| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield): May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? There are several areas with which we can obviously agree.
On enlargement, I warmly welcome the European Council's commitment to begin negotiations at an early date. Will the Prime Minister clarify whether those negotiations will indeed begin at the same time as negotiations with Cyprus and Malta? Will he also tell us how the European Union intends to differentiate between countries that will enter more rapidly, such as Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, and the others that will take more time? I agree totally with what he says on the common agricultural policy, but instead of using the need to reform the CAP as an excuse to delay the entry of those countries into the European Union, should not we rather be using enlargement as the lever for changing the CAP?
I welcome the agreement at the Council to open the intergovernmental conference in March next year. I also welcome the agreement on the importance of the European Union tackling unemployment as
I accept and agree with the Council's decision to take more effective action on racism--the Ministers all committed themselves to taking further action on that issue. Will the Prime Minister perhaps tell us what further action he believes we should take here? I also welcome the progress towards implementing the principle of subsidiarity in European law making at the Council, but how can he agree so much with the principle of subsidiarity in Europe and deny it so completely here at home in the United Kingdom?
May I come to the heart of the matter, which is monetary union? Can we be clear on that which has now been agreed unanimously by the European Council: that the Maastricht timetable stands, that the third and final stage of monetary union should begin on 1 January 1999, that all the criteria for convergence, for the setting up of the European central bank and for the fixing of currency conversion rates have been reaffirmed; and that the Prime Minister has agreed to it all in Madrid, despite his objections?
Why then has the Prime Minister been so utterly powerless in this situation? Whatever happened to those great new alliances that we kept reading he built with the French, his triumphal visit to Italy, and his constant claims that the rest of Europe was coming round to his way of thinking? Why was he driven to concealing his impotence with the fig leaf of some study into the effect of the single currency, which was so threadbare as to be an embarrassment to behold? May I tell him why? It is because no one knows what his position on monetary union is. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Conservative Members criticise us for our position--[Interruption.] They cannot have it both ways. They spend half the time criticising us for having a position on the single currency and the other half criticising us for not having one.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he still believes in monetary union, as he used to say he did? Does he want to delay it or does he in fact want to abandon it? Are his hesitations about a single currency those of economic practicality or are they those of constitutional principles?
We do not know what the Government's position is. We do not know because one half of his party believes, as we do, that it depends on Britain's national--[Hon. Members: "What about the Labour party?"] I am saying what our position is. Our position is, like that of some members of the Prime Minister's party, such as the Chancellor, that it depends on national economic interests. The other part of his party, however, believes that there is an insuperable constitutional objection to monetary union. But what is the Prime Minister's position? We have made our position clear: what is his position?
Is not it the case that the divisions between those Conservative Members who believe one thing and those who believe another are so deep that they consign the Prime Minister perpetually to weakness and indecision on the very issue that matters? Is the Chancellor right, for example, in saying that it is 60:40 likely that there will be currency union? Does he agree with that or not? Is the Chancellor right in saying that we may have to decide by March 1998 whether we shall aim at joining?
Is the Prime Minister seriously going to go into an election not telling us where he stands on the issue of constitutional principle? Is he going to tell us or not? Is he
going to be driven to a referendum despite his earlier rejection of it and despite the fact that his Chancellor described it as mad--not as a way of letting the British people decide, but as a way of letting the Conservatives avoid deciding the issue of principle? If that is what he is going for, as the papers have been briefed, is it credible that the Cabinet--with one half siding with the Chancellor and the other half with the Defence Secretary--could ever put a united proposition on joining the single currency to the British people? [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members are shouting out that we are the poodles of Europe, and others are saying that we have not made up our minds. The fact is that we have a position set out and the Prime Minister does not. Until he is prepared to say personally what his position is, they cannot resolve the impasse.
For too long, is not it the case that Government policy has proceeded on the fantasy that the rest of Europe was not actually going to proceed with monetary union? Of course it may still not happen, but we can no longer assume that it is not going to happen. Indeed, after Madrid, we should surely assume the opposite. I put it to the Prime Minister that it is simply no longer tolerable that, because of the divisions in the Conservative party, a proper national debate on the single currency is postponed, the Cabinet muzzled and the Chancellor sworn to silence on an issue that profoundly affects the future of this country.
Is not it time for a serious and well-informed national debate to begin? The Government's European policy after Madrid is still in tatters and uncertain. Rebuilding that policy is essential for Britain's credibility. To rebuild it, we must have the debate on this issue that has been suppressed for too long, and time is running out.
The Prime Minister:
I shall first touch on the points on which I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I, too, as he acknowledged, am in favour of enlargement. On the timing of enlargement, as I said in the statement, a small number of states--and in answer to his particular question, that will depend on the Commission's opinion, which will largely be based on economic criteria, so it is an unknown number--will begin negotiations at the same time as Cyprus and Malta. The matter of which ones they are will depend on the detailed examination of their economies, which will take place immediately.
On the common agricultural policy, I am of course doing precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked me to do over using enlargement as a lever for change-- which we have long argued is necessary--and reform, to which a number of Labour Members are late converts.
Of course unemployment is important. Much of the debate on unemployment was concerned with the need for deregulatory moves and for cutting down the costs that have led to so much unemployment across Europe. What was signally missing from the right hon. Gentleman's tirade was an acknowledgment that it is here, in this country, that unemployment is falling, and that it is in the socialist countries of Europe that unemployment is in some cases well over 20 per cent., and in other cases 12 or 13 per cent., where non-socialist Governments have inherited the effect of socialist Governments.
There was no substantive discussion among Heads of Government on racism. There had been discussion at an earlier stage. There is general agreement that where there are loopholes in legislation across Europe, individual
countries will seek to deal with them. The loophole that arises with the United Kingdom is over the fact that it is possible to print racist material here. It cannot be distributed here, but it could conceivably be printed here for distribution abroad. Clearly, that is a loophole that we would wish to block and I have indicated that we will certainly block that. There are some minor technical issues still being worked out, but I do not envisage that they will cause any great difficulties. They will be examined.
The points about subsidiarity are familiar. We have debated them on many occasions in the past. We are a single nation state. The point about subsidiarity is taking authority from nation states to a central body, not the distribution of authority within a nation state.
On economic and monetary union, the right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that we reiterated the treaty timetable. The treaty timetable was originally in the Maastricht treaty. For those who are able to meet it--that is an unknown and probably small number-- it has again been reiterated.
The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about divisions. He was not of course as clear as he might have been about his own position. Does he agree with the deputy leader of the Labour party, who again was in Europe making mischief on other matters over the weekend? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who said of a single currency,
It is good to see that there is such clear-cut agreement and leadership in the Labour party on that vital issue. If the right hon. Gentleman had observed the faces behind him, I do not think that he would have said much about agreement in the Labour party. I seem to recall reading recently that one third of the Labour party is in favour of a single currency, one third is against, and one third of them have not yet made up their minds or do not know. That is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of agreement on that extremely difficult and complex position.
I have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that there are questions about a single currency that are vital to this country's interests, which are not yet known. It is the answers to those questions that I have demanded are examined in the European Union. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make up his mind on the most important single economic issue that we have faced this century without the facts, let him take that position in this great national debate--although if he is entering into a great national debate, he might make up his own mind what his own position is before he tries to debate with anybody else. Those are issues of immense importance. We will demand that they are properly discussed so that a proper decision can be taken in the interests of this country, when the facts are known and not before.
The right hon. Gentleman contradicted himself. He said that I had said that a single currency could not proceed, and that it would not happen. Then he said that, of course,
it may not--in successive sentences. What I have said consistently is that the small minority may proceed. It is dangerous if a small minority proceeds and is not ready, and it is potentially damaging if a small minority proceeds without knowing the implications for the majority of countries that do not proceed.
"its principal social, economic and political objective",
as well as the strongly expressed support in the President's conclusions for social partnership and job creation measures. However, how is such support for
job creation measures and for help for the unemployed consistent with the savage cuts in the training in work programmes for the unemployed in this country today?
"Yes we are against a single currency"?
Or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who said that he was
"Personally . . . in favour of a single currency"?
Does he agree with his Members of the European Parliament, who are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and timetable, or with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said some time ago that setting such a timetable would be "irresponsible"?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |