| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
BILL PRESENTED
Sexual Offences Against Children
(Supervision of Offenders)
Mr. John Hutton, supported by Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dame Jill Knight, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Jane Kennedy and Mr. Julian Brazier, presented a Bill to make provision for the courts to impose an offender supervision order on persons convicted of certain sexual offences against children; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
Referendum
3.30 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): I beg to move,
- That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a referendum on the need for changes to the treaty on European Union affecting the United Kingdom's continuing membership of the Union and its participation in European monetary union and a single currency; to provide for the action to be taken consequent on the results of the referendum; and for connected purposes.
As recent opinion polls show, British voters want to remain in the European Community for trade and political co-operation, but they do not want a federal Europe. The Prime Minister is right when he says that, if member states insist on federalism, Britain will not follow them. The problem is that, under the Maastricht treaty, we are surfing on a tide of federalism. Even today, France, Germany and the other member states are pressing for the removal of the veto for foreign and defence policy.
The treaty does not allow us to prevent other member states from going ahead with a single currency and states that it is irrevocable. Even if Britain were, say, to exercise its opt-out, which the Government are not at present prepared to do, a future Government could still join.
The prescription, therefore, is for an irreversible move to monetary union, and thus political union too. No wonder the electorate is confused, particularly since the original White Paper of 1971 stated that we would not give up the veto or our sovereignty and that we would not become part of a federation--although that is now denied by the Euro-fanatics. Even Lord Howe of Aberavon refers to the Government's position as taken to an "unsustainable extreme" and says:
There are fundamental reasons for holding a proper referendum in the United Kingdom before the intergovernmental conference is concluded, after our general election next year. Who represents Britain at that conference will be crucial to the national interest. The Government have already properly agreed in principle to hold a referendum, but only if a Conservative Cabinet says yes to a single currency. That qualification is, or ought to be, unthinkable, because a single currency would
destroy our parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, Chancellor Kohl and the Euro-federalists' obsession with political union and the consequences of a hard-core Europe would also undermine the single market.
In the light of the present failings of the European Union and the exchange rate mechanism, which almost destroyed the British economy, the situation is made worse by the Government's White Paper on Europe, which is faithfully endorsed by those on the Opposition Front Bench. It states:
The official Opposition are running away from the problem. The official Labour party position is in favour of managed exchange rates and monetary union, so it would press on with failed policies, generating massive unemployment for those who would be duped by them.
The Liberal Democrats say that they want a referendum, but only after the next IGC, when the fundamental question of a single currency for Europe is embedded in the Maastricht treaty itself. On the question of a federal Europe, the Liberal Democrats are not even supported by those who vote for them. It is hurting, but not working.
Since the Maastricht treaty was signed, evidence has multiplied that EU policies--for example, on unemployment and on Bosnia--are not working. Europe and the United Kingdom are now faced with damaging uncertainty and instability. We are in danger of being caught up in an unaccountable, introverted and collapsing Europe which fails to address modern problems of international competitiveness. A responsible IGC would address all those questions.
The electorates are increasingly opposed to the main proposals laid down at Maastricht by the political elite. In Germany, a majority of the electorate are now opposed to a single currency, and no one could suppose that in France the electorate would now vote in favour of Maastricht. In Spain, unemployment is running at 23 per cent.
Britain has a responsibility to use the IGC to put forward political amendments to the treaty, to avoid European government and to re-evaluate where all this is going. Britain must take a lead. The beef crisis is symptomatic of the deeper malaise affecting Europe, including German domination--which looks like leaving Britain on the outer rim of a federal Europe. If we insist on fundamental amendments to the treaty, not least to monetary union and the proposed single currency, we can open up the vital questions, throughout the electorates of Europe, about Europe's future before it is too late.
By reducing the competences of European government, largely conferred by Maastricht, we would prevent a federal Europe and curtail the power of the European Court of Justice to adjudicate on political issues, including those arising from monetary union. A federal Europe involves surrendering the levers of national democratic government to central unelected officials and a remote and unrepresentative European Parliament.
We should insist that the UK's decisions about its national interests be made before the conclusion of the IGC and not by the Maastricht timetable. The Government and the official Opposition both decline to propose those fundamental amendments to the treaty, which are necessary in our own and in Europe's interests, to ensure that we can govern ourselves in the areas that really matter. A proper referendum is required of those who will be most affected--the voters themselves. The judgment of the people is now required.
I urge the House to support my Bill.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
I oppose the motion on a number of grounds. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said that it was not the intention of the Bill to secure the withdrawal of this country from the European Union. I think that he is being totally disingenuous. There are many people on the Conservative Benches--and, perhaps, one or two on the Labour Benches--who have a scarcely hidden agenda to have this country withdraw from the European Union.
Europhobes are now in control of the Conservative party. It was scandalous to see the way in which the Prime Minister refused to stand up for this country inside the European Union and to stop running. He was invited by the Leader of the Opposition to stand and fight, but he did not. He is letting his party be run by Conservative Europhobes.
The hon. Member for Stafford mentioned BSE and fishing, but the issue is not BSE and fishing--it is about the position of this country in the European Union. Those issues are being used as a way of attacking this country in the European Union, and it is totally disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
The Government have got themselves into an impossible position over BSE. One could see it coming. The Government have made it quite clear that they want the European Union to back down, but the European Union is not going to back down. Jacques Santer was quite right to remind the Government that other European Union countries are not prepared to let us walk all over the European Union--[Interruption.] Yes, to walk all over the European Union, and to refuse to agree with the proposals that we ourselves introduced in the Council of Ministers. It is an absurd situation, and the Government have not allowed themselves an escape route.
"There is no such thing as a European people."
The outbursts from the unelected official, Jacques Santer, over the beef crisis illustrate my case and reveal the underlying and deeper problem of democratic legitimacy. Mr. Santer says that the hour of truth has come. In the words of William Blake, I would reply to him:
"A truth that's told with bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent."
The question is who governs Britain and how.
"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to propose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view."
In other words, we will not insist on, let alone propose, treaty amendments to rule out monetary union and a single currency and the fundamental elements of a federal Europe. Hence the referendum question in my Bill.
3.38 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |