It is very difficult to get to the bottom of how and why it was arranged Eventually, I believe, some compromise was fabricated which did not exclude Mrs Thatcher altogether from the festivities.A state visit traditionally involves a journey in an open carriage (closed if it is raining) down the Mall. There can be no question about that.This is something that Margaret Thatcher never fully grasped in relation to France. In 1984, on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings, she could never understand why Fran?s Mitterrand was allowed to play a leading part in the proceedings, while she was excluded in favour of Her Majesty. He then duly returns the hospitality, so bringing about more television footage of native dancers viewed by a bored monarch than anyone should be asked to undergo, including the monarch. Why, even President Ceausescu of Romania was accorded a state visit shortly before his demise, so demonstrating yet again the unfailing instinct of the FO to back the wrong horse.The explanation for the disinclination of the government, until now, to invite US presidents for state visits - or, perhaps, of US presidents to propose them - cannot lie in any difficulty in determining who at any given moment is the US head of state It is the President. It is doled out shamelessly, cynically even, to the ruler of any state with which the Foreign Office wishes to maintain good relations He is usually an unsavoury potentate. Even Mr Ronald Reagan did not manage it.Several commentators, particularly those of a leftish disposition, have noticed this discrimination and have complained about it as indicating an excess of favour for the present incumbent. The truth is, however, that a state visit is an inferior type of government hospitality, even though in formal terms it may be provided by the Queen. The only President to have been honoured with a state visit was Woodrow Wilson early in the last century. The odd thing was that it was to be a state visit and not an ordinary presidential trip such as most of Mr Bush's predecessors had enjoyed. In trying to disentangle these matters I have been helped by an article by Mr Peter Oborne in the current Spectator. Mr Oborne has a good record in affairs royal or, at any rate, in those concerned with politicians.
It was he who took on and defeated Mr Alastair Campbell over Mr Blair's attempt to intervene in the obsequies of the Queen Mother.The jaunt was first thought up in the aftermath of the Afghanistan war, when the United States was our glorious ally, as it still is in Mr Blair's eyes, if not more so. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of how and why it was arranged. Was it worth it? In particular, was it worth the worry beforehand? Almost certainly not. The result is that in the evening of my days I have acquired strength of mind, and no longer accept these invitations in the first place.Mr Tony Blair may well feel the same way about the visit of Mr George Bush to these shores later this week. He (or, more usually, she) replies by return of post, saying that the more informal the occasion, the better they will be pleased The day arrives. |
 |
 |
