
Ian Gilmour was secretary of state for defence under Edward Heath and deputy foreign secretary under Margaret Thatcher. He died in September 2007.
MORE BY THIS CONTRIBUTOR
RELATED ARTICLES
14 January 2002
On Winston Churchill
10 December 1998
Eight years after
21 June 2001
On Churchill, Hitler and the ‘Times’
2 November 2000
The Government’s Favourite Accountants
17 February 2000
The Incomparable Tom Nairn
21 March 1991
Head over heart for Europe
2 February 1984
Capability Bevin
RELATED CATEGORIES
1900-1999, 1946-1999, Politics and economics, Political systems, Current affairs, International relations, Europe, Western Europe, UK, Churchill, Winston, Blair, Tony, History, Cultural history
Vol. 20 No. 24 · 10 December 1998
pages 8-10 | 5065 words

Hauteur
Ian Gilmour
- This Blessed Plot: Britain and Europe from Churchill to Blair by Hugo Young
Macmillan, 558 pp, £20.00, November 1998, ISBN 0 333 57992 5
For most of the last half-century, Britain has had two options: to be a whole-hearted member of Europe or to be a satellite of the United States. In this field there has been no ‘third way’. Full-hearted co-operation with Europe does not mean and never has meant the end of the Atlantic Alliance. The great majority of the countries in the European Union have always been members of Nato. Yet British prime ministers and politicians have tended to think that for Britain to be fully European somehow endangered our allegedly ‘special’ relationship with the United States. This is an odd notion because, at least since the end of the war, the United States has given up treating Britain as an equal and has nearly always been anxious for us to join Europe and play our proper part there. Nevertheless, with the conspicuous exception of Ted Heath, most prime ministers have dithered between seeking to co-operate with Europe and accepting American domination, while inclining heavily towards the latter.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
[*] Centre for Policy Studies, 28 pp., £5, 9 July, 1 897 96978 3.
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
print this article
Letters
Vol. 21 No. 1 · 7 January 1999
From Bill Gilmour
Ian Gilmour (no known relation) abuses Harold Wilson's European position (LRB, 10 December 1998). 'Wilson was at his Wilsonian worst,' he writes. No doubt Wilson ducked and dived, pushed and pulled. But if he had pulled us out in 1975 would Lord Carrington and Sir Ian have persuaded the Bag Woman to take us back in? We are still in Europe because Wilson converted the Labour Party to being a pro-European Party (that some of the most enthusiastic Europeans left the Party for the wastelands showed the extent of their political acumen). Our European problem is that Ian Gilmour and his pro-European friends in the Tory Party were not deft enough wholly to convert it. Would that they had had a 'Wilson at his Wilsonian worst'. Black and Murdoch would now be as irrelevant as some of their potty predecessors, the Tory Party might have a dozen more seats and we would be using Euros.
Bill Gilmour
Ullapool
Vol. 21 No. 3 · 4 February 1999
From Richard Salvucci
Why does Ian Gilmour choose France for comparison with the United States when discussing per capita income differences (LRB, 10 December 1998)? Wouldn't it make as much sense to pick, say, Albania, or the UK, except that these would sit less well with Gilmour's argument that European incomes do not fall far below those in the US? And even the French comparison is tendentious. It holds up only so long as the comparison is made at market exchange rates. Such comparisons are useless, which is why development specialists employ rates that adjust for differences in domestic price levels – so-called 'purchasing power parity' rates of exchange. If you do that for France and the United States, the difference reverses rather dramatically, which is why I suppose Gilmour doesn't bother to. If you make the relevant comparison, broadly speaking, say, Western Europe v. what are sometimes called 'Western offshoots' (the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), the 1992 difference (according to Angus Maddison's study for the OECD) is $20,850 for the Western offshoots v. $17,387 for Western Europe.
Richard Salvucci
San Antonio, Texas