And, having expressed it, he should not have tried to blame the press for reporting his words “out of context”. Their argument is that he is an ambassador for the country and so must be subject to other tests – that he is automatically something of a politician and should therefore conduct himself with discretion. GLEN HODDLE should quit as the manager of Englands football team That is the easy bit. The much harder question is: Would he have to resign if England had won the World Cup and he still let his bizarre religious beliefs show? Some of the “Hoddle Must Go” squad say his beliefs have nothing to do with his qualities as a manager.

And there is something thrilling about seeing the elected take on the unelected It is democracy with the lights switched on. It was so at the Westminster by-election in 1930 when Stanley Baldwin accused Northcliffe and Beaverbrook of exercising the prerogative of the harlot through the ages And it can be once again.. But businessmen rightly believe that is what politicians are elected for. All of which brings us back the question of “bypassing” the Eurosceptic press. This is not merely a matter of EMU; it means a subtle change towards a more grown-up rhetoric – saying for example, the once unthinkable: yes, we will negotiate on the famous British rebate, but only if our partners are serious about Common Agricultural Policy But EMU is the main event.

Pro-European ministers in the Thatcher government used to complain, in exactly the same way as Labour ones do now over EMU, that industrialists would not campaign more vigorously for ERM. Two years may not be too long to make up in shaping British public opinion. It is a very long time indeed to forfeit a leadership role in Europe itself.It is no good the government expecting industrialists to do their work for them. But what makes it much more difficult still is as the leading expert Charles Grant it baldly in a recent paper for the Foreign Office: “Britain’s absence from the Euro weakens its influence on EU economic policy.” The longer Britain keeps its slip hidden, the less easy it will be to shape the new Europe it wants. More democratic legitimacy, for example, through the greater involvement of national parliamentarians, and more flexible labour markets, free trade, and a more level single market.

The arrival on the scene of Oskar Lafontaine as German Finance minister has made that more difficult. Blair came into office with a commendable commitment not only to Europe, but to European reform – political and economic. Theoretically that eases some of the pressure on Blair to treat the European elections as a dress rehearsal for an EMU referendum; though it would be a brave man who would yet predict that the June European elections will not turn out to be a dogfight on EMU.But the reasons for a 1999 declaration of intent go much further than that, further even than the increasing frustration of big business, to the threat that multi-nationals will pull out of Britain It goes to the heart of the kind of Europe the UK wants. Since at least modest success in the European elections is a pre-condition of Hague’s ability to silence his many critics in his own party, he may just buy that. Steve Richards was certainly correct to point out on this page on Friday that Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke, the big beasts of Tory pro-Europeanism, have no present intention of following the brave John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly out of the Conservative Party into the great adventure to which they are being beckoned: a new pro-European Tory party.Moreover there are even the makings of an unwritten non-aggression pact on EMU in the European election campaign. As those around Hague are well aware, Clarke and Heseltine are much less likely to use the Euro- election campaign to destabilise Hague’s leadership if Hague does not seek to make outright, adamantine opposition to EMU the central platform of the campaign. It may be just as tactically astute to do it much closer to the election.