| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston): As Britain approaches the important intergovernmental conference, it is obviously in the national interest that we should, wherever possible, seek agreement on the agenda for that IGC.I therefore begin by welcoming the matters on which we agree with the Government's approach.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that we endorse what he said about the justice and home affairs pillars and the common foreign and security policy? Both subjects should be dealt with by intergovernmental agreement rather than through participation of the European institutions. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the common foreign and security policy must remain a common policy, not a majority foreign and security policy? Does he accept that he will have our full support in resisting any defence competence for the European Union, which is not where Britain should look for its security interests?
We support entirely what the Foreign Secretary said about the importance of subsidiarity in making Europe more accountable to the people, by bringing decisions closer to them. Our only regret is that the Government do not practise subsidiarity in Britain. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the Government are successful in winning back some powers from Brussels, they should not keep all those powers to themselves, but should decentralise some of them from Whitehall?
I entirely endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about the importance of the enlargement of the European Union. There can be no greater mission for western Europe than to open its doors to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe, and to support democracy in those countries as well as the stability of their borders. If, however, the Government's commitment to enlargement is to be taken seriously, the Foreign Secretary must answer the following question. Does he believe that the European Union can admit another 10 or 15 members, each clutching a veto over the full range of issues that are now settled by unanimous vote? Does he accept that he
has our full support in retaining a British veto on taxation, on changes to the treaty and on strategic political issues? Does he accept also that many people will consider the Government hypocritical when they discover that, after the Government presided over the massive extension of qualified majority voting and the Single European Act, opposition to qualified majority voting is now a guiding principle? Finally, I welcome most of all the positive tone of much of his statement.
The Foreign Secretary began by reminding the House that Britain had benefited greatly from 20 years' membership of the European Union. He ended by saying that we must work closely with our neighbours to ensure a strong and effective partnership. The Foreign Secretary's problem is that many of his hon. Friends do not agree with either statement. Is that not why neither his White Paper nor his statement has anything positive to offer on the three major issues facing Europe? Does he accept that Opposition Members believe that the top priority of European policy should be the provision of jobs?
Why then does the White Paper rule out the proposal before the IGC that the treaty should be amended to include employment as an objective of the European Union? The Government agreed at Maastricht to set targets on inflation, interest rates, fiscal deficits and national debt. Why can they not agree that a priority for the IGC should be to balance those monetary targets with a commitment to employment?
The Foreign Secretary said that the opt-out on the social chapter is "here to stay". Does he accept that the opt-out will go when this Government go? Does the Foreign Secretary not know that two thirds of the public want Britain to join the social chapter? Why should they not have a Government who speak for them at the IGC? Why should the workers of Britain be denied the same rights to information and consultation about the future of their country as those who work in Europe? The social chapter is a competitive issue: how do the Government, in the age of the knowledge industries, imagine that Britain can be competitive when the work force is kept in the dark?
The greatest omission from the Foreign Secretary's statement and from the White Paper was any contribution to the debate on the single currency. Does the Foreign Secretary not understand that no one will believe his claim that the White Paper does not discuss the single currency issue because it is not part of the IGC's formal agenda? Everyone knows that the real reason why the White Paper does not mention the single currency is that Conservative Members cannot agree on what to say about it.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the views of his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who tells us that he is sympathetic to the single currency, or does he agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham(Mr. Redwood), who tells us that the Conservatives would never give up the pound? The reality is that the Foreign Secretary dare not present a White Paper that tells us where the Government stand, because he knows that it would not be possible for both his colleagues to vote for it. Will he accept the simple, honest truth that no British Government can join a single currency without the consent of the British people?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has produced a White Paper that tries to please everyone, but the result will please no one. The Government cannot make progress in Europe because they are paralysed by
divisions at home. Britain needs a Government who can provide a lead for Britain in the IGC on an agenda of reform for Europe. The Foreign Secretary's statement and his White Paper's silence about the great issues facing Europe have demonstrated why Britain cannot have such a Government until it gets a change of Government.
Mr. Rifkind:
It is rather rich for the hon. Gentleman to remind me that some of my hon. Friends might not take the view that the European Union has been good for Britain, when he spent his first 20 years in the House and several general elections campaigning to take us out of the European Union. He went on to comment about jobs. The Labour party, as represented by the hon. Gentleman, invites derision by pontificating about the need to help employment in this country while simultaneously seeking to impose upon industry the social chapter, which, as the Labour deputy leader admitted, would destroy jobs in Britain.
The hon. Gentleman was careful not to point out that the Labour party is already committed to removing the British veto on social policy, regional policy, environmental policy and industrial policy. Its documents say explicitly that there would be no permanent opt-outs under a Labour Government. If that means anything, it means that a Labour Government would roll over and lie down whenever a majority wished to press for some other proposal. When the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues say that they would never be isolated in Europe, that appears to mean that they would rather be popular than right. As long as they take that position, their views on the European Union do not deserve the respect of the House or of the country.
Mr. Norman Lamont (Kingston upon Thames):
May I welcome much of what is in the White Paper and what my right hon. and learned Friend said about qualified majority voting and about the European Parliament, if we have to have one? Is not the real test of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said whether, over the next few years, Britain can avoid being sucked into a European state of the kind that many of our partners want, as I discovered at the previous intergovernmental conference? Does he know of any organisation in history that had an elected Parliament, a supreme court, a passport, a right of citizenship and a single currency, but was not a state?
Mr. Rifkind:
I entirely accept from my right hon. Friend that the European Union is unprecedented. It will be unprecedented whether it remains in its present form, as we would like, or whether other member states press for it to go further. It is already unique, even in its present form. I remind my right hon. Friend that any changes in the treaty require unanimity, and we have made it abundantly clear that we are not prepared to countenance moves towards the supra-national structure that remains the aspiration of some of our partners.
Increasingly, the peoples of Europe--if not yet their Governments--are moving in a similar direction. We saw the way in which French opinion expressed itself during the referendum in France two or three years ago. There are similar developments in other countries. There is a historic process at work and a great debate throughout Europe. That debate may be slightly more voluble here than in some other countries, but it is already happening in France, Germany and elsewhere. It is our historic role
to lead those who call for a Europe that is, as we have described it, a partnership of nations and not an incipient super-state. That will be our role and we shall continue to fight for that objective.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye):
Is not the Government's strategy--if it can be dignified by that term--towards the IGC in danger of imminent collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions? How can the Government achieve a Europe that is closer to European citizens when, even now, they are denying the European Parliament--the one elected representative of European citizens--the right of access to and representation at the IGC?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |