| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rifkind: I cannot anticipate now what we might or might not be determined to do a year from now if all other methods fail. I am not prepared to comment in that way. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend not only to fight vigorously to get the court to make a judgment different from that of the Advocate General,but to raise the issue at the IGC--and we will view it as an important priority for this country to obtain the necessary changes.
Mr. Dykes: How does my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) square with paragraph 36 of the White Paper, in which the Government emphatically say:
- "The Government is committed to a strong, independent Court without which it would be impossible to ensure even application of Community law, and to prevent abuse of power by the Community institutions."
Further on in that paragraph, the Government say:
Is that not more important than giving my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North the impression that we might be flexible on those very fundamental matters?
Mr. Rifkind:
The crucial problem with the 48-hour week was that the Commission, in the first instance, made what we believe to be an abuse of the legislation, and tried, on the spurious grounds of health and safety, to get around the United Kingdom's social chapter opt-out. The European Court's job is to interpret directives, and we believe that the interpretation it should make is one consistent with the clear intentions of Ministers when they originally considered the matter.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that companies in my constituency want to gain access to European markets and want a strong European Court of Justice to make the
Mr. Rifkind:
With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. He well knows that we strongly support the role of the Court in ensuring the proper workings of the single market. If the hon. Gentleman discusses these matters with companies in his constituency, he will find that they are angry and frustrated by the attempt to impose a 48-hour week regardless of the circumstances of their companies and their discussions with their employees.
Mr. Rifkind:
I must make progress, but I will give way again later.
In the defence area, too, there is a danger that discussion at the IGC may be hijacked by institutional architects more interested in decision-making algebra than real defence issues and the purposes of closer European defence co-operation. Britain, as a country with real defence interests and obligations, is less interested in blueprints and more concerned about how, collectively and consistent with our NATO responsibilities, we and our European partners can actually promote security and stability on this continent, on its periphery and beyond.
Britain is determined to play a leading role in the defence debate at the intergovernmental conference, but we are equally determined to ensure that the debate stays rooted in the real world. NATO is the bedrock of our security. Without the United States, the countries of western Europe would have to double their defence budgets to achieve comparable defence capability. Decisions to send service men and women to risk their lives must remain for national Governments, accountable to national Parliaments.
Defence is not the only area in which institution builders are in danger of losing sight of what people actually want. The truth is that some of the proposals to be put at the conference--the ideas, for example, which emerge from the Commission and the opinions of the European Parliament, which have been tagged to this debate today--are driven not so much by a desire to make practical progress or to respond to public demands as by an ideological mission to maintain the momentum of integration and centralisation in Europe.
A clear example of that relates to majority voting.I often hear the argument that retaining unanimity would bring an enlarged Community of 20 or more to a standstill. The Labour party consistently uses that argument; indeed, the hon. Member for Livingston(Mr. Cook) used it in reply to my statement last week. Superficially, that may sound persuasive, but it is bogus. It does not stand up to analysis.
First, almost all member states say that they recognise that majority voting is inappropriate for the most fundamental issues, however big the Union may become. There was broad agreement in the Reflection Group that
such as treaty change, new accessions and the Community's overall revenue ceilings.
Equally, there is strong opposition to majority voting on issues such as taxation or big institutional questions such as the appointment of Commissioners. Reaching decisions by unanimity in such areas may not always be easy, but there is, in our view, no serious alternative. Member states will not allow themselves to be overruled on issues of such importance.
Secondly, the House should recall that majority voting already applies in those areas where regular decisions are needed to enable the Community to conduct its day-to-day business, such as the single market, agriculture and external trade. Some hon. Members have difficulty grasping that point. I lose count of the number of times I have heard the assertion that the Government are blocking serious agricultural reform by setting their face against further extension of QMV. I repeat that agriculture is already subject to QMV.
So what is left? The answer is some regional and environmental decisions; decisions on the locations of certain institutions of the Union; decisions on the shape and size of the research programme; and areas such as industrial policy and culture. Those are important issues. The Labour party will damage British interests by surrendering our national veto. But is anyone seriously saying that retention of unanimity in those few areas would render the Union unmanageable after enlargement? Of course not.
So why is there pressure for an extension of QMV? Partly, it is the desire to be seen to be doing something which can be presented, however erroneously, as a great leap forward. However, the real motive--this is my central point--of many who argue for more majority voting is ideological, not practical. They would like QMV for all decisions, but they know that that is non-negotiable at the present time--so they are seeking half a loaf now, hoping to secure the other half, the flour and the whole bakery, when they can.
That is the objective of the European Parliament, of the Commission and of a significant number of continental politicians. They want to extend QMV, as part of a long-term ambition of building a federal Europe. That is not a dishonourable goal, but it is disingenuous to pretend that, without more QMV, enlargement cannot succeed. The Government have not been against majority voting in the Community where there were good, practical arguments for it. That is why we supported the extension of QMV to the single market. No case has been made, however, for extending QMV further, and the Government will therefore oppose it.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (South Derbyshire):
My right hon. and learned Friend should be aware that some Conservative Members are not nearly as frightened of QMV as the Government appear to be. If the vetoes are retained in their present form and the enlargement process brings in a number of small countries that would also have a veto, does he recognise that one of the fears of many of us on the Conservative Benches is that we would be told what to do by small countries, which are new to Europe?
Mr. Rifkind:
My hon. Friend is putting forward a very democratic principle. If she shares the central philosophical belief of the Government that the European Union should be a partnership of nations, then small countries, as well as large countries, have a right to be
"The ECJ safeguards all Member States by ensuring that partners meet their Community obligations."
"unanimity should remain the rule for decisions on primary law",
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |