In British politics, certain moments become etched into the national consciousness, not merely for their immediate impact but for the way they shape the trajectory of history. Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech on November 13, 1990, is one such moment.
Dismissed as a political lightweight by his detractors and derisively nicknamed the “Dead Sheep” by Margaret Thatcher, Howe seemed an unlikely figure to topple Britain’s most dominant post-war Prime Minister. Yet his quiet savagery in the House of Commons set off a chain reaction that ended Thatcher’s premiership and exposed deep fissures in the Conservative Party.
This speech, while ostensibly about Thatcher’s leadership style and her European policies, became the starting point for a decades-long ideological battle. That battle would culminate in the 2016 Brexit referendum, an event that fundamentally altered Britain’s relationship with the world.
Part 1: The “Dead Sheep” in Thatcher’s Inner Circle
Howe’s Rise in the Conservative Party
Geoffrey Howe’s political ascent was marked by his reputation as a meticulous and unflappable figure. Born in 1926, he studied law at Cambridge and became a barrister, specialising in tax law. His legal background made him a natural choice for key economic roles when he entered Parliament in 1964.
When Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, Howe was one of her earliest and most steadfast supporters. He shared her belief in ‘free-market economics’ and a smaller state, and she appointed him Chancellor of the Exchequer when she became Prime Minister in 1979.
The Thatcher-Howe Partnership
As Chancellor, Howe was tasked with implementing the radical economic reforms that defined Thatcherism. His budgets in the early 1980s were characterised by harsh spending cuts and monetarist policies aimed at curbing inflation. These measures were controversial and painful, with unemployment rising sharply, but they ultimately helped stabilise the economy.
Howe’s stoic personality complemented Thatcher’s combative style, and the two initially worked well together. However, cracks began to emerge as their views on Europe diverged. While Thatcher’s scepticism towards European integration deepened, Howe remained convinced that Britain’s future lay within the European Community.
Part 2: The Widening Rift Over Europe
Thatcher’s Growing Euroscepticism
By the mid-1980s, Margaret Thatcher had become increasingly critical of the European project. Her opposition to the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) and her resistance to further political integration alienated many of her colleagues, including Howe.
The turning point came with her Bruges Speech in 1988. Delivered to the College of Europe in Belgium, the speech was a rallying cry for national sovereignty, rejecting the idea of a “European superstate.” While it resonated with Eurosceptics, it alarmed pro-European Conservatives, who saw it as an antagonistic departure from pragmatic diplomacy.
Howe’s Marginalisation
As Thatcher’s Foreign Secretary, Howe was responsible for managing Britain’s relationship with Europe. However, her increasingly unilateral approach undermined his position. She often ignored his advice, publicly contradicted him, and treated him with disdain.
The breaking point came in 1989, when Thatcher demoted Howe to Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Commons—a move widely interpreted as a public humiliation. While the title of Deputy Prime Minister was symbolic, it came with little real power, and Howe’s influence within the Cabinet diminished further.
Part 3: The Resignation Speech
Setting the Stage
By 1990, Thatcher’s leadership was under siege. Her uncompromising style and controversial policies—such as the introduction of the poll tax—had eroded her popularity. Meanwhile, divisions over Europe had deepened within the Conservative Party.
On 1 November 1990, Thatcher rejected the recommendations of Howe and Chancellor Nigel Lawson to join the ERM, further straining relations. That same month, Howe resigned from the Cabinet.
The Speech That Shook the Commons
Howe’s resignation speech, delivered on 13 November, was a masterclass in controlled fury. Speaking in the measured tones of a barrister presenting his case, Howe systematically dismantled Thatcher’s authority.
His most memorable line compared Thatcher’s approach to Europe to a cricket captain breaking the bats of her own team before sending them out to face the opposition. The metaphor was devastating, highlighting her unwillingness to equip her ministers with the tools to succeed.
The speech was not a direct call for rebellion, but it emboldened those who had grown disillusioned with Thatcher’s leadership. Michael Heseltine, a long-time critic of Thatcher, seized the moment and launched a leadership challenge.
Part 4: Thatcher’s Fall and the Consequences
The Leadership Challenge
Thatcher narrowly won the first round of the leadership contest but failed to secure the outright majority needed to avoid a second vote. Faced with dwindling support from her Cabinet, she resigned on 22 November 1990.
Her departure marked the end of an era. John Major, her successor, sought to heal the divisions within the party, but the rift over Europe persisted.
The Dialectical Struggle Over Europe
Thatcher’s resignation exposed a dialectical struggle within the Conservative Party:
- Pro-Europeans, like Howe and Major, argued for deeper integration with the European Community, believing it was essential for Britain’s economic and geopolitical interests.
- Eurosceptics, inspired by Thatcher’s rhetoric, viewed European integration as a threat to British sovereignty.
This internal conflict would dominate Conservative politics for the next 25 years, shaping the party’s stance on Europe and leading to increasingly hostile debates.
Part 5: From Thatcher to Brexit
The Rise of Euroscepticism
After Thatcher’s departure, the eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party grew in influence. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which transformed the European Community into the European Union, became a lightning rod for controversy.
Eurosceptic MPs frequently rebelled against John Major’s government, undermining its authority. Meanwhile, the emergence of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in the 1990s provided an outlet for voters who opposed European integration.
The Brexit Referendum
By the 2010s, the Conservative Party was deeply divided over Europe. David Cameron’s decision to call a referendum on EU membership was a gamble aimed at resolving the issue once and for all.
The 2016 referendum campaign was shaped by the ideological divisions that had their roots in the Thatcher era. The Leave campaign’s promises of “taking back control” resonated with voters who felt alienated by the EU. The result, a 52% vote in favour of leaving, was the culmination of decades of Eurosceptic agitation within the party.
Howe’s Legacy and Brexit
Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech in 1990 was a pivotal moment in British history. It ended Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, exposed the Conservative Party’s divisions over Europe, and set in motion a series of events that would lead to Brexit.
While Howe likely never envisioned this outcome—he was, after all, a committed advocate of European cooperation—his actions unleashed forces that reshaped British politics.
The story of the “Dead Sheep” is a reminder of the unpredictable consequences of political decisions. Howe’s calm, devastating words in 1990 reverberated across decades, shaping the course of Britain’s relationship with Europe and the world.
How the ‘Dead Sheep’ Set In Motion The Delusional Path To Brexit and Beyond
In November 1990, a quiet yet devastating speech by Geoffrey Howe triggered the fall of Margaret Thatcher, a Prime Minister whose dominance seemed unassailable. Known disparagingly as the “Dead Sheep” for his mild-mannered disposition, Howe delivered a resignation speech that exposed Thatcher’s divisive leadership style and her deepening hostility toward Europe.
This moment set in motion a chain of events that culminated in Britain’s 2016 Brexit referendum, with the Conservative Party’s ideological evolution at its heart. However, beneath the surface of the Brexit debate lies a deeper critique: that both Thatcher’s economic vision and the Brexit argument rested on the illusion of free markets and national sovereignty.
This illusion shaped decades of political discourse, creating a false premise that continues to mislead and polarise.
The Illusion of Free Markets in Thatcherism
Margaret Thatcher’s economic revolution was built on the idea of free markets as a cornerstone of prosperity. Deregulation, privatisation, and trade liberalisation were presented as the antidote to the perceived failures of post-war consensus politics. Yet this vision was, in many ways, an ideological construct rather than a reflection of economic reality.
Privatisation and Market Dependency
Thatcher’s privatisation programme, which sold off industries such as utilities, telecommunications, and transport, was heralded as a triumph of market efficiency. However, these industries did not truly operate as free markets. Instead, they became quasi-monopolies, heavily reliant on government regulation and subsidies. The illusion of free markets masked the state’s ongoing role as both an enabler and arbitrator of market activity.
Globalisation and Economic Interdependence
Thatcher’s embrace of globalisation further undermined the premise of economic sovereignty. By liberalising trade and opening Britain to foreign investment, she tied the British economy to global forces beyond government control. Financial deregulation, epitomised by the “Big Bang” reforms of 1986, transformed London into a global financial hub. While this generated immense wealth, it also exposed Britain to the volatility of global capital markets.
In this context, the idea of a truly autonomous “free market” was a convenient fiction. The British economy became deeply interdependent with European and global markets, complicating the notion of national sovereignty that would dominate the Brexit debate.
Thatcher, Sovereignty, and Europe: A False Dichotomy
The tension between Thatcher’s economic liberalism and her growing Euroscepticism was not just a political contradiction—it exposed the limits of the sovereignty argument itself.
Sovereignty vs. Economic Integration
Thatcher’s famous Bruges Speech in 1988 laid out her opposition to a “European superstate” and her belief in the primacy of national governments. Yet this stance ignored the reality that Britain’s economic integration with Europe—driven by Thatcher’s own policies—had already diminished national sovereignty in practical terms.
Membership in the European Economic Community (EEC) gave Britain access to a vast single market, but it also required adherence to shared rules and regulations. Thatcher’s government had enthusiastically supported the Single European Act of 1986, which harmonised regulations to facilitate free trade across Europe. This was a logical extension of her economic principles, but it also ceded significant authority to European institutions.
The Sovereignty Illusion in Brexit
The Brexit debate that followed decades later was similarly shaped by the illusion of sovereignty. Leave campaigners framed Brexit as an opportunity to “take back control,” yet this rhetoric obscured the complexities of modern governance. In a globalised world, no nation operates in isolation. Britain’s ability to shape its economy and foreign policy remains contingent on external factors, from trade agreements to international financial markets.
Brexit did not restore sovereignty in any absolute sense; it merely shifted the arenas of decision-making, often replacing shared European frameworks with new dependencies, such as trade deals with the United States and reliance on World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.
How the Free Market Myth Shaped Conservative Ideology
The false premise of free markets and sovereignty became a defining feature of the Conservative Party’s ideological evolution after Thatcher.
The Maastricht Era and the Splintering of Conservatism
Thatcher’s resignation exposed deep divisions within the Conservative Party over Europe, but it also revealed a broader ideological struggle over the meaning of her legacy.
- Pro-European Conservatives: Figures like John Major viewed Europe as a necessary partner in a globalised economy, arguing that Britain’s prosperity depended on continued access to the single market. This pragmatic approach acknowledged the interdependence of modern economies.
- Thatcherite Eurosceptics: Hardliners within the party, however, clung to the illusion of sovereignty and free markets, opposing deeper European integration as a betrayal of British independence.
This split intensified during the Maastricht debates of the early 1990s, with Eurosceptics framing their opposition in terms of reclaiming sovereignty, even as the British economy remained deeply integrated with Europe.
UKIP and the Populist Turn
The rise of UKIP in the 2000s further reinforced the myth of free markets and sovereignty. Nigel Farage and his party positioned themselves as defenders of ordinary Britons against the perceived overreach of European bureaucrats. This narrative resonated with voters disillusioned by decades of economic inequality and the failures of globalisation.
Yet UKIP’s vision offered no real solutions to these systemic issues. Instead, it perpetuated the idea that leaving the EU would empower Britain to reassert control over its economy and borders, ignoring the complexities of international trade and labour markets.
The Brexit Referendum: A Victory for Illusion
The 2016 Brexit referendum was the culmination of decades of Conservative Party rhetoric rooted in the false premise of free markets and sovereignty.
The Leave Campaign’s Simplistic Promises
The Leave campaign’s messaging—“Take Back Control” and promises of £350 million a week for the NHS—relied on the idea that Britain’s economic and political fortunes could be transformed by exiting the EU. This narrative was built on a simplistic understanding of how power and markets operate in a globalised world.
- Immigration and Sovereignty: Leave campaigners exploited fears over immigration, framing it as a threat to sovereignty and public services. Yet the UK’s reliance on migrant labour, particularly in industries like healthcare and agriculture, underscored the impossibility of disentangling national and global dynamics.
- Trade and Regulation: The promise of a deregulated “Global Britain” ignored the fact that leaving the EU required Britain to renegotiate trade agreements with dozens of countries, often on less favourable terms.
The Outcome:
Brexit’s implementation has demonstrated the hollowness of these promises. Far from liberating Britain, it has created new challenges, from supply chain disruptions to labour shortages, while leaving many of the structural inequalities that drove the Leave vote unaddressed.
The Conservative Party Post-Brexit: Populism Meets Reality
Since Brexit, the Conservative Party has struggled to reconcile its populist promises with economic and political realities.
- Boris Johnson’s Leadership: Johnson’s 2019 general election campaign was rooted in populist rhetoric, but his government’s struggles with post-Brexit trade and governance have exposed the limitations of this approach.
- The Ideological Void: The party remains divided between hardline Brexiteers, who continue to promote the illusion of sovereignty, and pragmatists, who recognise the need for cooperation with Europe and other global partners.
A Debate Built on Sand
The ideological evolution of the Conservative Party, from Thatcherism to Brexit, has been shaped by two enduring myths: the existence of free markets and the possibility of absolute sovereignty. These illusions have driven decades of political debate, obscuring the complexities of modern governance and economic interdependence.
Geoffrey Howe’s resignation speech in 1990 may have been a turning point, but the debates it unleashed rested on these false premises. The legacy of this flawed discourse continues to shape British politics, leaving the country grappling with the consequences of decisions made in pursuit of an unattainable ideal.
