House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Feb 1993

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is precisely why a referendum is necessary. I am one of the members of the Conservative party who do not

Column 68

believe that, in the normal way of things, a referendum is an acceptable way to proceed. We are Members of Parliament, elected by the people to represent their views, and we cannot go through the whole catechism of issues for a referendum, but, on a matter of constitutional importance about which the people have not been given a specific opportunity to say yes or no, a referendum is required.

Mr. Shore : Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that the treaty was not published until May whereas the general election was held on 9 April greatly reinforces the case for a direct reference to the British people ?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Not only was the treaty not published but the explanation was not given. As I hope to point out in due course, the explanation that has been given is even now misleading and should be corrected before the British people have the right to decide in a referendum whether they want the treaty.

My second point about the misleading nature of the Government's assertions, no doubt made in the utmost good faith, is that Euro-citizenship is not just an additional label and does not simply provide additional duties ; it changes the nature of our relationships. Acceptance of Euro-citizenship is not a voluntary matter. We will have to accept it ; it says so in article 8. That means that we can no longer renounce our citizenship and move to France, Germany or elsewhere within our cultural area. If we want to renounce anything, we shall have to live outside the European Community, in America, the old Commonwealth or the new

Commonwealth--if we can get in. Euro-citizenship changes fundamentally the relationship that we had with the state when we could decide voluntarily whether to stay or go.

Moreover, questions regarding the position of Her Majesty the Queen under a system of Euro-citizenship require some answers. Her Majesty has British citizenship. She will no doubt become a citizen of the union and presumably will be subject to the duties conferred on her by the treaty. Does that mean that she will be obliged to pay Euro income tax or any tax that the Euro-state requires her to pay ?

Mr. Rowe : I am listening with avid attention. I am not in any sense a constitutional lawyer--I know that my hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer of great excellence--but it seems to me that, arguably, Her Majesty the Queen is not a British citizen, in the sense that she is not allowed to exercise many of the attributes of citizenship.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : It is generally accepted by international lawyers, as well as by the Home Secretary and the Government, that Her Majesty the Queen is pre-eminently the British citizen and is therefore subject to the law of the land as any citizen would be. The last member of the royal family who said that he was not a British citizen and that he was not subject to the laws and obligations of the land had a little walk further down Whitehall, which ended in the loss of an important part of his body and a number of years of civil war.

Mr. Spearing : Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Of course.

Column 69

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose speech should be carefully noted because of his experience in these matters and the office that he holds. He may recall that, earlier this afternoon, the Home Secretary feigned ignorance when asked about the position of the Queen. The Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly been asked about the position of Her Majesty--or, to be more accurate, the monarch of the day--and have repeatedly failed to answer.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, unlike legislation of the Community, which would bind the duty of the monarch or legislation of this House, consequent on a legislative programme of the Community, under the intergovernmental parts of the treaty that require a single process, it would become the duty of the Crown and its prerogative--meaning government, which traditionally has not been completely within the grasp of this House- -to concur with whatever the intergovernmental institutions. decreed? For the first time, the prerogative of the Crown, as well as the Crown itself, would become subject to the macro-treaties of which we speak.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right ; but I will not hear criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He is one of the busiest and most preoccupied Ministers in the Cabinet. Morning, noon and night, he has to apply his mind to the problems of the police, prisons, immigration, the fire service and a whole range of activities that are totally time-consuming. I will not accept any criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend for not having accurately considered every single matter in the treaty. I merely make the point that, to reassure those who are concerned about these matters, it is most important that Ministers should be present who have had time to consider them in greater detail and can answer questions concerning, for example, the role of the Queen.

6.45 pm

Mr. Charles Wardle : Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I see that my hon. Friend can answer the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary could not.

Mr. Wardle : I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will appreciate the manner in which my hon. and learned Friend catalogued his many responsibilities, which do, indeed, make him a busy man. Let me clarify the point that is of concern to the Committee. The Maastricht treaty does not in any way affect the constitutional position of the monarch. Her Majesty as an individual would of course enjoy the same rights within the EC as any other United Kingdom citizen.

Mr. Cash : On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. In view of what the Minister has just said, why is it that the Queen's consent is required on Third Reading? If what the Minister said was correct, it would surely not be necessary for Her Majesty's consent to be signified.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : That is not a point of order for me ; it is a question for the Minister.

Column 70

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I accept what my hon. Friend the Minister said-- that Her Majesty the Queen has the same rights as any other member of the Community. That being so, it must surely follow that she would have the right to vote in European elections and to stand for the European Parliament. She would even have the municipal right--it is clear from the treaty that that right is regarded as important--to vote and stand in local government elections. If she wished, Her Majesty could stand for election to Westminster city council. Those are rights and duties that I believe Her Majesty would gain under the Maastricht treaty. I merely make the point that the treaty alters the relationship that Her Majesty has with her citizens and with the rest of the European Community. The treaty changes the basis of citizenship as we know it.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Surely the whole point is that, although we are debating a Bill that imposes upon all the citizens of the United Kingdom a new duty--and the word "duty" ought to be

underlined--Ministers are still receiving advice from the Box on fundamental matters. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to come here and joke about the gullible Danes--who, incidentally, follow the democratic process--but the fact is that the Committee is being asked to vote on a number of basic duties of citizenship without any clear idea of how far the provision goes, of what is involved or of the commitment that we are making on behalf of our children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren. Frankly. I find that both frightening and irresponsible.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I agree with the hon. Lady. We have just seen what can happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had one view of the Queen's position and that view was corrected by my hon. Friend the Minister.

These matters are important to the British people. It may be nostalgic and old-fashioned--the result of some feeling rather than of rationality--of us to feel so strongly monarchist and to have such regard for the royal family. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill affect the rights and duties of the royal family for the future, and those rights and duties must be clarified so that the British people can feel confident about the future.

My hon. Friend the Minister says that Her Majesty will have the same rights and duties as any European citizen. In that case, it is in the nature of that relationship that she must be a citizen of the Euro-state. As she is a British citizen, she will become a citizen of the Euro-state and subject to the Euro-state, whose leader--the President--will presumably have rights similar to those that Her Majesty enjoys in Britain at present.

Is it seriously suggested that the British people would have wanted Her Majesty the Queen to be a subject of Mr. Delors, remembering his thoughts about the future of Europe? By what right should we expect the Queen to be so subject? Would the British people have voted for us had we been able, with the right information and existence of the treaty, to ask them about such matters at the last general election?

Mr. Marlow : My hon. and learned Friend is approaching a delicate and important point. By the kind courtesies of the government of the European state, Her Majesty will be a citizen of that state. She will be Queen but Mr. Delors will be President. He will be President of the whole organisation--President of Europe--while she

Column 71

will be Queen of a mere participant in Europe. Who will take precedence at official functions? Will it be Mr. Delors, with Her Majesty playing second fiddle to him? Does my hon. and learned Friend think that our constituents will be worried about the legislation if it turns out to have that effect?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Let us be realistic. Seldom does the Prime Minister go to a meeting of Staffordshire county council, so that the question whether he should have precedence over the chairman of the county council does not arise. Such events rarely happen now and they are unlikely to happen often in the future. The question of precedence is probably not of importance, though my hon. Friend's intervention underlines my point that the relationship of the British citizen will alter under the treaty, just as the duties imposed on British citizens under it will be greater.

Mr. Charles Wardle : My hon. and learned Friend said encouragingly that we should be realistic. We are debating the Maastricht treaty, which imposes no specific duties on individuals. The only duty is to obey provisions of EC law which impose an obligation on individuals. The rest must be speculation and, as we are considering article 8, that speculation would be subject to the double lock in article 18.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : But if the law being created by the European Community creates more duties, we are subject to them, for the very reason adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister--in other words, there will be more duties and a changed relationship.

Others will have rights to join in and interfere with British citizenship here in the United Kingdom. Citizens of other states will be able to vote in our municipal elections and Euro-elections. There are a number of marginal seats in this country, some with very small majorities. Consider one such constituency about which it is known from public opinion polls and canvassing that the result will be on a knife edge.

What will stop sufficient French farmers, for example, coming here, being here on the night that is necessary for registration as electors, perhaps by virtue of their European citizenship being able to come backwards and forwards for long enough to comply with the six-month residency in the constituency rule before voting, and thereby getting the MEP they want? Such an MEP might stand for policies which the Euro-farmer particularly wants but which the British farmer does not want.

Mr. Cash : Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is no residential qualification in the treaty relating to citizenship? We should be told the latest Home Office thinking on the matter. After all, even the trespassing CND women at Greenham common managed to acquire a period of residence that was suitable for the purposes of the residential qualification. If that could be achieved, I have no doubt that all manner of people could be brought in from across the channel.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right, because the law requires some residential qualification.

Column 72

Mr. Wilkinson : We have recently enacted provisions by which British expatriate nationals have the right to vote in United Kingdom elections. I presume that EC nationals who have in the past acquired residence in this country could go to Timbuctoo or anywhere on the globe and vote in British elections. It is unsatisfactory that expatriate nationals who will acquire, by virtue of the treaty, citizenship of the European union will not have their rights clearly defined in electoral law.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : My hon. Friend raises an interesting matter. We make to other groups all sorts of concessions that other countries do not make. Likewise, they make concessions to groups that we do not make. One such concession is the voting right given in certain circumstances to expatriates. Other nations in the EC may not wish to accept that type of regime and will test the issue in the European Court of Justice. We may find that a concession that the British people, through their Parliament, considered to be right is taken from us.

Another example is extremely worrying. We have made a special exception in relation to the Irish. They can come here and stand for election, vote and sit on juries. That was part of the agreement with Ireland in the post-1920 era. That concession may have served us well, and people have opinions about whether the Irish should have those rights. When we questioned the matter a year or so ago and asked why the same rights were not reciprocal with Eire, the Irish Government quickly changed the law so that anybody who wants to stand or vote in an Irish election can do so, and I believe that it is possible for anybody who wishes to do so to serve on an Irish jury.

I merely make the point that we are discussing one of those rules that the British Parliament has decided and has not revoked. Such a variation in our rules might not be acceptable to our partners in the EC, who might take the matter to the European Court. It might be ruled to be in breach of undertakings given in Maastricht and be contrary to the Euro-citizen rules laid down in the treaty. We would find ourselves obliged to change what had been a traditional attitude towards the people of Ireland.

I am not saying that that will happen. I am discussing a number of situations that could arise once we open the doors and allow them to happen, and that is what the Maastricht treaty does. Further, it does it without consulting the British people to see whether they want it to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) pointed out.

The nationals of other countries and the citizens of the Euro-state will be able to come here and play their part in municipal--county, district and parish council--elections. They will be eligible to come here and stand and vote and thereby affect the future of British society. That represents a considerable change in the present situation and, by itself, contradicts the assurance we have been given that the treaty will improve matters and will not take anything away. Many people may not want the French to decide who our district, county or parish councillors should be.

I ask this question in all seriousness : can my hon. Friend the Minister give a guarantee that "municipal" means only district council, county council and paris council ? [Interruption.] It is not a joke. It is clear, not simply from the case in 1972 but from a number of other references, that the European Community sometimes used the word municipal as the counter to community--municipal not meaning municipal elections to district

Column 73

councils, country councils and parish councils but meaning pertaining to the nation state. It may well be that that is not the meaning which will ever be used in this case.

The question of what "municipal" actually means--whether it will be restricted in that way--may well have to be referred to the European Court of Justice. If the word "municipal" has been used time and time again in France, Italy and the European Court to mean national, can my hon. Friend the Minister guarantee that it will never give Euro-citizens a right to vote in our general elections ? It is not such a silly question.

If there is a Euro-citizenship which entitles people to have a right to vote in parish, district and county council elections, what is the argument in principle about not letting them vote in a general election ? I can see a difference in degree, but I can see no difference in principle. If there is no difference in principle, who will guarantee that the European Court of Justice will say that there is no difference in principle and that "municipal" must mean municipal in the way that we mean it ?

Mr. Cash : My hon. and learned Friend is addressing what he and I regard as a serious point. I am sure many other people regard it in the same way. Unfortunately, the point is that, if the treaty is ratified, the cat is out of the bag and the Court of Justice has grabbed it.

It does not matter a fig what my hon. Friend the Minister thinks. What he thinks on this subject probably is not worth a row of beans, because he is not a lawyer who is likely to appear before the European Court. I am not interested in the opinion of his Foreign Office lawyers, because they are wrong more often than they are right. We found that out with the Canada Bill. I could give the Committee a list as long as my arm of the times when they have got things fundamentally wrong.

In this particular case, the matter can arise only after ratification. If the Court of Justice takes the view which it has taken in the past, it will not matter a damn what the Foreign Office lawyers and the Minister have said, because the Court of Justice will have the right, under the European Communities Act 1972, to decide the matter.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : As is often the case, my hon. Friend underlines and concludes the point that I am making much more effectively than I could have done, and I accept what he says.

Mr. Winnick : Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I shall move on because it is important that I should do so.

Article 8b does not define the phrase

"residing in which he resides"

before a Euro-citizen can cast a vote in one of our elections. Euro- citizens must reside in Britain under the rules which apply at present before they can vote in our elections. Surely that means that such citizens must be in the United Kingdom on a day in October or whenever and have been here for a period of residence. However, we do not know that, because it is not set out in the treaty.

7 pm

The question of who a resident is, who will vote or who can stand for election to the county council, district council or parish council may have to be decided in the European Court of Justice. That decision will be made not by a British court but by a European court. It will be made

Column 74

not by somebody who has been brought up in the history and traditions of the British system but by somebody or a number of learned men who have been brought up in a system in another country which bears no relationship to the traditions of British government. I shall give another example of power being taken from us and residing in a body in which we will have some right to participate and perhaps some strong right to influence but not the right to make a final decision in the interests of the people. Article 8d gives Euro-citizens the right to petition the European Parliament. What will happen if such a petition succeeds? Will it succeed over the decisions of the British Parliament? Is that an example of the European Parliament taking power over the Westminster Parliament? How many people would have voted for me if I had knocked on doors at the last general election and said, "Please vote for me because I want to surrender power to the European Parliament. I do not want the Westminster Parliament to have the powers which it has at the moment. I want fewer powers. I want to give people the right to petition a European Parliament and to oblige the European Parliament to oblige a Euro- citizen in Britain to go along such a path"? We are talking about the surrender of power away from a Westminster Parliament. That is my bottom line. What moves me most about the Maastricht treaty is the surrender of power away from the Westminster Parliament. People have not been consulted, and I know perfectly well that they do not want it.

Mrs. Dunwoody : The interesting point is that we have the right to petition the European Parliament at present. Since there is no extra extension of advantage, why is the treaty written in such a way unless the unwritten intention is that the decision can be enforced? At present, after we have petitioned the European Parliament, a decision cannot necessarily be enforced. Are we to assume that in the future we shall have to conform with whatever decision is taken?

Sir Ivan Lawrence : It seems that the power to petition the European Parliament is excluded in the treaty because it will give more power than exists at present, or there would be no point in including it.

Mr. Rowe : In my general election campaign, I made it abundantly clear that I thought that the Maastricht treaty was a good thing and that the European Community should be strengthened. It may well be that my constituents share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), whose views of our officials, our lawyers and our constitution seem to be so denigrating. For that reason, it may be that my constituents substantially increased my majority.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : My hon. Friend's personal powers and charm must have persuaded a large number of people to give him the benefit of any doubt which they may have had because they could not have seen anything in writing and they would not know the explanation of the things in writing. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's majority increased or decreased.

Mr. Rowe : My majority increased.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : My hon. Friend's majority would have increased much more if he had been able to say to the

Column 75

electors of Mid-Kent, "I am standing up against the desire to grab the powers from the Westminster Parliament and give them to some Parliament elsewhere in Europe."

Mr. Cash : Is it possible--as it were, vicariously through my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence)--to remind the citizens of Mid-Kent that it was those massive marches to preserve their homes and so on which led my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent to charge up to No. 10 and so on? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have an opportunity to prove his point when undoubtedly he will vote against the rail privatisation Bill tomorrow and sustain the reason why he got so much support in the 1992 general election in addition to the other support which he has already.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : Again, I can only accept the observation of my hon. Friend. I make no comment about it.

So far I have said that, contrary to the assurances that have been given, there will be changes to the rights and duties of the British people as a result of Euro-citizenship. Maastricht will provide us with more duties, change our relationships and give other people the right to interfere in the rights and activities of the British people. That is what will happen.

Mr. Winnick : Before the hon. and learned Gentleman goes on to his next point, may I ask him whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who shares our views on this subject, said that the two Conservative candidates in Southend borough received more or less the same percentage of support? One was opposed to Maastricht and one was in favour. Is not the point that the treaty was not an issue at the general election for either of the two main parties? The British people clearly did not make up their minds on that issue. Hence the need, before power is taken away from the House of Commons to a much greater degree than previously, for the British people to say yea or nay.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : With great respect, we have flogged that one. We are talking about the need for a referendum. Although the point needs to continue to be made, perhaps it does not need to continue to be made so often.

One must ask two questions : first, will Maastricht as it is drafted be better for the British people? Secondly, will it be better for the British people if the intentions which are clear in the treaty are translated? I have just dealt with the question whether the treaty would be better for the British people in the form in which we have examined it so far and insofar as it diminishes the rights and increases the duties of the citizen in Britain. The answer to that question is no.

So what are the intentions for the future of the framers of the treaty and its signatories? It seems obvious to me that the intentions are to diminish the nation state and the concept of national citizenship in favour of the Euro-state.

I come to that conclusion for the following reasons. First, if all that were wanted were reciprocal rights, there is no reason why they could not have been provided without the concept of citizenship. All that would be required would be some such statement as, "The rights accorded under the French constitution are hereby accorded to the citizens of the United Kingdom, Germany,

Column 76

Italy, Holland, Spain, Portugal," and all the others. That is all that would be needed for us to enjoy each other's rights. But that is not want we have. We have the concept of citizenship.

The concept of citizenship came about because the Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, said that it would be a good idea if we could bind the concept of a union together with European citizenship. On page 79 of its opinion of 21 November 1990 to the conference drafting the Maastricht treaty, the Commission approved the concept because it would

"encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration." Those are weasel words if ever there were any.

There is only one point in creating citizenship, and that is to set up an obligation to a state. So the Commission proposed that the European citizen would have a right of free residence and movement and a right to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. It said that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights would be set at a later stage.

Mr. Wilkinson : It is interesting that my hon. and learned Friend referred to the origin of the concept of European citizenship. He accorded the origin of the idea to Felipe Gonzalez, whom he said claimed that European citizenship would grant to the holders of that citizenship a greater sense of belonging and integration in the Community. Can my hon. and learned Friend clarify what the Gibraltarians might think of that idea and what their status is under European citizenship?

7.15 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence : No, but I can guess. As we are going into a little history, I might add that I was present with other colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in Strasbourg when President Mitterrand made a speech to the European Parliament in which he explained that he thought that the time was nigh for European political and economic union. I noticed a gasp of dismay among my Conservative colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee at that time, most of whom will troop through the Lobby with the Government for the very political and economic union which had them so aghast when they first heard it from the mouth of President Mitterrand in Strasbourg.

The intention is that targets for the definition of the individual's civic, economic and social rights will be set at a later stage. Everything is done by a step-by-step approach. We manage to tame the abuses of union power not by means of a massive change but by the step-by-step approach. Everyone has learnt that if one wants to achieve something, one does it by the step-by- step approach. One signals one's intention with weasel words, which can mean anything, so that people cannot say that they were not warned. We are warned that by European citizenship we will encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration. In years to come people will say that they made it clear that they wanted Euro-citizenship. Targets will be set for the definition of civic, economic and social rights at a later stage. No one can say that he was not warned that we were going even further down the path of reducing our national rights and increasing our international burden, and changing the relationship

Column 77

between the British citizen and the Queen or British citizens and other citizens of the Euro-state. No one will be able to say that we were not warned.

I looked at the literature which was circulated during the 1975 referendum campaign to see whether we were promised that something would not happen that subsequently happened. I wanted some ammunition. When I looked at the words, I saw that they could mean anything. They could mean yes and they could mean no. It was clear that those who used those forms of words did so in a way that would make it possible for them to behave or act in a different way later when the demand came.

Looking back at all those words, it is difficult to say that we were not warned. We were warned, but it depended on how one interpreted the words.

Mr. Michael Spicer : My hon. and learned Friend is dealing with the important question of the dynamic nature of the treaty and the fact that it points to the future. Does he agree that it is because the treaty is dynamic that the exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was so unsatisfactory? My hon. Friend dwelt on exactly the point that my hon. and learned Friend makes when he talked about defence. He talked about policies "which might in time lead" to a common defence policy. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that point was never properly answered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary? My hon. and learned Friend puts in context the questions that ought to be answered about where the whole thing will lead in the future.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : I do not mean to be offensive when I say that civil servants, in their answers, must be as inscrutable as possible so that, in five years' time, a Minister will not be hauled over the coals for saying something quite different. Time and again in this debate we have heard answers that could mean yes or no, could mean one thing or another. If one were to ask, "Will the position of the Queen be changed?", one might be told, "No. She will be as any other citizen of the European Community. The position now is as before".

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : In this debate, Front-Bench Members are not coming clean with the Committee. Hon. Members are therefore unable to come clean with the people about the way in which citizenship is being fundamentally altered, ratchetwise--especially by this treaty. Will my hon. and learned Friend direct his attention to that matter? Surely it is quite wrong to change the status and role of citizenship without informing the people of what is being done in their name, especially as it appears that Front-Bench Members on both sides do not themselves know what is in the treaty.

Sir Ivan Lawrence : The only answer I can sensibly give is yes. On the question of setting targets at a later stage, I have to say that the Community will take over and define the key aspects of the individual's relationship with the state. That is what is intended. The Community will look at the matter again at a later stage. It is all set out in article 8e. There are to be reviews, at intervals of three years, of the rights of European citizenship. The Council of Ministers will be empowered to strengthen or add to the rights

Column 78

already laid down. When this legislation has been passed and the Maastricht treaty has been ratified, provision for those reviews will be in place.

Will that be done by unanimous decision or by majority decision? Even if it is to be by unanimous decision, the Minister may not by then have any means of signifying in advance what he wants to talk about and what decisions he will have to make. We have tried to make the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs the monitor of the intentions of Ministers. By contrast, a Scrutiny Committee can only consider matters after the event. I am not by any means convinced that we shall know sufficiently in advance what a Minister will do under the give and take and the compromise of the Council of Ministers. However, it is clearly provided--no one will be able to complain afterwards --that the Council of Ministers can strengthen the rights and duties already laid down. That is what we will be agreeing to if we ratify this treaty. As the duties are not defined anywhere in the treaty, it will be for the European Court of Justice, which includes judges from several other countries--judges, I say with respect, who have no experience, knowledge, wisdom or understanding with regard to the day-to-day working of the British nation--to define our duties for us.

I do not want to labour the points that I am making, but I wish to summarise. The duties are more onerous, the relationships are changed, and there is potential for further change, yet these are matters that we are called upon to support in the context of citizenship. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" defines citizenship as the

"relationship between an individual and state, defined by the law of that state, with corresponding duties and rights".

It is manifest nonsense to say that these proposals do not contemplate the formulation of a state. There is no point in having citizenship if there is no state. Euro-citizenship is the relationship between an individual and a Euro-state.

Chancellor Kohl had absolutely no doubt when he said :

"The European union treaty introduces a new and decisive stage in the process of European union which, within a few years, will lead to the creation of what the founding fathers of modern Europe dreamed of following the last war--the united states of Europe."

By "united states" he clearly meant states as in America. That European state will be superior to the existing nation states. It will have the power to decide and to enforce rights and duties. It is true that a person from the United Kingdom is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and a citizen of Burton-on-Trent, or Staffordshire, or somewhere else, but that is a confusion of the real meaning. Citizenship ought to indicate where ultimate power lies.

Can the Government put their hand on their heart and promise us that, if Maastricht is ratified, the importance of British citizenship will not be progressively downgraded, that

Euro-citizenship will not become more important, or even all-important? The inability to give that undertaking will signify to the British people exactly what we are doing here.

The Government have introduced a citizens charter giving more power to the individual citizen and less power to the state. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said :

"It is a testimony to our belief in people's rights to be informed and to choose for themselves."

Do we have any right to choose or reject Euro-citizenship? Article 8 is not subject to qualified-majority or unanimous voting, nor is it subject to the approval of the Council of Ministers. It states unequivocally :

Next Section

Home Page