The European Court's decision to overrule Britain's objections to enforcement of the 48-hour working time directive is welcome. The principle at issue - whether this directive can legally be enforced on Britain under health and safety provisions of the EU treaties rather than under the Social Chapter protocol on which Britain has an opt-out - has been interpreted positively and broadly by the court, more so than the British government might have expected. Attention will now be focused on how the British government decides to play the outcome politically as the election approaches and diplomatically within the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC).
The prime minister, Mr Major, has taken a relatively cool view of the matter. Yesterday he insisted that Britain will seek to reverse the treaty article under which the decision was made in the IGC negotiations and said that Britain would hold up the conclusion of the negotiations until it has achieved that objective. He underlined that the question of being outvoted on a matter where an objection in principle has been made is what is at issue, rather than the precise effect of this particular clause. It is a relief that he did not threaten an immediate campaign of disruption aimed in particular at the European Council in Dublin next month and reminiscent of the non co-operation campaign over BSE. As many British employer and government spokesmen have pointed out, the effect of the directive will be marginal given the existing structure of legislation and regulation in Britain and Europe.
Many larger multinational companies already adhere to directives passed under the Social Chapter despite Britain's opt-out. In this, they epitomise the policy dilemmas faced by the Conservative government as it strives to achieve the most flexible model of European integration compatible with EU competitiveness rules. Under the European single market it is intended to level the playing field rather than to allow one state to take advantage from a flexible interpretation or implementation of the treaties. One of the principal arguements for the British government's approach - that it will enable Britain to attract international investment - is open to the interpretation of social dumping.
As Mr Peter Sutherland pointed out in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry yesterday, "the supremacy of community law over national law has long been established. In fact, Lady Thatcher, in negotiating the Single European Act, significantly expanded the supranational authority of the European communities". Those in Britain who wish to benefit from the single market will have to accept the disciplines and obligations entailed in it. Mr Major may have very little room for manoeuvre to change the treaties in the way he suggests. Other governments will be reluctant to give him gratuitous means of attacking his Labour and Liberal Democrat opponents. As many business and trade union leaders argue, much damage could be done to Britain's longer-term economic interests if its political leaders continue to play with them in such a transparent fashion.