| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.9 pm
Mr. Ray Whitney (Wycombe): I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), not only for his speech this evening but for his work, the work of his Committee and the work of those he has enumerated who support it. We are also grateful for the impact that the Committee has already made, not only in the House but in the European Union as a whole, including the reflection group, on which we are represented by my hon. Friend the Minister.
Clearly, virtually everyone--indeed, those who take any interest in the European Union are almost unanimous on it--agrees on the need to take the operation of the Union closer to the people and to make it better understood. Obviously, the much enhanced and improved role of national Parliaments will be vital in that process. Therefore, the Committee's recommendations are obviously of great importance.
I should like to make a plea at this stage in our venture into the European Union to--almost--start again. We have gone through two or three very difficult years, not only, without doubt, in the Conservative party but in the nation as a whole. There is a frenzy and a froth related to European issues which is extremely unhelpful and, indeed, unhealthy. I offer three little words as our criteria for approaching the next stage of development of the European Union. They are: clarity, calmness and honesty--qualities that have been singularly poorly adhered to over the past year or two.
In particular, of course, we have had problems in our own ranks. One of the reasons is that we have been playing games with the media and the media have been playing games with us. Sadly, the words "calmness",
"clarity" and "honesty" do not spring to mind when one
thinks of the British media in their present state or of the European Union. I very much hope that all of us who genuinely want to develop a really constructive relationship with our European partners will stop playing games with the media. Of course, the media like playing games with us because that sells papers, it is much more fun and it makes a good story out of something that is otherwise workmanlike and mundane.
One of the problems with the media lies, of course, in ownership. It is often said, when talking about the European Union, that there is a group of foreigners who are working extremely hard to damage British interests. That may be true, but the people about whom we ought to be talking are not Belgians in Brussels, or Germans or French; I happen to think that we ought to be talking about an Australian--who took United States nationality for commercial reasons--a Canadian, and a gentlemen who is a dual citizen of Britain and France and a Member of the European Parliament for a French constituency.
Those gentleman have very strong views on Britain and Europe; they are hostile to Britain's constructive relationship with the EU. Because of their power and the influence that they wield, they are able to do great damage. All of us who want to ensure that we develop a fruitful relationship--we may have our differences on how we get there--should be extremely careful not to give those gentlemen, shall we say, the weapons with which they can go about their own affairs.
These gentlemen constantly drip, drip, drip vitriol and disinformation into the British people. The harm caused is obvious to us all and we should do everything that we can to stop it. If we could--I agree that it is an optimistic objective--introduce some clarity, calmness and honesty in the media, and our dealings with them, that would certainly be an immense step forward.
We should apply the same principles to our European partners too. We should not lacerate ourselves, and either think that we are always right, as some of us tend to do, or think that we are always in the wrong, and that those on the other side of the net always get it right. Certainly, mistakes are continuing to be made among our partners, although many of the mistakes of what I would call the Maastricht frenzy were quickly recognised. Many continental European politicians were the first to say that such mistakes must be avoided and--as I said--that we must get closer to the people.
We must look very carefully at any initiative that exists. Of course the one at the forefront of all our minds at the moment is the single currency. Above all, with an issue of that nature, nothing is more needed than a good deal of calmness and a great deal of clarity and honesty. I certainly believe that the prima facie case for a single currency is extremely strong. We need not elaborate on that in this debate. Of course there are downsides to it, but my instincts are that it makes a great deal of sense and has many advantages.
I also believe--here I certainly agree with the line taken by my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench--that the difficulties inherent in this grand project have not fully and honestly been faced by any of us or by its protagonists in other countries.
There has been much talk about the convergence criteria. I believe that they are essential. The sort of thing advanced by the Labour party is unrealistic. The criteria of Maastricht--inflation, interest rates, budget deficit and
public debt--are good and necessary. I say to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), with whom I regularly joust in these debates, that yes, we could argue about the pace of restructuring that is now applied in France, but that does not negate the desirability of those criteria, which any self-respecting, good-housekeeping Conservative considers entirely right. If one were an unreconstructed Keynesian, I could well imagine that those criteria would not seem desirable, but there are not many unreconstructed Keynesians left-- although I think that at least three of them are in the Chamber this evening.
France's problems lie in the legacy of 14 years of socialist presidencies, not with the fact that it is trying to get its house in order now. Perhaps the problems are mainly caused by the pace at which it is trying to do that and the style that it is adopting. I submit, to anyone who has any doubts, that we as Conservatives should not be in the least hostile to those criteria because, regardless of a single currency proposal, we should aim to meet the targets that they represent. I am happy to say that, given the way in which the economy is developing, there is every reason to expect that, in the next year or two, we shall indeed meet those criteria.
On the single currency and my themes of clarity, calmness and honesty, an issue that has not been addressed, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly seeks to put on the agenda, is the relationship-- as, when and if a single currency group is created-- between the first tier and the second tier, between the inner core and the outer core. Clearly, there are many problems--competitive devaluation, different standards of living and, possibly, the reintroduction of tariffs. What do those problems mean for the single market? There are many serious questions to be answered and they should be looked at positively. I believe instinctively that a single currency is the right way forward, but that is not to say that we should sweep those questions under the carpet and ignore them.
When we talk about British interests, which we must always do in this connection, we should never forget the challenges, to put it mildly--the threats to Britain--of a core single currency bloc with Britain left outside. What Britain needs is what every economy needs, but our position is slightly different because we depend on international trade and its impact on the City. What we need above all is stability and low interest rates. Those two targets would be achieved within the single currency and it would be quite impossible to achieve them outside.
When we approach the matter, let us cut out the emotion. Yes, we must look at the sovereignty issue, but we should all recognise that any British Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he stands at the Dispatch Box to deliver his Budget, is not sovereign in any sense; he cannot ignore what is going on in the rest of the world, the balance of trade, interest rates and currency movements. We must use the wonderful word "sovereignty" with the greatest care and the greatest honesty so that we do not send up a great flame of emotion about the concept of sovereignty when we look at issues and interests that are vital to our nation.
I have a suggestion for a number of those who seem to take pride in the title "Euro-sceptic". I have always thought of it as a negative label. One wonders what they are sceptical about. I should like them to approach the issues again, with the criteria of clarity, calmness and honesty. I have always asked those of the sceptic
persuasion, from whichever side of the political divide they come, the same question. We know what they are against and we know what they do not believe in. Over the years, we have heard many times what they are against and what they do not believe in. What we really need to know is what they do believe in and what they do support. Do they, for example, believe that this country can hold its own with the continental economies? Do they believe that we need to live in a country in which our national unit of currency is constantly devalued? I do not believe that.
I believe that we can look the Germans and the other economies in the face. We do not need to rely on constant and competitive devaluations. Do the Euro-sceptics believe that? That is the kernel of it. I believe that there are many areas of national activity--not only the economy but security, the environment and many other issues--where Britain's best interests are served by constructive collaboration with our European partners. Do the Euro-sceptics believe that? If not, what do they suggest instead?
I believe that the United Kingdom's political powers and interests are better served by working in conjunction with our European partners. That seems so obvious that it is hardly worth debating. One gets the impression--a false impression with some--that the constant negative carping means that we lose sight of the crucial positive. I say to Ministers that we need more from them. We need more emphasis on the benefits that Britain obtains from membership of the European Union and on the benefits that we can obtain in future.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |