| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My hon. Friend has rightly referred to a statement made by Chancellor Helmut Kohl, in which he stated that it was his clear intention that there should be a united states of Europe. What Chancellor Kohl did not add--although it was certainly mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)--is that the process will be irreversible. That is surely the fundamental point for the Committee to remember : what happens under Maastricht will be irrevocable and future Parliaments will not be able to overturn or change it. That
Column 980
is why this debate is so fundamental and why it is critical that the people of Britain should have a say, by way of a referendum, in that decision.Mr. Spicer : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Maastricht is different from everything that has come before it because it is irreversible and irrevocable.
7.45 pm
Mr. Dorrell : I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. I understood him to say that the obligations that we are to take on under the Maastricht treaty are fundamentally different from the obligations that we took on under earlier treaties because they were irrevocable. Perhaps he would like to turn his attention to article 240 of the treaty of Rome, which says :
"This treaty"--
the treaty of Rome--
"is concluded for an unlimited period".
Mr. Spicer : The fundamental difference is clearly related to the single currency. Until now, it has always been open to
Parliament--because it has not been bound by any previous Parliament--to pass legislation that has the effect of revoking earlier decisions made here. There are at least three qualities attached to the single currency which make its creation the fundamental step towards a federalist state.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : My hon. Friend appears to have left the point that he was making earlier. So far, we have had about six or eight "crucial steps". My hon. Friend places far too much emphasis on what Chancellor Kohl said back in April ; anyone can produce lots of speeches and high-falutin' rhetoric, but they do not necessarily signify. Moreover, the word "irrevocable" means little. Every piece of legislation that the House passes is irrevocable until it is changed. We do not have to start again with all the legislation on the first day of each Parliament. Finally, one does not need to have a state of which to be a citizen. The citizenship referred to in the treaty gives us certain additional rights on top of our British citizenship--in particular, the right to vote in local and European elections wherever one lives in Europe.
Mr. Spicer : I shall try to deal with my hon. Friend's points in sequence. She spoke of rhetoric. I sought to stress that people in Britain on the whole tried to avoid references to the federalist objective of the treaty--for obvious reasons, because, if the federalist objective were clearly pointed out, it would make the treaty extremely unattractive to most people in the country and, I suspect, to most in the House. I was merely saying that no such coyness exists in other countries or among their leaders--including, in the example that I picked, Chancellor Kohl of Germany. I accept that if we were merely playing with words, my hon. Friend's point about the word "irrevocable" might have some validity. But the word is attached to the concept of a single currency and that is what will make the great difference, for the following reasons. Under most definitions of sovereignty, when a country passes over control of its coinage, all other forms of money or credit and its banking system, it has taken the essential step towards giving away sovereignty and the control of its economy. Moreover, in this case, it does so irrevocably. The establishment of a single currency is a meaningless
Column 981
concept unless it is for ever--for eternity. That has profound implications for the sovereignty, rights and history of this Parliament.Mrs. Currie : The word "irrevocable" needs to be challenged. We regularly sign treaties containing such words. The most significant treaty that we ever signed was that by which we acceded to NATO. That really changed a lot and constituents of mine have died doing what they could, as members of the armed forces, for NATO. That sort of thing was done without thorough debate in the House. I put it to my hon. Friend that nothing is irrevocable. It is often a good idea to get stuck into something, join in and be part of alliances, and do our utmost to make them work in our interests.
Mr. Spicer : I am in favour of alliances, but there is all the difference in the world. If my hon. Friend is basing her case on that particular argument, she has totally misunderstood the whole thrust of this treaty and the treaty of Rome. We are talking about a change in the law, which is a fundamentally different concept from an alliance such as NATO. We are talking about something which is totally and generically different.
It is extraordinary that my hon. Friend, who is intelligent and coherent on such matters, should raise the matter of NATO, which is an example of how we have created circumstances in the past which were open to change. This is different. We are about to determine the law of the land in a context in which we will be bound for ever.
Mr. Bill Walker : When the people of England and Scotland previously signed a similar treaty for a union they knew what union meant, and we meant it. That is exactly what union means today. Anyone who doubts the meaning of union should remember the reassurances that were given during discussions on the 1972 Act and the Single European Act in 1985. We were given assurances that union did not mean union. We now know that union does mean union because we are creating it.
Mr. Spicer : My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spicer : I shall continue, but I will give way in a moment.
Mrs. Currie : My hon. Friend is enjoying himself.
Mr. Spicer : I am certainly enjoying myself, although I am not sure whether others will let me go on protractedly for too long. One implication of the irrevocable nature of what is involved in the treaty, and the fact that the sovereignty of Parliament will be removed, especially one Parliament's ability not to bind another, is to make spurious the argument that has been used against a referendum.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spicer : I will give way in a moment. The argument against a referendum which has been used is that we should do everything through the House. I would certainly prefer that. However, part of the objective of the treaty is
Column 982
to destroy the sovereignty of the House by removing the convention and history by which no Parliament binds its successor--Mrs. Currie : That is nonsense.
Mr. Spicer : My hon. Friend may say that it is nonsense. However, I give my views to the House and that is precisely what I think.
The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. I hope that we will maintain the tradition of the House that each hon. Member has the freedom to say what he or she likes, even if it is not popular with others.
Mr. Spicer : That particular freedom will be maintained. As I said, the freedom of the House to be totally sovereign within itself will be removed if we set up something irrevocably and for ever. That is the simple point that I am making. Therefore, to argue against a referendum on the grounds that the sovereignty of Parliament must continue is spurious.
Mr. Quentin Davies : I am surprised by the argument that my hon. Friend has adopted because I know him well and I know that he has considerable constitutional experience. Does he not realise that it is a fundamental part of our constitution that no Parliament can bind its successor? Even if we sought to use this treaty or any other instrument passed through the House to try to bind our successors, we would not be able to do so. Therefore, it does not matter whether any treaty or any other obligation that we accept may or may not be without any time limit. By definition, it is impossible in practice and in theory to overturn the principle of the British constitution that no Parliament can bind its successor.
Mr. Spicer : I do not think that the European Court will accept what my hon. Friend has said. Once the European Court is faced with the law as defined under the Maastricht treaty, it will apply that law. Indeed, the Commission will also apply the law in so far as it has the legislative power to do so.
There is no question but that we are creating a law which will exist unless we build in some new powers of secession. If new powers of secession are not built in, we will have to comply with the law for ever because that is what the treaty and the single currency mean. That would be the case unless the law was changed by unanimous vote and a new treaty negotiated.
Mr. Dorrell : I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reinforced the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Perhaps my hon. Friend could tell the Committee what he thought would be the legal effect, as interpreted by the English courts, of the repeal of the European Community Act 1972.
While my hon. Friend is addressing that question, can he come back to what I asked him earlier? He argued that the Maastricht treaty imported a new principle in that it was irrevocable. My point was that exactly the same principle is contained in the treaty of Rome. There is no new precedent in the Maastricht treaty on the point that he is developing.
Mr. Spicer : I know that some lawyers take the view that we have already gone beyond the point at which we remain a sovereign country. The Minister has just said that he is
Column 983
one of them. I think that most lawyers still take the view that the process of refining, withdrawing and revising parts of legislation which have been passed by the House remains open to us. Other lawyers dispute that. I simply believe that we have not yet passed the point at which we lose sovereignty.Sir Trevor Skeet (Bedfordshire, North) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Garel-Jones : Will my hon. Friend give way?
The Second Deputy Chairman : Can I be clear to whom the hon. Gentleman is giving way?
Mr. Spicer : I give way to the Minister and then to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Garel-Jones : It is difficult to understand the new precendents which my hon. Friend seems to be reading into the Maastricht treaty. He has just referred to one of them. He will recall that in the Single European Act, which he and I supported, we approved the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. What did my hon. Friend think he was voting for at that time?
Mr. Spicer : If my hon. Friend is saying--
The Second Deputy Chairman : Before the hon. Gentleman continues, could I make the point that hon. Members must address the Chair? I have been treated to a succession of ministerial backs.
Mr. Spicer : If my hon. Friend the Minister is saying that, in effect, the single currency commitment already exists as a result of previous legislation, why did he make such a play on the opt-out clause which he achieved? I certainly do not accept it.
Mr. Garel-Jones : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Trevor Skeet : Perhaps the Minister should take note of article 5 of the Maastricht treaty. This will assist my hon. Friend. It says :
"Member states shall take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks. They shall abstain from any action which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives in this treaty."
Of course, if we are bound by the Maastricht treaty, we are bound.
Mr. Spicer : I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a further point in the context of a single currency and its effect on the federal objective. If there is a single currency, there is, by implication, a single pricing system throughout the new federal state which is being established. There will be a single pricing system and a single currency, but not single wage levels. Indeed, there will be different wage levels and different economic states of development. There will be misery and political disruption throughout the new state unless a single central compensatory authority with taxation and expenditure powers is established in association with a single currency. It is as logical as night follows day that the establishment
Column 984
of a single currency should involve the establishment of a single taxation authority and a single economic authority. If that is not the foundation, the makings and the essence of a new sovereign state, I do not know what is.Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Spicer : I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but after that I will not give way to anyone else for the time being.
8 pm
Mr. Garel-Jones : I wish to clarify the point that I sought to make to my hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet). When my hon. Friend and I voted for the Single European Act, we approved the objective of the progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. The route to that economic and monetary union was not defined. Therefore, we were at risk that under article 235 progress would be made towards EMU. The advantage of Maastricht is that it defines what EMU is. Furthermore--this is the point that I wish to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North--every time that EMU or a single currency is referred to either in the preamble or in the treaty itself, it is followed by eight magic words :
"in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
That is a direct reference to our ability to opt out of that union. So we are in a stronger position now than when we voted for the Single European Act.
Mr. Spicer : I shall deal with the matter of opt-outs in a few moments. My hon. Friend answered his own point about whether everything was set in concrete. It was not. Some general objectives were set down in previous treaties and legislation. However, in the Maastricht treaty we are presented with the objective of a single currency.
The only point that I am making at the moment is that clear qualities are associated with the objective of a single currency which add up to a new federal state of Europe. That seems absolutely clear to me, especially on my last point about the essential addition to the single currency of a single economic authority with single taxation and expenditure powers. If that is not the essence of a single state, I do not know what is.
The question in my mind is therefore not whether Maastricht leads towards a federal state of Europe, but whether such a state and such a loss of national sovereignty is a good thing. I certainly recognise that the nation state is a relatively recent invention and that there is no eternal quality about the nation state. I suppose that in Britain it goes back to Henry VIII under certain interpretations. When Henry VIII said, "This realm of England is an empire", it was an act of rebellion. That was the formation of the nation state. I do not base my case on the eternity of the nation state.
Mr. Marlow : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spicer : If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish this point, I shall certainly give way. The question which I shall address after I have allowed my hon. Friend to intervene is whether now is the right point at which to abolish the nation state and move across to some other formation.
Mr. Marlow : I wonder whether we can knock a little issue on the head early on in the debate. The Government
Column 985
have a little list of those who supported the Single European Act who now take a different view because they have learnt from experience that things are not as they were said to be at the time. If I could take my hon. Friend back to that time, when he was safely enmeshed in Government, those of us who opposed the Single European Act were told not to worry. The Government said, "It is only about a single market. There is a certain amount of qualified majority voting, but let us have a single market, which is greatly to the benefit of the United Kingdom. We have a veto on everything else. Do not worry, boys. There is nothing in it."Now the Government are saying about the Maastricht treaty, "We have won all the arguments. We are going there. It is going our way." But look at the details, the text and the small print, because in two years the Government will come back and say, "You agreed to it at the time of the Maastricht debate."
Mr. Spicer : I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is a variant of the Lord Denning argument. A tidal wave of legislation is about to swamp us. Some people take the view--I do not know whether the Minister of State is one of them, but he seemed to imply it at one point--that we have already crossed the point at which we retain any real sovereignty. Indeed, there are legal precedents for suggesting that, when this Parliament passes legislation, it is inferior to legislation which comes out of the legal institutions of the European Community.
So I agree with my hon. Friend entirely that because we are dealing with law--this is the difference between treaties and alliances--the words matter. That is particularly so because we are dealing with an alien form of law--Roman law. As it is codified law, the words matter. That is the essence of the argument that we deploy. It so happens that the proposed new law sets up certain patterns which undermine the sovereignty of this Parliament. It sets up a new federal state of Europe. However, few Members of Parliament are prepared to accept publicly that that is what the Bill does, even though they support the treaty.
The question is whether the nation state still has a role. At a practical level, the idea of converging our economies--for example, by means of fixed exchange rates--must now have been discredited. Events surrounding the ERM and throughout the history of this century have proved that. The attempts to follow the gold standard were completely disastrous. One way of considering the single currency must be to consider it as an ERM in perpetuity.
As the concept of managing one's economy according to the objectives of someone else's economy has singularly failed, the idea that at this stage we can merge our economies through a single currency is foolish on the basis of historical precedent and practicality. However, there is surely a much more fundamental point. It is that we must ask what benefit we gain from the transfer to a new federal organisation.
Let us take the issue of democracy, which above all must concern Members of Parliament. Transferring the sovereignty and undermining the position of this Parliament in favour of an unelected central bank, an unelected Commission and an unelected court of law under Maastricht cannot be done lightly under any circumstances without some massive trade-off.
We know that the economic trade-offs of our arrangements with Europe are dubious. At present we
Column 986
have a £10 billion trade deficit with Europe. I cannot see what benefits we shall achieve out of political union and the transfer of sovereignty.Mr. Nicholas Winterton : My hon. Friend talks about the transfer of sovereignty, but perhaps as important in the short term is the transfer of resources. Is my hon. Friend aware that, for example, our membership of the ERM cost Britain 1 million jobs, with all the poverty and problems that that creates? Under the convergence and other proposals in the Maastricht treaty, we shall transfer further resources to Portugal, Spain and Greece-- countries which are already depriving us of jobs and part of our manufacturing base. Does my hon. Friend consider that that is a sensible way to represent the interests of the people of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Spicer : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the costs are enormous. It is not just the £10 billion trading deficit with Europe. It is the £2 billion that we pay under various budgetary arrangements. My hon. Friend is correct that enormous costs were associated with the ERM. Some people have estimated that the most recent attempts to bolster the ERM cost more than £20 billion. So my hon. Friend has a good point.
Mr. Devlin : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spicer : No. I shall make some progress and give way later if my hon. Friend still wishes to intervene.
It is sometimes said that the process laid down by Maastricht is so unrealistic and premature that it will fall apart under the weight of its own absurdity. It is said that the Germans in particular ultimately will not wear it, so we do not need to bother too much about what is going on.
The fallacy in that argument is simple ; we have been debating it for the past 10 minutes. Once Maastricht is signed its provisions become the law of the land. The Commission and the European Court will take over from the politicians to ensure that the rules are applied. There seems to be much misunderstanding on that point both in Britain and in other countries. Let us take the example of the decision by the German Bundestag to ratify, subject to further consideration, the terms of the monetary union.
Germany's position would not be legal after ratification of the treaty. Unlike Britain and Denmark, Germany has no opt-out clause and it will be bound, for instance, by paragraph 4 of article 109j, which states clearly :
"If by the end of 1997 the date for the beginning of the third stage has not been set, the third stage shall start on 1 January 1999."
There are no ifs and buts and no clauses built in to allow the Bundestag to have its say. That will become the law in Germany as well as here, which brings me to the question of the British opt-out. It is unimaginable to me that if Britain accepts Maastricht it will be able to opt out of the single currency. Other hon. Friends may develop a more legalistic argument on the matter, but it is common sense that it will be unimaginable for us to opt out.
If we ratify the Maastricht treaty, one of the tragic consequences will be that Britain will face the choice of sacrificing control over its economy, in the way that I have tried to describe, or of leaving the European Community. I cannot see how we could remain within the EC as the only country--other than Denmark, perhaps--committed to staying outside the single currency. In any event, it would be meaningless to do so because article 109m of title
Column 987
II forces us to comply with EC monetary policy as if we were within the single currency. That is my answer to people who say that we will not have to go back into the ERM.Mr. Dalyell : If all this is so imaginable, how are we to imagine that the hon. Gentleman remained a Minister in Mrs. Thatcher's Government for so long?
Mr. Spicer : I have been trying to answer precisely that question. In my view--and it is only one person's view--the treaty is fundamentally different from any other legislation that we have passed. Other people take a different view and even the lawyers argue about it. I am with the lawyers who say that we are about to take a step which, because of its irrevocable nature, will mean that we will lose our sovereignty. Ministers keep popping up and down and have said that some of the provisions go back a long way, but I take a different view. The treaty is a fundamentally different step.
Sir Peter Tapsell : Does not Lady Thatcher take exactly that view-- that the Single European Act, which she passed as Prime Minister, was entirely different because it was devoted to economics, whereas the treaty is intended to make us part of a federal political union? If Lady Thatcher takes that view, her Ministers of the day are also entitled to do so.
Mr. Spicer : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
On the question of whether we will have to re-enter the ERM, one aspect of the Maastricht treaty which worries me is that it will force us to rejoin. Some hon. Members have said that that is not true, but article 109m clearly states :
"Until the beginning of the third stage, each Member State shall treat its exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest From the beginning of the third stage and for as long as a Member State has derogation, paragraph 1 shall apply by analogy to the exchange rate policy of that Member State."
The opt-out in the appropriate protocol makes us fall within the category of member states who have derogations, so there seems to be little doubt that we will have to re-enter the ERM if we sign the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Dorrell : I should like to hear my hon. Friend develop that argument. He seems to interpret meaning in the words of article 109m that is not there. He says that it is accepted that if the United Kingdom exercises its right under the protocol and does not join monetary union, the provisions of article 109m would apply : that "exchange rate policy" is
"a matter of common interest."
That does not mean that, merely because exchange rate policy is a matter of common interest, member states are obliged to join the ERM, nor does it state that anywhere in the treaty.
Secondly, paragraph 4 of the protocol governing the United Kingdom's position states, totally unambiguously, that if we choose not to join monetary union
"the United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law."
Our national law makes no provision for an obligation to join the ERM.
Column 988
8.15 pmMr. Spicer : I am gratified at the way in which Ministers are popping up and down like yo-yos to join in the debate because they have been rather reluctant to debate these matters in public. That at least is a good development.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Minister on the question of the protocol, in paragraph 6 he will find that article 109m
"shall apply to the United Kingdom as if it had a derogation." Mr. Dorrell indicated assent.
| Next Section
| Home Page |