| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am sure that my he, like me, will welcome the fact that after a number of outrageous and deeply offensive decisions by the European Court of Justice and the--entirely separate--European Court of Human Rights, Her Majesty's Government are at last facing up to these matters. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will spell out what further practical measures he would like HMG to adopt in this respect, because I foresee difficulties.
Mr. Gill: I am grateful for that important point. There is increasing resentment among the people whom we represent at the ever-increasing number of decisions taken by this people's Parliament which have been overturned by the European Court of Justice. Many of us, like my hon. Friend, feel very strongly about that--as I am sure the Government know.
The Commission believes that
That stands in complete contrast--to answer my hon. Friend's point--with what is advocated by the Government, who seek
Similarly, the Commission says that the contents of the Schengen agreement should be incorporated in the treaty; but Her Majesty's Government have refused to accept that agreement. The whole House will welcome the renewed commitment to the third pillar given in paragraph 49, and the pledge in paragraph 51 to
On foreign policy, the Commission says that
Her Majesty's Government say, quite rightly, that
Still on the subject of external relations, the Commission believes that a proper common foreign and security policy should also extend to common defence, and that this requires the better integration of the armaments industry in the general treaty rules. The Government's oft repeated view is that
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):
While I agree that we should welcome the Government's commitment to maintaining our border controls, will my hon. Friend make it clear to the House and the country that if the European Court of Justice tells us that we cannot maintain those controls any longer, there will be nothing the Government can do about it?
Mr. Gill:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to the burden of my submission.
Still on the question of defence, all the lessons of history demonstrate that it is quite right and proper for Britain to take the view that she does--that decisions on defence policy should remain with nation states. It must be made clear to our European partners that anything which takes away from or undermines NATO is simply not acceptable. The White Paper commitment that any review of article J4
is most welcome; as is the statement that it would be inappropriate for the Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice to have any role in defence decision making.
On voting procedure,
Her Majesty's Government are opposed to further extension of qualified majority voting.
Finally, the Commission concludes by advocating
a determination powerfully articulated only yesterday by Messrs Maartens and Santer, who make no secret of the fact that the pre-eminent objective in Europe remains, as it always has been, political union.
Throughout the 20 pages of the Commission's opinion, I can find only three phrases with which I can agree: first, its conclusion that
secondly, its opinion that
and, thirdly, its statement that
platitudes that are practically meaningless in the circumstances in which the voice of the people has either been ignored, as in the case of the first Danish referendum on Maastricht, or not even sought, as in our own case; circumstances in which all the indications are that far from doing less the Commission continually seeks to do more, as evidenced by the opinion to the IGC from which I have quoted; and circumstances in which whole industries face an uncertain future due to the overweening interference of a bureaucracy in Brussels that has an interventionist approach to economic affairs which is totally at odds with the policies of our Conservative Government.
The prospects of the United Kingdom getting satisfaction in almost any subject area are, on any rational analysis of the evidence available, remote. Our objectives, as I have demonstrated, are in many instances totally opposed to those of the Commission. We are poles apart. It is unlikely that other member states will take our part, and on the basis of past performance I am sad to say that it is highly probable that we shall seek to appease and compromise rather than challenge and confront.
But there are those of us who believe that some good could come out of the IGC if instead of playing on our weaknesses we played to our strengths. Having already given so much away--our fishing rights are a good example of this--we have little to barter with, but in that context I should remind Ministers that although I welcomed the commitment to end the abuse of quota hoppers, nothing short of the restoration of full national control over our exclusive fishing zone will satisfy the fishing industry and those of our constituents who are equally incensed by the common fisheries policy.
The time has come for us forcefully to remind our European partners that we in the United Kingdom contribute 60 per cent. of the EU fish stocks, that we are a net importer of goods from other countries in Europe, and that with Germany we effectively bankroll the rest of the Community. At the end of the day, we have a veto and we must not be afraid to use it.
I conclude by saying what I have said on so many occasions. In the final analysis, if we cannot get a deal that protects British interests and is acceptable to the majority of the British people, Her Majesty's Government must be prepared to get up from the conference table and walk away. Taking the lead in Europe is not about rushing to the head of a queue that is going up a cul-de-sac. It is about persuading Europe's political elite that the whole concept of European Union is doomed to failure unless they can carry the people with them.
Once again, it is Britain's historic destiny to champion the cause of freedom and guide our European partners away from the totalitarianism that threatens to engulf them. I urge the whole House, in giving our negotiators their bearings for the forthcoming IGC, to make clear its opposition to political union and, indeed, to any other proposal that would lead to that same conclusion.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West)
rose--
Mr. Gill:
It is most unfair of the hon. Gentleman to interrupt my peroration, but as I have not given way to the Opposition, I gladly do so now.
Mr. Randall:
Did I hear the hon. Gentleman clearly? Did he say that the British Government should walk out of the IGC?
Mr. Gill:
Yes, indeed he did. I very much take the view that the British Government must approach the IGC as hard-nosed business men. They have to strike a bargain there, not to please the Foreign Office or the Front Bench but to please this Parliament and the people. It will not work if they do not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, as it gave me the opportunity to make that very important point. Sadly, the House lacks people with experience of having to strike bargains. It seems to me that the history of our overseas negotiations in the post-war
"there should be a transfer of justice and home affairs to the Community framework."
"a greater role for national Parliaments in the justice and home affairs pillar."
"take whatever steps are needed to maintain our frontier controls".
"the Union must be able to present a united front."
"the common foreign and security policy can never become an exclusive policy that would replace national foreign policy. The Commission takes the view that qualified majority voting should be the norm for the CFSP. The British Government do not accept that the unanimity provisions for the CFSP constitute a restriction on its development, or that it would be strengthened by the introduction of voting models that overrode the key concerns of member states."
"decisions on defence policy should remain where they belong--with sovereign nation states".
13 Mar 1996 : Column 899
I am quite sure that the House welcomes that adamant statement in the White Paper.
"should aim to reinforce NATO as the bedrock of European security"
"the Commission . . . proposes that qualified majority voting becomes the general rule".
"the shift to a more genuinely Political Union"--
"this debate must be opened up at once, in order to give the negotiators their bearings";
"Europe must do less, so as to do it better";
"only a competitive economy can create lasting jobs"--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |