body is pushed out of a British train within the French sector, who has jurisdiction?
The French? I tried. No response. No, the British, I said. No, um
If, said Humphrey relentlessly, if a British lorry is loaded on to a French train in the British sector, who has jurisdiction?
I was pretty confused by now. [And, indeed, previously Ed.]
So was Bernard. Could criminal jurisdiction be divided into two legs? he asked. Home and away?
Humphrey ignored Bernard. Should we have a frontier post in the middle of the tunnel, half-way across?
Yes, I said. He stared at me and I lost confidence again. No, I added.
Or should we have customs and immigration clearance at either end?
I was beginning to see how complex the whole issue was. No, I decided initially. Yes, I concluded a moment later, having reconsidered.
Or both ends? There were limitless possibilities, it seemed.
Yes, I agreed.
Sir Humphrey hinted that I was being less than decisive. Very true. But after all, as I pointed out, these were questions for the lawyers in the negotiation.
Precisely, Prime Minister. But I thought you said you wanted to handle it yourself.
I was getting irritated. I dont want to handle abstruse points of international law, Humphrey. I want to sort out the basic political points at issue.
So, said Humphrey, in an interest of extravagant mock surprise, sovereignty is not political? How interesting. Hes got an endless supply of these cheap shots. He knew what I meant.
[Hacker was being somewhat optimistic. It is improbable that Sir Humphrey knew what Hacker meant. After years of studying this manuscript we do not know what he meant. At times we are forced to wonder whether Hacker knew what he meant Ed.]
I take it, asked Sir Humphrey, continuing this rather insolent cross-examination, that you will agree to the Tunnel being built with the most modern technology?
Of course.
Then, replied Humphrey, you have just conceded that ninety per cent of the contracts will be placed with French companies. And do you want the signs to be in French first and English second?
No! I was adamant.
The French do.
We dont agree.
You cant have your ceremony until we do.
I suggested a compromise. We could have the English first on the signs at the British end. And French first at the French end.
What about the trains?
I was becoming furious. For Gods sake, Humphrey, what does it matter?
He remained calm. It matters to the French, he explained. What about the menus? English or French?
I looked for a compromise. Cant they change the menus half-way?
He shook his head sadly. The French will be adamant. Thats why both the British and the French Concorde are spelt the French way -- with an E on the end. Of course, if you want to concede all these points with the French we could have immediate agreement with them. Alternatively --" he plunged in the knife -- you can leave it to the Foreign Office to do their best.