European Diary, 1977-1981 Part 2

Denis Healey36 to see me between 11.00 and 12.00. It was during this meeting that we first heard the news of Tony Crosland's illness the previous day. It was difficult to tell how severe this was, though there was clearly some risk of it being very serious indeed. Denis and I contemplated, not I think his death, but the possibility that he might be out of action as chairman of the Council of Ministers for some time to come.

I had asked Denis what were his own intentions about the future, slightly independently of this, and he said that he intended to stay at the Treasury at least until after the Budget, that a move then had been seriously discussed, but in his view it was not definitely a switch with Crosland, and that in any event his (Healey's) mind was moving towards staying at the Treasury for a substantially longer time. This was based on a typically complacent view by Denis, who although he knew he had very bad trade figures that afternoon told me nothing about these and indeed spoke in terms of the utmost euphoria about every aspect of the situation.

I then lunched with the Economic Council. Healey there was in a way quite good, though as insufferably know-all as ever, lecturing everyone about every detail of the new American administration, which he said, manifestly untruly, was going to have all its policies absolutely cut and dried by the end of February, and interrupting everybody a good deal. When I complained, Apel37 said, 'Oh, we are used to that; we all have to put up with that. 'I said, 'I am used to it too, but that is no reason for not complaining.'

I then went to the Agricultural Council for one and a half hours, and watched Silkin38 get into a mess about the agenda (but I am told he did rather well later in the evening on fish), and heard Gundelach present his price proposals for the first time, and listened to the reactions: the Belgians-not very good, but to be expected; the Danes-pretty good; the Germans-huffing a bit but fundamentally friendly; and the French surprisingly friendly. Dinner at home with Jennifer, much disturbed by the appalling bulletins coming in about Tony.

TUESDAY, 15 FEBRUARY. Brussels.

Lunch with Henri Simonet,39 the Belgian ex-Commissioner, at a restaurant near the Basilique. Back for a series of meetings during the afternoon: first a delegation from the Spanish Socialists, headed by Felipe Gonzales,40 an extremely effective, impressive young man, aged only about thirty-four, of humble origin in the south of Spain, and certainly one of the most impressive-though a little frighteningly tough-young leaders whom I had met for some time; then Klaus von Dohnanyi, the excellent European Minister in the German Foreign Office. Dinner party at home, composed of Dohnanyis, Ruggieros,41 Natali and Laura.

WEDNESDAY, 16 FEBRUARY. Brussels.

Commission day, but a remarkably easy one. Thirteen or fourteen routine items, but I got them all through in two hours. Lunch at home for Duncan Sandys42 and then back to the office to see David Owen, who had been in Brussels to open the fishery negotiations with the Russians and from whom I particularly wanted to hear just how awful the news was from London. He said he regarded Tony as already morally and mentally dead; it was settled; there was no question; he would probably live only about forty-eight hours; he might live longer but there could be no possibility of recovery. He clearly did not think that he was at all likely to get the Foreign Secretaryship himself, although I would not say that he ruled it out completely.

FRIDAY, 18 FEBRUARY. Brussels and Rome.

A frenzied morning in the office trying to patch together a statement for the routine general press conference which I had rashly arranged for that day at noon. Rashly because I agreed to do it simply because six weeks had gone by since the previous press conference, and the whole Brussels press corps is addicted to press conferences. The result however was undesirable as I had very little to say, hence the difficulty of preparing a statement. Left for Rome via Geneva at 3.50. Dinner with Crispin and Jennifer when Crispin told us he was going to be married again.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 19 FEBRUARY. Rome and the Abruzzi.

I awoke about 6.30, having had a vivid dream about Tony being present and his saying in an absolutely unmistakable, clear, rather calm voice, 'No, I'm perfectly all right. I am going to die, but I'm perfectly all right.' Then at about 8 o'clock we had a telephone call from the BBC saying that he had died that morning, curiously enough at almost exactly the same moment that I awoke from my dream about him. I pulled myself together with some difficulty and after about half an hour did a brief recording over the telephone to the BBC in London, which they used for the 8 o'clock news, it then being 8.50 in Rome.

After speaking to Hayden in Brussels, I decided that I ought to write a Sunday Times piece. We therefore slightly postponed our departure with Natali so that I got it going and made the telephone arrangements in the hotel. I then wrote the greater part of its 650 words in the hour or so's drive between Rome and L'Aquila. It was a difficult feat of concentration. I had very little idea of what I was going to say when I started and the effect of writing about Tony was to bring the immense closeness of our earlier relationship flooding back into my mind, much more than had hitherto been the case, so that during the rest of that day in the Abruzzi, and indeed during the whole Roman trip and beyond, I found I was much more affected than I had been during the previous week, even though I had already realized that he was dying.

Official lunch in L'Aquila with the prefect, the mayor, the chairman of the regional council, etc. and then to Rocca di Mezzo where Natali lives in a modest but agreeably furnished house about a mile from the centre of this fairly small, almost ski-resort-like town. A large dinner party. Conversation in a mixture of French, English, Italian; certain difficulties of comprehension but not insurmountable. Natali's French is improving a good deal; his wife seems to understand a certain amount of it, and his Roman surgeon brother-in-law, who devoted himself to a lot of highly cynical remarks about Natali's politics and Christian Democratic politics in general, but in a thoroughly agreeable way, spoke very good English. Bed at about 11.30 for what should have been a good night's sleep, but very typically was considerably interrupted by the noise of the police cars changing over outside. Policemen up in the middle of the night to provide guards for politicians behave equally noisily over the whole of Europe. They do not see why others should sleep if they are awake.

MONDAY, 21 FEBRUARY. Rome.

Horrible humid, soggy morning. It felt like Lagos or some tropical capital rather than Rome in the winter. Crispin and I went to the Vatican for a Papal audience, which went on much longer than we expected. At first they had said a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes, but in fact it took forty or forty-five minutes. The Pope (Paul VI) was too frail happily to talk French, so he talked in Italian and I replied mostly in English. Unfortunately, this was pretty badly interpreted by a young monsignor from California. It was very much more informal than I had remembered when I previously had an audience with Pius XII over twenty years ago.

The Pope switched about in a rather bewildering way between matters of high generality like his support for the European family of nations to those of almost overprecise detail, like asking me why the Nine at its Political Cooperation meeting in London had decided not to issue the statement on the Middle East, and also implying rather worryingly that he would like to get into several negotiating acts in relation to the Middle East generally and the Palestinian position in particular, and indeed also in relation to the Lebanon. He said that if I ever felt that he could do anything useful would I merely let him know by telephone and he would be prepared to proceed immediately! It was not quite clear in which direction he was prepared to proceed, but clearly the intention was good, and the general impression he made was friendly and agreeable.

He then gave us medals, we had photographs taken, and were conducted out. The ceremonies going in and out are rather splendid, with the Swiss Guards and the Papal Chamberlain still fully in operation. A group of about thirty Mezzogiorno bishops were waiting outside. It was not obvious to me (I had never thought about it previously) what to do when pa.s.sing through an a.s.sembled group of bishops in this way. The best thing seemed to incline one's head gravely first in one direction and then in the other. The impressiveness of my departure was however somewhat reduced when one of them was heard to say in a strong stage whisper, 'e Callaghan'.

We were conducted round the Sistine Chapel and other bits of the old Papal apartments and then drove to the house of the President of the Senate, where I had a twenty-minute conversation with Fanfani,43 who told me that Soares,44 whom he had been seeing the day before, thought that Portugal could be in the Community and partic.i.p.ating in direct elections by 1978, which was a fairly surprising and disturbing piece of information, but one not subsequently confirmed by anyone else.

Then on, with Fanfani, to a lunch for various Senate figures of note, but mainly the chairmen of the different specialist commissions who between them added up to a good Italian political cross-section, Christian Democrat, Communist and Socialist. At the end of lunch we had about an hour's general discussion which I had to lead and reply to. Then to see Marcora,45 the Minister of Agriculture. He launched off into a great diatribe against Gundelach's price proposals and the unfair treatment which Italian agriculture had received, but when pressed became a little more reasonable, in particular saying that in Gundelach's position he would not have done anything very different himself.

Next to the Commission's Rome office where I did a short television performance and went round meeting the staff; then across to the Farnesina, the new Foreign Ministry at the bottom of Monte Mario, for, first, a private meeting with Forlani, the Foreign Minister, and then a rather pointless, wider meeting, with about eight of us sitting lined up on either side of a great table, with blotting pads and pencils as though we were about to negotiate a treaty. However, Forlani is a nice man and the informal meeting went thoroughly well, he giving a very firm a.s.surance of Italian support in relation to the Commission's presence at the Summit.

Then back to the Ha.s.sler for a hurried change, a ten-minute programme on the main TV chain on the way to dinner, which was a large mixed affair at the Villa Madama, with speeches at the end. In the course of dinner we received from Italian sources the news of David Owen's appointment as Foreign Secretary, which surprised and greatly pleased us. Hotel by about 11.00 having got through quite a heavy day.

TUESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY. Rome and Brussels.

Jennifer to London, and I went at 10 o'clock to the Palazzo Chigi for an hour's meeting with Andreotti,46 the Prime Minister, whom I always like. He is quick, intelligent, and has a curious air of engaging shiftiness. He looks like an intelligent and quite attractive tortoise. He is very agreeable to talk to, he knows what he wants to talk about, takes the points quickly, easily, in good, well-arranged order. Difficult to say whether he is gloomy or optimistic about the situation. He is so used to living on the edge of a political and economic precipice that he tends to discount gloom, though it doesn't lead him into Healey-like complacency.

Then on to a three-quarters-of-an-hour meeting in the Palazzo Montecitorio, the Parliament building, with Stammati,47 the rather elderly Finance Minister. But this unfortunately made me late for the press conference which followed in the Commission's Rome office and was packed, though partly I think with the Commission staff. It looked as though it was going to be a rather formidable occasion but turned out better than might have been expected and we got quite a good press out of it.

Then on to the Quirinale for a 12.45 interview with Leone,48 the pocket-sized President of the Republic, conducted in quite a stately form as had been the case in August, in other words a gathering of about sixteen or eighteen people sitting round and he and I talking in periods. He is an agreeable, cultivated Neapolitan lawyer, said to be benignly corrupt. Then a very splendid lunch given at the top of the Quirinale with a magnificent view from the sea to the Apennines including the whole of the city of Rome. It was apparently the old games or sports room of the immensely tall Quirinale guards. What they now do for exercise was not clear.

What, however, was remarkable about the lunch was that it was clearly intended to be a great Italian mark of respect for the Commission, for no fewer than eleven ministers turned up, including Andreotti, Forlani, Stammati, Marcora, almost everyone one could think of, plus a number of other state dignitaries like the President of the Const.i.tutional Court (Rossi). There was supposed to be no speeches other than informal toasts, but when we arrived there was a three-and-a-half-page, foolscap, English translation of Leone's speech, so Crispin had to work hard during lunch in order to patch together something for me, upon which I improvised and made what turned out to be a successful fifteen-minute speech.

Straight from there to the airport, Brussels at 6.30, and into the office for a preparatory meeting for the next day's Commission.

WEDNESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY. Brussels.

I lunched at Comme Chez Soi, the first time since 1962 when Eric Roll49 took me there with Jean-Francois Deniau,50 and found it just as good as I had remembered, although the size of the bill had increased about tenfold.

FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY. Brussels.

Presided over a lunch at Val d.u.c.h.esse for about forty or fifty princ.i.p.al information officers in the member governments. Then an interview with the Figaro. Then a series of discussions, including one by telephone with Gundelach in Washington about suspending the export subsidy on cheap b.u.t.ter sales to third countries, which had caused a considerable press outcry that morning.

Then to Liege, where I had arranged to have dinner alone with w.i.l.l.y Brandt.51 Consultation between our offices led us to believe that he was going to be in Aachen. I therefore said that I would happily come down, but that it would be easier for me, as I had not paid my official visit to Germany, if he could possibly come over the frontier and meet me just in Belgium. He was twenty-five minutes late and came in very apologetically, saying that he had got lost on the way in. I said, 'It is very good of you to have come from Aachen at all.' 'Aachen?' he said. 'I haven't been to Aachen for years.' 'Where have you come from then?' I asked. 'Bonn,' he said, which made it even more agreeable of him to have come.

He was more relaxed and talked better, I think, than I had ever heard him: a good deal about the European Parliament, of which he still intends to be a member, although seeing some conflict with his presidency of the Socialist International, a good deal about German politics, on which he was surprisingly loyal to Schmidt, although with a modic.u.m of criticism. He believed the Bonn Coalition would hold. Also a certain amount about Europe, though I had the impression that he was getting more interested in Third World issues.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 26 FEBRUARY. Brussels and Paris.

A quick visit to Crispin, who was in hospital, then to the Gare du Midi for the 11.43 TEE to Paris. From the Gare du Nord to the Emba.s.sy, where David Owen was staying, though just about to leave, and from 3.00 to 4.00 I had a talk in the little upstairs sitting room with him and Debbie. There was undoubtedly a slight problem of adjustment, perhaps more on my part than on theirs. When somebody has been a loyal, young, junior supporter for a long time, it is a little difficult to get used to his suddenly being Foreign Secretary. He had made a very good impression in Paris. He was forthcoming and friendly and I think the meeting went well. Not unnaturally he was very pleased with himself, very full of himself, so was Debbie, because he had after all just had a most remarkable political breakthrough.

He talked sensibly about the position of the Government, though he told Nicko Henderson52 on the way to the airport that he saw himself as standing in the centre of the Labour Party, neither on one wing nor the other; but maybe that is a sensible thing for him to say.

SUNDAY, 27 FEBRUARY. Paris.

Drove with Nicko and Mary to lunch with the Ganays53 at the Chateau de Courances near Fontainebleau. Very handsome 1630 house, with a horse-shoe perron, a copy of that at Fontainebleau, added a great deal later. Moved in the evening for reasons of protocol from the Emba.s.sy to the Crillon for the beginning of my official visit to the French Government. Installed by them in a magnificent suite, looking over the Place de la Concorde. Rather typically, they paid for this for one night only, though I clearly had to stay there for two!

MONDAY, 28 FEBRUARY. Paris.

Another most beautiful day. My first appointment was with Giscard at the Elysee. I walked there, which rather confused protocol arrangements, and indeed made it mildly difficult for me, for there was a guard of honour, to my surprise, lined up in the courtyard, and I was not quite clear whether I ought to walk over to them and see if their hair was short enough, etc. or just walk straight to the steps where people were waiting to receive me. Michael Jenkins firmly and rightly advised doing the latter, saying that had we come by car we would have just swept up and there would have been no question.

I saw Giscard absolutely on the dot, and had eighty minutes with him. On this occasion, unlike the last two on which I had seen him, he spoke English, and spoke it very well. The only crunch was relating to my presence at the Western Summit meeting. He raised it himself, in a glancing way, saying that as I might be aware, the French Government were not in favour of this, not of course at all for personal reasons, etc. but because in their view the Summit should be a meeting of sovereign governments. I hope I left him in no doubt about the strength of my contrary view. I avoided getting substantially drawn into detailed arguments and merely said that I thought it was an enormous waste of time to cause difficulties about this issue, rather than the substance of the European line at the Summit. He took this reasonably well.

At the end, when I was about to leave, I said, 'Thank you very much. It has been a great pleasure to talk to you and I much look forward to seeing you again in Rome, and after that in London.'54 'Don't say it,' he said, 'don't say it. Just say, "Certainly on many occasions after that".' So on this reasonably agreeable but inconclusive note, we parted, and I drove across to Hotel Matignon for lunch and subsequent talks with Barre.

After lunch I had about twenty minutes alone with Barre in which we discussed the Summit. I forget who raised it, probably me, for he immediately said: Oh, yes, he had had a telephone call from Giscard after my meeting there informing him about this. He then put his case, which was a remarkably weak one, as I made fairly clear to him. One advantage or disadvantage of both Barre and Giscard is that their lucidity is such that it becomes a positive disadvantage when they have to put a very bad case, and Barre I think at least had the grace to recognize that his case was bad. Then nearly an hour's good conversation with him with others present, mainly about the state of the French economy, but also international monetary affairs.

A series of meetings in the afternoon, and then a Quai d'Orsay dinner of about fifty, with speeches, in a very grand upstairs room.

TUESDAY,1 MARCH. Paris and Brussels.

Rue de Varenne for a meeting with Lecanuet.55 I had met him once before, as he recalled, in London, in about 1968. Then he seemed much younger and was regarded at the time of his presidential candidature as a sort of French Kennedy. He still has a faintly American look about him, though he now reminds me more of Nelson Rockefeller, despite the fact that he speaks no English; very agreeable smile, but in a curious way rather difficult to talk to, so that we had some difficulty in spinning out the conversation for forty-five minutes. It was mainly about regional policy, in which he seemed to announce a complete change of French line. Previously they had been against the Regional Fund.56 He now expressed great interest in it, said that the French very much wanted to partic.i.p.ate in it, but wanted a much larger quota for themselves; a move, in other words, from being indifferent to being slightly grasping.

After that, I moved across the road for a meeting with Christian Bonnet,57 the Minister of Agriculture. This went much more fluently, as he poured out words almost on the scale of Marcora, his Italian vis-a-vis. This quality seems to be a feature of European Ministers of Agriculture. However, perfectly friendly conversation in which rather notably he did not mention the b.u.t.ter sales problem, though saying a great deal about a range of other issues, including their dispute with the Italians about wine. After this, on to the offices of the Commission, just off the Avenue Foch, for a very crowded press conference.

Lunch Au Pet.i.t Riche, a nice old-style Paris restaurant which seemed hardly to have changed since Alexander Werth was constantly writing about it in the thirties. 3.20 train to Brussels in pouring rain, across the sodden Somme countryside. I also have the impression it has hardly stopped raining on these battlefields since 1916.

WEDNESDAY, 2 MARCH. Brussels.

A meeting with Gundelach at 9.30. Difficulties clearly blowing up about the handling of b.u.t.ter sales to Russia. Our statement suspending so-called prefixation had been welcomed by the British press, though with a good deal of implication that we were closing the stable door after the horse had gone (though as only one horse had gone, while there were several still there, this was not wholly valid). However, this had been followed by much contrary criticism, building up in the early part of the week, from the French press in particular, but to some extent in one or two other countries too. Le Monde had distinguished itself by a violent attack on me for interfering with the working of the agricultural acquis, which had come out on the Tuesday evening. Gundelach at first seemed to be weakening, but on investigation it appeared that what he was proposing was thoroughly sensible. Into the Commission at 10.00 and disposed of this item without too much difficulty, within about half an hour. The Commission until 1.00 and then again for two hours in the afternoon.

THURSDAY, 3 MARCH. Brussels.

Berlaymont fairly early for a meeting with Ruggiero, concerned both with a briefing on the previous day's Commission and with the general press blow-up, particularly in Le Monde, about our b.u.t.ter activities. Special Commission meeting from 10.00 to 12.30 on Ortoli's general economic papers, which were fairly negative and into which I tried hard to inject a strategy for mobilizing all the borrowing funds that we could, as an alternative to a rather tiresome and probably ineffective line about the Germans reflating, in the hope that this would give us some room for manoeuvre and for coordination on the whole complex of Regional Fund, Social Fund, Sectional Intervention, FEOGA Guidance etc. Only about four Commissioners understood the significance of this; one or two of whom-Davignon, Tugendhat-liked it, and one or two others -Ortoli at any rate-probably did not, though he did not react violently against it.

Then across to the Charlemagne building for a brief meeting with COREPER before lunching with them. I was amazed to discover that they met in the great 'football pitch' of a room which the Council of Ministers use, and find it difficult to understand how in these circ.u.mstances they can get any intimate discussion. We then adjourned for lunch, which was long and interesting; two hours with a lot of discussion about the Rome European Council. The Belgians put round a letter which they had addressed to everybody, taking a very strong line in favour of Commission representation at the Western Economic Summit, but, partly because I did not wish it to be done, it was not discussed at lunch.

Later to the Cinquantenaire for our rather belated New Year reception for the diplomatic corps. As we have approximately 110 amba.s.sadors accredited, and as they nearly all turned up, there was a considerable receiving-line job to do, in which Haferkamp a.s.sisted manfully.

FRIDAY, 4 MARCH. Brussels and East Hendred.

9.35 plane to London. Read in the Figaro that the Gaullist/Fianna Fail Group in the Parliament had decided to put down a vote of censure on the Commission about the b.u.t.ter affair, but hoped that this need not be too serious. It is very difficult to see who they can get to coalesce with them on their criticism of what we have done. Plenty of other people would be willing to join in criticism, but it would be from the opposite direction.

MONDAY, 7 MARCH. East Hendred, London and Brussels.

Motored from East Hendred to London with Jennifer for Tony's memorial service in Westminster Abbey. Sat in the front row of the north transept, surrounded by Foreign Ministers and other European representatives. The Cabinet and the amba.s.sadors were in the choir stalls and Susan and her daughters opposite us and a little nearer to the altar. The service, which was a mixture of a traditional Westminster Abbey 'Church and State' occasion and some unorthodox, more personal elements, was on the whole successful and moving. Jack Donaldson's address was excellent, a.s.sisted by some obvious Frankie touches.58 Derek Gladwin59 read the lesson well. d.i.c.k Leonard's60 reading from The Future of Socialism, although in my view not at all badly done by him, did not quite come off, and at the end the Welsh Male Voice Choir from Caerphilly, who had been specially brought and performed from high up in the roof between the choir and the nave, seemed to me to get slightly lost in the rafters and not to produce as emotionally swelling a rendering of 'Cwm Rhondda' and one other Welsh hymn as I would have expected. But it was an impressive and harrowing occasion.

After the service, I walked across towards 10 Downing Street, where Callaghan had a lunch for the four Foreign Ministers who had come-Forlani of Italy, Andersen61 of Denmark, Thorn of Luxembourg, and van der Stoel62 of Holland-as well as for Maurice Schumann representing Guiringaud, and David Owen and me. The conversation was fairly stilted, I thought, with Callaghan rather ill at ease trying to lead the a.s.sembled people through a mixture of international gossip and semi-serious points. What did they want him to put to Carter? What did they think of Carter's views about dissidents? he asked, and n.o.body seemed to have anything very much to say. Then at the end he did a rather deliberate and calculated rehearsal of his difficulties about getting through the legislation for direct elections, while saying that he would of course do his best.

After lunch I had twenty minutes' official bilateral talk with him, and then we leant over the banisters at the top of the staircase at Number 10 for some time and talked more widely. He told me that he would not have appointed Tony Chancellor, even had Denis moved and even had Tony lived, because he had decided that his health was not good enough, which if true obviously showed considerable foresight. I asked him who then he would have appointed and he said he didn't know, and talked rather vaguely about splitting up the Treasury. At no time, though he was perfectly civil, did he express any regret that he had let me go.

3.55 plane to Brussels. Back in the Berlaymont more or less on time, we started rather long consultations with Gundelach about how to handle the European Parliament vote of censure. We eventually decided without too much difficulty, though with the consumption of a good deal of time as consultations with Tugendhat and Burke were also involved, that we would take the initiative in forcing a debate before the vote of censure itself could be taken, at which Gundelach would open and I would wind up.

TUESDAY, 8 MARCH. Brussels and Strasbourg.

Foreign Affairs Council. Routine business until just after 12.00, with David Owen proving a good and effective, self-confident but not aggressive chairman. Then a restricted session to discuss primarily the matter of Community, i.e. my, presence at the Western Economic Summit. David Owen threw it to the meeting without a lead, Guiringaud immediately spoke, but in a rather unengaged manner, slightly shame-facedly, saying the French Government were against. Almost immediately afterwards he left the room, leaving poor Nanteuil63 to hold the fort. Van Elslande and van der Stoel then spoke in strong opposition to the French.

I followed, making a statement for about ten minutes, knowing the Belgians and others wanted something pretty strong from me, stating that our position was clearly and firmly in favour of being there, arguing the case in relation to the items under discussion and saying that it clearly would be absolutely ridiculous if we wasted our time at the Rome European Council, as we would have to unless Community presence was agreed to, debating this procedural question, rather than what at this moment of economic crisis we should say when we actually got to the Summit. The Irish State Secretary, Fitzgerald being away, supported this view, as did Forlani, as did Thorn, though rather tortuously.

David then said that regrettably there was not a consensus in favour and therefore -1 think this was in accordance with his brief -the decision was that we should not be invited. He had first asked Nanteuil if the French wished to change their position. Nanteuil, who looked rather like an apprehensive goat tethered to his post, wishing he could go away and certainly not wanting to be called upon to say anything, produced a monosyllabic 'non'. Genscher then came in rather reluctantly. He had been leaning back throughout the discussion. He said the Germans had not changed their position; they were in favour of Community partic.i.p.ation; that would continue to be their view, but they did not want to have any great rows with anybody.

I then contested David's summing up, saying the fact that there was not unanimous agreement certainly did not mean that a decision had been taken against; there were still two months to go and clearly the matter would have to be raised at Rome apart from anything else. This was strongly supported by a number of other delegations and agreed to. We then went down to lunch. I reluctantly had to sit next to Guiringaud. We had some perfectly polite general conversation until near the end, when I told him that I had not been very pleased with what he had said, which would not surprise him, and that I wondered how much give there was in the French position. He implied that he thought there was some, without entering into any very definite commitment.

We then went upstairs, when curiously enough he twice came running up to me to make some little point: Giscard hoped very much I would do some work on the inst.i.tutional implications of enlargement; and that nothing was to be taken personally. Rather surprisingly overforthcoming for the French.

Back to the Council for three hours. Then to Strasbourg by avion taxi. Dinner with Gundelach. Then half an hour's walk round the cathedral.

WEDNESDAY, 9 MARCH. Strasbourg.

To the new Parliament building at 8.30. The building, the hemicycle apart, is ghastly and inconvenient, as generally irritating and unattractive as I had feared at the opening ceremony it would be. Routine Commission meeting for an hour in a room about seventeen times too big, in which we sat as though we were on the platform of the Birmingham Town Hall with n.o.body in the audience. I spent most of the morning working on my fairly short speech on b.u.t.ter for the afternoon, its shortness being balanced by my relative ignorance of the subject.

The speech did not satisfy me, and whether it satisfied anyone else I could not quite tell, but perhaps it more or less did. The Parliament is not really a rewarding body to which to speak. There is of course the linguistic difficulty and the fact that the Chamber is often pretty empty (not that it is different from the House of Commons in that respect, but it is bigger), and these difficulties are compounded by the extraordinary proliferation of the photographic industry in Strasbourg, so that not only are you liable to have moving television cameras producing film which is hardly ever used, but you also have flashlight photographers who come and photograph you the whole time you are on your feet-and even when you are not.

FRIDAY, 11 MARCH. Brussels.

Commission meeting from 11.00 to 1.15 involving Davignon on steel, which he did excellently. One of the best discussions on a specific issue which we had had in the Commission. Lunch in my dining room in the Berlaymont, with Jennifer, who had arrived in Brussels for the first time for nearly three weeks, and George Thomson, who was in Brussels, plus one or two cabinet members. Then back for another two hours' Commission meeting, this time mainly on North/South questions.

Soares, the Prime Minister of Portugal, arrived at 6.00 and Haferkamp and I went down to meet him at the front door. I then saw him alone for forty minutes. He speaks good French but no English at all. Agreeable, friendly, quite impressive man, who seemed rather tired, as well he might be after his tour round Europe. He talked reasonably interestingly but not fascinatingly. I asked him had he found much difference in the approaches to Portuguese admission as he went round the capitals, and he said yes, the Benelux countries were mildly reticent and the French were difficult, but the main thing the French wanted was that Portugal should pay a price and buy their colour television system. I said, 'What-you mean that even Giscard raised this with you? The great head of this great Government, confronted with this great issue, is acting as a television salesman?' 'Yes, indeed,' he said, 'Giscard pressed it more than anybody else.'

We then went into the special Commission meeting which lasted just over an hour. Soares did most of the talking: long, not bad, introductory statement, rather less good, slightly rambling reply to some general questions. We then adjourned until the dinner at the Chateau Ste Anne at 9.15. Relations became still warmer after my speech there, which the Portuguese were particularly pleased with, and which indeed did sound rather good. I had done very little of it myself; it was a considerable achievement of Michael Jenkins. Unfortunately the young woman interpreter was so moved that she fainted about three-quarters of the way through. Soares was a little slow to go-he seemed particularly interested in talking to Nanteuil, I think about general French cultural matters rather than about politics-and we did not get home until 12.30.

SAt.u.r.dAY, 12 MARCH. Brussels.

Into the Berlaymont just before 10.30 in order to receive Soares again. He was very late, so we gave up the attempt to receive him at the front door and retreated to the top of the lift, where Davignon said, Tor every minute he is late, put an extra year on the transition period.' Soares's great concern was against 'globalization', in other words the Portuguese application being treated as part of a package with Greece and Spain. He was quite realistic economically. He left us at 12.00 for a press conference.

MONDAY, 14 MARCH. Brussels.

Lunch with the Ecofin (Finance Ministers) Council. Sat between Apel and De Clercq,64 with Denis Healey opposite. Considerable row at the end about representation at the Summit, Duisenberg65 being very effectively aggressive and saying that if we were treated like this the Dutch would not lend any money to the British, or for that matter the French, in the future. A good sledge-hammer technique for dealing with Denis's thick skin, and I think it was moderately effective. De Clercq said he wasn't sure the Commission was strong enough on the need for representation and I a.s.sured him he was quite wrong and did a ten-minute piece.

WEDNESDAY, 16 MARCH. Brussels.

A ghastly day. Two hours' work at home in the early morning because the Commission papers did not arrive until ridiculously late the night before, a rather bad-tempered briefing meeting in the office at 9.30, then into the Commission at 10.00. Commission business not perhaps too difficult during the morning. We disposed of a good many routine items and began Vredeling's major paper on the Social Fund.66 Commission farewell lunch for Lebsanft (German Amba.s.sador), at which I had to make a short speech, and then a resumed Commission at 3.30, which, alas, went on until 9.50. The main subject of contention was one aspect of Vredeling's Social Fund proposals, in which the 'regionalists', Giolitti and Natali, were against the 'sectoralists', who were primarily Ortoli and Davignon. At one stage we had an adjournment for redrafting. Then Giolitti and Natali said they would vote against. I thought this unfortunate. A minority of two is one thing. But a minority of both the Italians on regional policy is another. So we went on and on, trying to find a compromise and eventually put it to a Chefs de Cabinet meeting for an hour, who did then produce an acceptable draft, a rather good piece of work by the Chefs, with Michael Emerson in the chair. But it was all very time-consuming and I doubt if I ought ever again to allow a Commission meeting to go on as long as this.67 In addition to the Social Fund problem we had the very difficult issue of certain personnel appointments, including that of Christopher Audland68 as deputy Secretary-General, David Marquand69 as head of the special new Parliamentary and Social Partners Group, and my proposal to set up a Central Planning Unit with a German at its head. A good deal of opposition on all grounds. Davignon was against Audland, supported by Haferkamp and Giolitti. I then thought I ought to give Ortoli a chance to support Audland, which he had said he would do, but in fact didn't and merely went off into a typical 'defend-the-old' attack on the Central Planning Group. A bit of general muttering against that, and I had to say that I would provide them with a more clear outline of its role. But I hope that will go through eventually. David Marquand's job-though not for the moment his appointment-I got through by a small sleight of hand. Tugendhat was not very effective at this meeting, which was important for him as Personnel Commissioner and which is unusual with him. But I suspect everybody was tired and rather bad-tempered. I went home at 10.30, too exhausted to eat.

FRIDAY, 18 MARCH. Brussels, Bonn and East Hendred.

Crispin and I set off by car for Bonn just after 12 o'clock. Rather cold, standing-up picnic lunch by the side of the autoroute just short of the German frontier. Into Bonn shortly before 3.00 for my meeting with Schmidt.70 It was a bad day for him, as is now often the case, for the telephone bugging row which had been simmering away in Germany for some time had suddenly blown up to a new dimension. As a result he was half an hour late, although full of apologies. I then had a one-and-a-quarter-hour meeting with him, talked a little about the Commission, and secondly about representation at the Western Economic Summit, which was the main purpose of my visit. Here he opened hard, aggressive/defensive: he wasn't going to quarrel with his 'friend Valery'; he was the only real friend he had; he was the only person who supported him, while others were yapping away at him to reflate the whole time, etc.

I argued the case in a variety of ways. The point he was keenest on was when I told him I wasn't going to preach reflation at him, which indeed I did not think was very sensible. The point that at first he seemed less keen on was any argument about the Americans being eager that we should be there, which provoked a good number of anti-Carter complaints, and I wondered whether my having slipped in that Carter was inviting me to an early visit to Washington was wise, as Schmidt obviously was not tremendously pleased to hear this. However, later aspects of the conversation made me slightly change my mind about this. He dismissed the Dutch-'The trouble is that the Dutch ought to be 60 million and the Germans 12 million; it would no doubt be better for the world, but G.o.d had decided otherwise.'

Towards the end I made it clear I was not asking him to have a major row with Giscard, but that I did not think the French position was as hard as it was thought to be, and that if he used some gentle influence it could be quite effective. 'Why doesn't Callaghan do it?' he said. 'Well, I don't know,' I said, 'but in any event you have more influence with Giscard.' 'That's true,' he said contentedly. Then he said, 'Well, I think probably that it will work itself out at Rome so that you will be there.'

We next discussed direct elections, my encouraging him to put some beneficial pressure on Callaghan. I then expounded to him my ideas for a very substantial increase in the Communities' borrowing role, in order to lend money not just for balance-of-payments reasons, but for infrastructure and 'sectoral' improvements in the weaker economies, although accompanying these by firm measures of macroeconomic 'conditionality', as it is called; in other words a requirement upon the receiving Government to accept effective disciplines. He was rather favourable, warmed to the idea a good deal, even suggested that there might be some German money available for borrowing from their large reserve funds. A successful conversation on this, although necessarily vague at this stage.

It was then 4.15,1 had been with him three-quarters of an hour, and I thought he was showing signs of wishing to bring the interview to an end, which indeed would have been totally reasonable, as he wanted to go to Hamburg for the weekend. However, he then began one of his cosmic gloom conversations. How long did I think he should stay in the job? 'As long as you think you can do it better than anyone else,' was my opening bid (which would have given him substantial tenure). We then talked about who could succeed him if he went. 'Apel is the only person within the Government,' he said. 'It may be a break-up of the Coalition.' 'Would w.i.l.l.y Brandt be brought back?' I asked. 'Ah, a lot of people would like that,' he said, 'but I don't know that w.i.l.l.y would really want to come back in the present extremely difficult circ.u.mstances. What he probably most wants is to feel that people would like him to come back, without his having actually to return and do the job.' We then gossiped a little about our respective experiences in German and English politics.

He then got on to his relations with America and it became clear that he was deeply offended at not having been invited by Carter, and although superficially very irritated with the American administration-particularly over the Brazilian nuclear deal-was also profoundly concerned at a deterioration of German/American relations to 'a worse point than they had been in for at least ten years'. He brooded on this for some time saying, 'I am very pro-American. I am much more pro-American than I am pro-British, and I have never really been pro-French. But Valery is my only real friend.' Then a certain amount of: 'Well, I have done what I can. I sent my Foreign Minister to see Carter. Genscher was rather impressed by him. I sent Brandt, the leader of my party, to see Carter; he was impressed by him too. But I can't go myself unless I am asked, and in present circ.u.mstances, even if asked, I do not think I could easily respond very quickly.'

Then, very surprisingly, he said, 'I suppose you see a lot of Americans and have a lot of American contacts, do you? This is the reason why I have been exposing to you my mind about this.' So I said that I would certainly do anything I could to ease this extremely delicate and dangerous problem and I was glad he had raised it. He showed no sign of wishing to bring the conversation to an end until a protocol man came in to say that as (to Schmidt's surprise) I had no special plane (a good mark for the Commission's sense of economy, which I hope was noted), I would have to leave if I was to catch my commercial flight. So I left with a warm farewell, was just in time for a good punctual flight, and got to East Hendred at 7.15 feeling much better than for several days. It is part of Schmidt's quality that his gloom has an inspiriting effect.

SUNDAY, 20 MARCH. East Hendred.

Beaumarchais',71 Rodgers' and Leslie Bonham Carter72 to lunch. Bill on surprisingly good form. Rather wanted a pact with the Liberals, but ready if necessary to face an election, and thought the Labour Party might even win it. Surprisingly pro-Callaghan, rather more settled in the Cabinet than a few weeks ago. No sign of jealousy of David Owen.

MONDAY, 21 MARCH. East Hendred and The Hague.

10.15 plane to Amsterdam and to the Hotel des Indes at The Hague, a wonderful re-creation with infinite pains of the nineteenth-century atmosphere of Jakarta, built about 1840. Then to the Catshuis, for half an hour's talk with Joop den Uyl,73 the Dutch Prime Minister, before the lunch he was giving for me. He was extremely interested, despite the fact that he was in the midst of a major Cabinet crisis, in what Schmidt had said to me on Friday (about the Summit, not about the Dutch, which I did not repeat), very firm and keen about Community representation there. A very informal atmosphere, as seems usual in The Hague. Den Uyl himself opens the front door and then towards the end of the conversation ministers who have been asked to lunch drift in. There were about eight at lunch: Max van der Stoel, the Foreign Minister, van der Stee,74 the Agricultural Minister, plus Ruud Lubbers,75 the Economics Minister, and Duisenberg, the Finance Minister, with both of whom I am increasingly impressed. Extremely agreeable and interesting lunch, with a good half-hour's discussion about the Summit.

Then we adjourned to the Cabinet Room next door and settled down for two and a half hours' discussion on a whole range of issues, agriculture, enlargement, North/South dialogue, economic and monetary policy, Social Fund, regional policy, agenda for the Summit, etc. Fairly exhausting, but well worthwhile. They fielded a team of about five ministers, who changed from time to time, whereas I had to deal with the whole thing myself.

Then to the Parliament building for a public session on direct elections of the Second House's (the princ.i.p.al chamber in Holland) Foreign Affairs Committee. I spoke for about ten minutes and then answered questions for another quarter of an hour. Before that a television interview, after that a press conference for twenty-five minutes and a radio interview. Then a pause. Then an official dinner in a restaurant almost alongside the hotel. I got the news during the day that Carter was definitely inviting me to Washington and was offering the dates we had suggested. Good news this; important to decide how to handle the announcement of it in relation to the Rome European Council. A good day in The Hague too. It is a pleasure to talk to the Dutch Government because of their commitment to the Community and the common premises from which we start a discussion.

TUESDAY, 22 MARCH. The Hague and Brussels.

Drove to Soestdijk to see Queen Juliana. Arrived there in time for an 11.15 audience. An agreeable palace in a belt of woodland, built I think about 1690 or 1700, but with I would guess a good number of subsequent additions. Rather pretty, light style of architecture. The amenities somewhat diminished, however, by there being a six-lane highway literally within 250 yards of the front entrance.

As with the King of the Belgians, the proceedings were immensely informal by British court standards. I was met by a sort of Wren officer who took me upstairs to the first floor, where we waited for a moment and then Queen Juliana appeared from an unexpected door, looking remarkably healthy after a holiday in Austria. She began by saying she had heard that unfortunately I had to leave for Brussels at noon. Could I not postpone this departure and stay for lunch at Soestdijk? I explained why my 4 o'clock meeting made this impossible. We then went into an upstairs sitting room, which was full of agreeable bric-a-brac and might easily have been the sitting room of any elderly publicly involved well-off lady of the previous generation, Violet Bonham Carter or Stella Reading, say, except for there being two rather official-looking telephones on the desk. She poured coffee, rather incongruously from under a tea-cosy, saying, 'I am sure you would like elevenses.'

I then had a talk of nearly an hour with her. I found her interesting, extremely easy to talk to and with a fairly wide range of knowledge and considerable interest about European questions. Rather anti-German. Nothing of great profundity emerged in the conversation, but it was worth doing. Then at the end she said, 'Now, I think we ought to go downstairs, because people want to take photographs of us.' So we went down to the front hall, where I presented Michael Jenkins and had the photographs taken and then went off, she standing waving from the top of the perron as I left in my car. The slight problem then was what you do in these circ.u.mstances. Do you try to bow inside the car or do you wave back? I forget how I answered the problem.