| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Wilkinson : My hon. Friend touches on an interesting point. A person holding British nationality and residing in this country should be able to exercise choice about whether to acquire that additional nationality. It is not for a Government, by virtue of a treaty that they happened to sign in a small town in Holland, to decide to confer on all British nationals a new citizenship, unless of course the majority of those citizens so desire in a referendum. Likewise, in all equity they should have the right to renounce citizenship that has been conferred upon them, especially if it has been conferred without their express authority, democratically given in a referendum.
Mr. Charles Kennedy : Given the hon. Gentleman's response to that intervention, may I ask whether he is saying that a United Kingdom citizen, a professional soldier in our armed forces who finds that his unit is being committed to the United Nations to perform, for example, peacekeeping duties, can say, "No, I do not agree. I am quite willing to be a British soldier, but I am not prepared to wear a blue helmet and serve on behalf of the United Nations, because I did not support the treaty which instituted that state of affairs." That is the logical corollary to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Wilkinson : In no sense is that a logical deduction from what I said. I think that the hon. Gentleman had to be out of Committee when I referred to his speech and his false allusion to NATO. There is no comparison between NATO, a free association of independent, sovereign states, and the European union in terms of conferring obligations on citizens.
It is noteworthy that NATO is such a free association of independent states that the French, since De Gaulle's time, have decided, in their own sovereign manner, to remain independent of NATO's integrated military structure. NATO has always been a free association of independent states and quite different from the union. Certainly it never had citizenship ; nor did it confer obligations on citizens of member states.
Mr. Rogers : The hon. Gentleman is wrong. NATO was established by treaty, and as a result we have obligations to it. It is true that some members, such as France, opted out of some responsibilities, in exactly the same way as the Government opted out of some of their responsibilities under Maastricht--for example, the social chapter. I wish that we could get away from the irrelevant argument about citizenship in terms of defence- related security, which we shall discuss under another group of amendments. It ill becomes a party which has subscribed to these international organisations and which has waved the flag time and time again now to start knocking it down.
5.45 pm
Mr. Wilkinson : I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on this--far from it. It has not been my desire to bring the debate so dominantly to the issue of military obligations. We have taken up some time on that, but only because some hon. Members remain confused about what the obligations of citizens of the union may be in that regard. That is because of the unclear and unsatisfactory dichotomy between those aspects of the
Column 57
treaty that fall within the ambit of the Community and those that fall within the ambit of intergovernmental co- operation. I shall gladly move on--I am sure that you, Mr Lofthouse, will be pleased at that.The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) spoke about the Scottish, Welsh and Irish examples. I was elected as a member of the Conservative and Unionist party, and nothing made me sadder than when the Conservative party broke from Unionist party in 1972 upon the dissolution of Stormont, against which I voted. The great distinction is that there has already been a democratic process in all three of those parts of the kingdom. At various times, they each had a referendum about their status in the United Kingdom. There was one in Northern Ireland, and at the time of the Bill on devolution there was one in Scotland and one in Wales.
I agree that those soundings of opinion may have been unsatisfactory. Perhaps they were not ideal, and the wording may not have been perfect, but our citizens in those parts of the kingdom at least had a chance to exercise their right to vote. What is so different and wrong today is that all the people in our country are not to have the chance to express an opinion about whether they wish to be citizens of the European union.
Mrs. Dunwoody : How many hundreds of letters has the hon. Gentleman had from his constituents demanding to become members of the union of Europe ?
Mr. Wilkinson : I look forward to receiving the first. When it arrives, I shall seek to catch your eye, Mr. Lofthouse, so that I may read it to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office. It will be quite an historic document.
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend is making an interesting and wide- ranging speech. I am sure that he will come to that aspect of the treaty which allows our constituents to petition the European Parliament. I am sure that he is aware that, as they do so, article 138c will apply. That important article, of which I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is aware, allows 25 per cent., a mere quarter, of European parliamentarians to set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged--I stress "alleged"-- contraventions in the implementation of Community law.
If we are not seen to be applying Community law, a petitioner from my hon. Friend's constituency could go over his head to the European Parliament and, on the basis of a mere 25 per cent., an inquiry could be set up to investigate why this country was not applying the law of citizenship in the way that European institutions might, at a later stage, decide.
Mr. Wilkinson : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his intervention helps me to make progress and to move on to article 8a.
Mr. Corbyn : Before leaving this matter, will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that there is a real problem in Europe that is not dealt with in the documents, by the Commission or by the European Parliament? Large numbers of people who are nationals of non-European member states enjoy no political rights in Europe, but that is not dealt with in the treaty. That is especially so in the case of Germany, where it is virtually impossible for a non-German to gain German nationality.
Column 58
Such people are very much second-class citizens and will remain so in the European union envisaged by Maastricht. Should not that issue be dealt with, as it involves the civil rights of people throughout the world?Mr. Wilkinson : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to such an important point. It would have been a great mistake to move on too quickly and to overlook it. He and I have a mutual family interest in this matter.
An aspect of equity is involved. In the old days, the position was anomalous, because Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic --although it left the Commonwealth in 1949--enjoyed all the rights of British nationals without having to obtain British citizenship. In those days--I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would call them the bad old days--European Community citizens did not enjoy those rights. It was an extraordinary position, because Commonwealth nationals from, perhaps, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who spoke no English could vote in European parliamentary elections, while European Community nationals could not.
Even if, by some misfortune, the treaty were to be ratified--every hour that passes on the international exchanges makes it look less likely--there would still be an injustice. Citizens of the United States, of Canada and of other non-Community European countries who are resident in Britain, fulfilling all the qualifications for the franchise, would be unable to enjoy it even though they use as many local government services as, for example, European Community nationals also resident in Britain. The question is only partially and inadequately dealt with in the treaty.
Paragraph 2 of article 8a contains the real impetus behind the provisions. The driving force for making the citizenship provisions work is not the national Parliaments, not the national electorates and not the will of the people ; it is the Council of Ministers. How will the Council be impelled to do what it collectively believes to be right? It will not be in response to popular will or to the wishes of constituents exercised through hon. Members in this place--it will be by a proposal from the Commission.
It is not we, Members of this sovereign imperial Parliament at Westminster, who will be consulted ; it will be the Members of the European Parliament at Strasbourg. As you will know from your lengthy experience, Mr. Lofthouse, it is an extremely remote body. I doubt whether Members of the European Parliament receive more than 10 or 20 letters a week--probably only half the amount that we receive every day. They certainly have little opportunity to see their constituents and, sadly, their constituents see little of them.
Mr. Jessel : They do not know who they are.
Mr. Wilkinson : Perhaps my hon. Friend has the misfortune to be poorly represented in the European Parliament. The Member of the European Parliament who represents me is also a Member of the other place, so I see him frequently. It is a good example of the benefits of the old system, when Members of the European Parliament could also be Members of the British Parliament. There was a much better cross-fertilisation and Members of the European Parliament were more realistic. Indeed, they
Column 59
would have been more realistic about citizenship issues, because they would have been better in touch with the ordinary electorate. The same applies to article 8b.I have no quarrel with article 8c. It is common decency that European Community countries should afford consular access to nationals of other Community countries that happen to have no representation in a particular third country. It is right that, between civilised nations, humanitarian assistance should be given to those in distress. That is spelt out in the treaty in belt-and-braces fashion.
Article 18 would give every citizen of the European union the right to petition the European Parliament. British citizens have known since time immemorial that they have the right to petition our Parliament--and not just to petition it, but to come here to see us, and even to badger us if need be. We are the most accessible legislators in the world.
That cannot be said of Members of the European Parliament. Apart from anything else, they are always on the move and we cannot catch up with them. One week they may be in Strasbourg, the next in Luxembourg and the next in Brussels. If we are lucky, we might catch up with them in the lounge at Frankfurt airport. That position does not inspire confidence.
Mr. Rowe : It is another example of how Maastricht has adopted another good British practice for the edification of the other 11 countries that have not, thus far, aspired to such good practice.
Mr. Wilkinson : That is right. If the European Parliament betters itself by a process of osmosis, that is all to the good. I am not belittling that. I was trying to show that, time and again in the treaty, on the most sensitive matter of citizenship, the Maastricht signatories must defer not to national Parliaments but to the Council of Ministers, the Commission and the European Parliament. There is hardly a word in the treaty about national Parliaments and their role.
Mr. Marlow : My hon. Friend is treating the Committee to a careful examination and perusal of article 8, but he passed quickly over article 8b(2), which concerns arrangements for voting in European elections. They shall be decided on a proposal from the Commission, through the Council of European Parliament. There is the possibility of a derogation, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the derogation is always time-barred and time-limited. Is my hon. Friend an enthusiast of proportional representation? If not, he may find that it will be imposed on the United Kingdom by that measure.
6 pm
Mr. Wilkinson : I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. In my strong desire to make progress, I overlooked that important point--as I did in respect of article 8b, where the same applies to municipal elections : arrangements
"may provide for derogations where warranted by problems specific to a Member State."
Again, there could be moves in the Community to harmonise elections for municipalities on, for example, a proportional representation basis--which would be anathema to most right hon. and hon. Members, who
Column 60
believe that the strong connection between the councillor and his ward electorate is crucial to the satisfactory functioning of our democracy.It would also be damaging for European Parliament elections to be by proportional representation, which I am sure is the desire of the majority of Community member states. It is important for our citizens not to go down that road but for this country to obtain the derogation to which my hon. Friend alluded.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : My hon. Friend has several times denigrated the role of the European Parliament. He was very rude about it, despite the fact that a number of MEPs are members of our party, and presumably are not subject to the kind of criticisms that my hon. Friend was offering? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the declarations on the role of national parliaments in the European Union and on the conference of the parliaments, proposed on page 127 of the treaty? They would solve many of the problems to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
Mr. Wilkington : I must resist the temptation to respond, because I am trying to stick strictly to the amendments on citizenship, and not deal with matters relating to the place to which my hon. Friend so dearly aspires.
Article 8e states :
"The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council, and to the Economic and Social Committee"--
a body of bureaucrats, not a national parliament--
"on the application of the provisions of this Part."
In other words, it will report on progress in the matter of European citizenship.
That is, once again, a fundamentally undemocratic procedure, which flies in the face of the natural obligation of the signatories to the treaty to recognise that sovereign national parliaments are the custodians of the most dear and sacred rights of their citizens--the rights of citizenship.
Mr. Fraser : I support the treaty's proposals for union citizenship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, although it is currently nothing more than a symbol, it is an important token of membership of a multinational, multilingual and multi-faceted community.
Two of my three children were able to work and live in the Community without work permits or restrictions on their ability to move about. Many members of the younger generation find it extremely difficult to understand the narrow nationalism portrayed by so many of the artificialities and distortions that I have heard from Conservative Members over three days.
To the younger generation, the restrictions on individual citizenship and divisions between European countries have become archaic. The symbolism provided by citizenship of a greater Community should be welcome. I represent a multilingual, multiracial and multi-coloured constituency. If people have both a United Kingdom and a United Kingdom and European union citizenship--albeit that it will give them only nominal rights in other countries initially--that will diminish the divisions that have proved dangerous in society and in the world.
It is important to have at the beginning--the word "beginning" is what matters--formal but tangible recognition of the rights of European Community citizens in the Community.
Column 61
Sir Richard Body rose--Mr. Fraser : Having sat here for three days, I made a promise to myself not to give way to any Euro-bores--but perhaps just this once.
Sir Richard Body : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency, as I have, a large number of Irish people. They have the opportunity to vote for him, although they are not citizens of this country. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended throughout the Community. I would welcome that. It does not mean that we must have a supranational citizenship imposed upon us, with accompanying future duties and obligations of which we do not know.
Mr. Fraser : It will probably be best if I continue with my own speech.
Although it is only a beginning, that is no reason to vote against it. Citizens ought to have enforceable and equal rights. One of the first times that I voted against my own Government was in 1968, when the concept of United Kingdom citizenship was being diminished in relation to Kenyan Asians. If we are to have European citizenship, it must be meaningful.
There are three deficiencies in the union citizenship that the treaty promulgates. The first is specific and regrettable--the omission of the right to vote in parliamentary elections. Under the treaty, people will have the right to vote in municipal elections--that is, local government elections, in case Conservative Members do not understand the meaning of the word "municipal". They will also have the right, not surprisingly, to stand for election to the European Parliament and to vote in European elections. It would be crazy to be a citizen of the Community and not to have those rights. Those who live, work and currently reside in another member state should have the right to vote in parliamentary elections also, and that right ought to be conferred by the treaty. It is completely incomprehensible that a German, Italian or Greek can live, work and reside in my constituency for his entire lifetime but not have the chance to vote in a parliamentary election, whereas the Government can give the right to a person who has lived on the costa del crime for the past 12 years, or who left this country because he did not like it and now resides in South Africa, to get on the electoral role and to play a part in British parliamentary elections. It is extraordinary that the latter can happen, yet a fellow European citizen who has worked here and lived here, even if not for his entire life, cannot play a part in parliamentary elections. Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan) rose --
Mr. Fraser : No, I will not give way.
My second point relates to immigration and dependency rights. I believe that, if there is to be a right of union citizenship, the rights attaching to such citizenship should be equal, and should be harmonised. At present, a rather odd distinction exists. If an Italian, a Frenchman or a German living in this country--and exercising his economic rights in the Community --should marry, no primary purpose rule will apply to the marriage : under European law, that person's wife can remain with him. If they want to bring their children under the age of 21 to this country, they can do so. Indeed, they have the right to bring their grandparents, and any other relatives.
Column 62
That right, enjoyed by other European Community citizens, is superior to the right currently held by United Kingdom citizens. Surely there is a deficiency in a citizenship that does not harmonise the rights involving dependants. I want those rights to be harmonised upwards rather than downwards--and the Government, in the intergovernmental conference, seem to be trying to harmonise them downwards.Let me now deal with what I consider to be the principal deficiency. I believe that the Rome treaty, as amended by the Single European Act--it is, of course, to be amended further by the Maastricht treaty--is seriously deficient, in that it does not contain a declaration of principle, and does not confer a specific competence in relation to freedom from discrimination on grounds of race, colour, national origins or social status. Generally speaking, all those grounds are mentioned in the European convention on human rights and the United Nations charter on the subject. For the sake of brevity, I shall call them the "freedom from racial discrimination" grounds, although the definition in the convention is rather wider. We are discussing the creation of a reality from article 8, which concerns the freedom to reside and to move freely. A person subject to discrimination in regard to housing, for instance, cannot reside freely in another country.
Mr. Richard Shepherd : I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Article F says :
"The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law."
Mr. Fraser : That, I believe, is in the preamble to the treaty. I am arguing that the provisions should be rather more specific. It is true that the preamble contains a reference to the convention ; it is possible that articles 100 and 235 confer a competence, and that the social chapter does the same, although very marginally. What I want is a specific reference in the treaty, as an adjunct to citizenship rights, to the elimination of discrimination ; the treaty should both make a declaration and provide the necessary machinery.
That is done elsewhere in the treaty. Article 119 is specific about women's rights in relation to equal pay. From that article developed the equal pay directive, which in part had already been translated into English domestic law but whose translation was then completed. I believe that one of the concomitants of union citizenship should be a provision similar to article 119, which would deal with racial discrimination and would enable the Commission--by way of a directive--to develop the machinery to make a declaration of principle enforceable.
If I am to remain in order, I must make a speech about citizenship. Let me make it clear, however, that, if I were out of order, I would be arguing for a general freedom from discrimination, irrespective of citizenship. I had better say that in case I am thought to be leaving out the question of migrant workers and those without European citizenship.
Mr. Corbyn : Do not the Maastricht treaty and the whole thrust of European thinking and legislation completely ignore the political rights of 15 million people who live and work on the continent of Europe, many of
Column 63
whom are refused nationality in their own countries? None of the legislation is addressed to them. Maastricht will make the current two-tier residence in Europe worse rather than better.6.15 pm
Mr. Fraser : I agree. I think that the rights of migrant workers-- and those of people who are simply dependants--should be exactly the same as those of citizens. I should have liked to speak about that in relation to the social chapter. One of the most regrettable features of the Government's failure to support the social chapter is the fact that the country has been robbed of the authority, and the credibility, to press the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in the context of the chapter. Although the treaty may contain competences and declarations elsewhere, opting out of the social chapter makes it much more difficult to argue that the Commission should initiate legislation in which the Government wish to play no part. Although there is no constitutional right in this country to be free from racial discrimination- -because we have no constitution, although, of course, we are party to the European convention on human rights--we have done rather well. When I first represented my constituency--being a multiracial constituency, it has been racked with riots--discrimination was blatantly exercised. I believe that it is a happier constituency, and that this is a happier country, since the introduction of the Race Relations Act. We have a good record. It is no good just stating principles ; the machinery must be created, in this country and in the Community, to turn those principles into reality.
Other countries have built such principles into their constitutions. The very phrase "liberty, equality, fraternity" must imply freedom from racial discrimination. Every other member of the European Community has acceded to the European declaration on human rights, and all of them--unlike Britain-- have imported it into their domestic law. We, who have not adopted the constitutional principle, have done better than the countries which have not. That gave us an authority, undermined by our rejection of the social chapter, to introduce laws relating to discrimination.
My point is that, given that we have a Race Relations Act, and given that all other Community member states accede--either directly in their constitutions, or by importing the provisions of the European convention into their domestic laws--not including such matters in more detail in the treaty represents an omission from the rights of citizens and, pace my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, from those of others.
Declarations of principle are not enough. According to the American constitution, it is self-evident that all men are born equal. That did not help the slaves until 1864, and it did not help a lot of black people until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s. We need more than a declaration of principle : we need the machinery to implement it.
It is the Labour party's view, expressed at our European conference late last year, and the view of the European parliamentary Labour party that there should
Column 64
be a directive on such matters. I endorse that view, and I consider that such a directive is an important ingredient of citizenship. It is important for these reasons.First, freedom from discrimination is, in one way or another, part of the governing principles of every member of the Community. Therefore, it is a gross omission for it not to be spelt out exactly in the treaty.
Secondly, the danger inside the Community and Europe as a whole is not discrimination on grounds of nationality. People are no longer, if they ever were, discriminated against specifically because they are French or German. It is much more likely, as happened before the war, that people are discriminated against because they are Jewish, or gipsies, or Arabs. Discrimination always was, perhaps, discrimination on the grounds of membership of a group, not on grounds of nationality. It is self-evident from what is happening in Yugoslavia that discrimination against people because of their membership of a group has to be dealt with.
Thirdly, freedom from discrimination is important as a matter of self- interest. Let no one ever imagine that to allow discrimination can be in anybody's self-interest. It is not ; it is the reverse. One only has to look at the history of Northern Ireland and at what is happening now in Yugoslavia. If people were motivated only by self-interest, they would want workable laws against racial discrimination. That is why it is so important to incorporate this principle into the practice of the Community. In a cohesive Community, differences of race and social origin would be unimportant. It is also important that the European Community should set an example to the rest of the world. One hears talk nowadays of fortress Europe, of a European Community that is distinct and different, that sets itself apart and makes itself exclusive in terms of the rest of the world. When the Community deals with racial discrimination, we shall demonstrate to the rest of the world that the Community has a wider view. At the moment, unfortunately, the Community has an image of being largely white and largely Christian. It is, however, a Community that will eventually incorporate not an Islamic state but Muslims. Turkey is a secular state, but if Turkey or Cyprus becomes a member of the Community, the Community will also incorporate a Muslim tradition. Therefore, it is important for us to demonstrate to the rest of the world what the Community has in mind.
I have listened to several days of the debate, and I have been surprised by the lack of vision and the lack of idealism. Last weekend, the world deplored, not celebrated, the rise of Hitler 60 years ago, a rise that was largely helped by the hatred of foreign nationals, Jews, gipsies, Slavs and minority groups. Six years after Hitler's rise to power, there was a world war. That world war became the basis for forming a community in Europe. The prime purpose of its formation was to prevent that from ever happening again. But we need more than that. If we look at what is happening in Germany and other member states, we see that we also need to learn other lessons about the rise of Hitler to power in the 1930s.
If we are to have citizenship of the union, it must be a full and equal citizenship in which each man and woman has equal dignity. Citizenship should be broadened to the extent of having real declarations and real machinery for the elimination of discrimination throughout the
Column 65
Community, and they would apply not just to citizens of the Community but to everyone living within the Community.Sir Ivan Lawrence : What worries me about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is that if, against the will of the British people, we are forced into a union where the laws and requirements are not consistent with the wishes of the British people, it may fan those very hatreds that the hon. Gentleman, with the rest of us, is so anxious to stop.
There was much in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I agreed. The aims that he spelled out are aims with which we can all align, but they can be achieved through intergovernmental co-operation, not by forcing through a pattern of co-operation against the wishes of the people and against sensitivities of our British history and tradition.
This is the first time that I have made a speech in the debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and I hope to be brief, but that is not to say that I shall be patronising towards those who wish to intervene. I shall not call them Euro-bores because everybody here has some contribution to make. I speak as someone who, although he is on this side of the discussion, is a European, has always been a European and hopes always to be a European.
When the time came for us to try to make sure that the British people were persuaded that Britain should stay in the European Community, I took a very expensive three weeks away from my practice at the Bar in order to spend every day, as in a general election campaign, persuading people that we should stay within the European Community because of the many advantages to them if we did so. My bona fides, therefore, are clear.
I want the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Community. If we do not give our approval to Maastricht, we shall stay part of the European Community. I do not wish the United Kingdom to leave it, but I do not think that the way in which the European Community is going is necessarily the way that would meet with the agreement of the British people. I want this country to stay in Europe, but I ask : what kind of Europe do we want to stay in? I am not sure that I want the kind of Europe that Mr. Delors, with the support of a large number of people in the European Community, is marking out for us. The Government say of the citizenship proposals in the treaty, "We are British citizens and we will always remain British citizens." I assume that the Government intend to convey the meaning that, for us, British citizenship will be first and foremost. I ask, will it be? The Government say, "European citizenship is additional to British citizenship. It simply confers extra rights on all EC national citizens. Does it? Is that all that it does? That is certainly what is suggested in the Government's booklet. As far as I can see, there is not one mention of duties which will be imposed upon us by being members of this European citizenship.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, for whom I have the highest regard, said in an earlier intervention that there is no question of us wanting a European state or of there being a European state. What, then, is the purpose of citizenship? Citinzenship is all about allegiance to the state. It does not mean anything else but allegiance to the state. I shall return to that point in a few moments because I believe that these Government
Column 66
statements or interpretations are very misleading. They imply to those who listen to them and who look no further under the meaning of the words that nothing very much will change from what it is now, except that we shall have the benefit of an additionalcitizenship--citizenship of the union.
Such manifest nonsense is spoken about it that one wonders whether the Government can be serious. Euro-citizenship confers not only extra rights but extra duties ; there is no doubt about that. Article 8(2) states explicitly :
"Citizens shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby." We shall have duties imposed on us as citizens of the union ; but what are those duties? One will be the duty to pay taxes to the union, or state. If there is a Euro-tax regime, as there will be if we ratify Maastricht and follow the route planned for us, we shall have to abide by it. Britain will be forced to adopt that regime whether or not the British people or the British Parliament want it. 6.30 pm
If the Euro-tax regime demands that we do away with zero rating because it does not want to zero-rate children's shoes, or books, transport or food, we shall, in the interests of the whole Community, have to agree to one value added tax regime. We shall not be able to argue that we cannot implement such a regime, because we should be taken to the European Court and fined if we did not. The new Euro-state will therefore be able to impose that duty on us. One of the fundamental duties of the citizen is to defend the state. If the state is the Euro-state, defence of the Euro-state will be an obligation placed on British citizens, whether or not they agree. If the British citizen or the British Parliament, has doubts about whether it is sensible to send an armed force to Iraq or for an armed force to go to Bosnia but the Euro-state says that that is Euro policy, we shall have to conform because our Euro-citizenship will place a duty and an obligation on us to abide by that demand.
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : As my hon. and learned Friend knows, other European Community countries operate conscription. Does he think that Scots, as British citizens, can look forward to the delightful duty of being conscripted into as future European force?
Sir Ivan Lawrence : I was going to deal with the question of conscription, but now I need not do so. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which is why the preamble about a common defence policy is so important to the debate on citizenship. Few things are more important to citizenship than the obligation to defend the state.
Mr. Knapman : Greece is a member of the Community, but Turkey is not. Would my hon and learned Friend care to consider what would happen if there was trouble in Cyprus, for instance?
Sir Ivan Lawrence : My hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the dark points--the relationship between Greece and Turkey and the way in which it will bear on the future of the European Community. I have an immense regard for Greece and Turkey. As hon. Members may know, when I was a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we produced a report on the future of Cyprus. There are immense problems for a union which excludes Turkey but retains Greece, and which may or may not take
Column 67
in Cyprus. It has many other ramifications, but I do not wish to pursue that subject. My hon. Friend has made a sensible point. Such a state of affairs might involve decisions contrary to the feelings of the British nation, but, because we shall be citizens of the state, we shall have to conform.Duties are nowhere expressly defined in the Maastricht treaty, but we can be perfectly sure that what is and what is not a duty will be interpreted not by a British court but by the European Court of Justice. In the fulness of time, because that is in the nature of things, we shall have additional duties loaded on to our shoulders which we did not dream of when we first discussed these issues. They will be loaded on to our shoulders by interpretation of the European Court of Justice.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department must take on board on behalf of the Government, the fact that when we visited electors in our constituencies during the general election, if we had knocked on doors and said, "Excuse me, I want you to vote for me because I want more duties loaded on to my shoulders as a result not of what the British Parliament and Government have decided but of what other Parliaments and Governments in the rest of the European Community have decided", no one would have voted for us.
Mr. Marlow : Front-Bench Members have mentioned the various benefits arising from this part of the treaty, including petitioning, the appointment of an ombudsman and being able to vote. We can discuss whether or not they are benefits, but would it not be possible to have those benefits, or disbenefits, without having to be citizens of the European union and having citizenship imposed on us? My hon. and learned Friend talks about duties. Could we not have the benefits without citizenship and imposed duties? Why do we need them? Why did the Government agree to them?
Sir Ivan Lawrence : My hon. Friend makes another of his excellent points. Intergovernmental co-operation can achieve the benefits. What worries me is the forcing of our will into a Community decision of the state with an obligating citizenship. That was the issue that I began to explain in response to the hon. Member for Norwood, who has been so disgusted by my remarks that he has left the Chamber.
Mr. Jessel : A minute ago my hon. and learned Friend mentioned canvassing in the general election. Does he agree that, in the general election, the Maastricht treaty was hardly an issue at all because there was agreement between the three main political parties on it, and certainly agreement between the two Front Benches, so that it was a matter of controversy between the political parties? There was much dispute in the general election--we can all remember disputes about the health service, rates of income tax and so on--but if one looks at, say, the headlines of all the main newspapers throughout the three weeks of the campaign, Maastricht hardly featured and was not an issue on which people voted.
| Next Section
| Home Page |