| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.52 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walsall, North(Mr. Winnick), because he shows why the public become confused about the messages that are sent out by the parties and by colleagues. In this debate about our involvement in Europe, we must recognise that, since we first became heavily involved with the single market and the Maastricht treaty, the public have become more doubtful in some areas. People think that the country is becoming more involved in what they believe is likely to lead to a super-federal state.
We need to consider the matter in perspective. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) referred to Mr. Kohl. In his recent speech in Louvain, he said:
I took another view of it. Mr. Kohl was not threatening us with war or a federal European state. As one of the same generation who experienced world war two, I can
say that his speech contained no threat. It echoed Winston Churchill's speech, just after the war, at Zurich, where he said:
The Chancellor's insistence, however, on a federal solution--I use a British context to this--cuts across the grain of much of the British experience of pragmatism and our aspirations and interpretations of Parliament's role. To me and the Government, the national Parliament remains the central focus of democratic legitimacy. That view is contained in the Government's White Paper.
The danger to Europe is that, in our efforts to build the bridge of unity, we will replicate the federal institutions that were adopted in the United States. If we move too quickly, as the United States did--after 80 years, it broke out into civil war--we will retard rather than progress the purpose that we seek to promote in Europe. The founding fathers of that great country experienced that difficulty, and we are hung up on it ourselves. We all know that, unless we handle it carefully, one country after another will, either by force of economic circumstances or reluctantly, be dragged into a super-state. They will resent the encroaching burden of bureaucracy and view it with suspicion, as do Norway and Denmark.
If we put the matter to a vote in a public referendum, the enthusiasm that is generated by the majority of hon. Members will not be replicated. Enlargement has important implications if we are to fulfil the dream of a stronger, more stable and secure Europe. To enlarge Europe is the first priority of the intergovernmental conference. We must realise that that will not come about by strengthening, through corporate economic solutions, supranational institutions or the erosion of national identity. On the contrary, we need more flexible institutions that can accommodate those countries, so that we do not impose extra social costs on them. We need measures that not only reduce bureaucratic burdens and improve the competitiveness of countries that we hope will join the European Union, but increase prosperity.
Another important priority faces us. We must consider carefully the discussions that will precede the introduction of the single currency. Important and controversial points give genuine grounds for indecision. There is no strong message from either Front-Bench team. My party and the Government say that, if we think it is appropriate, we will have a referendum. The Labour party has yet to make such a commitment.
Recently, the Confederation of British Industry has at least shown greater confidence--certainly the members representing larger companies have--in the value of having a single market and currency. That is refuted by the Institute of Directors. Some trade unions are in favour of a single currency; some are doubtful. Some hon. Members--it would be interesting to know how many--
are unequivocally in favour of such a move. It is no wonder, therefore, that the public are worried about the direction in which we are going.
What worries me above all is the tone in which our debates on these issues are held. The trouble is that too much of it is expressed in nationalistic and negative terms, which frequently betray a lack of confidence in our ability to persuade our people. We have to work towards a compromise and a solution with our European friends. Membership of the EU represented acceptance--especially with the introduction of the single market by the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher--of the creation of supranational institutions.
We must reject proposals that would seriously diminish our national sovereignty; but if we are to make progress, we must accept that economic, political and technological developments make it spurious to pretend that national sovereignty has the substance that it once had. Such developments make it impossible for some nations to have an independent currency or even to survive without joining other nations to protect their economic and financial base. That concept involves not only political and economic matters, but defence arrangements.
Relying on the old concept of national independence runs against the grain of greater unity, just as asking the public to accept a federal solution will restrain the development, strength and stability that can come from greater economic and political co-operation.
Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West):
The relationship between the UK and the rest of the European Union faces a serious crisis, and there is a desperate need for confidence building. I hope and pray that the Florence summit will result in the relationship between our country and other EU member states being rebuilt. Serious national interests are at stake. Britain's future lies firmly in the European Union. The case for that is massive; yet the UK's behaviour for so long places in jeopardy its future interests. I regret--I do not say this in any partisan way--that the Prime Minister cannot deliver the confidence that business interests and the public require.
I was pleased by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Bonn on Tuesday, which contained a ray of hope. The position that he adopted was refreshing and in contrast to views expressed in the House and by the Government. My right hon. Friend promised a fresh start in the relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU. If only we can do that, if we win the next general election. My right hon. Friend said at that well attended meeting in Bonn that he wanted Britain to walk tall at the centre of the Community. It was encouraging to hear such remarks, which I interpreted as our leader saying that there will be no two-speed Europe for us, with Britain in the slow lane.
I am thinking of our nation, not in party political terms, when I express the belief that two contrasting positions will be in evidence at the next general election. Labour will be in favour of a constructive relationship with the
European Union, whereas--and I do not relish this--the Tories will remain catastrophically divided, isolated and continuing as a force for obstruction with our EU partners. Some speeches made this evening depressed me.
Mr. Randall:
That is a fair intervention.
A constructive relationship between this country and the EU will lead to a single currency--that is as inevitable as night follows day. Some opinion polls on the single market are confusing and conflicting, but it is regarded by business interests that generate this county's wealth and fund its social policy as a terrific success. It has brought a huge increase in trade levels and great opportunities for business enterprise. The single market is also popular with young people, who are leading us by the nose. It is wonderful the way young people react. The Arthur Andersen study clearly showed huge interest in the single market.
I do not have time to make the case for a single currency, but it is like having a cart without a horse. The single market and a single currency go hand in hand. The attractions to business of currency stability and lower transaction costs are irresistible. Many valid points have been made about the deflationary effect of a single currency and the consequences that inadequate convergence could have for employment. We must ensure that the transition works and does not damage public perception of the EU.
If we believe in the concept of European co-operation, there must be more majority voting on policy where currently we have the veto. Majority voting is a more efficient and democratic way of conducting the governance of Europe. If we develop greater co-operation over foreign policy, which is pillar 2 or 3, the European Union's size and economic strength could make it much more influential. The common agricultural policy must also be reformed.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Bonn:
So much has been said about the beef crisis, and I have so little time. It is now quite a political matter, and I believe that Conservative Members have a lot to answer for in the way in which it has been handled. In March we heard the health statement, but there was no preparation for it. We lost time, and there was no co-operation. We sustained much damage to our industry and to our reputation. I do not think that there will be a solution by the time of the next general election or that all the phases will have been gone through. Conservative Members will have a lot to answer for.
"The question of war and peace in the 21st century really hinges on the progress of European integration."
The stupid nationalist and xenophobic press and other hon. Members interpreted that to mean that we had either to accept Mr. Kohl's views about Europe or have a war and be left out.
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe".
He and Mr. Kohl called on us to put behind us our old enmities, not just to end the Franco-German rivalry, but to build a new Europe that would make war between European nations impossible, and that would help to build security and stability in the whole of Europe. The generation who suffered the bloodbath of the 1914-18 war welcomed those noble aspirations, as I do now, and we should not lose sight of that.
"I have no doubt at all that Britain's future lies in the European Union and at the centre of its events, not on the sidelines . . . It is demeaning to my country to be reduced to the margins of influence, dragged along querulously behind the vision and drive of others."
I found that very encouraging.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |