| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.26 am
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Although myhon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)has been consistent in his views over the years, I think that, as a truthful person, he would accept that the opinions that he has just expressed are now held by a minority in the Conservative party. The party has woken up. I find it a tragedy that the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches are virtually empty. We simply cannot persuade Labour and Liberal Members that monetary union is not a miracle, and will not bring benefits.
Mr. Sweeney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the almost complete absence of Opposition Members demonstrates that Labour is soft on European union, and soft on the causes of European union?
Sir Teddy Taylor: The last thing that I want to do is attack the Opposition parties. I want to persuade them that they are supporting a policy that will create unemployment, misery and degradation. I only wish that every Labour and Liberal Democrat Member would read the book by Mr. Connolly, the man who headed the department dealing with economic and monetary union in the Commission. He put at risk an easy, cushy number--
a big job with big pay and big prospects--because he believed passionately that economic and monetary union would create mass unemployment and civil unrest. Unfortunately, however, there is nothing that we can do to persuade people.
Apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, few Conservatives would support monetary union. The Minister--she, too, is a truthful person--could help to involve the public by answering five brief questions. First, what about the tragedy of France today? France is one of the loveliest countries in the world, and contains the most fascinating people, but it is now creating more and more unemployment. It is putting people out of work and creating human misery solely for the sake of a mad policy of artificial exchange rates, which every Conservative wishes to have nothing to do with. Surely the Government must accept that our experience in the exchange rate mechanism, France's current tragedy and Germany's problem of 4 million unemployed demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that fixed exchange rates are simply a recipe for mass unemployment.
As for civil unrest, if Britain were involved in monetary union--if we had high unemployment and, for good European reasons, the central bank decided to raise interest rates--people would be outraged. They would protest. They would go to the politicians, and would find that they could do nothing. I wish that the Government--despite the sincere views of the tiny minority in our party who still support the crazy socialist nonsense of fixed exchange rates and monetary union--would just come out and say, "We will have nothing to do with it."
However, I move to my questions. First, is it true that, if we get involved with the euro, all our gold and other reserves must be handed over to the European central bank? People should be told the answer. I hope that the Minister will answer so that, through Hansard and through our wonderful press, people can be told the facts.
The second question is: is it true that, if Britain were involved in the euro, no Minister, no individual,no banker, not even my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East would be allowed to make representations to the bank about its policy? We all offer advice to the Bank of England and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is appalling that we are going to have a central bank running a nation's economic affairs and that, under the Maastricht treaty, we will not even be allowed to make representations to it. Of course, that may just be silly Euro-sceptic nonsense, but the Minister knows the facts. Her splendid civil servants, who are running up and down to all these meetings all the time, know the facts. Is that true or not? We must be told everything about that matter.
The third question is important to the Conservative party. I was delighted--because I know that, if anyone can solve this problem, our Prime Minister will--to hear the Prime Minister say that Britain will not re-engage in a fixed exchange rate system such as the exchange rate mechanism. My reading of the Maastricht treaty--this is only as interpreted by the European Court of Justice--is that one cannot join the single currency in the first stage unless one goes through two years of fixed exchange rates.
During those two years, in which lots of money will be splashed around to try and create convergence, there will be lots of misery and unemployment, but is it true that,if one is to be one of the first participants in the single
currency, one must go through two years of fixed exchange rates, which, unlike the ERM, will be irrevocable and irreversible? If so, it would seem from what the Prime Minister said that there is no way in which Britain could be one of the first participants in the euro. People should know about that.
Mr. Barry Legg (Milton Keynes, South-West):
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. I would like to shed a small bit of light on this matter. When he returned from the Madrid summit, the Prime Minister said to the House that the convergence criteria under ERM conditions no longer applied. Does that not reinforce the fact that the decision to move to a single currency will be primarily a political rather than an economic decision?
Sir Teddy Taylor:
My hon. Friend is expressing the sort of fears and worries that I have. It is exactly because of that that I should like the Minister to say what the truth is. If we are going to be one of the first guys in the euro, do we need two years of fixed exchange rates? If so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be one of those chaps? That is a simple question; it is not complicated. It would be helpful if the Government would answer yes or no.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North):
I regret breaking into my hon. Friend's speech, but he will know that, subsequent to the statement in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question on this issue from a prominent friend of ours among the Opposition, and the matter is not as straightforward as it appeared when he made his statement on his return from Madrid. I remind my hon. Friend that the criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty, which is the law of Europe, and that, to have any change in the Maastricht treaty,there must be a treaty amendment, which would have to be ratified by every country in the European Union.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for explanations. He shows that the situation is confusing, but this is where the Treasury can help us.We want to know the facts. Is it true that we need two years of fixed exchange rates and, if so, does the Prime Minister's statement mean that we will not be involved?
The fourth question we must ask is: what are the conditions for countries that join at a later stage? It would be appalling if what happened under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Lawson, were to happen again.I well remember how Britain unofficially joined the ERM without anyone knowing about it. This is meant to be a democratic House of Commons and assembly, and we became locked into that business without anyone being aware of it. We did not join officially; we joined unofficially. I hope therefore that the Government will help to clarify those four issues, which are terribly important. In particular, will they say what the conditions would be for joining at the second stage and whether the House of Commons would have an opportunity to express a view?
I have opposed the European Community from the beginning, and have believed passionately that it means misery for poor people, high prices and policies such as the common agricultural policy that cannot be changed. Of course, the Government will be aware that this year
the CAP budget is £9 billion more than it was two years ago. We are all told that it will be reduced, but we know that all those assurances are absolute rubbish. It is terribly important that the Government answer this simple question: do they believe that, before any decision is made to contemplate joining the European Union, the people of the country must be asked?
Frankly, I do not think that most people are aware of the matter. It is not simply a matter of saying, "Do we have a currency that we can go to France and to Italy with?" Basically, if one accepts the single currency, in effect one is accepting a single European state without democracy. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a well-behaved person, but the one thing that sickens me, and the only time that I feel like punching people--I really mean this--is when I hear a Conservative Minister say, "We are going to fight a federal Europe." There is nothing more sickening or misleading than that statement because a federal Europe would be infinitely better than what we have. It would at least have a democratic base and lay down guidelines on what belongs to the centre and what to member states. With a single currency, we are planning a single European state without democracy and, more important, a socialist state.
The whole principle of the European Union is artificial pricing, which unfortunately creates massive problems. The monstrous CAP policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) supports so lustily,has meant that the average family in Britain spends an extra £28 a week in higher food prices and taxes. Nothing can be done to reform it--if only people would wake up to the fact that that simply cannot happen. The average family in Britain will pay an extra £5 a week for the net membership fee this year. Poor people are suffering and jobs are being destroyed.
Sadly, as Mr. Connolly rightly stated, across the whole of Europe, including dear old France, fixed exchange rates, where they are applied, are putting decent people out of work unnecessarily, and creating an appalling mess and misery. Question No. 5, as the Minister is aware, is: do the Government think that big countries or big organisations have a better future than small countries? Around the world today, all conglomerations of states are not doing well; small countries controlling their own affairs and applying Conservative policies are doing very well.
I shall give just two tiny examples. The first involves a little country called Switzerland. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will have heard of it. How did its exports to the European Community do last year? Strange to say, they increased dramatically more than Britain's did, and that happened by Switzerland not being in the European Union.
Referendums took place in Sweden and Norway.In Norway and Sweden, in which I am interested and which I visit regularly because I am involved in the Ansvar insurance company which promotes temperance, all the people were told that they had to join the European Union to safeguard jobs. The same old Confederation of British Industry blokes we have here told them all that joining was vital. Poor old Sweden voted yes, although I told it not to, and Norway voted no.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |