| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Rifkind: I seem to remember that the Leader of the Opposition had an article in his name published in The Sun recently. Will the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from that?
Mr. Cook: No, not in the slightest. But I must say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has dissociated himself from that cartoon and the like. Will the Foreign Secretary now dissociate himself from what The Sun has said?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no difficulty whatsoever in condemning unreservedly the xenophobic nonsense that appears in the tabloid newspapers. But the idea that the Leader of the Opposition can have articles published in The Sun and that I am not allowed to do so without being associated with other headlines in that newspaper is one of the more absurd propositions made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cook: The Foreign Secretary cannot wriggle out that way. The reason why The Sun ran that type of cartoon and others like it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government led them--through the spinning on this beef war--to talk about it as a war, to talk about a war Cabinet and to regard the other countries of Europe as our enemies. The Foreign Secretary knows perfectly well that the reason why he did not agree to make that joint declaration against xenophobia is that he did not want to offend the editor of The Sun.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised at the Tories' indifference to what has been printed in The Sun, bearing in mind the disgraceful speech by the Secretary of State for Defence
at the most recent Tory party conference? Should we not also bear in mind when considering this offensive, anti-German hatred that the first victims of the Nazis were Germans? We should always remember that fact when people try to start with their anti-German propaganda.
Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend. Euro-sceptics who argue that we should withdraw from Europe because Germany is too dominant inside Europe should reflect on exactly how dominant Germany would be inside Europe if Britain was not a part of it.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): As we have a free press and a free democracy, obviously we should not go over the top on such matters. However, bearing in mind that some hon. Members of all parties, including Labour Members, have been researching and comparing the use of words in Nazi newspapers in the early 1930s, when they were Jew-baiting, and bearing in mind what The Sun said in its attacks on Germans, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that there might be--I put it no higher--a case for the Attorney-General to consider prosecutions against The Sun for incitement to racial hatred?
Mr. Cook: I am not legally qualified to express a view on whether such a case could be brought on prima facie grounds. I am, however, politically qualified to know that that type of damaging xenophobia and jingoism deeply undermines Britain's political future--which is inside Europe and in co-operation with Germany and the other European states, not in confrontation with them.
Mr. Jenkin: I join the right hon. Gentleman in condemning that type of xenophobia. But as he continues to advocate more qualified majority voting, will he reflect on the fact that that he is advocating a policy that is likely to give rise to more frustration, more headlines and more misuse of language of that type? We want nations in co-operation, and not to be coerced.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman--if I understood him rightly--accuses me of hypocrisy. But there is no worse hypocrisy than pretending that the decisions of the European Union--in which the Foreign Secretary participates and in which the Government often take an initiating part--can be characterised by that cartoon and those like it. That is the greatest hypocrisy of all.
Mr. Cook: I must make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have been generous in giving way.
If anyone doubts the harm that is done to Britain's interests by that type of jingoism and offensive hostility, they should listen to the chorus of dismay from business leaders, including the retiring chairman of the Confederation of British Industry, who asked whether, among all this xenophobia, some people had actually noticed that the last war was over. The reality is that millions of jobs depend on exports to the European Union. Withdrawal, as the CBI warned, would leave us with exports that were subject to "regulation without representation".
Hundreds of thousands of jobs in Britain are dependent on inward investment, which comes here only because we have access to Europe--the largest market in the world. Last week, yet another senior business man in the CBI reported that his Japanese company has called several times from Tokyo to ask about Britain's commitment to Europe. The doubts spread by Conservative Members about our commitment to Europe are potentially deeply damaging to the jobs in those companies.
We now have the opportunity to turn the page and to start a new chapter in our relations with Europe. It looks as if we are at the closing stages of the beef war; it will not need the skills of Richard Holbrooke or Henry Kissinger to bridge the outstanding points of difference before the weekend. The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers are quite up to that task--[Interruption.] I am giving the Foreign Secretary the benefit of the doubt for once. He should accept it in the spirit in which it is offered.
It is important that we resolve this dispute, but it is equally important to draw a line under this episode and look to the future. Britain must have a fresh start in Europe, and I do not believe for one minute that the Government are now capable of offering that fresh start. First, the other leaders of Europe will not find it credible when a Government who have pursued confrontation for the past month turn up next week asking for co-operation. Secondly, I see no sign that the Tory Back Benchers will allow them to replace an approach of conflict with an approach based on co-operation.
As I have turned on my television set over the past month, I have never seen the hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) or for Stafford (Mr. Cash) looking more fulfilled than when they were at war with Europe. Living in peace with Europe will be the problem for them. The Foreign Secretary's problem is that it is impossible for him to offer a fresh start for Britain in Europe, because too many of his party want a fresh start out of Europe. If in dark moments, when the lights are out, the Foreign Secretary thinks that he has problems with his existing Back Benchers, he should look over his shoulder at the candidates who have been selected for the plum seats in the next election.
The Prime Minister's speech is always an accurate weather vane as to which way the latest wind is blowing in the Tory party. In the speech to which the Foreign Secretary referred yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
It is the Government's duty to tell the country and the Conservative party about the world as it really is. Tory Members have totally abdicated that duty. [Interruption.] I am talking about those on the Government Front Bench.
I exclude the hon. Member for South Derbyshire(Mrs. Currie) from my strictures, although I do not know if it will do her any good with her colleagues. [Interruption.] If any hon. Members feel that it would be helpful, I would be happy to give them an exclusion policy to be included in their next electoral address.
There is only one way in which the Government's abdication of duty can be fittingly punished and that is by being forced to abdicate from their office of government. Last week, one third of Tory Members--perhaps one third of those present today--voted for a referendum on Europe. There is only one referendum that would offer Britain a real fresh start in Europe, and it is called a general election. I can assure Tory Members that there is no other referendum for which their constituents hunger half as much.
Sir Edward Heath (Old Bexley and Sidcup):
As I abandoned the struggle for power in this Chamber some time ago and as I want to make a helpful contribution to the debate, perhaps I might say a few things that the House will feel are constructive, although it may not like all of them. I also abandoned the screaming between the two Front Benches--in fact, I never had it. We witnessed a great deal of that this afternoon between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
"I have consistently said that we will not accept the pressure to develop Europe as a single train, with all the carriages moving at the same speed."
In claiming consistency for that, the Prime Minister is guilty of a touch of amnesia. Four years ago, after presiding over the Birmingham summit, the Prime Minister reported on a discussion, saying that there would be
"no fast track, no slow track, no one left behind, that was a consistent theme."
Four years ago, no one was to be left behind. Now, Britain can be left behind. What has changed in those four years is not Europe but the Tory party, under a leader who, instead of resisting that change, is drifting with it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |