| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that QMV is excluded in some aspects of the single market?For example, article 223 excludes defence procurement. That is especially important to British defence industries, which are prevented by it from gaining access to some of our partners' defence procurement. Does he not think that we could extend QMV in that area, where it would benefit British industry?
Mr. Rifkind: No. The debate about that article is not about unanimity or QMV, but about whether defence procurement itself should be a matter for Commission competence and should come within the operation of the EU. We have looked at that very seriously from the point of view of British interest, but we did not conclude that it would be acceptable for article 223 to extend to defence procurement. Nor do we believe that it would be in the UK's interest.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) rose--
Mr. Rifkind: As an example of variable geometry,I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Banks: How does the Secretary of State think that greater advantage could be given to nations that are larger, either in terms of population or contributory powers? Could we, for example, follow a process of block voting, in which he could hold up a card, like a great panjandrum national secretary, and cast a block vote on behalf of the country? Does he fancy something like that?
Mr. Rifkind: That policy has always seemed to go down well at Labour party conferences, but the rest of the world has not considered it appropriate. We clearly need to consider a system of weighted voting that reflects the respective populations of the EU countries--I do not
necessarily mean in exact proportion. There is weighted voting at the moment, but it is not in any way reflective of the contributions of larger countries to the overall work of the EU. That needs to be corrected.
The desire for further centralisation is also clear in other areas. The need to create more jobs is one of Europe's highest priorities. The Labour party is arguing that we therefore need a treaty chapter on employment. Why? What would it achieve except employment for new armies of bureaucrats and trade unionists? Fine words in treaties do not create jobs; businesses create jobs, and they would be able to create more of them if they were left to get on with it without bright new initiatives either from Brussels or from the Labour party.
There are many areas in which it makes sense for the nations of Europe to combine forces through the European Union, and in which successive British Governments have accepted common European decision-making, because the benefits for British security, prosperity or the quality of life are so significant that they have justified some loss of unfettered national control.
We are not going to be driven into further centralisation for ideological reasons by those who maintain that the days of the nation state are over. We must look very carefully at the balance of the EU's legal order, to ensure that it permits a stable equilibrium and that we are not ratcheted by our obligations beyond what is sensible or publicly acceptable.
That is one reason why the IGC will need to look at the role of the European Court of Justice. The French, too, have concerns. I again refer to the speech made by the French Prime Minister last week, when he said that the European Court of Justice was
I very much welcome the fact that the French Prime Minister, on behalf of his Government, has agreed with our judgment that the ECJ is a legitimate issue to be raised at the IGC, and that trends in the way in which the European Court is operating could point towards a federal structure in the EU, which France would also find an unattractive and unacceptable policy. We therefore look forward to hearing in greater detail French ideas on that important matter.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford):
May I press my right hon. and learned Friend a little further on that point? He previously referred to the concept of subsidiarity,and he has just mentioned what we might do with regard to the European Court. He will be fully aware that one of the crucial doctrines of the European Court is that of the occupied field--when it moves competence into an area, it may never move out. Does he accept that subsidiarity and that doctrine are mutually opposed, and that, if he wants to proceed on the matter, he has to resolve that doctrine by the end of the IGC? Does he intend to make that an absolute?
Mr. Rifkind:
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that it is not acceptable to suggest that certain areas of competence, once agreed, are irreversible. We have a democratic European community of nations. If it is the
Indeed, I see it as unacceptable to suggest that such matters cannot be considered afresh in the light of circumstance and experience. It would be a denial of the democratic nature of our European family of nations to try to prevent such a discussion from taking place.
Mr. Budgen:
The House understands that the Government's first objective will be to try to amend the treaty on the powers of the court, but we all know that that is very difficult. Is the Government's present position one of leaving open the possibility that they might in future refuse to obey one of the European Court's judgments?
Mr. Rifkind:
This Government and this country have always been staunch upholders of the rule of law. I trust that my hon. Friend--[Interruption.] It is the law that this Parliament has indicated it believes to be the law to which we are subject. I do not believe that it would be the will of the British people to disobey the law. It is a quite different matter as to whether--
Mr. Rifkind:
If I may finish--
Mr. Rifkind:
May I be allowed to finish what I was saying before I give way?
The proper course of action when one believes that a law is unreasonable or unjust is to change that law, not to ignore its legal force.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East):
I fully accept the important point that the Foreign Secretary makes, but does he not accept that many of us believe that the wording of the Advocate General's judgment, or recommendation,is so wide that the whole social chapter will be applied to this country by majority voting through the Single European Act? If by any chance those who take that view happened to be correct, what would the Government do? What advice would they give?
I fully accept what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the sanctity of law, but if our exclusion is virtually written off and torn up because of the abuse of the European Court, surely we must do something.
Mr. Rifkind:
Of course it follows that, if the vital interests of member states were ignored in the European Union, there would come a time when the Union would become unworkable, and would not be able to continue as a effective force for the peoples of Europe. Our view is that the proper course of action on aspects that we believe to be unattractive and undesirable is to seek a change.
As we have seen in the past, that can be achieved.The British budget rebate was a good example.Not surprisingly, Britain began without a single ally--but by tough and firm negotiations we achieved our objective in a most creditable way.
Mr. Rifkind:
May I make a few more remarks on that subject before I give way again?
Mr. Rifkind:
I am still dealing with the same point.
Our proposals on the Court of Justice for the IGC will be contained in a detailed memorandum that we shall issue shortly. They focus on two areas, the first of which concerns improvements in the functioning of the Court.
The EU needs a strong independent Court to ensure the even application of Community laws and to prevent abuse of power by Community institutions. Britain's proposals will not be designed to reduce the Court's legitimate authority. Rather, we want to help to ensure that it avoids disproportionate judgments that threaten to bring its reputation into disrepute; and we are concerned that the Court's interpretations have sometimes gone beyond what Governments intended when laws were framed.
"becoming, little by little, a sort of European Supreme Court.This competence, if it were extended, could lead ineluctably to the acceptance of a federal type of European constitution. To avoid such an outcome, the Intergovernmental Conference should examine the issue, otherwise all the debates about the balance of power in the Union could become pointless".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |