| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.1 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): I echo wholeheartedly the closing sentiments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson). He traced a fairly objective picture of what is going on at the moment; but I suggest to him that developments in the European Union are not the real problem that we face.
Everyone asks what sort of Europe we want--I do not, but others do. That suggests that we can start afresh, but I fear that it is impossible. We can only build on the combined treaties; we can develop only as far as they permit. We are not building the edifice from scratch. The foundations are already in place, and they limit the actions that we can take. To that extent I dissent from the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks. Things are not as he described them, much as people who want to avoid the issues pretend they are.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some faith in the idea of subsidiarity, a somewhat mystical concept. As I told the Minister in the course of a Select Committee investigation chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)--he has already produced an excellent summary of the report--subsidiarity does not apply to anything over which the Community has exclusive jurisdiction. That represents an enormous area, including the single market. Huge amounts of legislation deal with the single market under article 100A and the definitions of an area without internal frontiers. Subsidiarity therefore does not operate over most of the treaty's provisions.
In so far as subsidiarity is claimed to be able to operate, to use a phrase I have used before, it is to be tested by a comparison of probabilities, estimates and complex predictions, in a context of unknown future conditions. It cannot, of course, be justiciable. It is impossible to judge
the future; courts can judge only on the present and the past. Here, however, we are dealing with a matter of complex prediction and political judgment.
I maintain that subsidiarity, despite all the conferences held about it, is not the viable protection it is often claimed to be. That, too, adds to the general air of disillusionment. As a member of the relevant Committee I am privileged to possess a copy of the report by the reflection group. I would sum it up as saying that things are not working, that the Union does not have the confidence of the people of Europe, and that something must be done about that: more centralisation. Perhaps the Minister will put me right if I have misinterpreted the report, but it seems to suggest more centralisation on top of what the Maastricht treaty, which is still in the early stages of development, provides.
These events seem to creep up on us and surprise us all, as I have said in this House for 15 years. We sign treaties, only to find two or three years later that events have moved on. A good example of that came in the past 10 days, headlined in all the newspapers and the subject of a spat on the "Today" programme. It had to do with something that the Home Secretary had prevented from happening at a meeting of the Home Affairs Council. Apparently he did not agree to an otherwise unanimous decision on a certain statement about racism and xenophobia.
Even I, who try to follow these things, learned only after further investigation what it was all about. We had not seen the relevant document in the Scrutiny Committee, set up by this House to look into such matters. It appears that the document had been drafted by the Commission under the home affairs and justice pillar. It may have been thought that that was an intergovernmental subject over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. But the treaty says that the Commission can produce proposals on six topics: asylum policy, rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the member states, immigration policy--with three sub-divisions--combating drug addiction, combating fraud on an international scale, judicial co-operation in civil matters. Under article K.3.2, action may be taken under qualified majority voting at the instigation of the Commission.
As some of us have pointed out before in late-night debates, this is yet another example of how even politicians can be taken by surprise. And the problem is that most official documents to do with the EC mean hardly anything to the general population. That is why the media do not report them much--they are meaningless and hence not useful for news purposes, however important they may be in law.
After reading the report of the reflection group I went down my local high street and looked at the faces of the electorate. I doubt whether more than two or three lines in the report would be comprehensible to the average citizen, even the well-informed citizen. That is the communication gap on which the reflection group has quite properly remarked. But if the conference called to review certain aspects of the treaty goes in for more complications and centralisation, or for embroidering still further the powers of the centralised institutions, serious disillusion will set in.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome wondered why so many countries on the eastern border of the present Union want to become members. I suspect that it
is not because they know everything about the treaties. I will mention later the problems in relation to our Scandinavian friends, who recently became members. First, I will add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale about scrutiny in this place.
The Select Committee's report, which my hon. Friend summarised well, shows how far we have to go. The document that the Home Secretary was dealing with not long ago did not come before the Select Committee on European Legislation, even though legislation might flow from it. It can certainly do so under article K.3.2. The document might have gone to the Home Affairs Select Committee, but I am fairly sure that that Committee did not have an opportunity to tell the Home Secretary what it thought.
I do not often see eye to eye with the Home Secretary, and I may not do so even on this matter. However, are we saying that everything will depend on the swift, snap judgment of the Home Secretary of the day--whoever he may be and from whatever party, advised by a few civil servants in the course of a few hours, 10 days or a fortnight of notice being given of a particular statement at the Council of Ministers? Are we saying that that will be done in the case of important policing matters relating to the international movement of peoples? That is the current position.
There has been a great deal of improvement in our scrutiny procedures, particularly in respect of the pillars and the Foreign Affairs Committee. Today, we heard distinguished contributions from its Chairman and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). However, I do not think that they can get at the single European foreign policy, which is to be determined by 15 people--of whom our Foreign Secretary is one. I do not think that they could keep up. The distance between even Members of Parliament, let alone our 50,000 or 60,000 electors each, and the real decision-making that used to happen in this place is growing wider and wider. No wonder the general population, in whichever country of the European Union, is disillusioned.
Was there ever any confidence in the first place? The European Union's great boast is that it represents all that is best in western European democracy. One characteristic of democracy is not only the plethora of words ending "ity" in the reflection group report, but information and visibility. Where do we find that? Did we find it on entry? There may have been White Papers at the time of accession in 1971 and 1972, but it was claimed then by the Prime Ministers of two parties that no law could be passed and be directly applicable to this country if a British Minister said no. Strictly speaking, that was being over-economical with the truth. That was a reference to the so-called Luxembourg agreement, which was not in the treaty, has hardly been used since and is not really effective.
At the time of the one referendum held in this country, we were told that the risk of economic and monetary union had been removed by negotiation. Denmark held two referendums. The result of the first was roughly 50-50. The second, which just went the other way, was based on a few words after the Edinburgh summit that did not change a word of the treaty. Can we say that that is really democratic? The result of the referendum in France was virtually 50-50. Was that wholehearted consent, on the basis of what was known at the time--not as things turned out later?
Some members of the Select Committee on European Legislation had the opportunity to meet our friends from Sweden and Finland. The Finns are on the northern margins of the Union. A high proportion of that country's population live within the Arctic circle. The Finns told us time and time again that their overriding purpose in joining the European Union was security. Of course it was, given the instability further east. We would be in that position too. However, it is little known in this country that to meet the rigorous terms that were virtually imposed on the Finns by the European Union, Finland now has a Government that is more than a coalition. It comprises all parties from what would be the middle of the Conservative party in this country to the greens on the far left. The Finns can comply with the disciplines that the treaties will impose on them only by having a national Government of that sort. Some of us said at the beginning that the treaties were defective because they begin to destroy the normal operations of parties and Parliaments. I suggest that that has happened in Finland. Would it have such a Government otherwise?
The Finns are planning to reduce substantially support for agriculture. While it is true that a considerable sum will come from the European Union for a few years, special arrangements have been made to allow Finland to continue national aid because a large proportion of its population are in the northern areas. Even on the best estimates, there will still be a cut in incomes for the farming community, where unemployment is already high in Finland. Why are such coercive conditions placed on applicant members, who virtually have no choice? Is that democratic? Is that really power from the bottom up, which is what democracy is about?
Many years ago, Sweden was looked upon by people on the left of centre as the ideal nation of societies, because socialism is really about that. Today, Sweden is having to give up that which was regarded for many years as a remarkable if not ideal state on the world stage. Sweden managed to retain its political neutrality and to produce a unique relationship between capital and labour and production. Sweden played a distinguished independent role in world peace organisations. It was able to do so--as was Norway, in the middle east--by virtue of its independence. From the beginning, the Riksdag created a central bank--as a public service that was seen as a community organisation. In the past few years, because of some form of misjudgment, the banks created a lot of private credit, which I presume will not be stopped by the treaty of union. I suppose that one can stop public credit or borrowing being created but that private credit can go up to the sky. That does not seem to matter. It is just another little matter of the criteria.
We learnt from distinguished sources that the Swedish people were assured that joining the European Union did not mean that they were committed to economic and monetary union--that there would have to be a debate and a vote in the Riksdag if the nature of the currency were to be changed. I have been told--this is subject to further information--that when they took the first vote many people in Sweden thought that they were under no obligation to join any economic and monetary union. I put it no higher than that. They thought that they had an opt-out of the sort negotiated by the United Kingdom. If that is incorrect, I stand to be corrected. We have, however, been told that on good authority by Swedish people.
How can any organisation claiming to be fundamentally democratic insist on such conditions for potential member states who wish to join? It is not surprising that since joining many things having emerged and the balance of consent in Sweden has moved from a small yes to a rather more substantial no. That bodes badly for intra-Community relations.
Austria has never featured prominently in newspaper headlines. It managed to keep its nose clean to both east and west. Indeed, it had to. It is a remarkable country with many remarkably ingenious people. Large areas of Austria are used for alpine agriculture while others contain innovative and skilful industry. I have been told that since joining the Community Austria's industry has been disrupted and that alpine farmers are in difficulties.
Why is that? Prices in Austria for food and other forms of agricultural production were much higher than comparable prices within the Community. That had to be if Austria was to continue to sustain the cost of agriculture in alpine pastures and the upland areas generally. Prices in Sweden, Norway and Finland are much higher than those on the world scale because those countries had to do the same thing.
There is now widespread discontent in Austria, especially in view of a long period of coalition government when conditions were not so difficult. That may encourage nationalist feelings in the forthcoming election, the results of which we shall know on 17 December. I fear sometimes that nationalist feelings are the motivation of some Conservative Members.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |