| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hurd : My hon. Friend, being a smart fellow, is retiring very quickly from any argument based on the texts and is moving to what he calls the danger of political infection.
Several hon. Members rose --
Column 176
Mr. Hurd : Let me answer my hon. Friend. I have tried to answer his question already. I do not believe that in real life there can always be a full separation in practical policy between what one does economically and what one does politically. I have given one example--fairly, I hope--which was that of economic sanctions. It would be absurd for the Council to sit around discussing economic sanctions without hearing from the Commission which, under the Community, would have to implement them. There has to be some marriage of minds in many of these cases. There has to be an interplay, which is why it is perfectly reasonable that the Commission should be fully associated with the work of foreign policy co-operation.
However, my hon. Friend is correct in taking the view that it would not be reasonable if full association, for which there are very strong practical arguments, were to drift into a situation in which the Commission had a monopoly of initiative and member states developed the habit of doing what the Commission thought right. But that is miles away from what happens now and from what is provided for in the treaty. As I have said, the review provisions contain nothing to suggest that we are on a conveyor belt going in that direction. It is not the way in which foreign policy co-operation is discussed and agreed on.
I hope that what I have said is a reasonably full exposition of the legal provisions that separate this part of the treaty from ordinary, orthodox Community action. We spent a great deal of time ensuring that the advantages of co-operation were not bought at the expense of freedom of action. We were not alone in doing so, as others wanted to achieve the same end. Let me cite three examples, all of which have been mentioned during the debates on the Bill.
There is nothing in the treaty, or in real political life, to prevent us from pursuing our national policy on dependent territories, such as Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands. As I have said, member states must agree unanimously that a particular issue needs to become the subject of joint action. That being the case, Britain would have to agree specifically if Hong Kong or the Falklands, or any other issue, were to become the subject of joint action. In addition, attached to the treaty is a declaration on dependent territories, recognising our right, in cases of irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the 12 and those of one of our dependent territories, to act in the interests of that territory.
Secondly, there is the question of membership of the Security Council, which is dealt with specifically in article J5, as we and the French were keen that it should be. Article J5 suggests that members of the Security Council that are also members of the Community should work together. Well, that happens already. The article suggests that we should inform partners of events in the Security Council. That, too, happens already. The treaty contains no suggestion of a joint European seat on the Security Council. Indeed, it assumes the opposite. The specific responsibility of the existing permanent members from the European Community--the United Kingdom and France under the United Nations charter are recognised in the treaty.
I know that several right hon. and hon. Members visited New York recently and saw the United Nations in action. One or two of them have told me that Britain and France both have as their current permanent representatives on the Security Council particularly strong-minded and experienced ambassadors. Those representatives work
Column 177
closely with the Spanish ambassador, who represents an elected member of the Council, and with the other nine Community ambassadors in New York. However, there is no question of the responsibilities of Britain and France under the United Nations charter being undermined, either now or in the future. As emerged in a recent debate in this Chamber, Britain and France currently contribute more than any other country to the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations.Sir Russell Johnston : Lest the Foreign Secretary, because of the nature of interventions, reaches the conclusion that what he is saying has the unanimous support of the Committee, I say simply that I am surprised that he is taking such a long time to explain why foreign affairs initiatives could be successfully stopped. The right hon. Gentleman must realise as well as I do that, in all international institutions, unanimity is normally a recipe for inaction.
Mr. Hurd : I am under no temptation to assume that my remarks have the unanimous support of hon. Members. Indeed, with regard to the Bill, that is the least of my temptations. The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on this point previously. It is from experience, rather than from a doctrinal or theological standpoint, that I say that, in respect of all sorts of matters that come up in the Community, members should persevere until unanimity is achieved. It simply does not make sense to box one or two members into a corner, making it necessary for them to go back to their Parliaments and say that, while they felt strongly about the matter in question, they had been outvoted. I am not in favour of that kind of situation. That is why, in spite of a good deal of pressure during the negotiations, we held out--we did so successfully, and we were not alone-- for the legal provisions and the emphasis on unanimity that I have described. The hon. Gentleman thinks that that impedes action ; I believe that, in practice, it does no such thing.
4.45 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor : Let the Foreign Secretary tell the Liberal Democrats not to be so pessimistic. They ought to look at page 130 of the treaty, where it is made abundantly clear--no one seems to have noticed this--that when there is a qualified majority in matters of foreign affairs and security, every member state is under an obligation to go to the extent possible to avoid preventing a unanimous decision. Are not the Liberal Democrats being unduly pessimistic? Does not the declaration indicate quite clearly that the Government are under a legal obligation in this respect?
Mr. Hurd : It is true that the treaty contains an exhortation, which was put there by people who were disappointed that we had managed to retain the principle of unanimity. We have no difficulty in accepting the admonition that we should do our best to achieve unanimity. That was an attempt to meet the point that has been raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). However, the treaty is perfectly clear. Naturally, the main criticism comes from
Column 178
those who think that unanimity is an impediment to effective action. My practical experience suggests otherwise.Mr. Cash : My right hon. Friend was good enough to ask me to write for the Conservative manifesto committee the paper on the future of Europe. I should be glad if he would address himself to the text of that document and to the question of unanimity, which he has just been stressing. I am sure he appreciates that article J8(2) states : "The council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)."
My right hon. Friend will note that the definition at the beginning of article J3 refers to the procedure. Paragraph (2) of that article states clearly that, when joint action is being adopted, the Council shall define matters on which decisions are to be taken by qualified majority. My right hon. Friend says that all of this is governed by unanimity. If he thinks that I am wrong, I hope that he will point out how it is so.
Mr. Hurd : I have done so already. My hon. Friend was so busy preparing his intervention that he did not hear my answer to his question. I have already described at some length the double lock procedure that governs article J3(2). I shall not repeat myself, as my hon. Friend will find my words in Hansard. There is a double lock to ensure unanimity before article J3(2) can be operated in any particular case. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in preparing the next Conservative election manifesto's section on Europe, following ratification of the treaty. In view of our joint experience, we may find a good deal of common ground. However, we are not yet at that point.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) raised, perfectly correctly, the situation in Yugoslavia. This is an unfavourable example, which is why the hon. Gentleman referred to it. No one looking back at this tragedy will be able to feel anything but anger and frustration. From the beginning, I felt--and I believe that I said--that it would be unreasonable to suppose that, however great might be the harmony between the 12 members of the Community, we could impose peace in Yugoslavia. It is not possible to impose peace from outside when people are determined to fight and kill each other.
I do not want to spell out the whole history of policy on Yugoslavia because the House debated it recently. I just record in that context my conviction that it has been entirely right for the members of the Community to act together and that any other course would have been damaging, perhaps disastrous.
The most difficult point along the road was that cited by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford--the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia in January 1992, decided upon on 16 December 1991. Some critics in this country, notably my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, and some people outside--Germans, Austrians and others--believed that the Community recognised Croatia and Slovenia too late. My noble Friend Lord Carrington, the Opposition Front Bench and my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs over which he presides believed that we recognised too early.
I do not believe that the timing was decisive in what followed. I do not think that it would have made sense to have withheld recognition much longer, or that the timing of recognition had any effect on the tragedy which
Column 179
followed in another country. But in the context of this debate it is worth pausing for a moment to consider what the alternative was to agreed Community recognition at the time when we recognised. The alternative would have been that the Germans and others would have recognised earlier than we did, and the British, French and perhaps some others would have recognised somewhat later. I cannot believe that that disintegration of decision taking would have had anything but an unhealthy affect. Certainly there would have been no effective pressure on President Tudjman to accommodate his policies to the Serb minority of Croatia, which is the argument usually put forward for later recognition.Dr. Cunningham : Does not that tragic example highlight the problems of working together in co-operation and unanimity? Is not the reality that the Germans were threatening, and had been threatening for some time, to act unilaterally and that, in doing so, they forced the hand of the Community in a disastrous way? We are still living with the consequences of those disastrous decisions, taken for the worst of all possible reasons, and certainly not for good foreign policy reasons.
Mr. Hurd : I do not accept that analysis, and the historian will not either. The Germans held back for a long time under strong pressure from their own public opinion and their own analysis of the position. I do not think that it would have been a good thing or in any way helpful in the relationship between Croatia and Serbia if the Germans had recognised two or three months earlier. That would have had no good effect. Therefore, I do not think that disintegration of policy co-operation could have been helpful. It would have been deeply unhelpful and would have prevented us from doing the things that I am coming to.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : If the Community managed to persuade the Germans that they should delay for a few months, perhaps the Foreign Secretary could explain why in the case of Macedonia, although the majority of Community countries were in favour of recognition, one, Greece, has still been able to stop recognition. Why, if it was right in the case of Croatia, is it not right in the case of Macedonia? May we have a straight answer, please?
Mr. Hurd : Exactly the same procedure is being followed. We are trying to wait until we achieve agreement. I hope that we can make decisive progress on that matter fairly soon. I do not want to wreck that by going down the road along which the hon. Gentleman is tempting me. It is an important matter. I hope that we are reasonably close to an outcome which will help the people in Skopje and Macedonia.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Does not that whole tragic business illustrate two points--first, the desirability of acting together and, secondly, having done that, the fact that we have a lot to learn, because it is surely shameful and shaming to all of us that an independent, recognised sovereign state such as Bosnia should have suffered as it has over the last year?
Mr. Hurd : I understand my hon. Friend's point. We are learning all the time. A common foreign and security policy does not transform the European union into a defence organisation. Therefore, my hon. Friend's
Column 180
criticism, which is widely shared, goes further than the Bill. He is one of those who, I think, would have wanted recognition earlier. I am coming to what the member states of the European Community have done. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to ask Lord Carrington to undertake pioneering work for a settlement. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to set up the monitoring mission which is doing valuable work through the region. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together under the British presidency, to summon the London conference last August and there, acting together, to set up the framework of peacemaking provided by Lord Owen, on behalf of the Community, and Cyrus Vance, on behalf of the United Nations. It was right for the member states of the Community, acting together, to provide large amounts of humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia, with Britain, France and Spain--all member states of the Community--having contributed most to the life-saving effort since then.In the real world in which we live, it is notable that when President Clinton undertook a thorough, critical review of United States policy towards the former Yugoslavia, he concluded by putting American energy and influence behind the objectives that we in Europe had set--a negotiating framework, the pressure of sanctions, the humanitarian effort and the pursuit of war criminals. That is not a record of success ; no one is claiming that. The frustration and anger remain, but it will be right to continue working together among the 12, carrying forward the effort to make peace and to keep the peace when those principally responsible for the fighting realise that they cannot achieve stable or accepted goals without a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Spearing : The Foreign Secretary has been generous in giving way. In most of his speech, he has been painting an attractive and, I hope, a true picture of international co-operation under title 3 of the Single European Act. But we are considering the treaty, where different conditions apply and where there is an obligation for a common foreign and security policy to be established, under article 1, covering all areas of foreign and security policy. Apart from the initiation of the Commission, which is formally entrenched, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the general council of the Community will be in effect the general council of the union, and the same Ministers, with the same Commission and the same COREPER, will be dealing with a range of commercial, political and international affairs, conceivably at the same meetings and with each other at the same time? Does not that predicate a coming together? It is separate in the treaty, but surely it will be together in practice.
Mr. Hurd : In the treaty, we are certainly not repealing those parts of the treaty of Rome or the Single European Act that govern these matters. The hon. Gentleman has spent almost a lifetime criticising those articles. We are not satisfying him by repealing them. We are creating a separate structure for this purpose. The structure of how the policy is to be elaborated is set out. General guidelines are to be adopted by the European Council which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, operates by consensus. Within
Column 181
those guidelines, there are to be common positions and joint action established by the Council, prepared by the political directors, with the Commission fully associated. I have been over those points. The common positions and the joint action are to be decided unanimously. We spent hours on that point. Many people wanted majority voting installed as a guiding principle for this part of the treaty. They did not succeed. If we ask how the common positions and the joint action are to be arrived at, we find the answer : it is by unanimity. Then we have to meet the hon. Gentleman's point : how do we expect to do anything by those means ? In practical terms, if we are to do anything substantial in that sphere, we need to do it by unanimity.Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Would not he be better able to illustrate his point if he itemised the failures and deficiencies of political co- operation in the Single European Act and, having identified the failures and defects under political co-operation, he pointed to the improvements in machinery and commitment that are contained in title V under the new Maastricht Act ?
Mr. Hurd : I have been trying to give a reasonably objective account of experience in working the present system. I hope that I have not exaggerated its merits, because it has many demerits, and we are working all the time and learning from experience ; but I hope that I have set it out objectively. What the treaty does is to put some aspects of the present system into treaty form--for example, the presence and importance of political directives.
5 pm
It also establishes--I have set out the four or five crucial ways in which it does so--that this is a separate process from that of ordinary Community life. Of course, we have to work the process and we have to make it succeed. I am not in favour of its being swept up eventually into the ordinary work of the Community, just as I am not in favour of the Home Office subjects--the struggle against the drug trade and terrorism--being swept up in that title. That is why I find so bizarre the amendments that would have that effect as regards the European Communities Act 1972. I am not in favour of that ; I favour keeping the pillars separate and making a success of them, acknowledging, as I have said, that there will often be an overlap between the political and the economic, but believing that the machinery established here provides for that, for example, in the role of the Commission.
Here is a way of operating which works, which adds already to the effectiveness of our foreign policy and which does not inhibit it--when we wish to do something independent, we can do so. Here is a treaty which enables that to continue and to progress, not towards a final unitary or federal structure but towards greater effectiveness and good sense. I believe that this part of the treaty is worth while and that we should reject amendments that enfeeble or distort it.
Dr. Cunningham : I want to begin with a few comments about amendment No. 30 to which the Secretary of State addressed himself somewhat tongue-in -cheek, but in case he was serious in what he said about amendment No. 30,
Column 182
I think that he ought to recognise that it was tabled simply as part of the determination to secure a debate on these issues and not with the idea of asking the Committee to divide on it. I have no intention of doing so. That deals, I hope clearly and succinctly, with the question why that amendment is on the Order Paper. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's general explanation of his concern about the provisions of the Maastricht treaty in this area of common foreign and security policy. I agree with his analysis of the implications of the proposals. I agree that the treaty includes an agreement on a common foreign and security policy, one of several policies of co-operation which are part of the new European union. I agree that the new arrangements will replace the system of European political co-operation which, as the Foreign Secretary said, has existed now for some considerable time, and which has been one of the stepping stones along the way to these new proposals.I also point out to the Committee that, in talking about the external pillar of European union which relates to common foreign and security policy, article B of the common provisions, which establish the arch of the union, supported by the pillars, sets out five broad objectives, the second of which concerns foreign and security policy, and reads as follows :
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence."
The tenor of the exchanges across the Floor and the interventions in the right hon. Gentleman's speech have been quite surprising. It is as though co-operation in foreign policy and security was something entirely new, something of which we had had no experience or in which we had never participated before. The reality is that, for almost half a century, in various ways, this country, under Governments of both main political parties, have been involved in exactly that kind of co-operation.
Several hon. Members rose --
We have had co-operation in the United Nations, co-operation in NATO, co- operation in the Western European Union and co-operation in the European Community itself. It is passing strange to me that the whole idea of co- operation, which is one of the foundation stones on which the Labour party to which I have always belonged was built, should strike such terror into people's hearts.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Does it not occur to my right hon. Friend that when there has been discussion, debate and action on co- operation, for example, in the Gulf war, with the United States--and more so with the United States than with fellow members of the Community--there has been no controversy, in the main, on the Opposition side? Co-operation with the United Nations has never been the subject of any kind of controversy. However, will my right hon. Friend not recognise that our concern is not with the fact that there should be co-operation--of course there should be--but with steps that lead directly to a federal Europe and the remarks made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)? Would my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) therefore accept the distinction?
Column 183
Dr. Cunningham : I do not recognise any steps in these proposals towards a federal Europe. I do not support the idea of a federal Europe. It is not our party's policy to support the establishment of a federal Europe, and I do not believe that the proposals that we are discussing today can in any way lead my hon. Friend to draw that conclusion.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) rose --
Dr. Cunningham : Let me deal with one intervention at a time. I am quite willing to give way, but I want to deal with my hon. Friend's intervention first.
It is the whole idea of co-operation itself which is in danger of being lost in this debate because of a tidal wave of sturm und drang, if that is an appropriate phrase, when by comparison what we need is a little good old English sang-froid.
Mr. Ian Taylor : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I just want to underline the point that he is making. Many of the interventions in the debate so far have forgotten that the principles of co-operation in the European Community were clearly laid down in title III, not only the association in all the proceedings of the Commission but a phrase such as
"The Presidency and the Commission, each within its own sphere of confidence, shall have special responsibility for ensuring that such consistency is sought and maintained."
And it goes on to talk about security. These principles were established when the Single European Act went through the House, voted for by many, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).
Dr. Cunningham : Perhaps the process of the Single European Act through the House is not such a good example. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it was guillotined through by the Government of the right hon. Baroness Thatcher--not exactly the kind of precedent that we would want to refer to in these circumstances.
Mr. Rowlands : As someone who is neither a German nor an Englishman, and therefore have no sang-froid or anything else, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that we are trying to draw attention to, if we get the chance--the tragedy these days is that Front Benches do not wind up debates, they just open them and then do not reply to them--is the difference between the language of the Single European Act and the language of paragraph 4 of article J.1. If he does not recognise the difference of language, I do not know where his language comes from.
Dr. Cunningham : I am sorry if my hon. Friend is a little sensitive about the fact that I did not refer to him as a Welshman. I regard myself as British rather than English. I was just trying to enliven the debate with a touch of humour, since it has been dragged down into turgid minutiae for too long--but I have learnt my lesson. Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan) rose--
Dr. Cunningham : I shall not give way for the moment.
The European Council has the role of issuing general directions for the harmonisation and implementation of European Community foreign and security policy, including agreeing guidelines for matters for possible joint action. As we know, the Council meets twice a year and operates by consensus only. It passes its agenda to
Column 184
meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers. That is what happens under article J.3(1), which has already been mentioned.As with previous European political co-operation, the Council of Foreign Ministers is then charged with reaching, so far as that is possible, a common position
"on any matter of foreign and security policy of general interest in order to ensure that their combined influence is exerted as effectively as possible by means of concerted and convergent action."
As the Foreign Secretary said, that is a development of the existing state of affairs.
The first set of four specific policy guidelines for joint action was agreed by the European Council in the declaration at Maastricht. They were : the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process ; the policy of disarmament and arms control in Europe, including confidence- building measures ; nuclear non-proliferation ; and the economic aspects of security, especially control of the transfer of military technology to third countries and control of arms exports.
I do not understand why anyone believes that we are somehow threatened--or, indeed, that our position is not strengthened--by seeking Europewide co- operation in those four crucial areas of international affairs. I certainly do not feel threatened by the idea that we should co-operate in those areas.
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Surely the anxieties arise not in relation to further co-operation--everybody would welcome that--but in relation to the narrow areas in which the British national and public interest does not necessarily coincide with onal interest.
Dr. Cunningham : I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's premise, but I share the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in response to several interventions on the same subject--that there are two tests to be passed before anything can be agreed by qualified majority voting, and that those tests both require unanimity. The idea that a course could be forced upon our country, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) suggests, is not borne out by a careful and accurate reading of the proposals.
Sir Russell Johnston rose --
Dr. Cunningham : The second point is also apposite. Under the proposals we--and, for that matter, our European partners--reserve the right to act bilaterally, or in the line of our duty and obligations in other spheres of international affairs, whether those involve the Falklands, Hong Kong, Belize or the Commonwealth, or in any other circumstance which is not the business or the responsibility of our Community partners. No one, least of all I or the Labour party, suggests that those rights and obligations should be abandoned or jettisoned because of the treaty.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) rose --
Dr. Cunningham : I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Campbell : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me ; the second part of his answer has largely dealt with the point that I intended to
Column 185
make. The simple test is : if we wanted to, could we mount another operation similar to the Falklands operation? Is that right and ability in any way precluded or affected by the treaty? The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second question is no.Dr. Cunningham : I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I must tell the Committee, especially Conservative hon. Members, that the biggest threat to Britain's foreign policy and defence interests, and to our interests in the world in general, is the appalling state of our economy. The biggest threat to our interests results from the complete mismanagement of our economic affairs over 14 years. That is why our influence in the world is threatened and will continue to be threatened.
Mr. Marlow rose --
5.15 pm
Dr. Cunningham : I shall make a little further progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
It is significant that some matters are not included in the list of the first agreed matters for co-operation that I mentioned. Industrial and technological co-operation in armaments is not included, and neither is involvement in humanitarian intervention measures. Transatlantic relations are not included either, at least for the moment.
Mr. Marlow : The right hon. Gentleman said, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, that this is all down to unanimity. They both say that we do not have to do things if we do not want to. If there is an area of policy in which we do not wish to be involved, we can be gloriously independent and follow the interests of the United Kingdom alone. But that is not what the treaty says. It says :
"The Union shall define and implement a common foreign and security policy".
We are committing ourselves, whether we agree or not. We are committing ourselves to agreeing a policy.
Dr. Cunningham : We are committing ourselves to agreeing a policy for common action where it can be agreed. If it cannot be agreed, we do not have it. In simple language, that is exactly what the treaty says. The Council of Foreign Ministers will decide which matters should be matters for joint action, and article J.3 goes on to empower the Foreign Affairs Council to decide that certain matters may be decided by qualified majority voting. A resolution to use qualified majority voting may be taken at any stage in the adoption of a subject for joint action--assuming that that has already been unanimously agreed. The Foreign Secretary cited the example of agreeing on sanctions against a country ; that is a simple practical illustration.
Since all those decisions were taken at Maastricht, things have moved on, principally at the Lisbon summit last year, and also subsequently at Edinburgh. The Lisbon Council concluded that : "The CFSP"--
that is, the common foreign and security policy--
"should contribute to ensuring that the Union's external action is less reactive to events in the outside world, and more active in the pursuit of the interests of the Union and in the creation of a more favourable international environment."
Who could disagree with that?
Column 186
"This will enable the European Union to have an improved capacity to tackle problems at their roots in order to anticipate the outbreak of crises. Furthermore, the Union will be able to make clearer to third countries its own aims and interests, and to match more closely those parties' expectations of the Union."I should have thought that that would have enjoyed a general welcome.
It was also specifically with a view to identifying areas open to joint action that the Maastricht European Council issued a statement in which the Council was invited
"to prepare a report to the European Council in Lisbon on the likely development of a CFSP with a view to identifying areas open to joint action vis-a-vis particular countries or groups of countries". At Lisbon, a framework was also set out which included, among other things :
"systematic co-operation between Member States in the conduct of policy on any matter of foreign or security policy ... Joint action seen as a means for the definition and implementation by the Union of a policy in the framework of the CFSP in a specific issue must necessarily satisfy the objectives set out For each area, the Union should define specific objectives",
such as
"strengthening democratic principles and institutions, and respect for human and minority rights ; promoting regional political stability contributing to the prevention and settlement of conflicts ; contributing to a more effective international co-ordination in dealing with emergency situations ; strengthening existing co-operation in issues of international interest such as the fight against arms proliferation, terrorism and the traffic in drugs ; promoting and support good government".
We could start on that point here at home. A little charity in that regard at least would help enormously, as we have not seen many examples of good government in Britain for a long time. All the objectives are surely ones that should have widespread support, not only in the Committee, but in our country.
Mr. Corbyn : Will my right hon. Friend tell us in what context the frequent French military involvement in the Francophone countries of west Africa would come? Would it be authorised or would it be debarred by the European Community under unanimity in foreign policy? Or could the French just carry on regardless?
Dr. Cunningham : I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been here for the duration of the debate. Clearly he has missed the points made by some of our hon. Friends, the burden of whose argument has been that anyone's ability to act unilaterally or individually will be completely removed by the treaty. My hon. Friend cannot have it both ways. Either countries can act in what they regard as their vital, if misguided, national interests, as he describes, or they cannot. I say that they can and that the proposals do not threaten their ability to do just that.
Mr. Dykes : The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the precedents for this, including the Lisbon summit. The matter goes back to the obvious link with the Single European Act. Some of the wording is different, but article 30 under title III is the exact precursor in considerable detail of the joint foreign policy. It refers to the formulation and implementation of a joint European foreign policy. Article 2(c) says :
"The determination of common positions shall constitute a point of reference for the policies of the High Contracting Parties." Nothing could have been couched in stronger terms even then.
| Next Section
| Home Page |